Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that assigns value impartially to the well-being of each person. Informed Altruism, introduced in this article, is an intentionalist theory that relegates ...both consequentialism and impartiality to subordinate roles. It identifies morally right or commendable actions (including collective actions such as laws and policies) as those motivated by a sufficiently informed intention to benefit and not harm others. An implication of the theory is that multiple agents may perform incompatible actions and yet each be acting rightly in a moral sense.
At present, peer review is the most common method used by funding agencies to make decisions about resource allocation. But how reliable, efficient, and fair is it in practice? The ex ante evaluation ...of scientific novelty is a fundamentally uncertain endeavor; bias and chance are embedded in the final outcome. In the current study, I will examine some of the most central problems of peer review and highlight the possible benefits of using a lottery as an alternative decision-making mechanism. Lotteries are driven by chance, not reason. The argument made in the study is that the epistemic landscape could benefit in several respects by using a lottery, thus avoiding all types of bias, disagreement, and other limitations associated with the peer review process. Funding agencies could form a pool of funding applicants who have minimal qualification levels and then select randomly within that pool. The benefits of a lottery would not only be that it saves time and resources, but also that it contributes to a more dynamic selection process and increases the epistemic diversity, fairness, and impartiality within academia.
Previous work has demonstrated that people are more likely to trust “deontological” agents who reject harming one person to save many others than “consequentialist” agents who endorse such ...instrumental harms, which could explain the higher prevalence of non-consequentialist moral intuitions. Yet consequentialism involves endorsing not just instrumental harm, but also impartial beneficence, treating the well-being of every individual as equally important. In four studies (total N = 2086), we investigated preferences for consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist social partners endorsing instrumental harm or impartial beneficence and examined how such preferences varied across different types of social relationships. Our results demonstrate robust preferences for non-consequentialist over consequentialist agents in the domain of instrumental harm, and weaker – but still evident – preferences in the domain of impartial beneficence. In the domain of instrumental harm, non-consequentialist agents were consistently viewed as more moral and trustworthy, preferred for a range of social roles, and entrusted with more money in economic exchanges. In the domain of impartial beneficence, preferences for non-consequentialist agents were observed for close interpersonal relationships requiring direct interaction (friend, spouse) but not for more distant roles with little-to-no personal interaction (political leader). Collectively our findings demonstrate that preferences for non-consequentialist agents are sensitive to the different dimensions of consequentialist thinking and the relational context.
•We examine perceptions of agents who harm (“instrumental harm”) or help (“impartial beneficence”) for the greater good•Non-consequentialist agents who refuse to harm for the greater good are consistently preferred across a range of measures•Consequentialist agents who help for the greater good are perceived as worse friends and spouses, but not political leaders
•‘Utilitarian’ judgments in moral dilemmas were associated with egocentric attitudes and less identification with humanity.•They were also associated with lenient views about clear moral ...transgressions.•‘Utilitarian’ judgments were not associated with views expressing impartial altruist concern for others.•This lack of association remained even when antisocial tendencies were controlled for.•So-called ‘utilitarian’ judgments do not express impartial concern for the greater good.
A growing body of research has focused on so-called ‘utilitarian’ judgments in moral dilemmas in which participants have to choose whether to sacrifice one person in order to save the lives of a greater number. However, the relation between such ‘utilitarian’ judgments and genuine utilitarian impartial concern for the greater good remains unclear. Across four studies, we investigated the relationship between ‘utilitarian’ judgment in such sacrificial dilemmas and a range of traits, attitudes, judgments and behaviors that either reflect or reject an impartial concern for the greater good of all. In Study 1, we found that rates of ‘utilitarian’ judgment were associated with a broadly immoral outlook concerning clear ethical transgressions in a business context, as well as with sub-clinical psychopathy. In Study 2, we found that ‘utilitarian’ judgment was associated with greater endorsement of rational egoism, less donation of money to a charity, and less identification with the whole of humanity, a core feature of classical utilitarianism. In Studies 3 and 4, we found no association between ‘utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial dilemmas and characteristic utilitarian judgments relating to assistance to distant people in need, self-sacrifice and impartiality, even when the utilitarian justification for these judgments was made explicit and unequivocal. This lack of association remained even when we controlled for the antisocial element in ‘utilitarian’ judgment. Taken together, these results suggest that there is very little relation between sacrificial judgments in the hypothetical dilemmas that dominate current research, and a genuine utilitarian approach to ethics.
In a crisis, there is widespread recognition and acceptance that not all lives can be saved. But whose lives can legitimately be saved and who decides? Recent scholarship has begun to examine how ...refugees perceived as ‘vulnerable’, such as women and children, are frequently prioritized over other groups in humanitarian responses. Such analyses, however, fail to adequately explain why some groups – such as older persons – are considered vulnerable and yet are largely neglected. Based on the case of older Syrian refugees in Jordan, this article critically examines the ways in which humanitarian health actors make sense of the humanitarian principle of ‘impartiality’ in the face of limited resources. Based on 61 interviews and observational data collected in Jordan between 2017 and 2019, my results show that humanitarians routinely classify older refugees as ‘vulnerable’ and in need of medical assistance. Yet I find that three neoliberal considerations - including perceptions of the reduced lifespan, disproportionate disease burden, and limited contributions to the economy of older refugees - make this demographic low ‘value for money’. This article expands our understanding of how medical humanitarian understandings of ‘deservingness’ are increasingly shaped by market-driven logics, and how these (re)create ageist, gendered and racialized hierarchies within refugee health.
•Humanitarian interpretations of medical impartiality prioritize some refugee groups.•Gendered, racialized and ageist assumptions shape notions of deservingness.•Older Syrian refugees in Jordan are considered vulnerable but are neglected.•Older refugees are not considered ‘value for money’ in crisis responses.•Neoliberal frameworks place a monetary value on life in humanitarian settings.
The proper resolution of applications for challenge (self-challenge) of a judge (investigative judge, court) is important for further criminal proceedings, as a judicial error in this matter may ...result in the violation of a person’s right to ‘lawful composition of the court’ or the right to defence, which is grounds for the cancellation of the court decision in the case and its referral to a new trial (Art. 412 of the CrPC), the violation of the principles of reasonable time terms, and the legal certainty (finality) of court decisions as part of the rule of law.
In judicial practice, proceedings on challenges belong to separate common proceedings, which usually end with a refusal to satisfy the challenge. Lawyers assess the institute of criminal proceedings of Ukraine as ineffective.
The purpose of the present study is to examine the grounds for challenge using the comparative method, so that views on their understanding are consistent in the professional environment and in judicial practice.
The article outlines the list of grounds for challenge of a judge (investigative judge, court) under the CrPC of Ukraine and presents their classification as unconditional and evaluative, which is crucial for the selection of methods of proof. The correlation between the national classification of grounds for challenge and the criteria for determining the impartiality of the court in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is shown. The main focus is on the analysis of unconditional grounds for challenge according to the national classification, and their content is revealed in relation to the positions of the ECtHR.
It is substantiated that the grounds for challenge are not only circumstances that cast doubt on the impartiality of a judge (investigating judge, court) found in para. 6 of Chapter 3 of the CrPC of Ukraine ‘Challenge’, but also circumstances that indicate that the judge does not meet the requirements of ‘legal composition of the court’ (Part 2 of Art. 412 of the CrPC) or ‘Court established by law’ (in the wording of part 1 of Art. 6 of the ECHR) found in various structural parts of the CrPC and in the Law ‘On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges’. It is substantiated that the wording of Part 1 of Art. 76 of the CrPC of 14 January 2021 is not consistent with the principle of access to justice by an impartial court (Art. 21 of the CrPC) since the right to an impartial tribunal (part 1 of Art. 6 of the ECHR) creates a conflict with Chapter 18 of the CrPC on the procedure for election, change of precautionary measures, does not meet the requirements of legal certainty, and may be grounds for complaints to the ECtHR.
This article addresses the negative implications of neutrality in bureaucratic systems and public service. Neutrality employs a sameness approach that reinforces impartiality, invisibility, and ...indifference, resulting in what we term discriminatory blindness. After a brief illustrative review of neutrality in public service, we critique neutrality as an organizational impediment based on its veiled negative implications and disparate outcomes that fail to center the human experience and treat people based on how they are situated to ensure equity in outcomes. We propose a framework to forge ahead with eight actionable types of initiatives and learning constructs to raise the consciousness of public practitioners. We conclude with an action‐oriented and learning‐focused approach.
Recent research has relied on trolley-type sacrificial moral dilemmas to study utilitarian versus nonutilitarian modes of moral decision-making. This research has generated important insights into ...people's attitudes toward instrumental harm-that is, the sacrifice of an individual to save a greater number. But this approach also has serious limitations. Most notably, it ignores the positive, altruistic core of utilitarianism, which is characterized by impartial concern for the well-being of everyone, whether near or far. Here, we develop, refine, and validate a new scale-the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale-to dissociate individual differences in the 'negative' (permissive attitude toward instrumental harm) and 'positive' (impartial concern for the greater good) dimensions of utilitarian thinking as manifested in the general population. We show that these are two independent dimensions of proto-utilitarian tendencies in the lay population, each exhibiting a distinct psychological profile. Empathic concern, identification with the whole of humanity, and concern for future generations were positively associated with impartial beneficence but negatively associated with instrumental harm; and although instrumental harm was associated with subclinical psychopathy, impartial beneficence was associated with higher religiosity. Importantly, although these two dimensions were independent in the lay population, they were closely associated in a sample of moral philosophers. Acknowledging this dissociation between the instrumental harm and impartial beneficence components of utilitarian thinking in ordinary people can clarify existing debates about the nature of moral psychology and its relation to moral philosophy as well as generate fruitful avenues for further research.
It's a commonplace that citizens in Western democracies are disaffected with their political leaders and traditional democratic institutions. But in Democratic Legitimacy, Pierre Rosanvallon, one of ...today's leading political thinkers, argues that this crisis of confidence is partly a crisis of understanding. He makes the case that the sources of democratic legitimacy have shifted and multiplied over the past thirty years and that we need to comprehend and make better use of these new sources of legitimacy in order to strengthen our political self-belief and commitment to democracy.
PDF
