Pub Date : 2010-01-01DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.302010.99
Xiaorong Li
Googles recent decision to withdraw its business from China in the wake of cyber censorship should lead other multinational corporations to recognize that ethical commitments should not be set aside for the purpose of market strategies.
{"title":"Google and the Cyber Infiltration","authors":"Xiaorong Li","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.302010.99","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.302010.99","url":null,"abstract":"Googles recent decision to withdraw its business from China in the wake of cyber censorship should lead other multinational corporations to recognize that ethical commitments should not be set aside for the purpose of market strategies.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"13-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66668766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2010-01-01DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.302010.102
Jay Sloan-Lynch
Philosophers have argued convincingly that Intelligent Design cannot simply be defined out of classrooms as nonscience. But the move from the conclusion that intelligent design is not nonscience to the conclusion that it is legitimate to teach it in public schools is deeply mistaken.
{"title":"Philosophers to the Rescue? The Failed Attempt to Defend the Inclusion of Intelligent Design in Public Schools","authors":"Jay Sloan-Lynch","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.302010.102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.302010.102","url":null,"abstract":"Philosophers have argued convincingly that Intelligent Design cannot simply be defined out of classrooms as nonscience. But the move from the conclusion that intelligent design is not nonscience to the conclusion that it is legitimate to teach it in public schools is deeply mistaken.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"18-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66668818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-06-22DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.103
A. Walen
I argue that nonresident aliens, in places that are clearly not U.S. territory, should benefit from constitutional rights. This is a matter of mutuality of obligation. The U.S. claims the authority to hold all people accountable for respecting certain laws, such as the law of war as defined in the Military Commissions Act. Accordingly, it must accord them basic legal rights in return. At the same time, I argue, contra Benjamin Wittes, that this would not lead to absurdly opening the courthouse doors, nor does it require abandoning principle to keep the flood of litigation reasonably contained. Not all harms inflicted by the U.S. government can give rise to a lawsuit, and that the distinction between those who should have a right to sue and those who should not can be drawn in a principled way.
{"title":"Constitutional Rights for Nonresident Aliens","authors":"A. Walen","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.103","url":null,"abstract":"I argue that nonresident aliens, in places that are clearly not U.S. territory, should benefit from constitutional rights. This is a matter of mutuality of obligation. The U.S. claims the authority to hold all people accountable for respecting certain laws, such as the law of war as defined in the Military Commissions Act. Accordingly, it must accord them basic legal rights in return. At the same time, I argue, contra Benjamin Wittes, that this would not lead to absurdly opening the courthouse doors, nor does it require abandoning principle to keep the flood of litigation reasonably contained. Not all harms inflicted by the U.S. government can give rise to a lawsuit, and that the distinction between those who should have a right to sue and those who should not can be drawn in a principled way.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"2-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66666874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-06-22DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.104
R. West
The benefits of homeschooling are now protected through legalization of the practice. Most of its harms could be prevented through its responsible regulation.
在家上学的好处现在通过这种做法的合法化得到了保护。它的大部分危害可以通过负责任的监管加以预防。
{"title":"The Harms of Homeschooling","authors":"R. West","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.104","url":null,"abstract":"The benefits of homeschooling are now protected through legalization of the practice. Most of its harms could be prevented through its responsible regulation.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"7-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66666987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-06-22DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.105
A. Strudler
It turns out to be more difficult than one might think to identify the central moral wrong at the heart of this much publicized and vilified crime.
事实证明,要找出这种被大肆宣传和诽谤的罪行的核心道德错误,比人们想象的要困难得多。
{"title":"Insider Trading: A Moral Problem","authors":"A. Strudler","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.105","url":null,"abstract":"It turns out to be more difficult than one might think to identify the central moral wrong at the heart of this much publicized and vilified crime.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"12-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66667067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-06-22DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.108
Scott Wisor
Although we have an important obligation to protect the environment, people are not morally required to choose to have smaller families for environmental reasons.
虽然我们有保护环境的重要义务,但道德上并不要求人们出于环境原因选择小家庭。
{"title":"Is There a Moral Obligation to Limit Family Size","authors":"Scott Wisor","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.108","url":null,"abstract":"Although we have an important obligation to protect the environment, people are not morally required to choose to have smaller families for environmental reasons.","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"26-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66668270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-06-22DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.107
M. Sagoff
In a Memorandum issued within a few days after he assumed office, President Barack Obama called for an overhaul of the policies the White House uses to review regulations proposed by federal departments and agencies. The president acknowledged the necessity of regulatory review "to ensure consistency with Presidential priorities, to coordinate regulatory policy, and to offer a dispassionate and analytical 'second opinion' on agency actions." Critics of previous administrations had charged that they misused the process of regulatory review to thwart agency actions. "In this time of fundamental transformation," the president wrote, "that process--and the principles governing regulation in general--should be revisited." Regulatory agencies have missions--but they must also consider the economic costs and consequences of what they do. This essay considers how the White House, in reviewing regulations, can direct agencies to take these costs and consequences into account while letting them do their work. Regulatory Review From the time of the Reagan administration, federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and departments, such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture, have had to obtain the approval of the White House before proposing any major regulation. Each year, the White House through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews about 500 rulemakings. Those it approves may become law; those it rejects it "returns" to the agency. The Executive Order that currently governs regulatory review within OIRA requires every department and agency that proposes a regulation to "assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation" and to "propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs." This requirement may seem innocuous; that agencies should balance the benefits and costs of a regulation appears to make common sense. Yet over the past 30 years, economists have developed a formal and technical method of defining and measuring "costs" and "benefits." Agencies must package regulatory proposals in a way that passes a cost-benefit test in the specific and technical sense that "costs" and "benefits" are now defined and measured within the theory of microeconomics. Within microeconomic theory, benefits are measured in terms of the amount people are willing to pay for outcomes they want. In economic parlance, "benefit" and "willingness to pay" (WTP) refer to the same thing. According to one authoritative text, "Benefits are the sums of the maximum amounts that people would be willing to pay to gain outcomes that they view as desirable." Costs are measured in terms of the minimum amounts people demand as compensation (or are willing to accept) to allow outcomes they do not like. "Willingness to accept" (WTA) is counted as a kind of negative WTP. Economists me
{"title":"Regulatory Review and Cost-Benefit Analysis","authors":"M. Sagoff","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.107","url":null,"abstract":"In a Memorandum issued within a few days after he assumed office, President Barack Obama called for an overhaul of the policies the White House uses to review regulations proposed by federal departments and agencies. The president acknowledged the necessity of regulatory review \"to ensure consistency with Presidential priorities, to coordinate regulatory policy, and to offer a dispassionate and analytical 'second opinion' on agency actions.\" Critics of previous administrations had charged that they misused the process of regulatory review to thwart agency actions. \"In this time of fundamental transformation,\" the president wrote, \"that process--and the principles governing regulation in general--should be revisited.\" Regulatory agencies have missions--but they must also consider the economic costs and consequences of what they do. This essay considers how the White House, in reviewing regulations, can direct agencies to take these costs and consequences into account while letting them do their work. Regulatory Review From the time of the Reagan administration, federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and departments, such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture, have had to obtain the approval of the White House before proposing any major regulation. Each year, the White House through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews about 500 rulemakings. Those it approves may become law; those it rejects it \"returns\" to the agency. The Executive Order that currently governs regulatory review within OIRA requires every department and agency that proposes a regulation to \"assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation\" and to \"propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.\" This requirement may seem innocuous; that agencies should balance the benefits and costs of a regulation appears to make common sense. Yet over the past 30 years, economists have developed a formal and technical method of defining and measuring \"costs\" and \"benefits.\" Agencies must package regulatory proposals in a way that passes a cost-benefit test in the specific and technical sense that \"costs\" and \"benefits\" are now defined and measured within the theory of microeconomics. Within microeconomic theory, benefits are measured in terms of the amount people are willing to pay for outcomes they want. In economic parlance, \"benefit\" and \"willingness to pay\" (WTP) refer to the same thing. According to one authoritative text, \"Benefits are the sums of the maximum amounts that people would be willing to pay to gain outcomes that they view as desirable.\" Costs are measured in terms of the minimum amounts people demand as compensation (or are willing to accept) to allow outcomes they do not like. \"Willingness to accept\" (WTA) is counted as a kind of negative WTP. Economists me","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66667418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-06-22DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.106
J. Lichtenberg
Once revered as the greatest of the classic theological virtues, charity now has something of a bad rap. Can it be rehabilitated with help from the Jewish sage Maimonides?
慈善一度被尊为最伟大的经典神学美德,如今却有了一些坏名声。它能在犹太圣贤迈蒙尼德的帮助下恢复吗?
{"title":"What Is Charity","authors":"J. Lichtenberg","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.106","url":null,"abstract":"Once revered as the greatest of the classic theological virtues, charity now has something of a bad rap. Can it be rehabilitated with help from the Jewish sage Maimonides?","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"16-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66667234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-04-01DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.110
R. Nelson
{"title":"Recreating the Creation","authors":"R. Nelson","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.110","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"8-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66668601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.111
S. Goering
My friend T was diagnosed with bipolar disorder over a decade ago, just in the midst of his medical residency. Since that time, he hasn't been able to complete his residency, though he's held a variety of different jobs, some of them making use of his medical knowledge (intake physician for insurance companies), others not (golf course attendant). Although T will grant that he needed help at the time of his diagnosis, to this day he doesn't approve of the kind of help he received (relatively coerced but officially "voluntary" commitment, a wide range of ineffective pharmaceutical cocktails, electroshock). Like many people diagnosed as bipolar, he has at various times come off the medications prescribed for him. In part this is due to frustration with their side effects (liver damage, weight gain, hair loss, mental fuzziness, anxiety) and their limited effectiveness. But it's also because he questions whether whatever occurred in his brain and resulted in his difficulty functioning "normally" is chronic, and in any case, he's not convinced that "normal" functioning is always to be preferred. In this judgment, he is echoed by many patients and former patients, both those relatively sanguine about psychiatry (Redfield Jamison) and those who identify with the more radical "psychiatric survivors' network." What he wants is to be respected for his abilities, accommodated for his illness (when it cannot be adequately treated), and treated as capable of making a positive social contribution. When many people hear T's story, they think, "What a sad story; what bad luck!" They understand it through a lens of personal tragedy and misfortune. If they sense unfairness, it is unfairness in an existential or perhaps even divine sense: how could the impersonal world or God treat him so poorly? The idea that some part--perhaps even a large part--of his disadvantage is socially imposed is foreign to them. Most people firmly believe in a medical model of disability, and by extension, a medical model of psychiatric disability. For them, disability is an intrinsic feature of a person, and the best way to help a disabled person is to find a cure. If a cure is not available, the person might be compensated for an inability to work, or pitied and offered charity. But according to my friend and people in the disability rights movement, many of his disadvantages could and indeed should be addressed through social change. If so, then we shouldn't shake our heads in pity over his case; we should wrestle with how to do justice for him. Sociopolitical Conception of Disability Disability scholars often distinguish between an impairment (usually taken to be a non-standard state of the body, such as deafness or paraplegia) and disability (understood to be a lack of fit between the body and the social environment, resulting in disadvantages for the individual who is impaired). With this distinction, the disadvantage of disability is something that calls out for social change. In
{"title":"\"Mental Illness\" and Justice as Recognition","authors":"S. Goering","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.292009.111","url":null,"abstract":"My friend T was diagnosed with bipolar disorder over a decade ago, just in the midst of his medical residency. Since that time, he hasn't been able to complete his residency, though he's held a variety of different jobs, some of them making use of his medical knowledge (intake physician for insurance companies), others not (golf course attendant). Although T will grant that he needed help at the time of his diagnosis, to this day he doesn't approve of the kind of help he received (relatively coerced but officially \"voluntary\" commitment, a wide range of ineffective pharmaceutical cocktails, electroshock). Like many people diagnosed as bipolar, he has at various times come off the medications prescribed for him. In part this is due to frustration with their side effects (liver damage, weight gain, hair loss, mental fuzziness, anxiety) and their limited effectiveness. But it's also because he questions whether whatever occurred in his brain and resulted in his difficulty functioning \"normally\" is chronic, and in any case, he's not convinced that \"normal\" functioning is always to be preferred. In this judgment, he is echoed by many patients and former patients, both those relatively sanguine about psychiatry (Redfield Jamison) and those who identify with the more radical \"psychiatric survivors' network.\" What he wants is to be respected for his abilities, accommodated for his illness (when it cannot be adequately treated), and treated as capable of making a positive social contribution. When many people hear T's story, they think, \"What a sad story; what bad luck!\" They understand it through a lens of personal tragedy and misfortune. If they sense unfairness, it is unfairness in an existential or perhaps even divine sense: how could the impersonal world or God treat him so poorly? The idea that some part--perhaps even a large part--of his disadvantage is socially imposed is foreign to them. Most people firmly believe in a medical model of disability, and by extension, a medical model of psychiatric disability. For them, disability is an intrinsic feature of a person, and the best way to help a disabled person is to find a cure. If a cure is not available, the person might be compensated for an inability to work, or pitied and offered charity. But according to my friend and people in the disability rights movement, many of his disadvantages could and indeed should be addressed through social change. If so, then we shouldn't shake our heads in pity over his case; we should wrestle with how to do justice for him. Sociopolitical Conception of Disability Disability scholars often distinguish between an impairment (usually taken to be a non-standard state of the body, such as deafness or paraplegia) and disability (understood to be a lack of fit between the body and the social environment, resulting in disadvantages for the individual who is impaired). With this distinction, the disadvantage of disability is something that calls out for social change. In ","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"14-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66668156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}