scholarly journals How to Handle Trade-Offs in Pandemics

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krister Bykvist

Pandemics and other similar crises force us to make difficult moral trade-offs. It is tempting to think that this challenge should be met by invoking fundamental moral principles. This is a mistake. Instead, we need to work hard at designing institutions that enable the officeholders to make reasonable decisions under both fundamental ethical disagreement and empirical/evaluative uncertainty. It is argued that this is best done by supplementing the ethical-cum-legal platforms already in use with an ethical framework inspired by social welfare theory.

Author(s):  
Oksana Sakal

The article is devoted doctrinal issues of environmental and economic effectiveness of use land in conditions of infringement of institutional transformations. The modern approaches to the definition of content of ecological and economic effectiveness of land use are analyzed. It is established that the overwhelming majority of domestic researchers interpret this notion regarding the use of agricultural land or farm land. It is proved that such an approach is justified, taking into account the structure of the land fund of Ukraine. However, this reduces other goals of the land user and functions of the land. It is proposed to investigate the category of ecological and economic effectiveness of land use in accordance with the provisions of the ecological economics, social welfare theory, and concept of total economic value. Based on the classification of land functions, the criteria of selection material content and social form of ecological and economic effectiveness of land use are determined.


2011 ◽  
pp. 308-312
Author(s):  
Jim Grieves

Ethics is the study of moral issues and choices. In organizations, such a study inevitably involves consideration of decision-making practices and interpersonal relationships. This in turn may require the investigation of complex combinations of influences which include personality characteristics, values, and moral principles as well as organizational mechanisms and the cultural climate that rewards and reinforces ethical or unethical behavioral practices. Organizations ignore ethical issues at their peril as we know from recent examples of: • past claims of brutality, poor wages, and 15-hour days in the Asian sweatshops run by Adidas, Nike and GAP, • banks that rate their customers by the size of their accounts, • the race for commercial control by private firms, universities, and charities claiming exclusive development rights over natural processes in the human body and patents sought by organizations, overwhelmingly from rich countries, on hundreds of thousands of animal and plant genes, including those in staple crops such as rice and wheat, • a lack of people management skills and supervision which was said to be responsible for the falsification of some important quality control data of an experimental mixed plutonium and uranium fuel at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing scandal which led to cancelled orders and the resignation of its chief executive. We can all think of other examples that have hit the headlines to indicate that modern business management must recognize its responsibility to provide an ethical framework to guide action. This is the case in respect to human resources policy, health and safety policy, marketing policy, operations management, and environmental management. Ethical policymaking has become the watchword for both national and local government. Ethics is now taught in the police force in order to be proactive and combat discrimination. Concern is now expressed in all forms of decision making from genetic modification of foods and the patenting of human organs to the ethical decisions of pharmaceutical companies or the marketing dilemmas of global corporations. Despite these developments, we continue to find many examples of decision makers making bad ethical decisions and people who blow the whistle on many of those actions. On the positive side, we have seen how so called green organizations have proved that ethics and profit are not incompatible goals.


Labour ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 19-33
Author(s):  
John W. Budd

Sensors ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 3707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Bennati ◽  
Ivana Dusparic ◽  
Rhythima Shinde ◽  
Catholijn Jonker

Provision of smart city services often relies on users contribution, e.g., of data, which can be costly for the users in terms of privacy. Privacy risks, as well as unfair distribution of benefits to the users, should be minimized as they undermine user participation, which is crucial for the success of smart city applications. This paper investigates privacy, fairness, and social welfare in smart city applications by means of computer simulations grounded on real-world data, i.e., smart meter readings and participatory sensing. We generalize the use of public good theory as a model for resource management in smart city applications, by proposing a design principle that is applicable across application scenarios, where provision of a service depends on user contributions. We verify its applicability by showing its implementation in two scenarios: smart grid and traffic congestion information system. Following this design principle, we evaluate different classes of algorithms for resource management, with respect to human-centered measures, i.e., privacy, fairness and social welfare, and identify algorithm-specific trade-offs that are scenario independent. These results could be of interest to smart city application designers to choose a suitable algorithm given a scenario-specific set of requirements, and to users to choose a service based on an algorithm that matches their privacy preferences.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1294-1301
Author(s):  
Jonathan Z. Berman ◽  
Daniella Kupor

Past research suggests that actors often seek to minimize harm at the cost of maximizing social welfare. However, this prior research has confounded a desire to minimize the negative impact caused by one’s actions (harm aversion) with a desire to avoid causing any harm whatsoever (harm avoidance). Across six studies ( N = 2,152), we demonstrate that these two motives are distinct. When decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act, they strongly prefer to do so. However, harming cannot always be avoided. Often, decision-makers must choose between committing less harm for less benefit and committing more harm for more benefit. In these cases, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits. Thus, value trade-offs that decision-makers refuse to accept when it is possible to completely avoid committing harm can suddenly become desirable when some harm must be committed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document