Deontology defended

Empirical research into moral decision-making is often taken to have normative implications. For instance, in his recent book, Greene (2013) relies on empirical findings to establish utilitarianism as a superior normative ethical theory. Kantian ethics, and deontological ethics more generally, is a rival view that Greene attacks. At the heart of Greene’s argument against deontology is the claim that deontological moral judgments are the product of certain emotions and not of reason. Deontological ethics is a mere rationalization of these emotions. Accordingly Greene maintains that deontology should be abandoned. This paper is a defense of deontological ethical theory. It argues that Greene’s argument against deontology needs further support. Greene’s empirical evidence is open to alternative interpretations. In particular, it is not clear that Greene’s characterization of alarm-like emotions that are relative to culture and personal experience is empirically tenable. Moreover, it is implausible that such emotions produce specifically deontological judgments. A rival sentimentalist view, according to which all moral judgments are determined by emotion, is at least as plausible given the empirical evidence and independently supported by philosophical theory. I therefore call for an improvement of Greene’s argument

Appellate Judges and Philosophical Theories: Judicial Philosophy or Mere Coincidence

This paper suggests that judicial opinions often reflect ajudge\u27s position on what is ethical and useful in the real world of constitutional values. It further suggests that an appreciation of legal philosophical theory assists one in understanding the ethical and public policy dimensions of a court\u27s opinion. Do judges\u27 opinions parallel philosophical theories constructed by philosophers or is any apparent relationship mere coincidence? This paper suggests the former-that a judge\u27s belief system, education, and experiences 2 include the adoption of judicial philosophies, the expression of which can be found in his or her written opinions

How to choose a fair delegation?

This paper analyzes how to choose a delegation, a committee to represent a society such as in a peace conference. We propose normative conditions and seek Pareto optimal, consistent, neutral, and non-manipulable ways to choose a delegation. We show that a class of threshold rules is characterized by these criteria. The rules do not choose a fixed number of delegates, but instead require different sizes of delegations, depending on the heterogeneity in society. Therefore the resulting delegations are very inclusive, and with t delegates the ratio of individuals whose opinions are not included is always below 0.5. For instance, a delegation of size two should have at least 75% support from the society and therefore only less than 25% of the opinion pool can be neglected

Precision and Uncertainty : Cancer biomarkers and new perspectives on fairness in priority setting decisions in personalized medicine

Introduction: Precision oncology aims to tailor diagnostics and treatment to patients’ individual biological characteristics, and a central part of this approach is the stratification of patients into smaller groups. This might increase treatment effect, avoid ineffective treatment and harmful side effects, and promote fair priority setting. But precision oncology may also increase uncertainty about the quality of evidence, creating public controversy and challenges for fair priority setting. Objectives: The primary aim of this thesis was to describe and discuss how biomarkers and personalized medicine are being incorporated into priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs in Norway, and to explore how this may challenge concepts of fairness in the priority setting system. This was done by investigating three secondary aims, all with special attention to biomarkers: I) To describe the Norwegian system for priority setting and drug appraisal, and to analyse if coverage decisions are in accordance with the established criteria for priority setting; II) To study Norwegian cancer doctors’ stated preferences for considering individual patient characteristics in a hypothetical priority setting scenario; III) To provide a critical analysis of the current priority setting practice for personalized medicine through a perspective from science and technology studies. Methods: Three studies were conducted to respond to each of the secondary objectives. Study I and II were empirical, while study III was a theoretical analysis. In study I we used logistic and linear regression analysis to evaluate drug coverage decision for the Norwegian specialized health care sector from 2014 to 2019, using confidential price data. In study II we distributed a survey to Norwegian cancer doctors where we used a conjoint analysis to elicit preferences in a hypothetical priority setting scenario between two cancer patients. In study III we examined and criticized the Norwegian priority setting practice through a Science and Technology perspective. Results: Study I shows a strong inverse relationship between the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and the probability of approval, after price negotiations and severity of disease has been taken into account. This demonstrates how cost-effectiveness, price negotiations and concerns for a fair distribution of health benefits are systematically implemented in the Norwegian drug appraisal system. This was also found for biomarker-accompanied cancer drugs; however, a systematic quantitative evaluation of uncertainty is not possible due to the lack of data. Study II shows that biomarker status is perceived as relevant for priority setting decisions, alongside more well-known patient characteristics like age, physical function, and comorbidity. Based on these findings we discuss a framework that can help clarify whether biomarker status should be accepted as an ethically acceptable factor for stratifying patients into smaller groups and give them unequal treatment. In this framework a key aspect of reducing uncertainty is to improve biomarker quality. In study III precision oncology is seen not only as a solution but also a potential contributor to high health care costs and persisting controversy. We argue that a wider perspective on science and society is needed to strengthen the priority setting system. From a co-production perspective, scientific, technological, and societal developments are causally entangled into each other. Alongside refining priority setting principles, one can and ought to raise normative questions about the trajectory of personalized cancer medicine and of how to create a well-functioning public sphere. Conclusion: Precision oncology and cancer biomarkers appear to be well integrated in the priority setting system, but there are also concerns about how uncertainty increases and how this may challenge priority setting. Acknowledging the interdependence between science and society, this calls for a stronger emphasis on co-production of knowledge and procedural aspects of fairness. This could strengthen the priority setting system and reduce public controversy. A wider participation of stakeholders is essential, and deliberation must address both the production of knowledge and of standards. The former includes organization of trial design, research and development of new drugs, and even the whole political economy of drug development, and the latter the normative foundations of priority setting, its principles and practices. In such reimagining there is still a role for biomarkers, but their role would be reimagined too.Doktorgradsavhandlin

Homer Simpson Ponders Politics: Popular Culture as Political Theory

It is often said that the poet Homer “educated” ancient Greece. Joseph J. Foy and Timothy M. Dale have assembled a team of notable scholars who argue, quite persuasively, that Homer Simpson and his ilk are educating America and offering insights into the social order and the human condition. Following Homer Simpson Goes to Washington (winner of the John G. Cawelti Award for Best Textbook or Primer on American and Popular Culture) and Homer Simpson Marches on Washington, this exceptional volume reveals how books like J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter, movies like Avatar and Star Wars, and television shows like The Office and Firefly define Americans’ perceptions of society. The authors expand the discussion to explore the ways in which political theories play out in popular culture. Homer Simpson Ponders Politics includes a foreword by fantasy author Margaret Weis (coauthor/creator of the Dragonlance novels and game world) and is divided according to eras and themes in political thought: The first section explores civic virtue, applying the work of Plato and Aristotle to modern media. Part 2 draws on the philosophy of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Smith as a framework for understanding the role of the state. Part 3 explores the work of theorists such as Kant and Marx, and the final section investigates the ways in which movies and newer forms of electronic media either support or challenge the underlying assumptions of the democratic order. The result is an engaging read for undergraduate students as well as anyone interested in popular culture. Joseph J. Foy, associate campus dean and associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Waukesha, is the editor of Homer Simpson Goes to Washington: American Politics through Popular Culture and coeditor of Homer Simpson Marches on Washington: Dissent through American Popular Culture. Timothy M. Dale, assistant professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse, is coeditor of Homer Simpson Marches on Washington: Dissent through American Popular Culture. “Today, film, fiction, and television reflect our notions of civic virtue, morality, and the human condition—or at least help us to struggle with understanding and defining these. The ubiquitous nature of popular culture means that it will have an effect upon us, whether one likes that or not. The authors argue that, given this fact, even those who doubt the ‘seriousness’ of popular culture would do well to pay attention to it.”—Margaret Ferguson, Assistant Vice President for Statewide Academic Relations at Indiana University Since ancient times myths and stories have been used to convey our deepest thoughts about how to live together in community. With this book we now have a fun and engaging way to learn and think about political theory through the myths and stories of our time, popular culture. -- William Irwin, author of Black Sabbath and Philosophy: Mastering Reality Foy and Dale have done it again, this time with political theory! Political theory is one of the most difficult subjects that political science undergraduates encounter and Homer Simpson Ponders Politics opens up an avenue for students to engage many of the broad theories through some of the cultural artifacts with which they are most familiar: popular culture. These important theories bubble up through all areas of popular culture from Machiavelli and The Godfather to Plato and Star Wars— there is much to learn from this compendium. This is a useful book for students of political theory of any age or training and for those who are intrigued by the many political concepts popular culture teaches us. --Lilly J. Goren, coeditor of Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics Most essays in this collection employ their philosophical guides in ways that can...disabuse undergraduates of the notion that political theory can better address the sterile and obsolete concerns of forgotten eras than fundamental questions about contemporary political life. -- Choicehttps://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_american_popular_culture/1013/thumbnail.jp