AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS Philosophical ethics--Assumptions

(Based on Dr. Jim Sutherland’s work) • Assumes that humans are basically good, and can be
more ethical.
What is right and wrong? • Reason is a sufficient basis for developing ethics.
• A 12-year-old girl was taken in marriage in the village • Humans are accountable only to other humans.
of Lohutok, S. Sudan. Is that good or bad? Why? • Philosophical ethics--Assumptions
• Should the death penalty apply for a man or woman • Carl F.H. Henry noted these assumptions:
engaged in consensual homosexual acts? – “nature is the ultimate reality”
• Is it good for a husband to donate his sperm to his – Humans are essentially animals.
infertile wife, so that she can be artificially – “truth and right are intrinsically time-bound
inseminated and perhaps bear their child? and changing” Carl F. H. Henry, Christian
Personal Ethics, 1957, p. 23
RELIGION PHILOSOPHY
Founded upon revelation Founded upon reason Locating Ethics Within Philosophy
Concerned with morals Concerned with ethics • Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that
- Morals are absolute. - Ethics are relative. (School explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral
- Have to do with person- of Morals?) values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of
to-God - Are person-to-person applied ethics and normative theory focus on what
Concerned with Not concerned with nature, is moral, metaethics focuses on what morality itself
“supranature” but with “metanature” is.
(science concerned with • Applied ethics is the branch of ethics concerned
nature) with the analysis of particular moral issues in private
Miracles are a part Miracles are irrelevant and public life
Goal is to find God Goal is to find truth • Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is
the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates
Ethics (Moral Philosophy) Defined the set of questions that arise when considering how
• It concerns the nature of the right [deontology] and one ought to act, morally speaking.
the nature of the good [utility].
• Theories of the good are of two basic types: Moral Facts [Truth]
– Theistic ( based upon the assumption of a • Ethical philosophers can be classified in one of two
God) ways:
– Philosophical/anthropological (based upon • (1 those who believe that moral facts exist,
reason) and
• (2 those who either deny that moral facts
3 Stages in the History of Ethics exist, or, if they exist, deny that they can be
• First stage: moral authority shifted from above known.
humans (the divine), to humans.
• Second stage: extending the belief that humans are Schools of Those Who Accept Moral Truth
responsible only to humans • A further division--for those who have come so far as
– Rise of nihilism and relativism to believe that moral good exists--is among those
• Third stage: focus shifting from individual to public who emphasize
ethics—toward utilitarianism. • what is right (deontologists)
– Applied ethics is popular • what is good (utilitarians or
– Virtue ethics is gaining ground consequentialists)
• From J. B. Schneewind, “Modern • virtue or character as the basis for ethics.
moral philosophy,” ch. 12 in A
Companion to Ethics, Peter Singer,
ed. ISBN: 0631187855
FOUNDATIONS OF BIOETHICS: ETHICAL THEORIES, MORAL
PRINCIPLES, AND MEDICAL DECISIONS
• The branch of philosophy concerned with principles
that allow us to make decisions about what is right
and wrong is called ethics or moral philosophy.
• Єθοσ [ethos] is a Greek word for custom or habit,
the characteristic conduct of an individual human
life.
• Morality – Human conduct and character referring
to “those acts which it makes sense to describe as
right or wrong, good or bad.”
• Moral Judgment – Judgment based on
considerations of how other people are to be
treated, and how others interests are to weigh
against their own.
• Introduction
• Bioethics is specifically concerned with moral
principles and decisions in the context of medical
practice, policy, and research.
• Moral difficulties connected with medicine are so
complex and important that they require special
attention. Medical ethics gives them this attention,
but it remains a part of the discipline of ethics.
• Thus, if we are to answer the question as to whether
there are any rules or principles to use when making
moral decisions in the medical context, we must turn
to general ethical theories and to a consideration of
moral principles that have been proposed to hold in
all contexts of human action.
UTILITARIANISM
• According to Utilitarianism [Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)], a person
should perform those action actions which conform
to the Principle of Utility.
• The Principle of Utility says: a person should choose
that action which produce the greatest good for the
greatest number of people affected by the
alternatives open to him.
• The rightness or wrongness of actions is determined
by the goodness or badness of the actions’
consequences, not by the actions themselves.
• Because the morality of an action, according to
utilitarianism, rests on its consequences,
utilitarianism is called a “consequentialist theory of
ethics.”
• There are different views as to what make a
consequence good or bad.
• According to the “classical” or “hedonistic” version,
what makes a consequence good or bad is its effect
on people’s happiness.
• Roughly, a consequence is bad if it reduces
happiness, good if it increases happiness.
• Happiness, in turn, is understood to mean: an
increase in pleasure and/or decrease in pain.
• Because of the emphasis on happiness,
Utilitarianism is sometimes called “the greatest
happiness principle”.
Application to Bioethics
• In August 2000, conjoined twins, named Mary and
Jodie were born in a hospital in Manchester England.
Their spines were fused, and they had one heart and
one pair of lungs between them. Jodie, the stronger
one, was providing blood for her sister.
• The prognosis was that without intervention, both
girls would die within six months. The only hope was
an operation to separate them. This would save
Jodie, but Mary would die immediately.
• Thus, there were two options:
a. Not intervene and see both babies die, or
b. Intervene and save one life, Jodie.
What is the acceptable course of action?
• According to utilitarian, we need to decide which
course of action will produce the greatest good for
the greatest number of people affected by the
action.
• It is plausible to interpret utilitarianism as supporting
alternative (b). Surely it is better to save one life
rather than not.
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
• The essential difference is in what determines
whether or not an action is the right action.
• Act (extreme) utilitarianism maintains that an action
is right if it maximizes utility; rule (restricted)
utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it
conforms to a rule that maximizes utility.
• Act utilitarianism asserts that an action becomes
morally right when it produces the greatest good for
the greatest number of people, while Rule
utilitarianism believes that the moral correctness of
an action depends on the correctness of
the rules that allows it to achieve the greatest good.
DEONTOLOGY
• As noted earlier, consequentialist theories of ethics
find the basis for an action’s morality in the
consequences produced by the action rather than in
the action itself.
• Deontological theories of ethics, argue that it is
features of the action itself, apart from
consequences, which determine its morality.
• When an action has the relevant features then we
can say it is our duty (or obligation) to perform it.
• It is this emphasis on duty that earns them the name
“deontological”, which is derived from the Greek
word for “duty” or “obligation”.
• Two of the different versions of deontology are
those of Immanuel Kant and William David Ross.
Kant
• According to Kant, we have an obligation to perform
an action if it satisfies what he called “the
categorical imperative”.
• Kant formulated three versions of the imperative.
Though differing in wording and emphasis, he
understood them as three different “views” of the
same overarching principle. They are:
• Act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should
become universal law. (Version 1)
• Act so that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in that of another,
always as an end and never as a means
only. (Version 2)
• Every rational being must so act as if he
were through his maxim always a legislating
member in the universal kingdom of ends.
(Version 3)
First version
• If you decide to have an abortion and go through
with it, it is possible to view your action as involving
a rule.
• You can be thought of as endorsing a rule to the
effect “Whenever I am in circumstances like these,
then I will have an abortion.” Kant calls such a rule a
“maxim.”
• In his view, all reasoned and considered actions can
be regarded as involving maxims.
• The maxims in such cases are personal or subjective,
but they can be thought of as being candidates for
moral rules.
• If they pass the test imposed by the categorical
imperative, then we can say that such actions are
right. Furthermore, in passing the test, the maxims
cease to be merely personal and subjective. They
gain the status of objective rules of morality that
hold for everyone.
• Kant calls the principle “categorical” to distinguish it
from “hypothetical” imperatives. These tell us what
to do if we want to bring about certain
consequences— such as happiness.
• A categorical imperative prescribes what we ought
to do without reference to any consequences. The
principle is an “imperative” because it is a command.
• The test imposed on maxims by the categorical
imperative is one of generalization or
“universalizability.” The central idea of the test is
that a moral maxim is one that can be generalized to
apply to all cases of the same kind.
• That is, you must be willing to see your rule adopted
as a maxim by everyone who is in a situation similar
to yours. You must be willing to see your maxim
universalized, even though it may turn out on some
other occasion to work to your disadvantage.
• The best way to illustrate the first version of the
category imperative is to consider a possible
instance where an action fails the test.
Example
• Suppose, for example, that I am a physician and I tell
a patient that he has a serious illness, although I
know that he doesn’t. This may be to my immediate
advantage, for the treatment and the supposed cure
will increase my income and reputation.
• The maxim of my action might be phrased as,
“Whenever I have a healthy patient, I will lie to him
and say that he has an illness.”
• Now suppose that I try to generalize my maxim
(apply the first version of the categorical
imperative). In doing so, I will discover that I am
willing the existence of a practice that has
contradictory properties.
• If “Whenever any physician has a healthy patient,
she will lie to him and say he has an illness” is made
a universal law, then every patient will be told that
he has an illness. Trust in the diagnostic
pronouncements of physicians will be destroyed,
while my scheme depends on my patients’ trusting
me and accepting the truth of my lying diagnosis.
• It is as if I were saying, “Let there be a rule of truth
telling such that people can assume that others are
telling them the truth, but let there also be a rule
that physicians may lie to their patients when it is in
the interest of the physician to do so.”
• In willing both rules, I am willing something
contradictory. Thus, I can will my action in a
particular case, but I can’t will that my action be
universal without generating a logical conflict.
Bioethical example
• If we return to the Mary and Jodie example
introduced earlier, we can see that Kant’s approach
to evaluating the alternatives (allow both to die or
save one but sacrifice the other) would be different
from that of utilitarianism. Kant would reject the
idea that we should look at the consequences of the
two options.
• Instead we should ask if something like the following
rule could be universalized (that is, avoid
“contradiction”):
• Save one life in situations where failing to do so will
result in the loss of life of two.
• Can it be universalized? On the face of it, there is no
obvious contradiction in trying to do. As a result, the
Kantian and the Utilitarian could well agree on the
morality of the action but for different reasons.
Second version
• Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of another, always as an end and
never as a means only.
• This version illustrates Kant’s notion that every
rational creature has a worth in itself.
• This worth is not conferred by being born into a
society with a certain political structure, nor even by
belonging to a certain biological species.
 • The worth is inherent in the sheer possession of
rationality. Rational creatures possess what Kant
calls an “autonomous, self-legislating will.”
• That is, they are able to consider the consequences
of their actions, make rules for themselves, and
direct their actions by those self-imposed rules.
Thus, rationality confers upon everyone an intrinsic
worth and dignity.
• So, we are treating a person (including ourselves) as
an end (and not just a means to an end) when we act
towards him in such a way that recognize his
rationality or autonomy.
Non-bioethical example
• You need money and you want a loan but you know
you can’t pay it back. It occurs to you to ask a friend
for the money with the promise of paying it back.
You are proposing to lie to the person and, in so
doing, you are treating them merely as a means to
one of your goals.
• On the hand, imagine the same situation except this
time you explain the situation to your friend, hoping
still, of course, to get the money. But now you are
allowing your friend to make his own free and fully-
informed decision to give you the money or not. You
have recognized and engaged the friend as a rational
agent. You have respected his dignity.
Bioethical example
• Recall again the example of Mary and Jodie. How
might we apply the second version of the categorical
imperative to this case. Here is one possible way to
phrase the question:
• If we elect to save Jodie and allow Mary to die, have
they both been treated as “ends”? One answer
might be no because Mary has been “sacrificed” to
allow Jodie to live – she is being treated merely as a
means to Jodie’s survival.
• If this is the correct conclusion then a question arises
as to whether it is consistent with the apparently
correct conclusion to the first version of the
imperative, that there is no inconsistency in
universalizing the rule: save one life when the
alternative is to see two die.
W. D. Ross
• W. D. Ross attempts to incorporate aspects of
utilitarianism and aspects of Kantianism.
• Ross rejected the utilitarian notion that an action is
made right by its consequences alone, but he was
also troubled by Kant’s view, if a rule passed the
categorical imperative (and became a duty to
follow), it could have no exceptions, it was absolute.
• He saw not only that such rules fail to show
sensitivity to the complexities of actual situations,
but also that they sometimes conflict with one
another.
Prima facie duties
• Like Kant, Ross is a deontologist, but he believed (as
Kant apparently did not) that moral duties can
conflict, in which case their relative merits had to be
weighed and the chosen action based on the
outcome of that weighing.
• Because duty A might be outweighed by another
duty B in a situation where the two conflict, it might
seem inappropriate to call A a duty in the first place.
Aware of this concern, Ross describes A and B as
prima facie duties. They are duties we have “all
things being equal”. But in a situation only one of
them will turn out (after weighing) to be our actual
duty.
• When is something our duty? Ross does not propose
any general test of obligation like Kant’s categorical
imperative. Instead, Ross falls within the tradition of
“ethical intuitionism”. After a careful examination of
the facts surrounding a case, he believes that we
then are able to intuit the appropriate duty.
• Ross claims that our experience with such cases puts
us in a position to come to know our prima facie
duties with the same degree of certainty as when we
grasp the mathematical truth that a triangle has
three angles.
• Furthermore, according to Ross, our experience of
many individual cases puts us in a position to
recognize the validity of a general statement like “It
is wrong to cause needless pain.” We come to see
such rules in much the same way that we come to
recognize the letter A after having seen it written or
printed in a variety of handwritings or typefaces.
• Ross offers a list of duties that he considers binding
on all moral agents. (He did not claim that the list is
exhaustive).
1. Duties of fidelity: telling the truth, keeping
actual and implicit promises, and not
representing fiction as history
2. Duties of reparation: righting the wrongs we
have done to others
3. Duties of gratitude: recognizing the services
others have done for us
4. Duties of justice: preventing a distribution of
pleasure or happiness that is not in keeping with
the merit of the people involved
5. Duties of beneficence: helping to better the
condition of other beings with respect to virtue,
intelligence, or pleasure
6. Duties of self-improvement: bettering ourselves
with respect to virtue or intelligence
7. Duties of non-maleficence: avoiding or
preventing an injury to others
Bioethical example
• Recalling the example of Mary and Jodie, Ross would
answer the question of whether it is right or wrong
to separate the twins by first seeing which of the
prima facie duties are applicable and, in the event
there is a conflict, examine the non-moral facts of
the case, and with these facts as background, weigh
the duties against one another.
 • In considering the case, the duties of non-
maleficence and beneficence seems relevant and it
is plausible to read them as implying that there is an
obligation to separate the twins.
RAWLS’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
• The theory of justice formulated by the philosopher
John Rawls can be understood as attempting to
combine the strengths of utilitarianism and
deontology while avoiding the weaknesses of each
view.
• For Rawls, the central task of government is to
preserve and promote the liberty and welfare of
individuals. Thus, principles of justice are needed to
serve as standards for designing and evaluating
social institutions and practices.
• Rawls’s position has direct relevance to such
bioethical issues as who should have access to
health care, how donated organs should be
distributed, and who should pay for society’s
medical costs.
• Rawls argues that there are two fundamental
principles of justice:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the
most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of
liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both
a. to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged
b. attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality
of opportunity.
Principles of justice
• For Rawls, these two principles are taken to govern
the distribution of all social goods: liberty, property,
wealth, and social privilege.
• The first principle has priority. It guarantees a system
of equal liberty for all. The second principle governs
the distribution of social goods other than liberty.
• Though Rawls’s overall position has relevance to
individual medical decisions, it’s most important
application is to the social institutions and practices
of medical care and research.
Bioethical example: Consent
• According to Rawls’s principles it is wrong to exploit
one group of people or even one person for the
benefit of others.
• Thus, experiments in which people are forced to be
subjects or are tricked into participating are ruled
out.
• A person has a right to decide what risks she is
willing to take with her own life and health. Thus,
voluntary consent is required before someone can
legitimately become a research subject.
Bioethical example: health care
• The implication of Rawls position seems to be that
everyone is entitled to health care.
• First, it could be argued that health is among the
“primary goods” that Rawls’s principles are designed
to protect and promote. (“Primary goods” are the
rights, opportunities, powers, wealth, and such that
are both worth possessing in themselves and are
necessary to securing the more specific goods
people may want.)
• Second, it could be argued that the inequalities of
the health care system can be justified only if those
in most need can benefit from them. Since this is not
obviously the case with the present system, Rawls’s
principles seem to call for a reform that would
provide health care to those who are unable to pay.
NATURAL LAW ETHICS
• Natural law theories of ethics share the general idea
that the rightness of actions is something
determined by nature itself, rather than by the laws
and customs of societies or the preferences of
individuals.
• The most well-known, and fully articulated, version
of natural law is that formulated by St. Thomas
Aquinas and endorsed by the Catholic Church.
• Borrowing from Aristotle, the Thomistic version of
natural law sees the universe organized in a
teleological way. That is, the universe is structured in
such a way that each thing in it has a goal or
purpose. Thomism importantly add that this
teleological structure was brought about by God so
that the purposes found in the Universe are a
reflection of God’s purposes.
• For example, when conditions are right, a tadpole
will develop into a frog. In its growth and change,
the tadpole is following “the law of its nature.” It is
achieving its goal.
• Humans have a material nature, just as a tadpole
does, and in their own growth and development
they, too, follow a law of their material nature.
• But humans also possess a trait that no other
creature does: reason. Thus, the full development of
human potentialities—the fulfillment of human
purposes or ends —requires that we follow the
direction of the law of reason, as well as being
subjected to the laws of material human nature.
• We rely upon reason to determine what our ends
are and how we can achieve them. In particular,
reason directs us toward our good as the goal of our
action, and what that good is, is discoverable within
our nature.
• The human good is “built into” human nature in the
way that, in a sense, a frog is already “built into” a
tadpole. Thus, the good is that to which we are
directed by our natural inclinations as both physical
and rational creatures.
 • These built-in inclinations are the basis for our moral
duties. For example:
• Like other creatures, we have a natural
inclination to preserve our lives;
consequently, reason imposes on us an
obligation to care for our health, not to kill
ourselves, and not to put ourselves in
positions in which we might be killed.
• We realize through reason that others have
a rational nature like ours, and we see that
we are bound to treat them with the same
dignity and respect that we accord
ourselves.
• When we see that humans require a society
to make their full development possible, we
realize that we have an obligation to
support laws and practices that make
society possible.
• We have a natural inclination to propagate
our species (viewed as a “natural” good), so
reason places on us an obligation not to
thwart or pervert that inclination (by for
example using condoms or masturbating).
• As the examples illustrate, according to natural law
ethics, through the application of reason, it should
be possible to establish a body of moral principles
and rules. These are the doctrines of natural law.
• Following are two principles especially relevant to
bioethics.
Principle of double effect
• A particular kind of moral conflict arises when the
performance of an action will produce both good
and bad effects. On the basis of the good effect, it
seems it is our duty to perform the action; but on
the basis of the bad effect, it seems our duty not to
perform it.
• What are we obligated to do in this situation? The
principle of double effect is intended to help in the
resolution of these kinds of conflicts.
• The principle holds that such an action should be
performed only if the intention is to bring about the
good effect and the bad effect will be an unintended
or indirect consequence. More specifically, four
conditions must be satisfied:
1. The action itself must be morally indifferent or
morally good.
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which
the good effect is achieved.
3. The motive must be the achievement of the
good effect only.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in
importance to the bad effect.
Double effect example
• The principle might be illustrated by the example of
Mary and Jodie:
1. The doctors wanted to save the life of Jodie, a
morally good action.
2. The death of Mary was a bad consequence of
saving Jodie but it was not the means; it was a
foreseen but unintended by-product of saving
Jodie.
3. The doctors intended to save the life of Jodie, it
was not to kill Mary.
4. Saving the life of Jodie is morally as significant as
the death of Mary.
Principle of totality
• This principle says that an individual has a right to
dispose of his or her organs or to destroy their
capacity to function only to the extent that the
general well-being of the whole body demands it.
• Thus, it is clear that we have a natural obligation to
preserve our lives, but, by the Roman Catholic view,
we also have a duty to preserve the integrity of our
bodies.
• This duty is based on the belief that each of our
organs was designed by God to play a role in
maintaining the functional integrity of our bodies—
that each has a place in the divine plan. As we are
the custodians of our bodies, not their owners, it is
our duty to care for them as a trust.
• The principle of totality has implications for a great
number of medical procedures.
• Strictly speaking, even cosmetic surgery is morally
right only when it is required to maintain or ensure
the normal functioning of the rest of the body.
• More important, procedures that are typically
employed for contraceptive purposes— vasectomies
and tubal ligations—are ruled out since such
procedures involve “mutilation” and the destruction
of the capacity of the organs of reproduction to
function properly.
VIRTUE ETHICS
• Virtue ethics is ethics based on character. Its
fundamental idea is that a person who has acquired
the proper set of dispositions will do what is right
when faced with a situation involving a moral choice.
• Thus, virtue ethics doesn’t involve invoking
principles or rules to guide actions.
• The virtuous person is both the basic concept and
the goal of virtue ethics. The virtuous person is one
who acts right, because she is just that sort of
person.
• Right actions flow out of character, and the virtuous
person has a disposition to do the right thing. Rules
need not be consulted, calculations need not be
performed, abstract duties need not be considered.
• In medical contexts, virtue ethics calls attention to
the central role which such virtues as courage,
loyalty, integrity, compassion, and benevolence,
along with determination and intelligence, should
play in the practices of medical providers.
 CARE ETHICS
• Care ethics is an outgrowth of feminist ethics or,
perhaps more accurately, is a particular strand of
feminist ethics.
• Care ethics is not a unified doctrine that can be
captured in a set of abstract statements. It is
perhaps best characterized as a family of beliefs
about the way values should be manifested in
character and in behavior.
• It is unified by a set of shared concerns and
commitments, as well as by the rejection of the
traditional philosophical view that ethics can be
adequately represented by rules and principles.
• As the name implies, the sentiment of caring is
taken as a central consideration in deciding what to
do. In medical ethical contexts this perspective is
perhaps exemplified by how a doctor looks at his or
her patient: is this a problem to fix or is this a
person whose health I care about?
GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES RELEVANT TO BIOETHICS
The following are thumbnail sketches of a number of
principles which most, if not all, of the ethical
theories considered endorse in one form or another.
They all have relevance to bioethical issues.
Principle of Non-maleficence
• “Above all, do no harm” is perhaps the most
famous and most quoted of all moral maxims in
medicine. It captures in a succinct way what is
universally considered to be an overriding duty
of anyone who undertakes the care of a patient.
Principle of beneficence
• The principle of beneficence can be stated in
various and different ways. Here is one
formulation: We should act in ways that
promote the welfare of other people. That is,
we should help other people when we are able
to do so.
Principle of utility
• The principle of utility can be formulated in this
way: We should act in such a way as to bring
about the greatest benefit and the least harm.
• The principle is the very foundation of the moral
theory of utilitarianism. However, the principle
need not be regarded as unique to
utilitarianism.
• It can be thought of as one moral principle
among others that present us with a prima facie
duty, and, as such, it need not be regarded as
always taking precedence over others.
• In particular, we would never think it was
justified to deprive someone of a right, even if
by doing so we could bring benefit to many
others.
Rules of distributive justice
• We expect (and can demand) to be treated
justly in our dealings with other people and with
institutions. The following rules reflect this basic
sentiment.
• They are best understood in terms of John
Rawls’ position summarized earlier.
• From a bioethical perspective, they have clear
relevance to questions about, for example,
access to health insurance, the distribution of
organs, and who should shoulder the burden of
health care costs.
• Rules of distributive justice include:
1. Equality
- According to the principle of equality, all
benefits and burdens are to be distributed
equally.
2. Need
- The principle of need is an extension of
the egalitarian principle of equal
distribution.
- If goods are parceled out according to
individual need, those who have greater
needs will receive a greater share.
- However, the outcome will be one of
equality.
- Since the basic needs of everyone will be
met, everyone will end up at the same level.
The treatment of individuals will be equal,
in this respect, even though the proportion
of goods they receive will not be.
3. Contribution
- According to the principle of contribution,
people should get back that proportion of
social goods that is the result of their
productive labor.
4. Effort
- According to the principle of effort, the
degree of effort made by the individual
should determine the proportion of goods
received by the individual.
Principle of autonomy
• The principle of autonomy can be stated this way:
Rational individuals should be permitted to be self-
determining. According to this formulation, we act
autonomously when our actions are the result of our
own choices and decisions.
• Autonomy is significant not only because it is a
condition for moral responsibility, but because it is
through the exercise of autonomy that individuals
shape their lives. Autonomy is a significant
consideration when thinking about euthanasia and
abortion.
ETHICS AND ETHICAL THEORIES
(excerpt taken from Herman T. Tavani, Ethics and
Technology, Chapter 2, Wiley, 2004.)
CONSEQUENCE BASED ETHICAL THEORIES
• Bentham (1748-1832) and Mill (1806-1873)
• What results from an act
• The ends justify the means
• Principle of social utility measured by the resulting
amount of happiness
Utilitarianism
• Act utilitarianism – Act is good if it results in the
greatest good for the greatest number.
(What happens to minority?)
• Rule utilitarianism – Act is good if it comes from
following rules that bring good to greatest number.
(Should we base ethics on happiness and pleasure?)
DUTY-BASED ETHICAL THEORIES: DEONTOLOGICAL
THEORIES
• Kant (1724-1804) – Duties and obligations that
people have to one another.
• People have rational natures
• People should never be treated as means to the
ends of others
• Each individual has the same moral worth as every
other.
Rule deontology
Kant’s categorical imperative
• Rules that all individuals should be treated as ends in
themselves and not means to an end.
• Rules that can be universally binding for all people.
• One person or group should not be privileged over
all others.
Act deontology
• Ross (1930) - Problem if two conflicting moral duties
• When conflict, consider individual situations
• Prima facie (self-evident) duties.
• Honesty, justice, helpfulness
• Actual duty – What to do when have conflicts.
• Use rational intuitionism.
• Weigh evidence to decide course of action in
particular case
CONTRACT-BASED ETHICAL THEORIES
• Hobbes(1588-1679) – Premoral state
• state of nature where all free to do as like
• People establish formal legal code
• In each person’s self-interest to develop system with
rules
• Objections – Depends only on formal legal rules
• Difference between ‘doing no harm’ and ‘doing
good’.
Rights-based contract theories
• Jefferson (1776) and Aquinas (1225-1274)
• Natural rights or inalienable and self-
evident rights
• Legal rights – positive rights and negative rights
• Negative rights
• Privacy, no interference in right to vote
• Positive rights
• Education (in US through 12th grade)
CHARACTER-BASED ETHICAL THEORIES
• Virtue ethics - Plato (427?-327 BCE) and Aristotle
(384-322 BCE)
• Development of good character traits and habits
• Be a moral person rather than just follow rules
• Agent-oriented rather than action or rule-oriented
• Develop character traits such as kindness,
truthfulness, honesty, trustworthiness, helpfulness,
generosity, and justice
• More likely to work in homogeneous societies rather
than our pluralistic one
• Consequences often should be taken into account
SINGLE COMPREHENSIVE THEORY
• Rawls (1971) and Moor (1999) – Just-
Consequentialist Theory
• Start with core values – ‘Do no harm’
• Support justice, rights, and duties – ‘Do your duty’
• Settle conflicts – two steps
• Consider situation impartially without
regard to specific case – choice between
ethical vs. unethical policies
• Consider consequences of specific case –
choice between better vs. worse policies
• Consider whether problem is disagreement about
facts rather than value differences