Homework answers / question archive / 1

1

Writing

Share With

1. Discuss John Stuart Mill’s objections to Bentham’s utilitarian principles. Use the example of the pandemic to reflect on the limitations of the utilitarian perspective as a basis for moral judgment? - 750words

2. Consider how Kantian’s idea of freedom is different from the libertarian version advocated by Nozick. - 750words

In defence of Reason Lecture 4 Against Empathy (PaulBloom, 2016) • The rejection of reason is particularly strong in the moral domain. It is accepted by many that our judgements of right and wrong are determined by feelings of empathy, anger, disgust and love (i.e. Adam Smith, Paul Zak) • Empathy is used by these scholars as a synonym for morality. • Empathy is an act of feeling what you believe other people feel – experiencing their experience. • The problem the society is facing that we have too much empathy. Against Empathy (Paul Bloom, 2016) • We can only feel empathy towards the likes of us. It is biased. Although we might intellectually believe that the suffering of our neighbor is just as awful as the suffering of someone living in another country, it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary. • We can only feel empathy for one, not hundreds. Empathy is limited as well in that it focuses on specific individuals. Its spotlight nature renders it innumerate and myopic: It doesn’t resonate properly to the effects of our actions on groups of people, and it is insensitive to statistical data • Empathy can be easily mobilised and turned into anger. It can sway us toward the one over the many. It is why outrage at the suffering of a few individuals can lead to actions, such as going to war, that have terrible consequences for many more. Rational Compassion • Bloom argues that what really matters for kindness in our everyday interactions is not empathy but capacities such as selfcontrol and intelligence (reasoning) and a more diffuse compassion. Distance and morality Peter Singer (2008) argues for reason to be applied when distance. Most people would be prepared to ruin their clothes in order to save a child from drowning, so surely the logic is that should be prepared to make a monetary sacrifice to help a child in poverty and in danger of death even if they are thousands of miles away. In order to protect the distant stranger, is it important to establish principles, and associated institutions rather than to depend on instinctive human response to care for others? Effective Altruism • ‘The difficulty is that the moral dispositions, and indeed other loyalties and commitments, have a certain depth of thickness. There is simply no conceivable exercise that consists of stepping completely outside myself…’ (B.Williams). • Here are some commonly expressed dispositions: 1. I give to breast cancer charities because my wife died of breast cancer. 2. I am passionate about photographing nature, so I donate to protect our wonderful national parks. 3. I love dogs so I give to my local shelter. Effective Altruism (Peter Singer, 2015 ) • Donating a part of your income to the most effective charities. • Researching and discussing with others which charities are the most effective or drawing on research done by other independent evaluators. • Choosing the career in which we can help others Effective Altruism • When we reason, we are likely to use reason to generalise and draw inferences from those situations about which we already have an emotional attitude. • Nevertheless, reason is no mere slave to the passions. By modifying and redirecting our passions, it can play a critical part in the process that leads to acting ethically. • Effective Altruism requires a strong capacity for abstract reasoning and moral imagination Moral Imagination • “The idea that our ethics should transcend our own personal experience and embrace the dignity of the human race.” • “Imagining the humanity of people other than myself is our responsibility. The root cause of so much grief is our failure to do just that.” • Our “moral imagination” should inform our thoughts, words, and deeds. Some change over time, but how?? Smith’s historical research provided evidence that moral norms not only differed between societies but also changed over time. Yet it might be questioned: how can this happen, if people are accustomed to habit and attain their moral compass from the approval and disapproval of their fellow citizens? Smith’s answer was that conventionalism could be transcended because each person, though socialized to a degree, also has some autonomy. Consequently, the approval of others may be an insufficient standard for moral judgment; there is a desire not only to receive praise, but to be praiseworthy, to be respected and respectable (Sen, 2009). To understand ethical autonomy, Smith developed the concept of the impartial spectator which is considered to have offered an early thesis on the source of conscience. Ethical autonomy Moral imagination Moral imagination Werhane (2008) defines moral imagination as ‘…the ability to imagine new possibilities. These possibilities include those that are not contextdependent and that might involve another mental model’. Argues for a morally imaginative systemic approach, which requires agents (specifically companies in her analysis) to reflect on the system they operate in and try to understand it from the perspective of others within the system. Moral imagination – a social process? Hargrave (2009) ‘Moral imagination, Collective Action, and the Achievement of Moral outcomes’ Business Ethics Quarterly 19:1 According to Hargreaves (2009) Moral imagination is a social process – integration of moral sensitivities with consideration of the dynamics of collective action. “Imaginative solutions to ethical dilemmas are not created whole-cloth by inspired individuals working alone…….rather, they emerge from pluralistic processes in which multiple actors with opposing moral viewpoints interact, and no single actor is in control.” Morally imaginative arrangements emerge through dialectical processes, that are influenced by actor’s relative power and political skill. His case is that for change to come about, there is a need for pragmatic actors be engaged with (in the words of Dewey) ‘creatively tapping a situation’s possibilities’. Classical Ethical Theories 1) Consequential (Teleological) - Purpose oriented. Consider the goal or outcome of an action to determine whether action is right or wrong. 2) Non-consequential (Deontological) – Principle oriented. Uses rules and principles to govern decisions. 3) Virtue ethics - Neither bound by consequences nor by rules. Context and personal factors important in deciding action. Do the ends justify the means? If answer yes - teleological position If answer no - deontological position 1) Teleological theories - e.g. Utilitarianism 2) Deontological theories – e.g. Kantianism , Ethics of Duty Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) developed this philosophical approach. `the greatest happiness of the greatest number' An action is considered to be morally right if it results in the greatest happiness. “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure”. Bentham (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. John Stuart Mill and son James Mill were also famous proponents Utilitarianism Happiness = pleasure + absence from pain Principles: - happiness is the only thing that is desirable as an end in itself. - one person’s pleasure is desirable as any other person - the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness Moral good is identical with happiness Utilitarian principle of morality applies to actions, not to persons. Focuses on the collective welfare resulting from a certain decision. Utilitarianism & Organisations “Utilitarianism is an ethics of planning. How can we be rational if we do not think of the consequences?” Jones et al. (2005) Bentham developed something very relevant for those living in an organised society, for those working in organisations, where decisions have to be made that affect many people. 1) Provides a justification for making a decision which has an adverse affect on certain individuals. Often business managers have to make difficult decisions that are not good for everyone. 2) Used in investment decisions. Basis for all exchange decisions 3) Justifies search for greater efficiency -> goods & services become cheaper - > greater consumption -> greater happiness (?) Utilitarianism & the State Government policies often justified on utilitarian grounds. Policy brings costs to some people and benefits to others. Cost Benefit Analysis - for government spending projects – is tax payers money being used wisely? - for government policies that regulate – cost to business to improve overall welfare The city of happiness • Ursula Le Guin “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas’. Omelas is a city of happiness and civic celebration, a place without kings and slaves, without weapons, without misery. However, the author tells one more thing about it. “In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas, or perhaps in the cellar of one of its spacious private homes, there is a room. It has one locked door, and no window. And in this room sits a child. The child is feeble-minded, malnourished, and neglected. It lives out its days in wretched misery. Utilitarianism & the State Utilitarianism & the State Ford Pinto Criticism of Utilitarianism Two objections to Bentham • Bentham’s “greatest happiness’’ principle – that it does not give adequate weight to human dignity and individual rights, and that it wrongly reduces everything of moral importance to a single scale of pleasure and pain. Mill’s response • Mill’s response could be seen as an attempt to reconcile individual rights with the utilitarian philosophy. In his book on Liberty (1859) he argues that people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they do not harm others. • Mills thinks we should maximize utility, not case by case, but in the long run. • Overtime, he argues, respecting individual liberty will lead tot the greatest human happiness. Mill’s response Why should we assume that upholding individual liberty and the right to dissent will promote the welfare of society in the long run? 1. Subjecting the conventions (prevailing opinion) to a vigorous contest of ideas will prevent it from hardening into dogma and prejudice. 2. A society, that forces its members to embrace custom and convention is likely to fall into a stultifying conformity, depriving itself of the energy and vitality that prompt social improvement. Mill’s response 3. It prevents a person from achieving the highest end of human life – the full and free development of his human faculties. Conformity, in Mill’s account, is the enemy of the best way to live. 4. For Mill, individuality matters less for the pleasure it brings than for the character it reflects. Criticism of Utilitarianism a) Hedonistic - based on pursuit of pleasure Has life no higher end than pleasure? But pleasure can include the pleasures of the intellect, feelings and imagination, friendship, love and trust. Bentham - all pleasures, physical and intellectual, were of equal value and could be summed together. J.S. Mill - different qualities of pleasure Criticism of Utilitarianism b) Problem of boundaries - where should they be drawn? Who is being included in the greatest number? e.g. in formulating policy should a government consider citizens of own country only or global citizens? e.g. in deciding company policy consider the effects on shareholders only? Employees? Consumers? Local householders? What about animals? Future generations? Criticism of Utilitarianism d) Can result in injustice to an individual Utilitarianism permits the loss of happiness to one individual, in order to maximise social welfare. ‘Moral monstrousness’ - rights of individuals may be overridden in order to achieve ‘the greatest happiness’. Remember Frank’s dilemma in the Trolley problem Read here for poignant case – should consequentialism be the guiding principle: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/01/tajs-choice/#more-5573 Shifts in Contemporary Utilitarianism • • • • Utilitarianism - neo-classical economics has tended to assume that utility is derived solely from the consumption of purchased goods and services, even though philosophical utilitarianism considers that happiness can be derived from a variety of sources, material and metaphysical, commercial and non-commercial (Bentham, 1823; Layard, 2005; Mill, 1967). The neoclassical position appears to have been part of a general shift towards emphasizing the significance of consumption. Csikszentmihalyi (1999) contends that the ascendancy of the belief that happiness is derived from consumption, results from the coincidence in time of growing prosperity in the expanding newly industrialized economies on the one hand, with the growth in popularity of utilitarian philosophy on the other. The shift from collective happiness to individual well-being. New form of sensibility, new common sense. We are everywhere homo oeconomicus. Economics remaking other forms of existence in and through its own terms and matrix. Homo oeconomicus takes its shape as human capital seeking to strengthen its competitive position and to enhance its portfolio value in all domains of its life (Brown, 2015). Ethics & Organisations Lecture 5 1. Meta – Ethics: Relativism and Absolutism 2. Classical Ethical Theories • Libertarianism • Kantianism Revision: Bentham’s Lists • The pleasures of sense: taste or appetites, intoxication, smelling, touching, the ear, the eye, sex, health, novelty. • The pleasures of wealth: acquisition and possession of enjoyable articles. • The pleasures of skill (e.g., playing a musical instrument) • The pleasures of amity (being on good terms with others) • The pleasures of good name (repute, esteem, honour). • The pleasures of power (e.g., to command the services of others) • The pleasures of benevolence (goodwill, sympathy) • The pleasures of memory or recollection • The pleasures of the imagination (contemplation) • The pleasures of expectation (belief in future pleasures) • The pleasures from relief of pain. Revision: Bentham’s Lists • The pains of privation (include unsatisfied desire, disappointment and regret) • The pains of the senses: hunger and thirst, disagreeable tastes, smell, touch, hearing, sight, • excessive heat or cold, disease and indisposition, intense exertion of body or mind. • The pains of awkwardness • The pains of enmity • The pains of ill-repute • The pains of the imagination • The pains of expectation Revision: Bentham’s Lists • Pleasures and pains of sympathy. Fellow feeling, good-will, friendship. Domestically, for the political world at large, for the world at large. • Pleasures and pains derived from wealth. Possession, fruition, acquisition, affluence, opulence, privation, loss, poverty, indigence. • These lists are not at all as narrow as a knowledge of only secondary sources on Bentham might have suggested. He, like Adam Smith before him, recognised the importance of being a member of society as well as having material goods. We should also note that Bentham clearly wished his list to include other-regarding as well as self- regarding pleasures and pains. “You will be producing a stock of sympathy and good reputation, laid up in the breasts of others, ready upon occasion to be brought into action for your advantage” Revision: Bentham’s Lists “The community is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are considered as it were its members. The interest of the community then is what? – the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it” (Bentham 1817 p. 12). • Bentham intended that his “greatest happiness” principle could be applied at various levels, individual, community, state or the whole human race: but it is crucial that the principle always applies to those “whose interest is in question”; that the boundaries are specified. • Once the boundary has been drawn, Bentham’s principle is very bold and straightforward: each is to count for one and none for more than one. In the calculus of happiness no person (particularly a monarch or an aristocrat) should be given greater importance than another Mill’s criticism • Liberty was, indeed, the cornerstone of Bentham’s system but it performed an almost entirely instrumental role. In modern development, policy is best formed in an open democratic framework with minimum corruption: otherwise known as good governance. • In his book ‘On Liberty’ (1859) Mill argues that people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they do not harm others. • Mills thinks we should maximize utility, not case by case, but in the long run. • Overtime, he argues, respecting individual liberty will lead tot the greatest human happiness. Mill’s criticism • Subjecting the conventions (prevailing opinion) to a vigorous contest of ideas will prevent any society from hardening into dogma and prejudice. • A society, that forces its members to embrace custom and convention is likely to fall into conformity, depriving itself of the energy and vitality that prompt social improvement. • Conformity prevents a person from achieving the highest end of human life – the full and free development of his human faculties. • Hierarchies of pleasures Revision: Bentham’s Lists • To a degree, recent approaches to measuring individual happiness follow in Bentham’s footsteps. • Much of this research concentrates on what Bentham would have called “ill-being” (brought about by unemployment, divorce or other major “life events”). Researchers have also devised ‘quality of life’ measures to assess an individual's health state or perceptions about health and some have attempted to relate these to subjective wellbeing (Camfield and Skevington, 2003). • Often such scales involve a more or less arbitrary aggregation of the different components. They are Benthamite in spirit, however, as they are based on the subjective perceptions of individuals. Libertarianism 1. No Paternalism. Libertarians oppose laws to protect people from harming themselves. Seatbelt laws are a good example; so are motorcycle helmet laws. They violate the right of the individual to decide what risks to assume. 2. No Moral Legislation. Libertarians oppose using the coercive force of law to promote notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority. 3. No Redistribution of Income or Wealth. The libertarian theory of rights rules out any law that requires some people to help others, including taxation. Redistributive taxes are seen as a form of coercion. Libertarianism • Libertarianism emerged in opposition to the welfare state. • In ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ (1960), the Austrian-born economistphilosopher Friedrich Hayek argued that any attempt to bring about greater economic equality was bound to be coercive and destructive of a free society. • In ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ (1962), the American economist Milton Friedman argued that many widely accepted state activities are illegitimate infringements on individual freedom. Social Security, or any mandatory, government-run retirement program, is one of these prime examples. Nozick R.(1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. • Emphasis on individual rights • A minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against force and fraud, is justified. • Prominent among the things that no one should be forced to do is help other people. Nozick R.(1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. • Justice in initial holdings This condition asks if resources you used to make your money were legitimately yours in the first place. • Justice in transfer The second conditions asks if you made your money through free exchange in the market place or through gifts voluntarily given to you. • If the answer to both questions is yes, you are entitled to what you have, and the state may not take it without your consent. 30% tax equals 30% free of charge labour ‘Seizing the results of someone’s labour is equivalent to seizing hours from him…If people force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This makes them a part – owner of you: it gives them a property right in you’. • The idea of self-ownership is central for libertarian thinking. • If I own myself and then I should own my labour. • If I own my labour, I should be entitled to the fruits of my labour. Nozick R.(1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia SelfOwnership Taking Person Slavery Labour Forced labour Fruits of labour Taxation Libertarianism Objection 1: Taxation is not as bad as forced labour Objection 2: The poor need the money more Objection 3: We own a debt to those who contribute to our success Objection4: As a citizen of a democracy, one has a voice in making laws Kantianism Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) Developed the most fully articulated version of ethics based on the rightness of rules. The rightness of an action is determined according to whether it is carried out for reasons of principle, out of a sense of duty, rather than out of self interest. Deontological - from the Greek word for duty. Intention is everything and consequences do not count. Kantianism Motivation for the act is important. 3 men look after elderly mother 1 fears public disapproval if does not 1 does it out of a sense of duty 1 does it and he enjoys it According to Kant, only the second is acting morally. The moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. ‘A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes. It is good in itself, whether or not it prevails, even it this will is entirely lacking in power to carry out its intentions, if by its utmost effort it still accomplishing nothing---even then it has its full value in itself.’ Kantianism Duty is not defined by its content but as a formal moral principle. But from where do we derive our moral principles? How do we know what is right? Kant: Each of us can discover what is right by rational thought. Kant’s Categorical imperative: Maxim 1 ‘I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law’. The term ‘categorical’ means unconditional, without any loophole or exception. ‘Categorical’ imperative commands without reference to or dependence on any further purpose. What is right for one is right for all. Example - keeping promises Kantianism Contrast 1 (morality) Duty v. inclination Contrast 2 (freedom) Autonomy v heteronomy Contrast 3 (reason) Categorical v. hypothetical imperatives Kantianism Similar principle articulated in other moral codes – the Golden Rule: ‘Treat others how you wish to be treated’. ‘What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others’ However, Kant argues the CI is different as subject to test of universality. Purpose of this test is to overcome subjectivity Universality Test – would the principles of our action be acceptable to everyone? This is sometimes called the New York Times test – would you be comfortable if your activities were reported in the newspapers? Kantianism Kant’s categorical imperative: Maxim 2 ‘So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as only a means.’ Maxim 1 expresses the condition of the rationality of conduct, whereas Maxim 2 expresses its morality. Has a direct bearing on organisations with employees – they should not be considered as merely ‘cogs in the machine’. People have dignity. Some background on Kant Kant views people as living in physical worlds of the senses – sometimes referred to as the ‘sensible world’. He recognises people seek happiness and may have different ideas of what happiness is. But prosperity and happiness do not make a person good. These things have relative worth – can be measured alongside other things. But these do not have intrinsic worth. People may find happiness in helping others which is good but cannot be defined as moral. However human dignity does have intrinsic worth. Human beings are unique in possessing self determination a) An ability to reason b) An ability to act intentionally (free to act) This he refers to as ‘positive freedom’ He acknowledges a seeming paradox – that to act morally we must be free, but the moral law (duty) is seen as binding. This is untangled by the fact that we have been free to enact the law – bring it into being. Criticisms of Kantianism a) Theory is too narrow - deals only with universal obligations e.g.. truth telling. Does not encompass particular obligations e.g. an employer to employee, a producer to a consumer. b) Kant has no place for moral emotions or caring, or about moral character. c) It is categorical - does not allow exceptions. Accusation: ‘Moral Squeamishness’ Criticisms of Kantianism a) It is categorical - does not allow exceptions. - Must always tell the truth. Cannot lie even to try to prevent wrong-doing. - No conception of a just war - killing a few is wrong, even if the aim is to save many lives. Criticisms of Kantianism To address this type of criticism ‘Moral Squeamishness’ qualifications are suggested: - ‘I promise to tell the truth to those who seek information for honest purposes’. - Differentiate between prima facie obligations and actual obligations. Thus consequences are brought into the moral framework. Modifications to Kantianism make it more teleological. Modifications to Utilitarianism (Rule Utilitarianism) make it more deontological. Distinction between the two blurring. Religious Moral Codes Also can be described as deontological – in so far act out of duty. Difference is that obey rules because of belief that they are the Deity’s rules rather than because they are based on reason. May believe that acting according to moral code will help bring about a supernatural goal. Based on a metaphysics that there are two worlds. Revision Lecture 11 • For Smith, our moral sentiments are acquired and developed over time. Market Morality and Its Limits • We don’t possess God-given moral sense, we also don’t really on our ability to reason. • To explain how morals work, Smith draws on the idea of sympathy ( we now call it empathy). Sympathy works in two ways – through contagion and projection. • Smith regards sympathy is a starting point of moral judgment. Revision • Merit and demerit • Propriety and impropriety Revision • For Smith, we assess the motive of an action through a direct sympathy with the affections and motives of the person who acts; we judge the merit of that action through ‘an indirect sympathy’. Morality, says Smith, is not something we have to calculate. It is natural, it is built into us as social beings. When we see people happy or sad, we feel happy or sad too. We derive pleasure when people do things we approve of, and distress when we believe they are doing harm. • This discussion can also include such references as Paul Zak and Hendry. The moral Limits of Markets • Market morality and commercialisation change the meanings of social practices • Rising inequality leads to the increased separation among different social groups and therefore it has an effect on commonality. • Your reference here is Michael Sandel ‘The Moral Limits of Markets’. Does Business Ethics Make Economic Sense? There would to be some failure in resource allocation when the commodities produced are public goods or involve strong externalities (You have to explain why). This can be taken either as an argument for (1) having publicly owned enterprises, which would be governed by principles other than profit maximization, or (2) as a case public regulations governing private enterprise, or (3) as establishing a for the use of non-profit values (particularly of social concern) in private decisions. Sen is sceptical about having publicly owned enterprises or regulating private enterprise. It is difficult, in this context, to escape the argument for encouraging business ethics to go well beyond the traditional values of honesty and reliability, and take on social responsibility (for example, matters of environmental degradation and pollution). The important reference is Sen’s ‘Does Business Ethics Make Economic Sense?’ Utilitarianism • Mill objects to Bentham’s “greatest happiness’’ principle as it does not give adequate weight to human dignity and individual rights, and that it wrongly reduces everything of moral importance to a single scale of pleasure and pain. Mill’s response to Bentham • Mill’s response could be seen as an attempt to reconcile individual rights with the utilitarian philosophy. In his book ‘On Liberty’ (1859) he argues that people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they do not harm others. • Mills thinks we should maximize utility, not case by case, but in the long run. • Overtime, he argues, respecting individual liberty will lead tot the greatest human happiness. Why should we assume that upholding individual liberty and the right to dissent will promote the welfare of society in the long run? 1. Subjecting the conventions (prevailing opinion) to a vigorous contest of ideas will prevent it from hardening into dogma and prejudice. 2. A society, that forces its members to embrace custom and convention is likely to fall into a stultifying conformity, depriving itself of the energy and vitality that prompt social improvement. Mill’s response 3. It prevents a person from achieving the highest end of human life – the full and free development of his human faculties. Conformity, in Mill’s account, is the enemy of the best way to live. 4. For Mill, individuality matters less for the pleasure it brings than for the character it reflects. Criticism of Utilitarianism a) Hedonistic - based on pursuit of pleasure Has life no higher end than pleasure? But pleasure can include the pleasures of the intellect, feelings and imagination, friendship, love and trust. Bentham - all pleasures, physical and intellectual, were of equal value and could be summed together. J.S. Mill - different qualities of pleasure Kantianism Contrast 1 (morality) Duty v. inclination Contrast 2 (freedom) Autonomy v heteronomy Contrast 3 (reason) Categorical v. hypothetical imperatives Nozick R.(1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia Self-Ownership •Person •Labour •Fruits of labour Taking •Slavery •Forced labour •Taxation • Rawls makes an important but subtle distinction between merit and what he calls ‘entitlements to legitimate expectations’. Rejecting Moral Desert • The difference is: Unlike a desert claim, an entitlement can arise only once certain rules of the game are in place. It can’t tell us how to set the rules in the first place (i.e. state lottery). • There can be a difference between who is entitled to the winnings and who deserves to win. Rejecting Moral Desert ‘ We do not deserve our place in the distribution of native endowments, any more that we deserve our initial starting point in society. Or that we deserve the superior character that enables us to make the effort to cultivate our abilities is also problematic; for such character depends in good part upon fortunate family and social circumstances in early life for which we can claim no credit. The notion of desert (merit) does not apply here’. Rejecting Moral Desert Rawls rejects merit for two reasons: • My having the talents that enable me to compete more successfully than others is not entirely my own doing. • The qualities that a society happens to value at any given time also morally arbitrary. What is an in-text reference in Harvard? In-text references or citations are used to acknowledge the work or ideas of others. They are placed next to the text that you have paraphrased or quoted, enabling the reader to differentiate between your writing and other people's work. The full details of your in-text references must be included in a reference list When presenting ideas or information from a source, include the author's surname and date of publication in brackets within the text of your writing, e.g. These skills need to be developed over time (Veit & Gould 2010). Where you refer to the author's name in the body of the text, include the date of publication in brackets, e.g. Young, Rudin-Brown and Lenne (2010) suggest increased penalties and driver education as two possible strategies. When quoting directly from the source include the page number if available and place quotation marks around the quote, e.g. The World Health Organisation (2011, p. 8) defines driver distraction as when some kind of triggering event external to the driver results in the driver shifting attention away from the driving task'. Sample in-text references: Examples Example 1: Students commencing university often lack the writing, reading and research skills necessary to complete assessment tasks. These skills need to be developed over time (Veit & Gould 2010). Learning the skills of note-taking and paraphrasing are vital if students are to avoid plagiarism in their writing. Veit and Gould (2010, p. 158) emphasise the importance of using your own words and your own style' when paraphrasing. There are many different strategies available to students regarding note-taking and paraphrasing. Veit and Gould (2010) suggest a useful strategy to avoid unintentional plagiarism is to rewrite important information in your own words at the time of reading. Students should remember to always record the full details of sources in their notes. Sources can then be accurately acknowledged in the text and in the list of works cited at the end of their paper. Example 2: Young drivers are at a greater risk of being injured or killed on our roads than any other demographic (VicRoads 2014). There are a number of safety issues for young drivers, including the issue of distraction. The World Health Organisation (2011, p. 8) defines driver distraction as when some kind of triggering event external to the driver results in the driver shifting attention away from the driving task'. The ringing of a telephone, responding to a text message or a telephone alert can all cause distractions while driving. Young drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident as a result of a distraction within the vehicle as they do not have the experience to know how to respond (World Health Organisation 2011). Opinions differ regarding the solution to the problem of mobile phone use while driving by young people. Young, Rudin-Brown and Lenne (2010) suggest increased penalties and driver education as two possible strategies. In the not too distant future technology may provide a solution to the problem.