Category: Ethics

The Cruelest Show on Earth: Bullhooks. Whippings. Electric shocks. Three-day train rides without breaks. Our yearlong investigation rips the big top off how Ringling Bros. treats its elephants.

March 8, 2015

“That was in 1998, and at the time it seemed like a turning point in the decades-long fight over circus elephants. For years, animal rights organizations had been releasing horrific undercover videos showing Ringling trainers abusing elephants, but USDA investigations never produced evidence that officials deemed strong enough to warrant action. Now there was a dead body—and a recent precedent. The agency had just fined the King Royal Circus, a small family operation, $200,000 for allowing an elephant to die in an overheated trailer of an untreated salmonella infection.”

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-bros-elephant-abuse

Lab mice can’t help us in the fight against cancer

March 5, 2015

Two articles linked below illustrate some interesting ideas about how we construct knowledge in the natural sciences. These cases raise a host of interesting issues. What assumptions do we hold when we try to learn about fighting human diseases by experimenting on mice? In what ways are these assumptions false? Is it ethical to run these experiments? Does the answer to that question depend on how effectively we learn from these experiments?

“Curing cancer in mice is unlikely to lead to a breakthrough for humans. So why do we persist in carrying out bizarre and freakish experiments?

“We are constantly being promised ground breaking advancements, cures, treatments and answers to this terrible and deadly disease that we have all lost someone to. It is, admittedly, beguiling speak and fulfils its purpose of justifying this kind of savage cruelty to animals.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/lab-mice-cant-help-us-in-the-fight-against-cancer-8316756.html

Retire the Use of Mouse Models in cancer studies

“We cured acute leukemia in mice in 1977 with drugs that we are still using in exactly the same dose and duration today in humans with dreadful results.”

http://edge.org/response-detail/25429

Freakonomics Podcast: The Maddest Men of All. Episode about Behavioral Economics

February 27, 2015

Another interesting discussion on the field of behavioral economics (see a previous post on the topic). Some really interesting discussions on this podcast about the contrast between classical economics and behavioral economics. You get some insight into the different approaches to knowledge and assumptions between two related fields in the human sciences.

You also get some interesting insights about how we make decisions. To what degree are our decisions motivated by reason? And to what degree are they motivated by emotion? Is it ethical for someone to use their knowledge of our emotional decision making to push us to make a decision they want us to make (i.e. buy something we otherwise wouldn’t)?

“Let’s take an example where you go to an airline website and it … quotes you a price for your seat to Sacramento, whatever it may be, and it says only four seats left at that price. Now, that works on me. I’ve spent eight years studying this stuff, I know it’s an attempt to exploit my scarcity bias, but it still makes me click. That’s just the way I’m wired. Now implicit in that line is that subsequent seats will be more expensive. But actually the person in their weasel wording hasn’t exactly made that promise, have they? They’ve merely said at this price. At this price is not quite clear. It could be that the subsequent four seats are being sold actually at a lower price.”

http://freakonomics.com/2015/02/26/the-maddest-men-of-all-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

My Depressing Day With A Famous Climate Skeptic

February 24, 2015

What does this article tell us about how knowledge is constructed in the natural sciences? What makes scientific research “good”? What ethical concerns arise when being paid for your scientific work?

“But more troubling was a conversation I had with Soon earlier in the day. Every scientist has the right to his or her own perspective. But scientists also understand how research communities build their understanding about what is known and how anyone knows it. So, I wondered how Soon could fail to acknowledge that the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly against him when he made his overarching public statements of skepticism. I asked Soon why his testimony to Congress did not begin with something like, ‘I acknowledge that the majority of researchers in my field hold a different view from me, but let me now explain why I am taking such a contrarian position.'”

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/02/24/388682684/my-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic

How can we measure the effectiveness in charitable giving?

February 22, 2015

Much of our charitable giving is governed by emotions. We are far more often to give to a cause if the story or cause grabs our attention by moving us emotionally. Sometimes the charities are effective at branding themselves or their cause and sometimes we personally identify with the cause.

There are some people who want to change the way we think about charitable giving by identifying the “return on investment” of each dollar donated rather than letting our emotions decide for us. What happens when we decide to figure out the most effective use of our charitable dollars? How can we measure the impact? What criteria do we look at? Do we focus on saving lives or improving quality of life? Is it possible to even quantify these things?

Much of the approach these people use try to apply mathematical approaches to identify effectiveness. How can we use math to help us determine truth? What are the assumptions built into these mathematical models? Does quantifying this stuff to determine effectiveness dehumanize charitable work?

What if it was “mathematically proven” that the the most effective approach to charity were to give money away with no conditions or strings attached to the recipients? Would your emotional or intuitive revulsion to such an idea keep you from donating? How do you decide what is right when different ways of knowing conflict with one another?

Sometimes people prefer to donate to causes that build tangible structures like schools in foreign countries though it turns out that building schools may not actually that effective based on the cost.

Below are some links to evaluate this topic and these questions.

1. Is It Nuts to Give to the Poor Without Strings Attached?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/is-it-nuts-to-give-to-the-poor-without-strings-attached.html

2. Planet Money Podcast: The Charity That Just Gives People Money

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/16/212645252/episode-480-the-charity-that-just-gives-people-money

3.Measuring the Bang of Every Donated Buck

Scoring charitable work is evolving from an art into a science

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703787304575075340954767332

4. Give Well: Real Change for Your Dollar

Homepage for an organization that seeks to quantify the impact of various charities.

http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/criteria/cost-effectiveness

5. Smart Aid for the World’s Poor

How can rich countries best help poor ones? Matt Ridley identifies five priorities

http://www.wsj.com/articles/smart-aid-for-the-worlds-poor-1406326677

6. Freakonomics Podcast:Fixing the World, Bang-for-the-Buck Edition

http://freakonomics.com/2014/10/02/fixing-the-world-bang-for-the-buck-edition-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

7.Don’t Build Schools in Afghanistan

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/dont_build_schools_in_afghanistan.html

8.Poker Players Use Science To Effectively Give To Charities

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/24/372837159/poker-players-use-science-to-effectively-give-to-charities

Should we judge the practices of other cultures?

February 22, 2015

When discussing the practices of other cultures, debates coalesce around two positions:

Moral Relativism: Rights are culturally dependent and there are no moral principles that should apply to all people. Societies should be able to do whatever they want and we shouldn’t judge them.

Moral Universalism: There are certain absolute moral truths (i.e. Human rights) and we should hold people accountable to those truths.

This debate has existed for a long time and in an increasingly global world, these arguments will not go away. Below are some interesting and in some cases, disturbing, examples of cultural practices that go from strange (ritually marrying a dog) to terrifying (burning witches and killing albino).

Is there a moral position from which to judge these if they are from radically different cultures from ours? If so, is there a reciprocal right others have to judge our practices? Can we act upon our judgments? What if acting on these judgments involved intervention in other cultures that don’t want it?

1. Girl marries stray dog to ward off evil spirit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741901/The-husband-s-real-hound-Girl-18-marries-stray-dog-bizarre-Indian-tribal-ritual-designed-ward-evil-spirit.html

2.Papua New Guinea Is Still Burning “Sorcerers” at the Stake

http://www.vice.com/read/papua-new-guinea-are-still-burning-witches-at-the-stake

3. Tanzanian gangs hack off limbs of albinos for traditional rituals

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-tanzania-albinos-20150219-story.html

Ethics of behavioral economics: Nudges or manipulation?

February 11, 2015

The field of behavior economics includes the study of how and why people make the decisions they do and consequently, it’s the study of how to change people’s decisions to push them in different directions. Governments have used these techniques and findings to promote positive behaviors like not littering and not smoking but also to increase the number of people paying their taxes. Private companies have used these techniques to increase the sales of their products and services. People employing these techniques often say they provide a “nudge.” At what point do these nudges become manipulation? Does it matter if the behavior being promoted is one we agree is positive like quitting smoking? How does the use of language affect our perception of ideas and things?

What is also interesting about this field is that some traditional economists resent the term “behavioral economics” and don’t consider it to be part of their field. They were further annoyed when a behavioral economist and self identified psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, won the Nobel Prize for economics.

Below are a couple of articles about this field.

1. Manipulate Me: The Booming Business in Behavioral Finance

“Many behavioral interventions work, whether at reducing litter and power usage or boosting savings rates and organ donations. Yet these successes aren’t the whole story. Even after rigorous experimentation and data analysis, the best-intentioned nudges can fall flat or backfire. Some may be behavioral band-aids that don’t address deeper structural problems such as stagnating wages. Nevertheless, consumers have jumped on the bandwagon, eager to be manipulated into the best version of themselves, and businesses are rushing to meet the demand.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-07/manipulate-me-the-booming-business-in-behavioral-finance

2. What was I thinking?

The latest reasoning about our irrational ways

“Why do people do things like this? From the perspective of neoclassical economics, self-punishing decisions are difficult to explain. Rational calculators are supposed to consider their options, then pick the one that maximizes the benefit to them. Yet actual economic life, as opposed to the theoretical version, is full of miscalculations, from the gallon jar of mayonnaise purchased at spectacular savings to the billions of dollars Americans will spend this year to service their credit-card debt. The real mystery, it could be argued, isn’t why we make so many poor economic choices but why we persist in accepting economic theory.”

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/02/25/what-was-i-thinking

3. Why Behavioral Economics Is Cool, and I’m Not

“It happens to me regularly: I’m an organizational psychologist, but I get introduced at least once a week as a behavioral economist. The first time this happened before a speech, I attempted to set the record straight, telling the executive that all of my degrees were in psychology. His response: ‘Your work sounds cooler if I call you a behavioral economist.'”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-grant/why-behavioral-economics_b_5491960.html

Radiolab Podcasat: The Trust Engineers

February 11, 2015

“When we talk online, things can go south fast. But they don’t have to. Today, we meet a group of social engineers who are convinced that tiny changes in wording can make the online world a kinder, gentler place. So long as we agree to be their lab rats.

Ok, yeah, we’re talking about Facebook. Because Facebook, or something like it, is more and more the way we share and like, and gossip and gripe. And because it’s so big, Facebook has a created a laboratory of human behavior the likes of which we’ve never seen. We peek into the work of Arturo Bejar and a team of researchers who are tweaking our online experience, bit by bit, to try to make the world a better place. And along the way we can’t help but wonder whether that’s possible, or even a good idea.”

http://www.radiolab.org/story/trust-engineers/