Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Helgeland, I. M. (2005). "Catch 22" of research ethics: Ethical dilemmas in follow-up studies of marginal groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(4), 549-569.

In a follow-up study of adolescents with serious problems, the author experienced dilemmas involving satisfying standards of research and ethical guidelines. The guidelines aim to protect marginal and vulnerable groups based on a hypothesis about the best interests of the weak group. Research experience shows, however, that these regulations also prevent coming in contact with informants. During the project, informants were systematically asked their opinions about being contacted. Ethical guidelines for research are discussed in light of ethical theories and findings of the research. The conclusions are that research guidelines are shaped from “above” and that one consequence is a protectionist attitude not always serving needs of respondents. It is suggested that the establishment of ethical standards in research may be improved if done in dialogue with respondents.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What was the author’s ethical dilemma in this article?
2. Ultimately, do you think the author should strictly follow a certain research protocol intended to ensure the privacy of the subjects, or to violate the requirement for the greater good of obtaining the necessary data which might produce significant results with public health implications?
3. What does the author conclude about research guidelines?

***

Lascher, E. L. (2004). September 11 victims, random events, and the ethics of compensation. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(3), 281-294.

The authors focus on a relatively unexplored aspect of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—the extent to which it was ethically appropriate to compensate victims of that tragedy, especially in comparison to victims of other unfortunate events. After providing back ground on federal disaster and victim compensation policies, the authors offer a set of principles for determining when the government should provide direct reimbursement to victims for losses incurred, drawing on both deontological and utilitarian reasoning. The authors then apply these standards to the September 11 attacks and other unfortunate events such as the Oklahoma City bombing.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What do you think about the moral question of whether or not government should have compensated the victims of September 11, to the exclusion of victims of other terrorist acts and even natural disasters?
2. Explain the concepts of moral hazard, risk management, and adverse selection.
3. What principles do the author offer for determining when the government should provide direct reimbursement to victims for losses incurred?

***

Brown, D. G. (2010). Mill’s moral theory: Ongoing revisionism. Politics, Philosophy, & Economics, 9(1), 5-46.

Revisionist interpretation of Mill needs to be extended to deal with a residue of puzzles about his moral theory and its connection with his theory of liberty. The upshot shows his reinterpretation of his Benthamite tradition as a form of ‘philosophical utilitarianism’; his definition of the art of morality as collective self-defense; his ignoring of maximization in favor of ad hoc dealing in utilities; the central role of his account of the justice of punishment; the marginal role of the internal sanction in his criterion of moral wrong; his deep respect for common-sense morality; and his restriction of the scope of morality so as to claim for the utilitarian tradition the whole realm of the aesthetics of conduct as part of a general theory of practical reason.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. Discuss the author’s view on philosophical utilitarianism.
2. What does the author mean when he says that he sees “morality as an art”?
3. Discuss the author’s criteria of wrongness and how it relates to morality.