Violation of principle four of ethical principles

1983 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Goebel
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Principles

Judicial Fundraising in Canada

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 519
Author(s):  
Stephen GA Pitel ◽  
Michal Malecki
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Anecdotal Evidence

The extent to which judges should be involved in fundraising for civic and charitable causes is an important issue of judicial ethics. The default principle adopted by judicial councils in Canada precludes judges from fundraising subject to only minor exceptions. Yet anecdotal evidence indicates that some Canadian judges do engage in fundraising. This raises the question of whether there should be a change to the principle so as to allow judges greater scope for fundraising activities. The aim of this article is to review the ethical principles for judicial fundraising and evaluate whether they require modifications for the modern Canadian judiciary. The authors consider several hypothetical fundraising scenarios and propose recommendations to the Canadian Judicial Council’s <i>Ethical Principles for Judges</i>.

Do we still believe in science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Essential Role ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Public Discussion

The chapter starts by analysing how the case of an incorrect paper about the effects of vaccines has generated important consequences in the society. It then discusses the role of fakes news in science, followed by a discussion on why we need a solid science and the importance of validated results and authoritative statements for public discussion and democracy. The chapter explores the essential role of common ethical principles in science, starting with the classic principles of Robert Merton. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how science today is too fast, and how we need to slow down if we want to give value to what we do.

Automated argument adjudication to solve ethical problems in multi-agent environments

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 310-335
Author(s):  
Selmer Bringsjord ◽  
Naveen Sundar Govindarajulu ◽  
Michael Giancola
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Artificial Agents ◽  
Artificial Agent ◽  
Ethical Problems ◽  
Multi Agent

Abstract Suppose an artificial agent a adj {a}_{\text{adj}} , as time unfolds, (i) receives from multiple artificial agents (which may, in turn, themselves have received from yet other such agents…) propositional content, and (ii) must solve an ethical problem on the basis of what it has received. How should a adj {a}_{\text{adj}} adjudicate what it has received in order to produce such a solution? We consider an environment infused with logicist artificial agents a 1 , a 2 , … , a n {a}_{1},{a}_{2},\ldots ,{a}_{n} that sense and report their findings to “adjudicator” agents who must solve ethical problems. (Many if not most of these agents may be robots.) In such an environment, inconsistency is a virtual guarantee: a adj {a}_{\text{adj}} may, for instance, receive a report from a 1 {a}_{1} that proposition ϕ \phi holds, then from a 2 {a}_{2} that ¬ ϕ \neg \phi holds, and then from a 3 {a}_{3} that neither ϕ \phi nor ¬ ϕ \neg \phi should be believed, but rather ψ \psi instead, at some level of likelihood. We further assume that agents receiving such incompatible reports will nonetheless sometimes simply need, before long, to make decisions on the basis of these reports, in order to try to solve ethical problems. We provide a solution to such a quandary: AI capable of adjudicating competing reports from subsidiary agents through time, and delivering to humans a rational, ethically correct (relative to underlying ethical principles) recommendation based upon such adjudication. To illuminate our solution, we anchor it to a particular scenario.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document