Making Ends Meet: A Conceptual and Ethical Analysis of Efficiency.

IF 2 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1353/ken.2024.a943428
Polly Mitchell, Alan Cribb, Vikki Entwistle, Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley
{"title":"Making Ends Meet: A Conceptual and Ethical Analysis of Efficiency.","authors":"Polly Mitchell, Alan Cribb, Vikki Entwistle, Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley","doi":"10.1353/ken.2024.a943428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efficiency is often overlooked as an ethical value and seen as ethically relevant chiefly when it conflicts with other values, such as equality. This article argues that efficiency is a rich and philosophically interesting concept deserving of independent normative examination. Drawing on a detailed healthcare case study, we argue that making assessments of efficiency involves value-laden, deliberative judgments about how to characterize the functioning of human systems. Personal and emotional resources and ends are crucial to system functioning but are often discounted in favor of a relatively narrow set of financial inputs and institutional or procedural outputs. Judgments about efficiency tend to advantage (or disadvantage) different parties, depending on the resources and ends considered. Different constructions of efficiency can therefore promote or neglect the perspectives and interests of differently placed actors. Models of efficiency do not merely embody contestable ethical standpoints but-put to use-can unwittingly reify and reproduce them.</p>","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2024.a943428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Efficiency is often overlooked as an ethical value and seen as ethically relevant chiefly when it conflicts with other values, such as equality. This article argues that efficiency is a rich and philosophically interesting concept deserving of independent normative examination. Drawing on a detailed healthcare case study, we argue that making assessments of efficiency involves value-laden, deliberative judgments about how to characterize the functioning of human systems. Personal and emotional resources and ends are crucial to system functioning but are often discounted in favor of a relatively narrow set of financial inputs and institutional or procedural outputs. Judgments about efficiency tend to advantage (or disadvantage) different parties, depending on the resources and ends considered. Different constructions of efficiency can therefore promote or neglect the perspectives and interests of differently placed actors. Models of efficiency do not merely embody contestable ethical standpoints but-put to use-can unwittingly reify and reproduce them.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
入不敷出:效率的概念和伦理分析》。
效率作为一种伦理价值常常被忽视,主要是在它与平等等其他价值发生冲突时才被视为具有伦理意义。本文认为,效率是一个丰富且具有哲学意义的概念,值得进行独立的规范性研究。通过对一个详细的医疗案例的研究,我们认为,对效率的评估涉及到对如何描述人类系统功能的价值判断和深思熟虑。个人和情感资源及目的对系统的运作至关重要,但却往往被忽略,而偏向于一套相对狭窄的资金投入和制度或程序产出。根据所考虑的资源和目的,对效率的判断往往会对不同方面有利(或不利)。因此,对效率的不同理解可能会促进或忽视不同参与者的观点和利益。效率模式不仅体现了有争议的伦理观点,而且在使用时还会不知不觉地将这些观点重新整合和复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
期刊最新文献
"We Don't Want You Here": A Critical Examination of Staring, Disability, and the Inaccessible Environment. Editor's Note, March 2025. Multivalent Environmental and Ecological Justice Reimagined. The Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial as the Gold Standard in Psychedelic Research: Neither Feasible Nor Desirable. Editor's Note, June 2025.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1