A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for July 2021

Activision Blizzard: Ethics of Buying

by Leave a Comment

The video game megacorporation Activision Blizzard, Inc. was the subject of a two-year investigation by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. A lawsuit is now pending against the company because of “constant sexual harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation.” For those familiar with the video game industry, this lawsuit comes as no surprise; this behavior is both common and actively defended. In terms of the ethics of the company’s alleged behavior; there is no real moral debate: these actions are evil. In terms of the legal aspects, that is for the lawyers and judges to work through. While I am an ethics professor, I am also a gamer and I have an active subscription to World of Warcraft (WoW). When news of the lawsuit broke, my gaming group discussed what we should do. One person proposed finding a new game made by a company that treats its employees well. I am writing this not only as an exercise in philosophy, but as a means of working out my own ethical view on the matter in real time.

One defense commonly advanced in such cases is to point out that most (if not all) companies are morally bad. As such, almost any game will be morally tainted with the wrongdoings of the company. Looked at one way, this can be fallacious reasoning. If the company is defended by claiming these are common occurrences, then this is the appeal to common practice fallacy. This fallacy occurs when, obviously enough, a practice is defended by claiming that it is commonly done. Even if something is commonly done, it does not follow that it is acceptable.

Looked at another way, one can make a pragmatic argument. If someone wants to play a certain type of game and all companies that make that type of game are bad in some manner, then they will always be stuck with a game from a bad company. At the very least, any major company will be exploiting its workforce because that is how capitalism works. The Good Place did a good job illustrating this sort of problem: it is almost impossible to be a good person in today’s world. One can, of course, try to pick the least evil option: if the allegations against Activision Blizzard are true, then it would be among the worst, and one could select a company that is not nearly as bad as an option. But this is still a moral problem.

While Thoreau was focused on government, his discussion of civil disobedience can be extensively retooled to apply to companies. A good person, one can argue, must withdraw their support from evil companies or they become accountable for their portion of that evil. On this view, to keep subscribing to WoW would be wrong (assuming that the charges are true). It would also be wrong to switch to any other evil company.

One can make the case that there are neutral or even good companies that make games like World of Warcraft. This could be done by arguing that capitalist exploitation is not bad or that there are companies that treat their workers well enough to be considered non-evil. If so, one could at least pick a non-evil company and keep playing that sort of game without enriching a bad company. In this case, switching would be the right thing to do.

There is also the option embraced by some, which is to believe that the alleged behavior is acceptable—for such people there is no moral concern here. However, I obviously do not believe that. There is also the somewhat selfish approach of just not caring what a company does and focusing on what one wants to do. So, a person could just ignore the allegations against the company and keep subscribing, being concerned only with the game itself. This is a not uncommon position. Interestingly, though, the people who take this position towards allegations of this sort also tend to be the same people who get enraged if a company starts expressing “woke” views. This is a bad faith position: if what a company does outside of the product does not matter, then it does not matter. If it does, then it does. As one would suspect, what people care about does depend on their values—so it is not that they do not care what the company does, they just do not care about the horrific sexism and other ills. But there are those consistent in ignoring everything beyond what they like and dislike about the product itself, be a company “woke” or wicked. While this might seem somewhat irresponsible, it has the virtue of consistency.

While I have considered cancelling my subscription, I do have some concerns about that. Some of the victims of the (alleged) harassment and abuse still work for the company and boycotting the company would also hurt them. There is also the concern about the WoW community; leaving WoW would cede the game to those who are either morally fine with the alleged crimes or who are indifferent. Another point of consideration is that the top leadership of the company is so wealthy that they would not be meaningfully hurt by a boycott. While it is true that they would have less money to siphon out of the company, they are so rich that it would not matter except in terms of their bragging rights to the other millionaires. This is, of course, a general moral concern with any boycott: in most cases, the people being hurt the most will be the workers rather than those in control. That said, solid arguments can be advanced for boycotts. For example, while the top executives would not be meaningfully hurt by a decline in income (they are already millionaires), they want to keep siphoning money and they can face consequences—such as being replaced. As such, a case can be made for boycotting the company in the hopes of having some impact on the behavior there. While each individual, such as I, would have little impact, collective action could be meaningful: the company might be forced to decide between profit and their (alleged) “frat boy” culture.

The company is entitled to its legal defense and, as this is being written, nothing has been legally proven. Hence, I am careful to use “alleged” to avoid being sued. That said, the available evidence seems damning, and it is hard to buy their goods and services in good conscience. But, as noted above, there is the moral concern for the (alleged) victims.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Space Colonization: The Survival Argument

by Leave a Comment

Robert Heinlein sold me the moon; Ray Bradbury sold me Mars. Because of this, I love the idea of space colonization. This is a trait I share with Elon Musk. But unlike Musk I am willing to look critically at the arguments for (and against) investing in such colonization.

One good argument for colonizing Mars is the survival argument. As many others have pointed out, humanity is a one-world species: we have all our eggs in this one basket. So, if all the humans on earth are killed, then that is it for humans. But, so the argument goes, if we colonize (for example) Mars, then the odds of humanity surviving increase significantly. While this argument has some appeal, it needs to be considered in a bit more depth.

For a space colony to provide that second basket for survival, it would need to meet (at least) two conditions. First, it would need to be isolated from earth extinction events. Second, it would need to be self-sufficient (or not reliant on earth).

In terms of the first condition, the reason for this is obvious: if the colony would be extinguished by the same extermination event that ends humanity on earth, then the colony would not allow humans to survive. There are, of course, extinction events that a space colony would be isolated from. One example is the killer asteroid: unless a second asteroid is on its way to the colony, a space colony would be unaffected by the earth getting hit by a big space rock. One concern about spending resources on a colony for this purpose is that one could argue that spending the same resources on survival on earth would save more people. The clear exception would be a strike that would kill everyone on earth, no matter what we did in terms of such things as survival bunkers and other preparation.

Another example is environmental collapse on earth.  This would not directly impact the colony since it would be on another planet (or elsewhere). A concern with this example is that almost any plausible environmental disaster would still leave earth vastly more habitable than places like the moon or Mars. So, if the goal is to survive an environmental collapse, then investing on earth would be a more cost-effective approach. What would be a vastly superior approach would be to use these resources to prevent this collapse. But if the collapse was unavoidable and would render the earth worse than (for example) Mars, then a colony would make sense.

Unfortunately for the idea of using a space colony as insurance against extinction, there are many extinction events that would also destroy the colony because it could not be isolated from them. One obvious example is war: if a war on earth results in extinction there, this war would almost certainly result in the destruction of any space colonies as well. It is possible they might survive, but unlikely in such a war of extinction. Another extinction event that would easily spread to a colony would be disease. In many scenarios, the disease would not be recognized as an extinction level threat until it already reached the colony. Even if the threat of the disease were recognized in time, the COVID pandemic has shown that “Space Republicans” are a very real possibility and that they would undermine efforts to isolate the colony. Humanity could thus go extinct so that a few politicians could score some last political points and own the “Space Liberals.”

One can also make the argument that an isolated space colony could help humanity rebuild from a planet-wide disaster. This is not a bad argument, aside from the weakness that having disaster recovery in place on earth would almost certainly be more cost effective and more practical.  In terms of surviving an extinction event, if it is something that the colony can be isolated from, then it could provide that second basket that would allow humanity to survive. This would require that the colony be self-sufficient.

In terms of self-sufficiency, this is an obvious requirement. Even if a colony survived the extinction event that destroyed humanity on earth, the death of the colony would only be postponed if it depended on earth. As such, a colony justified by the survival argument would need to be able to survive without support from earth. Naturally, if there are multiple colonies, then they could depend on each other as long as they were collectively self-sufficient.

Since the other planets and moons in the solar system are incredibly hostile environments, creating a self-sufficient colony with a large enough population to keep the human race going would be incredibly challenging. Colonizing Death Valley, Everest, or the ocean would be simple and easy by comparison. This is not to claim that a self-sufficient colony is impossible, but this would require immense investment and probably centuries. Colonization efforts here on earth have failed on numerous occasions, even with support. As such, counting on a space colony as a second basket for humanity’s eggs is unreasonable for the foreseeable future. As many others have argued, investing in making life on earth better would provide a far greater return. This, I admit, pains me to say—for I have long dreamed of Mars and worlds beyond.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Chick-fil-A & Donations

by Leave a Comment

Chick-fil-A is best known for its chicken and past antagonism to the LGBTQ+ community.  Most recently, the company became the focus of attention when some Notre Dame students objected to allowing the company to open a restaurant on campus. Notre Dame ultimately decided in favor of Chick-fil-A, noting a change in which organizations it donates to. The main change was dropping donations to groups that are seen as anti-LGBTQ (or at least unfriendly). This, as would be expected, has angered the culture warriors of the right. Despite this “betrayal”, Lindsey Graham was willing to “go to war” for the corporation. Quibbling over chicken chunks in a pandemic might seem irrational but one can make a case that this is an important fight. I, however, will not do this. Instead, I will focus on the subject of corporations, choices, and donations. This is a matter of ideology and ethics.

The right, as would be expected, has what seems to be an inconsistent position on corporate donations and choices. After all, they have made corporate money into protected speech, have argued that corporations should be free to do as they wish, but have also threatened corporations for expressing views that they dislike. But a consistent “principle” can be found under these inconsistencies: the right wants corporations to do what they (the right) like and do not want corporations to do what they (the right) dislike. They cannot, obviously, present this true principle—it lacks rhetorical power and, worst of all, shows that they do not have meaningful principles. Fortunately for them, they can consistently get away with their inconsistency: their base does not seem to recognize the inconsistencies or, if they do, they do not care. The right also does not care what the left thinks, so essays like these do not matter one bit to them.

While I do disagree with Chick-fil-A’s past stance on LGBTQ rights, the people controlling the organization do have the moral right to spend their money as they choose. These choices are, of course, subject to moral assessment—so while they do have the right to donate to anti-LGBTQ organizations, a moral argument can be made that they are acting wrongly by contributing to harming vulnerable people who are not doing them any harm. While the people controlling the money have the right to spend it as they see fit, people also have the right to be critical of these choices and to respond as they wish. These responses, like the spending, are also subject to moral assessment. So, when the students opposed allowing Chick-fil-A on the campus, they were acting well within their rights. One could even make the case they were acting as rational consumers: they did not want a business taking up space on campus that they did not want to patronize.

The people making the decisions at Notre Dame also have the moral right to make the decision about allowing the corporation to open a site on campus. And, of course, their decision is subject to moral assessment. The folks in charge did decide to allow Chick-fil-A on campus, asserting that they were satisfied with the company. While this is not entirely true, universities will do almost anything for money—so this might be a factor as well. As noted above, those call the shots at the company did decide to change who they donate money to. This, one would infer, is due to economic concerns: they believe that dropping these donations will help them sell more chicken. While some individuals making these decisions might have values that match the decisions they make, corporate stances on issues are calculated to maximize profits. As with any form of advertising and public relation moves, these can fail—even quite badly. But the goal is always to increase profits—the myth of the woke corporation is just that, a myth. That this is the case can be found by considering their other business practices, such as how they treat employees and society.

While the decisions makers at Chick-fil-A decided to change their donations, billionaire Dan Cathy still receives a significant chunk of money as the owner. He, as is his right, chooses to use his wealth to oppose LGBTQ rights. As such, while the corporation no longer donates money directly to these organizations and causes, money is funneled through the owner into these causes. So, when you buy from the company, you are donating to the fight against LGBTQ rights. As is your right to choose. For some, this is one reason they eat at the restaurant. For others, this is a reason they do not eat there. Many people, of course, either do not care or do not know. One obvious point is that almost any corporation you patronize is using some of its money for political purposes—purposes you might or might not agree with. For example, buying from Amazon helps fund the battle against unions. And buying from any corporation almost certainly helps fund their efforts to gain unfair advantages and exploit their workers and the communities that host them. This generally does not get the media attention that, for example, corporate donations on other side of the culture war.

In closing, it is worth remembering that corporations are generally not democracies: the workers and even most of the management do not get to vote on donations. One could say that they “vote” by choosing to work there, but that would be an odd thing to say—like “voting” by moving to a state and not being able to vote in elections. But these corporations have a significant political impact and shape American democracy, such as it is. As such, they allow a very few to concentrate power—just as they intended.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Tennessee & Vaccines

by Leave a Comment

Not so long ago the anti-vax movement seemed to generally lean to the left. Some described them as “crunchy granola purists.” As I have argued in the past, that anti-vax movement could point to some legitimate concerns about pharmaceutical companies—namely that they are primarily profit driven and are often not interested in serving the public good. See, for example, the opioid epidemic. However, much of the old anti-vax ideology  was driven by untrue claims, with the long debunked claim that vaccines cause autism.  This movement, as anyone who has even a basic understanding of disease knows, presented a meaningful danger to themselves and others.

After the Trump administration scored significant political points with its base by lying about the pandemic, it makes sense that clever demons on the right have decided to imitate and assimilate the anti-vax movement. While it seems evil and insane, many on the right have decided that attacking vaccination is a smart political move—and it seems to be paying off for them politically. The impact, as anyone who has not been lobotomized by ideology would predict, has been significant. As rational and responsible Americans got vaccinated, COVID infections and deaths began to drop. One could be sensibly optimistic about turning the corner on the pandemic and one could reasonably hope that the end was in sight. But as the right stepped up their war on vaccination, COVID cases and deaths began to increase. The only good news, such as it is, is that the vaccines have proven to be very effective: about 99.7% of COVID deaths are those of people who did not get vaccinated. It is morally horrifying that we have effective vaccines available, and Republicans are literally killing people to score political points. And, maddeningly, their base loves these people for killing them.

While DeSantis, the governor of my adopted state of Florida, has been peddling anti-vax and anti-mask merch while COVID cases spike upwards and people die, Tennessee has decided to top that. As an aside, DeSantis should upgrade his merch from “Don’t Fauci Florida” to “Die with DeSantis.” There also needs to be a “You can’t drink a beer if you’re dead” beer koozie in response to his “How the hell am I going to be able to drink a beer with a mask on?” One can make an excellent case that he is killing the people of Florida. Not only are people cheering this, but they are also buying his merch. He will, no doubt, be re-elected in 2022, perhaps under the slogan “blood for the blood god!” But back to Tennessee.

In Tennessee, Republican lawmakers have pressured the Tennessee Department of Health to halt all vaccine outreach. If they must issue information about vaccines, they department must ensure that none of the documents have the agency logo. All COVID-19 vaccination events on school property have been stopped and the department will cease sending reminder cards to minors for the second shot. The bizarre argument for this is that the reminder cards should not be sent because they could be “potentially interpreted as solicitation to minors.” They could be if one was absurdly intent on this interpretation.

If Tennessee’s was only halting COVID-19 vaccine outreach to children, then this would be bad enough. While children seem to be less vulnerable to the virus, they are not immune, and they can infect other people. As such, vaccinating minors is an important part of ending the pandemic. What is beyond horrific is that Tennessee in ending all vaccine outreach. While people can, of course, still get their children vaccinated, a state’s Department of Health has an important role in informing citizens of vaccines and encouraging people to protect themselves and others from needless and senseless illness and death. If this were a horror story, there would be some cult of disease or demon behind this; but in the real world it is just evil people. People who are willing to increase the chances children will get ill or die simply to score some short-term political points with their base. But one must also blame the base—especially those who have children. The politicians are, in effect, saying “we are doing what we can to hurt your children” and the base seems to be onboard with that. I must wonder if there is a limit to what the base will embrace and accept; I would have thought that endangering children would be such a limit, but I seem to be wrong about that.  Perhaps these politicians will run with the slogan “disease for the plague god, the deaths of children for the plague god, vote GOP for the plague god!”

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Should Police be a Protected Category?

by Leave a Comment

While most states have hate crime statutes, only  about five include law enforcement officers as a protected category. Utah is one of these states and a recent case has attracted the media spotlight. After a traffic stop for speeding, Lauren Gibson is alleged to have stomped on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” at a deputy. She has been charged with criminal mischief, which could result in up to a year in jail. Far more seriously, Gibson could be charged with a hate crime for her actions. These leads to two issues. The first is a specific matter: should her actions be taken as constituting a hate crime? The second is a general matter: should law enforcement be a protected category in the context of hate crime statutes?

While the legal debate is best left to legal experts, I can certainly consider the text of the law and assess whether it seems reasonable to interpret her actions as a hate crime. According to the Utah law, a hate crime occurs when a person commits an offense “with the intent to intimidate or terrorize another person or with reason to believe that his action would intimidate or terrorize that person.” And, of course, the person must be in a protected category. So, for example, if I went to Utah and was recognized as a philosophy professor and a crowd attempted to terrorize or intimidate me because of this, it would not be a hate crime. If the same crowd did the same sort of thing to a police officer who was with me, then that would be a hate crime. That is how protected categories work.

Given that Gibson is a 19-year-old woman who was unarmed at the time of the incident, it seems unlikely that she would believe she could intimidate an armed deputy. While she probably did not know it at the time, the deputy is a veteran of the department and had seen combat duty while serving in the military. One could, of course, argue that she did think she could intimidate and terrorize him by stomping on a sign and smirking; but those would be rather odd ways to try to intimidate and terrorize an armed deputy.

Determining intent can be a tricky matter since this often requires speculating on internal psychological states. Naturally, a person can make their intent clear by words or deeds. But stomping on a sign and smirking in this context seem to be based on an intention to express anger and displeasure rather than expressing an intention to intimidate and terrorize. One can, of course, say that she exercised poor judgment in antagonizing the deputy, but she probably did not expect to be charged with criminal activity or a hate crime. Smirking, after all, is generally not a crime. In the case of the sign, it had apparently been found abandoned by the side of the road earlier in the trip. Stomping on an abandoned sign is also usually not a crime. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless she was aware of the statute, she would have no reason to think that her actions would constitute a hate crime. After all, her actions are not what a person would intuitively think of as falling under a hate crime. While the legal judgment is up to the judge, it would be absurd to convict her of a hate crime—even under the statute. This leads to the question of whether law enforcement should be considered a protected category in the context of hate crimes.

While people can and do hate the police, hate crimes are not defined based on the emotion of hate. After all, if a mob in Utah tried to kill me because they hate my ontological commitments, then they would be acting from hate but not committing a hate crime. As noted above, a hate crime involves intimidation and terrorizing aimed at a protected category. From a moral standpoint, a reasonable justification for focusing on intimidation and terrorizing is to distinguish crimes that might be committed against a person who just so happens to be in a certain category and crimes aimed at a person because they are in that category. So, if Ted embezzles money from Sally, he hates Sally because she is a cruel boss, and Sally is in a protected category, then that would generally not be a hate crime. After all, Ted is not trying to intimidate or terrorize her—he is just trying to steal money and just happens to dislike her. But if Ted attacks Sally because she is in a protected category and intends to intimidate or terrorize her because of that category, then that would be a possible hate crime. As far as why a hate crime would be worse than a normal crime, one moral factor is that a hate crime also harms other members of the category. This is because the hate crime is not aimed just at intimidating or terrorizing a person, but also aimed at intimidation and terrorizing them because they are within that category. So, if Ted commits a crime against Sally aimed at intimidating and terrorizing her because she is a woman, they he is also acting against other women and thus the consequences are usually greater than for a “normal” crime.

In the case of law enforcement, it is true that a person can be targeted for a crime because of their profession. While it is fortunately a rare occurrence, there are cases where police are targeted for what amounts to assassination. But this is also true of many other professions. For example, journalists are subject to attacks because they are journalists (sometimes by the police). Thanks to Trump and his fellows, these attacks increased and are still an ongoing concern. Speaking of Trump and his fellows, their lies have also contributed to increased attacks on public health officials. As such, if law enforcement should be protected by hate crime laws, then the same protection should be extended to other professions as well—especially journalists and public health officials. In this case, one might see an interesting case in which a journalist commits a hate crime against a police officer by “intimidating” them by filming them committing a hate crime by intimidating and terrorizing the journalist by shooting them with “less than lethal” munition and whacking them in the face with a club. One could, of course, argue that professions should not be the basis for being in a protected category.

Also from a moral standpoint, hate crime definitions often tend to focus on intimidation and terrorizing because of ethical concerns about power disparities between categories of people and not just between individuals. While individuals do vary greatly in power, certain categories enjoy relative power advantages over other. To use an obvious example, men as a category have more power than women as a category. I, as a man I can run through the woods in the dark with no fear; the same is not true for women. While there are individual women who can physically intimidate and overpower individual men, men as a category have the advantage when it comes to terrorizing and intimidating.   As another example, white Americans as a category have more power than other Americans. This is not to deny that an individual white American can be intimidated or terrorized by, for example, an African American. But white Americans generally have the advantage here when it comes to inflicting terror and intimidation. For example, Amy Cooper seemed to know exactly what she was doing when she attempted to use the police to intimidate Christian Cooper. In this specific case, her efforts backfired, and she got in trouble, but this is because the encounter was recorded. In other cases, the intimidation works as intended.

While an individual law enforcement officer could obviously be intimidated or terrorized by someone outside of the profession, as a category law enforcement has an absurd level of advantage over civilians. Police are armed, often with military grade equipment, they usually wear some form of armor, and they have at least basic training in combat. They also have the advantage of being able to call on the power of the state—both in the form of reinforcements and in inflicting punishment through the legal system. They also often get away with using excessive, even lethal violence. There have been, of course, some famous exceptions that show if the violence is recorded and witnessed by many people and the incident gains national and international attention during the right phase of public opinion, then an officer can be held accountable. As such, law enforcement as a category is unlikely to be intimidated or terrorized. The weight of terror and intimidation is entirely on their side. As such, there seems to be no moral need to single out law enforcement for special protection under hate crime laws. To pre-empt likely straw man attacks, I am obviously not claiming that police should not be protected by the law; a crime against a person who is in law enforcement is still a crime but would not be a hate crime. So, why are their such statutes?

The easy and obvious answer is that the intention is to, ironically, intimidate and terrorize people who might come into conflict with the police. This could be during an arrest or during a protest. On the face of it, one could argue that a person who resists arrest is committing a hate crime under this statute. If stomping on a sign and smirking count as threats or intimidation, then protests the police would also fall under this category. Protesting anything while police are merely present could fall under this sort of statute. An officer might, for example, see a protestor smirking at them and decide that was an attempt to intimidate them.

I must, of course, grudgingly admit that the right is devilishly clever to repurpose hate crime laws intended to protect marginalized communities and vulnerable groups. They are weaponizing these laws against these communities and groups; just as they have weaponized free speech. In closing, while law enforcement does deserve the full protection of the law, making them a protected category is obviously intended to weaponize hate crime statutes and do so largely against the people they were originally intended to protect.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Bias & Medical Devices

by Leave a Comment

It might seem like woke madness to claim that medical devices can be biased. Are there white supremacist stethoscopes? Misogynistic MRI machines? Extremely racist X-Ray machines? Obviously not, medical devices do not have beliefs or ideologies (yet). But they can still be biased in their accuracy and effectiveness.

One example of a biased device is the pulse oximeter. This device measures blood oxygen by using light. You have probably had one clipped on your finger during a visit to your doctor. Or you might even own one. The bias in this device is that it is three times more likely to not reveal low oxygen levels in dark skinned patients than light skinned patients.  As would be expected, there are other devices that have problems with accuracy when used on people who have darker skins. These are essential sensor biases (or defects). In most cases, these can be addressed by improving the sensors or developing alternative devices that do not suffer from the bias. This would require testing the devices on a diverse group of people. While this is crudely put, much of medical technology is made by white men for white men. This is not to claim that these are all cases of intentional racism and misogyny. There is not, one assumes, a conspiracy against women and people of color in the field; but there is a bias problem.  In addition to hardware bias, there is also software bias.

Many medical devices use software and software is often used in medical diagnosis. There is a misguided tendency for people to think software is unbiased, perhaps as the result of science fiction tropes about objective and unfeeling machines. While it is true that our current software does not feel or think, bias can easily make its way into the code. For example, software used to analyze chest x-rays would work less well on women than men if the software was “trained” only on X-rays of men. If you have seen Prometheus, it has an excellent (fictional) example of a gender-biased auto-doc that lacks the software to treat female patients. To pre-empt trolling, I am just including this fictional example because the sci-fi part of my brain demands that I mention it. I obviously do not think it is a real example of bias.

These software issues can be addressed by using diverse training groups for software and taking steps to test software for bias by using a diverse testing group. Also, having a more diverse set of people working on such technology would also help.

Another factor is analogous to user error, which is user bias. People, unlike devices, do have biases and these can and do impact how they use medical devices and their data. Bias in healthcare is well documented. While overt and conscious racism and sexism are rare, sexism and subtle racism are still problems. Addressing this widespread problem is more challenging than addressing biases in hardware and software. But if we want fair and unbiased healthcare, it is a problem that must be addressed.

As to why these biases should be addressed, this is obviously a matter of ethics. To allow bias to harm patients goes against the fundamental purpose of medicine, which is to heal people. From a utilitarian standpoint, addressing this bias would be the right thing to do: it would create more positive value than negative value. This is because there would be more accurate medical data and better treatment of patients.

In terms of a counter-argument, one could content that addressing bias would increase costs and thus should not be done. There are several easy and obvious replies. One is that the cost increase would be, at worst, minor. For example, testing devices on a more diverse population would not seem meaningfully more expensive than not doing that. Another is that patients and society pay a far greater price in terms of illness and its effects than it would cost to address medical bias. For those focused on the bottom line, workers who are not properly treated can cost corporations some of their profit and ongoing health issues can cost taxpayer money.

One can, of course, advance racist and sexist arguments by professing outrage at “wokeness” attempting to “ruin” medicine by “ramming diversity down throats” or however Fox and friends would put it. Such “arguments” would be aimed at preserving the harm done to women and people of color, which is an evil thing to do. One might hope that these folks would be hard pressed to turn, for example, pulse oximeters into a battlefront of the culture war. But these are the same folks who professed to lose their minds over Mr. Potato Head and are on a bizarre rampage against a grad school level theory that has been around since the 1970s. They are also the same folks who have gone anti-vax in during a pandemic, encouraging people to buy tickets in the death lottery. But the right thing to do is to choose life.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: