No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Who should decide how a machine will decide what to do when it is driving a car, performing a medical procedure, or, more generally, when it is facing any kind of morally laden decision? More and more, machines are making complex decisions with a considerable level of autonomy. We should be much more preoccupied by this problem than we currently are. After a series of preliminary remarks, this paper will go over four possible answers to the question raised above. First, we may claim that it is the maker of a machine that gets to decide how it will behave in morally laden scenarios. Second, we may claim that the users of a machine should decide. Third, that decision may have to be made collectively or, fourth, by other machines built for this special purpose. The paper argues that each of these approaches suffers from its own shortcomings, and it concludes by showing, among other things, which approaches should be emphasized for different types of machines, situations, and/or morally laden decisions.

Wayne Norman argues that there should be more similarity or unity between the justifications for markets and the extra-legal norms that apply to market agents. I question two aspects of his claim. First, why does Norman refer to this view as a view about the self-regulation of market agents? Agents could self-regulate with many different norms, not necessarily norms informed by the justifications for markets. Second, asking for more similarity might create problems in terms of the liberty of market agents to pursue other morally relevant objectives. How are we to balance these other relevant objectives and the objectives of markets? Business Ethics Journal Review

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.For image use please see separate credit(s).

No abstract

This review article surveys all of the articles published in the major Anglophone European social anthropology journals in 2020. Taking a perspective from Joel Robbins' theorising of 'the anthropology of the good' as a critique of the primacy of 'dark anthropology', it highlights the rich range of ethnography and analysis recently produced. Focusing on the continuing interest in ontology, environment, relations and the problems inherent in anthropological comparison, the review article identifies how -during the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic -the discipline has continued to respond with vigour and resilience. An ongoing resurgence of the anthropology of religion is noted, as is the emergence of powerful emic exploration of such global phenomena as care, debt and corporate capitalism. The review article concludes with a reflection on the ideological and epistemological challenges social anthropology continues to face, both in the academy and more widely.