入不敷出:效率的概念和伦理分析》。

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Polly Mitchell, Alan Cribb, Vikki Entwistle, Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley
{"title":"入不敷出:效率的概念和伦理分析》。","authors":"Polly Mitchell, Alan Cribb, Vikki Entwistle, Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley","doi":"10.1353/ken.2024.a943428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efficiency is often overlooked as an ethical value and seen as ethically relevant chiefly when it conflicts with other values, such as equality. This article argues that efficiency is a rich and philosophically interesting concept deserving of independent normative examination. Drawing on a detailed healthcare case study, we argue that making assessments of efficiency involves value-laden, deliberative judgments about how to characterize the functioning of human systems. Personal and emotional resources and ends are crucial to system functioning but are often discounted in favor of a relatively narrow set of financial inputs and institutional or procedural outputs. Judgments about efficiency tend to advantage (or disadvantage) different parties, depending on the resources and ends considered. Different constructions of efficiency can therefore promote or neglect the perspectives and interests of differently placed actors. Models of efficiency do not merely embody contestable ethical standpoints but-put to use-can unwittingly reify and reproduce them.</p>","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Ends Meet: A Conceptual and Ethical Analysis of Efficiency.\",\"authors\":\"Polly Mitchell, Alan Cribb, Vikki Entwistle, Sonya Crowe, Martin Utley\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ken.2024.a943428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Efficiency is often overlooked as an ethical value and seen as ethically relevant chiefly when it conflicts with other values, such as equality. This article argues that efficiency is a rich and philosophically interesting concept deserving of independent normative examination. Drawing on a detailed healthcare case study, we argue that making assessments of efficiency involves value-laden, deliberative judgments about how to characterize the functioning of human systems. Personal and emotional resources and ends are crucial to system functioning but are often discounted in favor of a relatively narrow set of financial inputs and institutional or procedural outputs. Judgments about efficiency tend to advantage (or disadvantage) different parties, depending on the resources and ends considered. Different constructions of efficiency can therefore promote or neglect the perspectives and interests of differently placed actors. Models of efficiency do not merely embody contestable ethical standpoints but-put to use-can unwittingly reify and reproduce them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"1-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2024.a943428\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2024.a943428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

效率作为一种伦理价值常常被忽视,主要是在它与平等等其他价值发生冲突时才被视为具有伦理意义。本文认为,效率是一个丰富且具有哲学意义的概念,值得进行独立的规范性研究。通过对一个详细的医疗案例的研究,我们认为,对效率的评估涉及到对如何描述人类系统功能的价值判断和深思熟虑。个人和情感资源及目的对系统的运作至关重要,但却往往被忽略,而偏向于一套相对狭窄的资金投入和制度或程序产出。根据所考虑的资源和目的,对效率的判断往往会对不同方面有利(或不利)。因此,对效率的不同理解可能会促进或忽视不同参与者的观点和利益。效率模式不仅体现了有争议的伦理观点,而且在使用时还会不知不觉地将这些观点重新整合和复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Making Ends Meet: A Conceptual and Ethical Analysis of Efficiency.

Efficiency is often overlooked as an ethical value and seen as ethically relevant chiefly when it conflicts with other values, such as equality. This article argues that efficiency is a rich and philosophically interesting concept deserving of independent normative examination. Drawing on a detailed healthcare case study, we argue that making assessments of efficiency involves value-laden, deliberative judgments about how to characterize the functioning of human systems. Personal and emotional resources and ends are crucial to system functioning but are often discounted in favor of a relatively narrow set of financial inputs and institutional or procedural outputs. Judgments about efficiency tend to advantage (or disadvantage) different parties, depending on the resources and ends considered. Different constructions of efficiency can therefore promote or neglect the perspectives and interests of differently placed actors. Models of efficiency do not merely embody contestable ethical standpoints but-put to use-can unwittingly reify and reproduce them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信