Category Archives: applied ethics

social welfare, the handicapped, and special education

Com­mon sense may sug­gest that increases in social wel­fare are more eas­ily obtained by focus­ing resources on the men­tally and/or phys­i­cally hand­i­capped, rather than using those resources instead to mar­gin­ally improve non-handicapped indi­vid­u­als’ lives. The capa­bil­i­ties approach, as devel­oped by Amartya Sen and Martha Nuss­baum, would also imply that resources are well-spent when devoted to

life, liberty, and bodily integrity: thoughts on routine infant circumcision

A while back, I shared this blog post on Twit­ter: the only nec­es­sary argu­ment against rou­tine infant cir­cum­ci­sion Although I’ve lost track of the @replies, I recall that there was sig­nif­i­cant push­back from a cou­ple of my fol­low­ers, and so I wanted to say more about the issue. Basi­cally the argu­ment offered at L’Hôte is this: “In a

I don't care about the original intent of value-added models

I’m tak­ing a break from end-of-semester mad­ness to offer this mini-rant, inspired by a pas­sage in this WP arti­cle, “Lead­ing math­e­mati­cian debunks value-added”: When value-added mod­els were first con­ceived, even their most ardent sup­port­ers cau­tioned about their use [Sanders 1995, abstract]. They were a new tool that allowed us to make sense of moun­tains of

on the non-normativity of value-added analysis

As you are likely to have heard by now, the Los Ange­les Times recently con­ducted and pub­lished a value-added analy­sis of some of the city’s ele­men­tary school teach­ers, using data that had been col­lected by the school dis­trict but never pre­vi­ously ana­lyzed in this way. There was a nice sum­mary of the value-added analy­sis and

plagiarism, etiquette, and morality

Pla­gia­rism by col­lege stu­dents has got­ten some atten­tion in the New York Times lately, and it occurs to me that I have dropped the ball on a series of posts about pla­gia­rism that I started ear­lier this sum­mer. Although I had planned to write other stuff next, I’m instead going to allow myself to be

plagiarism, ignorance and responsibility

Here’s the third post in a series on cheating/academic dis­hon­esty in col­lege (first post, sec­ond post). A year and a half ago, I taught an intro­duc­tion to phi­los­o­phy course inde­pen­dently. The lec­tures were in per­son, but the tests were online because the class only met once per week and I didn’t want to use up

prizes, payments, and donating blood

This old post, on the moral sta­tus of donat­ing blood, still attracts a trickle of Google searches to this blog. I won­der who the searchers are — per­haps peo­ple try­ing to get moti­vated to donate, peo­ple try­ing to ratio­nal­ize not donat­ing, or bio­med­ical ethics paper writ­ers? Any­way, I hadn’t donated blood in over six months

book review: Lierre Keith's "The Vegetarian Myth"

Some­where between my ex-vegan inter­view at Let Them Eat Meat, the blog Hunt.Gather.Love, and Pale­o­hacks, it was at least once rec­om­mended to me that I read Lierre Keith’s “The Veg­e­tar­ian Myth.” So, I did. The author spent 20 years as a vegan. Under­stand­ably, veg­an­ism became ever nearer and dearer to her iden­tity, but it also ruined

the wrongness of cheating

Last time, I dis­cussed some prob­lems with the the­ory that, when you cheat, “you’re only cheat­ing your­self.” Today, I have a few things to say on the wrong­ness of cheat­ing. These are by no means com­pre­hen­sive or ground break­ing, just some food for thought. First, I’ll back­track just a lit­tle and say that there is

"you're only cheating yourself"

As a grad­u­ate teach­ing assis­tant and course instruc­tor, I’ve encoun­tered cheat­ing and pla­gia­rism a num­ber of times. I know that many of my friends encounter sim­i­lar issues as well. So, to mark the end of this semes­ter, I thought I’d start a mini-series of posts on the sub­ject. First up: the “you’re only cheat­ing your­self”