Visualizing Human-Autonomy Team Dynamics Through the Development of a Global After-Action Review Technology

2021 ◽  
pp. 46-53
Author(s):  
Michael Taberski ◽  
Kristi Davis ◽  
Kristin E. Schaefer ◽  
Ralph Brewer
Keyword(s):  
Team Dynamics ◽  
After Action Review ◽  
Human Autonomy

Secondary-Cause Autonomy and Divine Motivation

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 75-92
Author(s):  
Christian Schröer
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Moral Autonomy ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Religious Motivation ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Theoretical View ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
The Voice

An act-theoretical view on the profile of responsibility discourse shows in what sense not only all kinds of technical, pragmatic and moral reason, but also all kinds of religious motivation cannot justify a human action sufficiently without acknowledgment to three basic principles of human autonomy as supreme limiting conditions that are human dignity, sense, and justifiability. According to Thomas Aquinas human beings ultimately owe their moral autonomy to a divine creator. So this autonomy can be considered as an expression of secondary-cause autonomy and as the voice of God in the enlightened conscience.

Trust and Team Performance in Human–Autonomy Teaming

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Nathan J. McNeese ◽  
Mustafa Demir ◽  
Erin K. Chiou ◽  
Nancy J. Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Human Autonomy

scholarly journals After Action Review of the 2019 measles outbreak in Clark County, Washington, U.S.A

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Stoto ◽  
R Piltch-Loeb ◽  
R Wolfe ◽  
R Albrandt ◽  
A Melnick
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Religious Community ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Clark County ◽  
After Action Review ◽  
Measles Outbreak ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Issue Clark County experienced a measles outbreak that challenged public health authorities. Description of the practice: We conducted a formal After Action Review with state and local health officials, school officials, and others to identify lessons for public health practitioners facing future outbreaks. Results Following the early identification of measles in a child who had recently arrived from Ukraine, active surveillance identified 71 confirmed cases, most in unvaccinated persons under 18 years of age. 4,138 contacts were traced and public health personnel made daily monitoring calls to 816. 53 potential exposure sites in healthcare facilities, schools and other public places were identified and communicated to the public. As a social distancing measure, unvaccinated students, teachers, and staff were excluded from schools in which exposure had occurred. Ascertaining susceptibility status was challenging. The national anti-vaccination sentiment and a parallel outbreak in a New York religious community created challenges in representing community risk while avoiding stigmatization of a community in which the first reported case was identified. Rather than respond to every false claim on social media, the health department developed talking points about emerging issues and engaged the community in dialogue. Lessons Responding to the measles outbreak required innovative approaches to surveillance and contact tracing, social distancing (school exclusions), and emergency risk communication. The response required extensive coordinated efforts of the county and state health departments, school systems, and many other organizations. Mutual aid enabled an influx of resources but managing the surge of responders proved challenging. Key messages Public health emergencies require effective emergency management practices. Carefully conducted After Action Reviews of health emergencies can help public health practitioners identify challenges and innovative practices.

scholarly journals Human autonomy, technological automation (and reverse)

AI & Society ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simona Chiodo
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous Vehicles ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Moral Decision ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
The One

AbstractWe continuously talk about autonomous technologies. But how can words qualifying technologies be the very same words chosen by Kant to define what is essentially human, i.e. being autonomous? The article focuses on a possible answer by reflecting upon both etymological and philosophical issues, as well as upon the case of autonomous vehicles. Most interestingly, on the one hand, we have the notion of (human) “autonomy”, meaning that there is a “law” that is “self-given”, and, on the other hand, we have the notion of (technological) “automation”, meaning that there is something “offhand” that is “self-given”. Yet, we are experiencing a kind of twofold shift: on the one hand, the shift from defining technologies in terms of automation to defining technologies in terms of autonomy and, on the other hand, the shift from defining humans in terms of autonomy to defining humans in terms of automation. From a philosophical perspective, the shift may mean that we are trying to escape precisely from what autonomy founds, i.e. individual responsibility of humans that, in the Western culture, have been defined for millennia as rational and moral decision-makers, even when their decisions have been the toughest. More precisely, the shift may mean that we are using technologies, and in particular emerging algorithmic technologies, as scapegoats that bear responsibility for us by making decisions for us. Moreover, if we consider the kind of emerging algorithmic technologies that increasingly surround us, starting from autonomous vehicles, then we may argue that we also seem to create a kind of technological divine that, by being always with us through its immanent omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence and inscrutability, can always be our technological scapegoat freeing us from the most unbearable burden of individual responsibility resulting from individual autonomy.

THE DĒMOS IN DĒMOKRATIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Cammack
Keyword(s):  
Political Society ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
The People ◽  
Leaders And Followers ◽  
Governing Principle ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
Self Rule ◽  
City State ◽  
The Right ◽  
Individual Human

The meaning of dēmokratia is widely agreed: ‘rule by the people’ (less often ‘people-power’), where dēmos, ‘people’, implies ‘entire citizen body’, synonymous with polis, ‘city-state’, or πάντες πολίται, ‘all citizens’. Dēmos, on this understanding, comprised rich and poor, leaders and followers, mass and elite alike. As such, dēmokratia is interpreted as constituting a sharp rupture from previous political regimes. Rule by one man or by a few had meant the domination of one part of the community over the rest, but dēmokratia, it is said, implied self-rule, and with it the dissolution of the very distinction between ruler and ruled. Its governing principle was the formal political equality of all citizens. In the words of W.G. Forrest, between 750 and 450 b.c. there had developed ‘the idea of individual human autonomy … the idea that all members of a political society are free and equal, that everyone had the right to an equal say in determining the structure and the activities of his society’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document