<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > ethics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/ethics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:22:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bachmann faces fresh ethics questions</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/bachmann_faces_fresh_ethics_questions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/bachmann_faces_fresh_ethics_questions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michele Bachmann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book tours]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13273606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Investigators are reportedly looking into whether she used campaign staffers to help promote her book]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Office of Congressional Ethics <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/bachmann_campaign_hit_with_congressional_ethics_probe/">investigation</a> into Rep. Michele Bachmann has reportedly widened to include questions about the use of staff to promote her book tour, according to sources who spoke with the <a href="http://www.startribune.com/politics/203314741.html?page=1&amp;c=y">Minneapolis Star Tribune</a>.</p><p>Investigators reportedly began their work by looking into payments to staff from her presidential campaign, but the new questions involve a 2011 tour to promote her memoir, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Core-Conviction-Story-Michele-Bachmann/dp/1595230904">Core of Conviction</a>. Two former staff members told the Star Tribune that they had been asked about whether they worked to promote the book while on the payroll of Bachmann's presidential campaign, something that would potentially violate federal ethics rules.</p><p>Bachmann’s campaign lawyer, William McGinley, denied any wrongdoing and said the book's publisher paid for the tour and promotional expenses. “Records show that the campaign was very careful to ensure that protocols were in place to keep the book tour and presidential campaign completely separate and distinct,” he said. “Any fair and objective review of the record will conclude that Congresswoman Bachmann and the campaign followed the FEC [Federal Election Commission] advisory opinions and acted appropriately.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/bachmann_faces_fresh_ethics_questions/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/bachmann_faces_fresh_ethics_questions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does studying science make you a better person?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/does_studying_science_make_you_a_better_person_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/does_studying_science_make_you_a_better_person_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Standard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13249332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new study suggests that scientists are more likely to have a strong moral compass than those outside the field]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Want to be a better person? Spend more time thinking about science.<br /> <a href="http://www.psmag.com/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/08/PacificStandard.color_1.gif" alt="Pacific Standard" align="left" /></a></p><p>That’s the implication of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057989" target="_blank">newly published research</a>, which finds people who study science — or who are even momentarily exposed to the idea of scientific research — are more likely to condemn unethical behavior and more inclined to help others.</p><p>“Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms,” report psychologists <a href="http://christinemakellams.com/cv/" target="_blank">Christine Ma-Kellams</a> of Harvard University and <a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/blascovich/" target="_blank">Jim Blascovich</a> of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Their research is published in the online journal PLOS One.</p><p>The researchers describe four experiments, all conducted at UCSB, that back up their surprising conclusion.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/does_studying_science_make_you_a_better_person_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/does_studying_science_make_you_a_better_person_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>54</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do abandoned children have the right to know their origins?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/do_unwanted_children_have_a_right_to_know_who_their_parents_are_partne/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/do_unwanted_children_have_a_right_to_know_who_their_parents_are_partne/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The UN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Childhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13195693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Surrendered babies and the making of identity]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It has become common practice in the United States, Europe, and worldwide for governments to provide baby boxes or “safe surrender” sites, usually near hospitals, where mothers or relatives of unwanted newborns may abandon them anonymously, so that they may be cared for by others and eventually adopted. Such programs are intended to prevent infanticide and deaths from infant abandonment and have succeeded in doing so around the world. Despite this success, the United Nations has <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/10/unitednations-europe-news" target="blank">called</a> the provision of baby boxes into question.<br /> <a href="http://www.bostonreview.net/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/12/title-e1356145289357.jpeg" alt="Boston Review" align="left" /></a></p><p>Do such programs violate the human rights of the abandoned babies? The obvious answer is no, since the service provides desperate mothers an alternative to infanticide or unsafe abandonment. In fact, baby boxes appear to <em>promote </em>children’s right to life, as described in Article 6 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/do_unwanted_children_have_a_right_to_know_who_their_parents_are_partne/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/do_unwanted_children_have_a_right_to_know_who_their_parents_are_partne/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should we medicate parents to prevent divorce?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/take_ecstasy_save_your_relationship/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/take_ecstasy_save_your_relationship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13188200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Oxford ethicist argues taking "love-enhancing" drugs could be a moral imperative for modern parents ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm" target="_blank">divorce rate</a> is high. Internet dating has <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/how_not_to_die_alone_in_the_internet_age/" target="_blank">killed romance</a>. And we are all <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/how_not_to_die_alone_in_the_internet_age/" target="_blank">going to die alone</a>.</p><p>But it might not have to be that way, says Oxford ethicist Brian Earp and colleagues Anders Sandberg and Julian Savulescu. Not if couples start taking trust-enhancing drugs like ecstasy, that is. While Earp does not advocate taking illegal drugs, his research poses a provocative question: In a tightly controlled research setting, could drugs like MDMA be the answer to a commitment-averse culture? As Earp <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-case-for-using-drugs-to-enhance-our-relationships-and-our-break-ups/272615/" target="_blank">tells</a> Ross Andersen at the Atlantic:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/take_ecstasy_save_your_relationship/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/take_ecstasy_save_your_relationship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When is it ethical to kill somone?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/when_is_it_ethical_to_kill_somone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/when_is_it_ethical_to_kill_somone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Browser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Applied Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trolleyology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13153782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philosopher David Edmonds discusses the five books that have had the greatest influence on his work]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://thebrowser.com/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://thebrowser.com/sites/all/themes/brw/logo.png" alt="The Browser" width="150" align="left" /></a> <strong>Applied ethics should interest all but the most philosophy shy, as it poses moral questions of everyday use.</strong></p><p>Applied ethics is the application of moral theory to the real world. I first read the five books that we are going to talk about here 25 years ago, which was the beginning of a burgeoning of applied ethics, with people like <a href="http://thebrowser.com/interviews/jonathan-glover-on-moral-philosophy">Jonathan Glover</a> and <a href="http://thebrowser.com/recommended/life-you-can-save-by-peter-singer">Peter Singer</a> applying theory to real issues like euthanasia, <a href="http://thebrowser.com/reports/death-penalty">capital punishment</a>, poverty, distribution of income, animal rights, abortion – questions of life and death.</p><p><strong>Talking of which, I understand you’re a bit of an expert on “trolleyology”. What is a trolley problem?</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/when_is_it_ethical_to_kill_somone/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/when_is_it_ethical_to_kill_somone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: Only used car salespeople are less honest than Congress</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/poll_only_used_car_salesmen_are_less_honest_than_congress/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/poll_only_used_car_salesmen_are_less_honest_than_congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gallup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiscal cliff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget Showdown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13113369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Americans have a very low opinion of Congress' ethical standards]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/159035/congress-retains-low-honesty-rating.aspx">Gallup</a> poll finds that Americans don't think members of Congress are very honest, and, in fact, are only slightly more honest than used car salespeople.</p><p>According to the survey, which looked at how people view the honesty and ethics of members of various professions, 54 percent ranked Congress as "low/very low," compared to 24 who said "average," and 10 percent who said "high/very high."</p><p>49 percent said used car salespeople had "low/very low" honesty and ethics, the only of the 22 listed professions to receive a lower score than Congress.</p><p>Advertising practitioners were the next lowest, followed by stockbrokers and HMO managers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/poll_only_used_car_salesmen_are_less_honest_than_congress/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/poll_only_used_car_salesmen_are_less_honest_than_congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Paula Broadwell wronged her readers</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/how_paula_broadwell_wronged_her_readers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/how_paula_broadwell_wronged_her_readers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paula Broadwell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonfiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13070963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Biographers agree that Broadwell wronged her readers -- and not just by sleeping with her subject]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That Paula Broadwell violated the bond of trust between a biographer and her readers when she had an affair with her subject may seem beyond doubt. Certainly it seems less questionable than the notion that, by the same turn, her lover, Gen. David Petraeus, violated the trust of the U.S. government. Nevertheless, it is Petraeus who stepped down as the director of the CIA last week, while Broadwell's book about him, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594203180/?tag=saloncom08-20">"All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,"</a> jumped up a few thousand notches on Amazon's best-seller list and has had its paperback publication date bumped forward by Penguin Books.</p><p>If we have learned anything from the past decade of book-world scandals — whether over plagiarism, fabrication, Internet sock puppetry or simple inaccuracy — it's that what seems like an obvious ethical violation to some observers will strike others as no big deal. Biography, a genre that can scale the heights or wallow in the gutter, is a particularly delicate enterprise. There's no official — or even quasi-official — biographer's code of ethics, and members of the profession are contemplating changing that. While informed readers are unlikely to confuse the likes of Broadwell with the the authors of definitive, years-in-the-making, doorstop "lives," the biographical profession is at least slightly besmirched by the scandal. "When Jayson Blair did his nonsense, it reflected badly on all journalists," said acclaimed biographer David Nasaw, "and this will reflect on all biographers."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/how_paula_broadwell_wronged_her_readers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/how_paula_broadwell_wronged_her_readers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
