3 ms·
But it could be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that of itself is the reason to at least declare it (for transparency). This is how it works in ethics.
by warlog 5y ago
But it could be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that of itself is the reason to at least declare it (for transparency). This is how it works in ethics.
- wearywanderer 5y agoIndeed, avoiding the perception of impropriety is second only to avoiding impropriety itself. When people perceive impropriety, even when there is none, trust in the system is undermined.
- peter422 5y agoThis obviously is a slippery slope because anybody can perceive anything. If I perceive that your account sounds a lot like a Russian troll, then by your logic we should all discount your opinion because if you were a Russian troll you’d have a conflict, and since it seems like you might be according to my perception, how could we trust anything you say?
- wearywanderer 5y agoAt the end of the day it's up to everybody to apply their own version of the "reasonable person" test. Might a reasonable person misconstrue what you're doing to be unethical? If so, rethink your approach. Maybe there is no other option, but often there is.
- tshaddox 5y agoAnything could be perceived as a conflict of interest. This entire subthread is an argument about whether it’s reasonable to consider this case a conflict of interest.