AI Methods in Bioethics

Commentary about the role of AI in bioethics for the 10th anniversary issue of AJOB: Empirical Bioethic

Word Meaning in Legal Interpretation

Professor Sinnott-Armstrong argues against the arguments published by Professor Prakash and Professor Alexander in an article on legal interpretation in which they defended the thesis that all interpretation properly so-called seeks to uncover the intended meaning of the author(s). Against their arguments, the Author defends coherence and importance of word meaning. In Part I, he more precisely defines the these that Alexander and Prakash deny and Professor Sinnott-Armstrong defends. In Part II, he will show why Alexander and Prakash\u27s arguments fail to rule out word meanings. In PArt III, he will put these debates in a larger theoretical context and show why word meaning is important to legal interpretation

Alien Registration- Armstrong, Walter C. (Easton, Aroostook County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/26615/thumbnail.jp

Ethical Problems in Connection with The Delivery of Legal Services

When the Code of Professional Responsibility was presented to the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association at its 1969 annual meeting by the Special Committee on the Evaluation of Ethical Standards, the only exception taken to any of its provisions was to that dealing with cooperation by a lawyer with an organization engaged in facilitating the delivery of legal services to the public. The Code, as drafted by the Committee, and as ultimately adopted at that time by the House of Delegates, provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly assist a person or organization that recommends, furnishes or pays for legal services to promote the use of his services or those of his partners or associates. To this, certain exceptions are made: e.g., a lawyer may cooperate in a dignified manner with legal service activities of a legal aid office, a military legal assistance office, a lawyer referral service, or a bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area. A fifth exception, however, is the one which precipitated the controversy

I’m not the person I used to be: The self and autobiographical memories of immoral actions

People maintain a positive identity in at least two ways: They evaluate themselves more favorably than other people, and they judge themselves to be better now than they were in the past. Both strategies rely on autobiographical memories. The authors investigate the role of autobiographical memories of lying and emotional harm in maintaining a positive identity. For memories of lying to or emotionally harming others, participants judge their own actions as less morally wrong and less negative than those in which other people lied to or emotionally harmed them. Furthermore, people judge those actions that happened further in the past to be more morally wrong than those that happened more recently. Finally, for periods of the past when they believed that they were very different people than they are now, participants judge their actions to be more morally wrong and more negative than those actions from periods of their pasts when they believed that they were very similar to who they are now. The authors discuss these findings in relation to theories about the function of autobiographical memory and moral cognition in constructing and perceiving the self over time