Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Automating anticorruption?María Carolina Jiménez & Emanuela Ceva - 2022 - Ethics and Information Technology 24 (4):1-14.
    The paper explores some normative challenges concerning the integration of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms into anticorruption in public institutions. The challenges emerge from the tensions between an approach treating ML algorithms as allies to an exclusively legalistic conception of anticorruption and an approach seeing them within an institutional ethics of office accountability. We explore two main challenges. One concerns the variable opacity of some ML algorithms, which may affect public officeholders’ capacity to account for institutional processes relying upon ML techniques. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Theories of whistleblowing.Emanuela Ceva & Michele Bocchiola - 2020 - Philosophy Compass 15 (1):e12642.
    Whistleblowing” has entered the scholarly and the public debate as a way of describing the exposure by the member of an organization of episodes of corruption, fraud, or general abuses of power within the organization. We offer a critical survey of the main normative theories of whistleblowing in the current debate in political philosophy, with the illustrative aid of one of the epitomic figures of a whistleblower of our time: Edward Snowden. After conceptually separating whistleblowing from other forms of wrongdoing (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Individual Responsibility under Systemic Corruption: A Coercion-Based View.Carla Bagnoli & Emanuela Ceva - 2023 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 10 (1):95-117.
    Should officeholders be held individually responsible for submitting to systemically corrupt institutional practices? We draw a structural analogy between individual action under coercive threat and individual participation in systemic corruption, and we argue that officeholders who submit to corrupt institutional practices are not excused by the existence of a systemic coercive threat. Even when they have good personal reasons to accept the threat, they remain individually morally assessable and, in the circumstances, they are also individually blameworthy for actions performed in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation