Explore the vast range of titles available.

Professional ethics has not been a major focus in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—in comparison with our study of unethical behavior in organizations. Consequently, we know very little about ethical situations actually faced by I-O psychologists. This article presents and tests a structural perspective on understanding the nature of ethical dilemmas that can facilitate such study. A taxonomy of five paradigmatic forms of ethical dilemmas is defined and placed in a theoretical context. Narrative descriptions of 292 ethical situations were obtained from a sample of 228 professional members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in the United States and were used to empirically test the taxonomy. The narratives were content analyzed for form of dilemma, work domain of occurrence, relevance to human resource administration concerns, and favorability of the situation’s resolution. The work domains that were most problematic were academic research/publication activities, individual assessment/assessment centers, consulting issues regarding the client, and academic supervising/mentoring. There were no significant differences as a function of respondents’ sex, seniority, or professional membership status (member/fellow). This relatively “content free” structural aspect of ethical dilemmas enables comparisons across different domains (of professions, organizations, demographic groups, age cohorts, etc.) in which the overt idiosyncratic ethical problems experienced are not commensurable. Similarly, it can yield interpretable longitudinal comparisons despite changes in the manifestations of ethical problems encountered over time.

Many aspects of migration policy involve hard moral dilemmas. Whether the dilemmas are concerned with refugee accommodation and integration, temporary labor migration, or the prospects of rejected asylum seekers, policymakers must sometimes make tough choices between competing and equally compelling moral values. Through in-depth discussion of various concrete examples, contributions to this roundtable argue that recognition and systematic analysis of the “ethics of migration policy dilemmas” can both increase philosophical and social-scientific understanding of public debates and policymaking on migration and provide ethical guidance for migration policy. Before introducing the roundtable’s individual contributions, this essay argues for the distinct epistemic value of the Dilemmas perspective by contrasting it with an approach that emphasizes the “busting” of myths; that is, the empirical uncovering of influential falsehoods in public and policy debates, often in the hope of improving policymaking through stronger evidence. We argue that while such myth busting can be valuable, it is insufficient and sometimes unhelpful for understanding how migration policy comes about and can be improved. Policymaking is not just shaped by empirical facts and understandings but also by interests and goals, including moral ones, that give empirical considerations deeper meaning and action-guiding potential. Often, these moral goals are numerous, similarly or equally compelling, and in profound tension with one another. Where this is the case, we should not simply introduce more and more accurate factual descriptions; we must also analyze dilemmas.

Artificial intelligence, particularly chatbot systems, is becoming an instrumental tool in health care, aiding clinical decision-making and patient engagement. This study aims to analyze the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in addressing complex clinical and ethical dilemmas, and to illustrate their potential role in health care decision-making while comparing seniors' and residents' ratings, and specific question types. A total of 4 specialized physicians formulated 176 real-world clinical questions. A total of 8 senior physicians and residents assessed responses from GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on a 1-5 scale across 5 categories: accuracy, relevance, clarity, utility, and comprehensiveness. Evaluations were conducted within internal medicine, emergency medicine, and ethics. Comparisons were made globally, between seniors and residents, and across classifications. Both GPT models received high mean scores (4.4, SD 0.8 for GPT-4 and 4.1, SD 1.0 for GPT-3.5). GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 across all rating dimensions, with seniors consistently rating responses higher than residents for both models. Specifically, seniors rated GPT-4 as more beneficial and complete (mean 4.6 vs 4.0 and 4.6 vs 4.1, respectively; P<.001), and GPT-3.5 similarly (mean 4.1 vs 3.7 and 3.9 vs 3.5, respectively; P<.001). Ethical queries received the highest ratings for both models, with mean scores reflecting consistency across accuracy and completeness criteria. Distinctions among question types were significant, particularly for the GPT-4 mean scores in completeness across emergency, internal, and ethical questions (4.2, SD 1.0; 4.3, SD 0.8; and 4.5, SD 0.7, respectively; P<.001), and for GPT-3.5's accuracy, beneficial, and completeness dimensions. ChatGPT's potential to assist physicians with medical issues is promising, with prospects to enhance diagnostics, treatments, and ethics. While integration into clinical workflows may be valuable, it must complement, not replace, human expertise. Continued research is essential to ensure safe and effective implementation in clinical environments.

This paper pertains to research works aiming at linking ethics and automated reasoning in autonomous machines. It focuses on a formal approach that is intended to be the basis of an artificial agent’s reasoning that could be considered by a human observer as an ethical reasoning. The approach includes some formal tools to describe a situation and models of ethical principles that are designed to automatically compute a judgement on possible decisions that can be made in a given situation and explain why a given decision is ethically acceptable or not. It is illustrated on three ethical frameworks—utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics and the Doctrine of Double effect whose formal models are tested on ethical dilemmas so as to examine how they respond to those dilemmas and to highlight the issues at stake when a formal approach to ethical concepts is considered. The whole approach is instantiated on the drone dilemma, a thought experiment we have designed; this allows the discrepancies that exist between the judgements of the various ethical frameworks to be shown. The final discussion allows us to highlight the different sources of subjectivity of the approach, despite the fact that concepts are expressed in a more rigorous way than in natural language: indeed, the formal approach enables subjectivity to be identified and located more precisely.

The openness of decision-makers to be influenced by and invest in proposals for policy reform is not constant. Timing is key, as are the diversity and depth of interests, levels of knowledge, and nature of the policy challenge itself; these can all affect how governments absorb information that might fall beyond the usual cost-benefit assessments of day-to-day policymaking. This essay explores how and when the policy environment provides opportunities to introduce a more nuanced discussion of competing moral values in migration governance and, critically, the new policy directions to which they might give rise. In doing so, it will utilize a range of examples from national, EU, and global debates of the past decade, to highlight moments when a dilemmas approach has been—or could have been—useful to effect policy change. Stressing ethical dilemmas can influence migration policymakers when the conditions are right.

PurposeThis study aims to examine the potential of Information Ethics (IE) to serve as a coherent ethical foundation for the library and information science profession (LIS profession).Design/methodology/approachThis study consists of two parts: the first part present IE’s central theses and the main critiques it has received; the second part offers the authors' own evaluation of the theory from the LIS perspective in two steps: (1) assessing its internal consistency by testing its major theses against each other; (2) assessing its utility for resolving frequently debated LIS ethical dilemmas by comparing its solutions with solutions from other ethical theories.FindingsThis study finds that IE, consisting of an informational ontology, a fundamental ethical assertion and a series of moral laws, forms a coherent ethical framework and holds promising potential to serve as a theoretical foundation for LIS ethical issues; its inclusion of nonhuman objects as moral patients and its levels of abstraction mechanism proved to be particularly relevant for the LIS profession. This study also shows that, to become more solid an ethical theory, IE needs to resolve some of its internal contradictions and ambiguities, particularly its conceptual conflations between internal correctness, rightness and goodness; between destruction, entropy and evil; and the discrepancy between its deontological ethical assertion and its utilitarian moral laws.Practical implicationsThis study alerts LIS professionals to the possibility of having a coherent ethical foundation and the potential of IE in this regard.Originality/valueThis study provides a systemic explication, evaluation and field test of IE from the LIS perspective.

Ethical dilemmas arise when one must decide between conflicting ethical imperatives. One potential ethical dilemma is a manager's decision of whether to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. This decision could pit the ethical imperative of honoring unwritten obligations to society against the ethical imperative of honoring contractual obligations to the firm. However, CSR activities might only be a minor ethical dilemma or none at all if they simultaneously benefit the firm and society. To examine this I test the association between future-period employee productivity and current-period use of one type of CSR activity: employee volunteer programs. I use a unique sample of 1428 firm-years, hand-collected from sustainability reports of 373 firms. I find evidence that the current-period use of an employee volunteer program has a positive association with future-period employee productivity (moderated by the firm's current-period employee productivity). I find this result in future periods up to 6 years after a firm uses an employee volunteer program. I also find a positive association between incentives that focus CEOs' attention on longterm firm outcomes and more extensive employee volunteer programs (also moderated by current-period employee productivity).

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic created unprecedented ethical challenges for nurses, often culminating in moral distress. Aim The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of Spanish nurses in relation to moral distress and ethical conflicts experienced during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Design Qualitative phenomenological study. Methods Nurses who had tended COVID‐19 patients were given a semi‐structured interview via the Zoom application. Thematic analysis was carried out, identifying units of meaning and assigning codes that were grouped into the different categories using Open Code software. Results Seventeen nurses participated and four categories emerged: (i) Difficulties in the general management of the pandemic on the institutional level, (ii) Limitation of patients’ rights in a pandemic situation, (iii) Influence on the humanization of healthcare, (iv) Impact on professionals and on the profession. Conclusion Restrictions on patients’ and families’ rights during the pandemic generated ethical conflicts for healthcare professionals. In addition, the scarcity of both human and material resources, together with limited access to information, intensified value conflicts in clinical practice. Impact This project provides evidence on ethical conflicts experienced by nurses during the pandemic, both in the quality of care and professionals’ well‐being. Findings will contribute to and have an impact on future action protocols and public policies aimed at better managing ethical challenges in health emergency situations.

This study explores the ethical dilemmas in contemporary Igbo Christian marriages as couples navigate the interaction between modernity and cultural identities. Marriage in traditional Igbo society is entrenched in strong cultural and religious values. However, Christianity and modernity have brought new dynamics to this institution in contemporary times. This paper, therefore, examines the influence of Christianity and modernity on Igbo traditional marriage, discussing ethical dilemmas arising from these influences. It specifically addresses areas where the traditional Igbo practices often clash with Christian doctrine and modern ideals, such as Igbo communalism, gender roles, family obligations, and marital expectations. The study also highlights strategies for resolving these dilemmas, including effective communication, cultural adaptability, and external support systems. Utilising a qualitative case study and descriptive–analytical methods, the research provides invaluable insights into the emerging dilemmas in Igbo marriage, offering a nuanced understanding of how individuals and communities can navigate these ethical complexities in a fast-shifting world. This work contributes to the broader discussions on cultural identities, religious practices, and ethical challenges in modern times.

Organizations often face moral dilemmas. For example, in 2004 the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) needed to decide whether to help refugees in enclosed camps in Pakistan repatriate to Afghanistan. On the one hand, helping with repatriation might have made UNHCR complicit in forced returns, as refugees sought to repatriate just to avoid life without freedom in Pakistan. On the other hand, refusing to help with repatriation would leave refugees stranded in camps: perhaps repatriation was the best option if this was what refugees wanted. When organizations face this and other dilemmas, it is not clear how they should proceed. In other words, it is unclear which policy they should pursue when all feasible policies seem wrong. Some might think that, at least for hard dilemmas, every choice is just wrong, and so no choice is right. But that is not quite true. Even difficult dilemmas can be resolved using certain methods. One method is to ask those affected by potential policies what they think the most justifiable policy is. A second method is to choose what to do randomly. Randomly selecting a course of action can sometimes be the fairest way of determining what to do when every option seems wrong.