Suchergebnisse

In "Principled Compromise and the Abortion Controversy" Simon C. May argues that we do not have a principled moral reason to compromise. While I seek to understand how more precisely we are to understand this suggestion, I also object to it: I argue that we have a principled moral reason to accept democratic decisions that we disagree with, and that this can only be so if disagreement can change what the all things considered right political position is. But if this is so, then also a principled moral reason to compromise is possible. I suggest that there is a class of procedures, including compromise, voting, expert delegation, and coin flip, such that when we disagree about what justice requires, we have a principled moral reason (though not necessarily a decisive reason) to engage in one of these procedures.

Denne Ph.d.-afhandling er et bidrag til diskussioner om personligt ansvar i relation til fordelingsretfærdighed i sundhed og sygdomsbehandling. Den er et bidrag til politisk filosofi i almindelighed, men i særdeleshed til luck egalitaristisk teori. Jeg besvarer følgende tre spørgsmål: 1) Hvilken rolle bør personligt ansvar spille i relation til fordelingsretfærdighed i sundhed og sygdomsbehandling? 2) Er individer selv ansvarlige for deres egen sundhedstilstand? Og 3) hvis individer selv er ansvarlige for deres egen sundhedstilstand, hvilke implikationer har dette så i forhold til deres omkostningsansvar? Afhandlingen består af fire artikler, men jeg tilbyder først en general introduktion, et afsnit om forskellige effektivitets-baserede grunde til at holde individer omkostningsansvarlige for adfærd, som leder til øget risiko for sygdomme, og et afsnit om den metode jeg anvender. I min første artikel anvender jeg de seneste diskussioner om ansvar i politisk filosofi på emner vedrørende social ulighed i sundhed, og adgang til sygdomsbehandling. Jeg argumenterer for, at fordelingsretfærdighed i sundhed og sygdomsbehandling bør være sensitiv til ansvar, men også, at individer, på det mest fundamentale niveau, aldrig er ansvarlige på en sådan måde, at appeller til individers eget ansvar kan retfærdiggøre ulighed. Dette forklarer hvorfor vi skal give lige adgang til sygdomsbehandling - også til individer som er syge, som følge af (blandt andet) valg af livsstil. Det forklarer også, hvorfor vi har retfærdighedsbaserede grunde til at reducere social ulighed i sundhed. I min anden artikel undersøger jeg, og (delvist) argumenterer imod, et forslag fremsat af Shlomi Segall, om at bytte ideen om ansvar ud med en ide om rimelig undgålighed i luck egalitaristisk teori. Jeg argumenterer også for, at størrelsen af sundhedsudgifter, som er relateret til rygning og fedme, er relevant i forhold til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt samfundet med rimelighed kan forvente, at individer undgår rygning og fedme. I min tredje artikel spørger jeg ...

The European Court of Justice's recent ruling that the new techniques for crop development are to be considered as genetically modified organisms under the European Union's regulations exacerbates the need for a critical evaluation of those regulations. The paper analyzes the regulation from the perspective of moral and political philosophy. It considers whether influential arguments for restrictions of genetically modified organisms provide cogent justifications for the policies that are in place, in particular a pre-release authorization requirement, mandatory labelling, and de facto bans (in the form of withholding or opting out of authorizations). It is argued that arguments pertaining to risk can justify some form of pre-release authorization scheme, although not necessarily the current one, but that neither de facto bans nor mandatory labelling can be justified by reference to common arguments concerning naturalness, agricultural policy (in particular the promotion of organic farming), socio-economic effects, or consumers' right to choose.

It is widely assumed that scientists should be objective and ignore personal factors in their scientific conduct (Douglas 2014). However, scientists are human beings and are therefore also driven by interests other than the advancement of scientific knowledge – for instance, by the pursuit of honour and status, wealth, the desire to support their students, political commitments, morality and other factors. Sometimes scientists' non-scientific interests seem to be in conflict with responsible conduct of research, and when this is the case there is a conflict of interest. However, some conflicts of interest are unavoidable and some are even harmless; conflicts of interest do not necessarily lead to questionable research practice and are sometimes an intrinsic part of research itself. But some, particularly those involving financial interests, are a serious threat to the responsible conduct of research and should therefore be taken very seriously. In this chapter we discuss what exactly a conflict of interest is, and why, when and how we, as scientists, should actively respond to our conflicts of interest by, for example, disclosing them.