A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal (Grubin D,
Beech A, BMJ 2010; 340:c74) discusses the efficacy and ethics of chemical
castration for sex offenders.
Its efficacy is not in doubt. Recidivism rates of less than
5% over long periods are consistently reported. The expected rate, absent ‘treatment’,
is 50% or more.
But is it treatment? And if it is not, should doctors
participate in it?
It has often struck me how the most common ethical issues surround us like smog, yet we never see them. And how science and some fairly simple and uncontroversial values could go a long way to solving them. How should we eat? What kinds of friends should we have? Should we take drugs? How should… Read More »Sleepy ‘Ordinary Ethics’
Some of us know Professor Robert George as the ultraconservative Catholic bioethicist from Princeton. It could hardly be said that his writings have dominated discussion in contemporary ethics. It is thus slightly surprising to find out, in recent profile in the New York Times, that Professor George is a thinker of immense influence—the mastermind of the conservative side of the culture wars in the US, having the ear of rightwing political leaders and religious authorities, even of TV commentators. What is Robert George’s exciting new idea? There is nothing terribly surprising about his views. He is of course vehemently opposed to abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. What is supposed to be exciting is that he claims to demonstrate the truth of these familiar conservative views using natural reason alone. Finally conservatives can conclusively prove that liberals are dead wrong, and they don’t even need to mention tradition and religion. Well, Professor George’s arguments might have awed George W. Bush, but on inspection they turn out less than impressive.
Nick BostromProfessor of Applied Ethics, Director, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford Steve ClarkeJames Martin Research Fellow, Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences, University of Oxford; Principal Researcher, AHRC funded project ‘Science and Religious Conflict’, University of Oxford Roger CrispProfessor of Moral Philosophy, Uehiro Fellow, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University… Read More »AUTHORS
The British Medical Association has called for a complete ban on
alcohol advertising. Wait for the knees to jerk: calls deriding the
‘nanny state’ and its paternalism will soon follow. One common theme, I
predict, will be that the recommendations are infantilizing. We should
trust responsible adults to be capable of making their own decisions.
Advertising simply informs them of their options (so long as it
regulated, so that it doesn’t deceive); so informed, they can be relied
upon to act as they see fit. If they have bad values, they will act
badly, if not they won’t: advertising won’t change that.
Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Interdisciplinary Science or Philosophy
University of Oxford, Faculty of Philosophy, Future of Humanity Institute, James Martin 21st Century School
Grade 7: £28,839 – £38,757 per annum (as at 1 October 2008)
The Future of Humanity Institute is a multidisciplinary research institute. It is part of the James Martin 21st Century School, and is hosted by the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy.
Applications are invited for a fixed-term Research Fellowship at the Future of Humanity Institute. The Fellowship is available for two years from the date of appointment.
Read More »Vacancy: Postdoc Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute
Should we use drugs to prolong loving relationships? Should we use drugs to weaken traumatic memories? Research Associate David Edmonds’ article on enhancement for Prospect magazine is available online. The article cites both Anders Sandberg and Julian Savulescu (Neuroenhancement of Love and Marriage: The Chemicals Between Us). It suggests that many of the arguments made against… Read More »The Age of Enhancement
What makes us happy? There is a lot of data on the question now, and some surprising conclusions. One surprising conclusion is cheering: almost all of us (around 95% of people in developed countries) rate ourselves as quite happy or better. The only countries to record high levels of unhappiness are countries in which living standards have declined appreciably, such as some of the countries in the former Soviet Union and its sphere of influence. To be sure, there is some room for scepticism about how much insight people have into their happiness. Dan Haybron notes how susceptible happiness ratings are to environmental infuences – for instance, the weather on the day the person is asked to rate their happiness – and argues that we cannot take these ratings of subjective well-being (as psychologists calls them) at face value. But even Haybron concedes that the differences across large groups provide us with an insight into real causes of happiness.
Ethicists
disagree about very many things, but they broadly agree on how it is we should
disagree: by finding flaws in the reasoning that leads others to a contrary
conclusion, by putting forward arguments of our own, and so forth. The thought
(perhaps the illusion) is that through this process of critical discussion, we
will gradually approach the truth, the truth about what it is we ought to do.
Another assumption, and perhaps a greater illusion, is that all of this intense
debate will also eventually influence what people actually do—that it will
improve policy and practice.
