Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Publications (10 of 44) Show all publications
Båth, K., Mårell-Olsson, E., Wedman, J., Danielsson, K. & Grill, K. (2023). Humanities Education in the Age of ChatGPT: risks and opportunities. In: Humlab, Centre for Transdisciplinary AI (TAIGA) (Ed.), : . Paper presented at Higher Education in the Age of ChatGPT: risks and opportunities, Online and in Umeå, Sweden, May 23, 2023. Umeå
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Humanities Education in the Age of ChatGPT: risks and opportunities
Show others...
2023 (English)In: / [ed] Humlab, Centre for Transdisciplinary AI (TAIGA), Umeå, 2023Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: , 2023
Keywords
AI, ChatGPT, Education
National Category
Pedagogy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-208619 (URN)
Conference
Higher Education in the Age of ChatGPT: risks and opportunities, Online and in Umeå, Sweden, May 23, 2023
Projects
TAIGA - Trasndiciplinary AI, Umeå university
Note

Fishbowl Panel at Humlab/Zoom. 

Available from: 2023-05-29 Created: 2023-05-29 Last updated: 2023-05-29Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2023). Procreation vs. consumption: harms and benefits. Environmental Ethics, 45(3), 265-286
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Procreation vs. consumption: harms and benefits
2023 (English)In: Environmental Ethics, ISSN 0163-4275, E-ISSN 2153-7895, Vol. 45, no 3, p. 265-286Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Recently, it has been argued by several scholars that we have moral reasons to limit our procreation due to the harmful environmental consequences it entails. These calls for procreative restraint are typically made in relation to other lifestyle choices, such as minimizing driving and air travel. In such comparisons, it is assumed that the environmental impact of procreation encompasses the lifetime consumption of the child created, and potentially that of further descendants. After an overview of these arguments, I go on to provide an examination of the main benefits of procreation, in relation to those of consumption, i.e., other lifestyle choices. My normative assumption is that benefits hold moral relevance, alongside harms. Procreation may benefit procreators and may provide more collective benefits. Some benefits tend to preempt the environmental impact associated with procreation. I conclude that the benefits of procreation are substantial and typically greater than those of consumption.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Philosophy Documentation Center, 2023
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-214203 (URN)10.5840/enviroethics20238860 (DOI)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-01535
Available from: 2023-09-07 Created: 2023-09-07 Last updated: 2023-09-08Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2023). The sum of averages: an egyptology-proof average view. Utilitas, 35(2), 103-118
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The sum of averages: an egyptology-proof average view
2023 (English)In: Utilitas, ISSN 0953-8208, E-ISSN 1741-6183, Vol. 35, no 2, p. 103-118Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Contemporary population ethics is dominated by views that aggregate by summing, whether of well-being or of some construct based on well-being. In contrast, average well-being is generally considered axiologically irrelevant. To many of us, however, the number of future people does not seem important, as long as it is sufficient to enable rich and varied life experiences, and as long as the population continues throughout time. It therefore seems relatively plausible to aggregate future well-being by averaging. In particular, it seems plausible to value high average well-being at any particular time, and to do so for all future times. I present a time-sensitive version of the Average View that underpins such axiological intuitions. I also address a series of issues and objections that confront such a view.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press, 2023
National Category
Ethics Philosophy
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-203139 (URN)10.1017/S0953820822000450 (DOI)000914194000001 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-01535Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-01535
Available from: 2023-01-16 Created: 2023-01-16 Last updated: 2023-04-28Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2022). Advice on vaping in the face of empirical and ethical uncertainty. American Journal of Bioethics, 22(10), 20-22
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Advice on vaping in the face of empirical and ethical uncertainty
2022 (English)In: American Journal of Bioethics, ISSN 1526-5161, E-ISSN 1536-0075, Vol. 22, no 10, p. 20-22Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

One central role of the American Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is to provide research-based health information and advice to professionals and public. Regarding vaping, the FDA currently emphasizes its possible harms rather than its relatively low risks compared to smoking, for any individual user. Larisa Svirsky, Dana Howard and Micah L Berman defend this uncompromising strategy by invoking the uncertain long-term public health outcomes of vaping and pointing to the many roles of the FDA. I agree that there are empirical uncertainties and multiple roles. I also mention some ethical uncertainties. However, I propose that the FDA in its role as advisor should, given these uncertainties, communicate individual health risks truthfully and straightforwardly, and that such communication does not conflict with its other roles.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2022
National Category
Ethics Philosophy
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-199825 (URN)10.1080/15265161.2022.2110972 (DOI)000861333300008 ()36170086 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85139092071 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2022-09-30 Created: 2022-09-30 Last updated: 2023-03-24Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2022). Regulating online defaults. In: Fleur Jongepier; Michael Klenk (Ed.), The philosophy of online manipulation: (pp. 373-391). Routledge
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Regulating online defaults
2022 (English)In: The philosophy of online manipulation / [ed] Fleur Jongepier; Michael Klenk, Routledge, 2022, p. 373-391Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

To an ever-greater extent, we spend our lives in an online environment designed by corporations. These corporations have an interest in shaping not only our purchasing behavior, but also our focus of attention and engagement and to some extent our worldview and identity. As a means to this end, they collect and trade in personal information. One important method of behavioral influence employed to advance these purposes is default-setting - the design of a product or a situation such that one option out of several seems natural to accept, because it is the path of least resistance. Default-setting is a non-rational influence, often imperceptible, yet effective. To protect users from defaults that are manipulative and harmful, individually and collectively, societies should require minimal quality standards. Just as some products are overall too harmful or too poor to be legally marketed, other products have default settings that are too harmful or too poor to be acceptable. In particular, defaults should minimize inadvertent consumption, should minimize the collection of personal data, and when providing information should be truthful. In addition, opt-out costs should be minimal in order to empower users who prefer alternative options.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2022
National Category
Philosophy Ethics
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-198319 (URN)10.4324/9781003205425-23 (DOI)9781003205425 (ISBN)9781032030012 (ISBN)
Projects
AI, Democracy and Self-Determination
Funder
Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, 2018.0116
Available from: 2022-07-31 Created: 2022-07-31 Last updated: 2022-08-01Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2021). E-cigarettes: The Long-Term Liberal Perspective. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 23(1), 9-13
Open this publication in new window or tab >>E-cigarettes: The Long-Term Liberal Perspective
2021 (English)In: Nicotine & Tobacco Research, ISSN 1462-2203, Vol. 23, no 1, p. 9-13Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The debate for and against making e-cigarettes available to smokers is to a large extent empirical. We do not know the long-term health effects of vaping and we do not know how smokers will respond to e-cigarettes over time. In addition to these empirical uncertainties, however, there are difficult moral issues to consider. One such issue is that many smokers in some sense choose to smoke. Though smoking is addictive and though many start young, it does not seem impossible to plan for and implement cessation. Yet many choose not to do so and we arguably have some reason to respect this choice. I propose that liberal opposition to strict tobacco control, based on respect for choice, is mitigated when e-cigarettes are available, since they are such a close substitute. Making e-cigarettes available to smokers might therefore not only enable switching in practice, but may make tougher tobacco control more justified. Another moral issue is that making e-cigarettes widely available might induce many people to vape, who would otherwise have neither vaped nor smoked. If this is so, the price of using e-cigarettes to accelerate smoking cessation may be a long-term vaping epidemic. Since vaping is less harmful than smoking, both individuals and society will have less reason to end this epidemic and so it may endure longer than the smoking epidemic would otherwise have done. This raises further questions around the weighing of reduced harm to current smokers against increased harm to future vapers.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2021
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-173734 (URN)10.1093/ntr/ntaa085 (DOI)000637320700002 ()2-s2.0-85100224462 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2016-01535
Available from: 2020-07-27 Created: 2020-07-27 Last updated: 2023-09-05Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2021). Frihet under pandemin: Två liberala perspektiv på generella frihetsbegränsningar. Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, 25(1), 30-47
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Frihet under pandemin: Två liberala perspektiv på generella frihetsbegränsningar
2021 (Swedish)In: Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, ISSN 1402-2710, E-ISSN 2002-3383, Vol. 25, no 1, p. 30-47Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [sv]

I denna artikel kontrasteras två olika liberala perspektiv på frihetsbegränsningars moraliska och politiska rättfärdigande. Enligt det första perspektivet har vi skäl att dels främja människors rika möjligheter, dels respektera deras vilja i frågor som rör dem själva. Båda dessa värden kan vägas mot andra värden. Enligt det andra perspektivet är frihetsbegränsningar principiellt otillåtna om och endast om de drabbar vuxna beslutsförmögna personer för dessas egen skull, oavsett andra värden. Båda perspektiven är direkt tillämpbara i enkla situationer där en persons frihet begränsas för hennes egen skull och inga andra värden påverkas. I situationer där andra värden påverkas, vilket är det vanliga, bör det senare perspektivet modifieras så att det riktas mot skäl snarare än mot handlingar. I situationer där många människors frihet minskas både för deras egen och andras skull, som vid restriktioner under en pandemi, är det senare perspektivet mycket svårt att tillämpa och väcker frågor som dess förespråkare inte har besvarat.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Bokförlaget Thales; Institutet för framtidsstudier, 2021
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-186483 (URN)
Available from: 2021-08-04 Created: 2021-08-04 Last updated: 2022-05-10Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. & Rosén, A. (2021). Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), Article ID e12.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease
2021 (English)In: Journal of Medical Ethics, ISSN 0306-6800, E-ISSN 1473-4257, Vol. 47, no 12, article id e12Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2021
Keywords
Hereditary disease, health information, responsibility
National Category
Medical Ethics
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-177325 (URN)10.1136/medethics-2020-106236 (DOI)000726966400011 ()2-s2.0-85097407614 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2018-00964
Note

Institute of Medical Ethics Section: Original research

Available from: 2020-12-05 Created: 2020-12-05 Last updated: 2023-09-05Bibliographically approved
Grill, K. (2020). How Many Parents Should There Be in a Family?. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37(3), 467-484
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How Many Parents Should There Be in a Family?
2020 (English)In: Journal of Applied Philosophy, ISSN 0264-3758, E-ISSN 1468-5930, Vol. 37, no 3, p. 467-484Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this article, I challenge the widespread presumption that a child should have exactly two parents. I consider the pros and cons of various numbers of parents for the people most directly affected – the children themselves and their parents. The number of parents, as well as the ratio of parents to children, may have an impact on what resources are available, what relationships can develop between parents and children, what level of conflict can be expected in the family, as well as the costs involved in parenting and the experience of parenting a child. Indirectly, there is also an effect on who will have the opportunity to be a parent, as well as on wider social issues that I mention but do not discuss. Having considered all these factors, I conclude that there is some reason to believe that three or more parents is usually better than one or two, especially if children are to have siblings, which is typically beneficial. However, these reasons are not strong enough to support a general presumption in favor of any particular number. We should therefore jettison the two‐parent presumption and make different numbers of parents more socially accepted as well as legally possible.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2020
Keywords
Family structure, Family forms
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Practical Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-165798 (URN)10.1111/japp.12401 (DOI)000497108300001 ()2-s2.0-85075456562 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2013‐01306
Available from: 2019-12-03 Created: 2019-12-03 Last updated: 2020-08-03Bibliographically approved
Andersson, A., Hawranek, C., Öfverholm, A., Ehrencrona, H., Grill, K., Hajdarevic, S., . . . Rosén, A. (2020). Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, 18, Article ID 18.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden
Show others...
2020 (English)In: Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, ISSN 1731-2302, E-ISSN 1897-4287, Vol. 18, article id 18Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public’s opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information.

Methods: A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson’s chi-square (χ2) test.

Results: Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%).

Conclusions: In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Nature, 2020
Keywords
Hereditary cancer, Family disclosure, Informing relatives, Healthcare disclosure, Public opinion, Risk information, Cancer prevention, Colorectal cancer
National Category
Cancer and Oncology Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Nursing
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-175133 (URN)10.1186/s13053-020-00151-0 (DOI)000570512200001 ()32944097 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85091950760 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2020-09-17 Created: 2020-09-17 Last updated: 2023-12-21Bibliographically approved
Projects
FOIP: Libertarian Paternalism and the Moral Limits of Public Health Policy [2009-02189_Forte]; Umeå UniversityRespecting context-dependent preferences [F13-1532:1_RJ]; Umeå University
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1689-0648

Search in DiVA

Show all publications