Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Utilitarianism has its roots in the hedonistic beliefs of Greek thinkers such
as the Epicureans, but it was fully developed much later by Jeremy
Bentham and John Stewart Mill (Hillner, 2000). As a form of
consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism is concerned only with the results of
our actions and not with our intentions, as consequences are the
measurable outcomes of intentions and actions and so are the only way to
analyse our actions to see whether the effects they cause are ethically
positive or negative (Israel and Hay, 2006). The specific way of analysing
an action that is used by utilitarians is to examine the overall pleasure
brought about by that action as well as the suffering caused and to judge
the action as morally good if the pleasure outweighs the suffering (Israel
and Hay, 2006). All utilitarians focus on performing actions that should
bring about the greatest total pleasure which can be concentrated or
spread out between large numbers of people although many utilitarians
stress the need to minimise suffering as far as possible before concerning
yourself with maximising pleasure, and put the focus on reducing suffering
before spreading happiness (Israel and Hay, 2006). This core belief of
maximising pleasure and minimising suffering is known as the principle of
utility. As they believe that pleasure is the only moral good, utilitarians are
unconcerned with rights and duties that conflict with bringing about the
most pleasurable outcomes for as many people as possible (Hillner, 2000).
Although there are many variations of utilitarianism, the key principles
judging actions ethically by analysing their consequences, focusing on
pleasure as the only inherently good outcome, and attempting to
maximise pleasure whilst minimising suffering remain much the same
for most utilitarians (Francis, 2009).
ID: 103211
following the moral laws and duties derived from our rational moral will
(Hillner, 2000). Kantian duties regard either actions that must not be
taken (duties of perfect obligation) or actions that can be taken to act
morally (duties of imperfect obligation), and when duties conflict those of
perfect obligation take priority certain duties are also prioritised due to
being what Kant called prima facie duties (Hillner, 2000). Kants other
concepts include the principle of universalizability, which states that an
action should only be taken if the underlying maxim of that action could
be made into a universal rule without causing any contradictions or
untenable situations (Hillner, 2000), and the treatment of other people not
just as a means to an end but also as an independent and autonomous
end in themselves (Francis, 2009). Although not all deontologists would
attempt to theoretically universalise their actions the majority would
certainly agree on the importance of duties and on the treatment of other
people as autonomous agents that should be respected.
them for their time and effort. At a basic level, researchers should have
the duty to repay their participants for the money spent as a result of the
study (e.g. parking and travel costs) and should certainly not devise a
payment system that tries to influence potential participants into acting
against their principles or that treats participants unfairly by paying them
on an unfair basis.
demonstrated that making the implicit link between payment and risk
explicit greatly increased perceived risk for participants of all levels of
education and income (Cryder et al, 2010). Overall, Cryder and her
colleagues concluded that payments for participation act as incentives
and as cautionary warnings to participants about the level of risk inherent
in the study, making participants more likely to both participate and to
spend more time considering risks when payments are high as opposed to
when they are low or non-existent: the researchers suggested that the
results suggest that worries about paid participation influencing consent
unduly should be relaxed (Cryder et al, 2010).
risks of a study, thus allowing people to make their own decisions and
researchers to respect their participants autonomy to a greater degree.
Although deontologists do not necessarily believe that payment level
should be linked to risk some ethicists actually argue that payments
should be universalised regardless of risk to avoid undue inducement
(Dickert and Grady, 1999) the perceived link between risk and payment
should at least ensure that participants remain wary of risk even in the
face of monetary offers, and although ultimately Cryders study showed
that high payments acted as an incentive to participants at least the
participants reinforced risk awareness suggests that they made the
decision to participate relatively free of undue inducement (though the
influencing effect of the payment as an incentive remains).
ID: 103211
10
As the discussion throughout this essay should indicate, there are many
differences between deontologist and utilitarian views on paid
participation in research studies that result from their relative
prioritisation of duty and pleasure as the focus of ethical behaviour for
researchers as well as for everyone else. In practice, deontological ethics
sets out the standard requirements for research: researchers do have
certain duties to participants that they must strive to fulfil such as those
set out in the Belmont report (Grant and Sugarman, 2004). Utilitarianism
then argues that when these duties are fulfilled researchers should also
endeavour to make their research as scientifically valid and productive as
possible.
ID: 103211
11
References
-
29 (6), 717-738.
Hillner, K. (2000). Metaphysics: Contentual ethical issues. In Hillner,
K., A Psychological Approach to Ethical Reality. Advances in
London: Sage.
Laguilles, J. S., Saunders, D. B., and Williams, E. A. (2010). Can
Lottery Incentives Boost Web Survey Response Rates? Findings from
Four Experiments. Source Research in Higher Education, 52, 537553.
ID: 103211