Dirty Hands

Gaus, Gerald

doi:10.1002/9780470996621.ch13

Cited by 22 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, many would argue that the concern identified here as anticipated moral regret may be symptomatic of a manager's good nature but indicate nothing of practical concern. In the literature on dirty hands , for example, a prevalent view is that concerns of this type are mere emotive residue; for example, Hare (1972, 1981), Foot (1983), de Wijze (2005), Coady (2018), Gaus (2003), Kramer (2018). It might be thought that ethical paradigms more amenable to emotive sensitivity can accommodate anticipated regret but this route is circular.…”

Section: Bernard Williams and Manager‐regretmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral courage and manager‐regret

Duckworth¹

2022

Business Ethics Env & Resp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of moral courage in managerial practice has gained considerable attention over the last two decades. In an influential paper, Sekerka et al. (2009), drawing principally on ideas in positive organisational psychology (POS) (Cameron et al., 2003) and appreciative enquiry (AE) (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000), focus on moral courage as a central aspect of 'managerial competency' (Sekerka et al., 2009, p. 5). Whereas POS and AE emphasise the capacity of the virtues to energise organisations, Sekerka et al. (2009) single

show abstract

Section: Bernard Williams and Manager‐regretmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral courage and manager‐regret

Duckworth¹

2022

Business Ethics Env & Resp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as we argue in this article, it may nevertheless be too hasty a conclusion that it is always wrong to include as co-author a person who has not contributed substantially to the study. More specifically, we propose that researchers may find themselves in a situation much similar to the problem of dirty hands , which has been frequently discussed in political philosophy and applied ethics (Coady, 2014; Gaus, 2003). As typically argued, and as discussed in this article, the problem of dirty hands involves the idea that correct political action sometimes conflicts with deeply held moral norms, but is yet required in order to achieve a greater moral good or avoid serious harm (Archard, 2013; Walzer, 1973; Williams, 1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For discussion on these and other issues, see Coady (2014). See also Gaus (2003) and Grant et al (2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hostage authorship and the problem of dirty hands

Bülow

Helgesson

2018

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses gift authorship, the practice where co-authorship is awarded to a person who has not contributed significantly to the study. From an ethical point of view, gift authorship raises concerns about desert, fairness, honesty and transparency, and its prevalence in research is rightly considered a serious ethical concern. We argue that even though misuse of authorship is always bad, there are instances where accepting requests of gift authorship may nevertheless be the right thing to do. More specifically, we propose that researchers may find themselves in a situation much similar to the problem of dirty hands, which has been frequently discussed in political philosophy and applied ethics. The problem of dirty hands is relevant to what we call hostage authorship, where the researchers include undeserving authors unwillingly, and only because they find it unavoidable in order to accomplish a morally important research goal.

show abstract

“…Bülow and Helgesson (2018) posited that it might not always be wrong for the author(s) to include X as a co-author. They drew a parallel of such situations in biomedical research publishing with the problem of ‘dirty hands’ – a concept that features more prominently in political philosophy and applied ethics (Gaus, 2007). Citing an exemplifying scenario, the authors wrote, ‘… there may be times when granting authorship … is the ethically required course of action, i.e.…”

Section: Introduction: ‘Hostage Authorship’ and A Justification For ‘mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to devious demands for co-authorship: A rejoinder to Bülow and Helgesson’s ‘dirty hands’ justification

Tang

2018

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bülow and Helgesson discussed the practice of gift/honorary authorships and expounded on a most devious form of these, termed 'hostage authorship'. The authors drew a parallel of such situations in research and publishing with the problem of 'dirty hands'. In this case, acceding, albeit with regrets, may well be '… what we ought to do, even if it requires us to do something that is intrinsically bad', especially if 'this is both practically necessary and proportionate to the end'. Here, I caution against this being a morally cogent, normative course of action. Tangible benefits from research not yet performed or published could not be predicted with any certainty, and as such could not be deemed sufficiently important to override moral constraints of justice and fairness. The utilitarian argument for any measure of beneficence with 'dirty hands' could therefore be nothing more than a self-serving act, or a self-exonerating form of moral disengagement. Such actions could have lasting ill effects on junior researchers and perpetuate a dark research culture, which will ultimately undermine the research enterprise and the pursuit of knowledge. One could further argue that what 'ought to be' done when coerced or held hostage in an authorship context is to break the cycle by reporting on the perpetrators, and ultimately for the community to devise consensus measures that could deter such predatory free riders.

show abstract

Dirty Hands

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Moral courage and manager‐regret

Moral courage and manager‐regret

Hostage authorship and the problem of dirty hands

Responding to devious demands for co-authorship: A rejoinder to Bülow and Helgesson’s ‘dirty hands’ justification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About