Ethical aspects of the solution to the Crisis Distribution System project
Vol.14,No.2(2023)
Anthropologia integra
The efficient allocation of scarce resources was one of the key ethical issues caused by the severe shortage of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ethical reflection on the fair distribution of scarce resources played a significant role in establishing the processes that minimize risks while still advancing the public interest and enhancing benefits to individuals and society. With a multidisciplinary team, we designed and developed a system of strategic goods distribution in times of crises. The mechanism is based on technology using artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. The Crisis Distribution System project aimed to determine the fair allocation of scarce resources by implementing a trading mechanism guided by predefined rules of fairness rooted in ethical theories and ethical principles. The paper presents the ethical aspects of the crisis distribution system, which was designed and developed on the basis of the algorithmic game theory, emphasizing fairness in algorithmic decision-making.
algorithmic decision-making; allocation of resources; distribution crises; distributive justice; ethical aspects; fairness
Aumann, Robert J. – Maschler, Michael (1985): Game Theoretic Analysis of a Bankruptcy Problem from the Talmud. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(2), 195–213. doi: 10.1016/0022-0531(85)90102-4
Beauchamp, Tom L. – Childress, James F. (2019): Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boardman, Anthony E. et al. (2018): Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
European Parliament (2020): Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies. (online). https://europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0275_EN.pdf
High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (2019): Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. (online). https://aepd.es/sites/default/files/2019-12/ai-ethics-guidelines.pdf
Hill, James (2015): Soudný utilitarismus Johna Stuarta Milla. In: Čapek, Jakub et al. eds., Přístupy k etice II, 179–199. Praha: Filosofia.
IEEE Systems and Software Engineering Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society (2022): Part 7000: IEEE Standard Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns during System Design. (online). https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/24748-7000/11098/
Janda, Jan (2008): Pojetí spravedlnosti v Platónově Ústavě a v Aristotelově Etice Nikomachově. Reflexe: Filosofický časopis, 35, 3–23.
Jedličková, Anetta (2022a): Etické konotace provádění klinických hodnocení léčivých přípravků během pandemie onemocnění covid-19. Vnitř. Lék., 68(1), 9–15. doi: 10.36290/vnl.2022.012
Jedličková, Anetta (2022b): Etické aspekty rozvoje umělé inteligence. Anthropologia integra, 13(2), 55–62. doi: 10.5817/AI2022-2-55
Jedličková, Anetta (2023): Etické konotace využívání systémů umělé inteligence ve společnosti. V recenzním řízení.
Jedličková, Anetta – Loebl, Martin – Sychrovský, David (2022): Critical Distribution System. Preprint, arXiv:2207.00898. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.00898
Kant, Immanuel (1996): Kritika praktického rozumu. Praha: Svoboda.
Kant, Immanuel (2013): Náboženství v hranicích pouhého rozumu. Praha: Vyšehrad.
Kant, Immanuel (2014): Základy metafyziky mravů. Praha: Oikoymenh.
McDowell, John (1998): Mind, Value, and Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
O’Sullivan, Lydia – Aldasoro, Edelweiss – O’Brien, Áine et al. (2022): Ethical values and principles to guide the fair allocation of resources in response to a pandemic: a rapid systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 23(70). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00806-8
Rawls, John (1995): Teorie spravedlnosti. Praha: Victoria Publishing.
Sychrovský, David et al. (2023): Price of Anarchy in a Double-Sided Critical Goods Distribution System. In: Proc. of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2023), 582–590. London: IFAAMAS. doi: 10.5555/3545946.3598688
U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Reports and Recommendations (1978): The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2023 Anetta Jedličková