Philosophy 246: Bioethics

Moral Reasoning & Ethical Theory

What is ‘Morality’?

Principles or rules of conduct that people use to decide what is right

or wrong.

•Discuss: How would you define ‘morality’?

Morality vs. Ethical Theory Morality is concerned with the social

practices defining right and wrong. Ethical theory provides guidelines for

justification of right or wrong actions when settling human conflict.

No one moral philosophy is accepted by everyone!

What is ‘Law’?

LAW = (i) a public means for translating certain actions into explicit social

practices and (ii) a public means for stipulating punishments for violating

these practices.

•Discuss: How would you define ‘Law’? •How does ‘law’ differ from morality?

**Note that what is immoral could be legal and just because something is illegal does not mean it’s immoral.

Is morality a matter of opinion? Primarily two ways to answer this

question: Relativism – what makes an action right

or wrong is a cultural consensus Absolutism – what makes an action right

or wrong does not depend on human belief, but principles that are universal (e.g., we should never kill a living being without just cause).

Relativism What is good (or right) is socially

accepted and what is bad (or wrong) is socially unacceptable in a given culture.

On this view, there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics, there are only the various cultural codes and nothing more.

Argument for Relativism1. What is considered morally right and

wrong varies from society to society, so that there are no universal moral standards held by all societies.

2. Whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he or she belongs.

3. Therefore, there are no absolute (or objective) moral standards that apply to all people everywhere and at all times.

Relativism: a few troubling features

1- A culture is never at a consensus on anything (e.g., embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, etc.)

2- If morality is in fact relative, then it’s difficult to see how we can make moral progress on any issue. The existence of real moral principles are our best

bet for moral progress (e.g., abolition of slavery, civil rights movement…)

Relativism faces the problem of the moral reformer 3- At least sometimes, entire cultures can be

wrong about what’s moral (e.g. Nazi Germany).

Why not Relativism? An argument against relativism:

There are some basic moral principles that all societies will have in common, because those principles are necessary for society to exist.

Discuss possible examples? We will assume that relativism is false

and proceed by considering ‘absolutist theories of morality’

Examples of how moral decisions are usually made

“Do what the Bible tells you” = Divine Command Theories

“Just follow your conscience” = The Ethics of Conscience

“Look out for #1” = Ethical Egoism “Do the right thing” = The Ethics of Duty “...all men are created ...with certain

unalienable Rights” = The Ethics of Rights “Make the world a better place” = Utilitarianism “Daddy, that’s not fair” = The Ethics of Justice “Be a good person”= Virtue Ethics

Your Peers’ Moral Orientation

Extremely

Very

Average

Little

Not at all

Religious CommandsYour ConscienceYour own self interestsDuties or obligationsRespect for othersRightsConsequences for EveryoneJusticePersonal Virtues

The basic question of ethics

•Historically, philosophers have disagreed about what the basic question of ethics is. They fall into two camps:

Act-oriented approaches: How ought I to act?

Character-oriented approaches: What kind of person ought I to try to be?

FundamentalQuestion

The Big Three For our purposes, we will focus on the

three most popular ethical theories. 1. Consequentialism (or

Utilitarianism) 2. Kantian Ethics (or Deontology) 3. Virtue Ethics

• There are two ways to answer the question, “How should I act?”

Act-oriented approaches

Consequentialism:

•Look at the consequences and choose the action that has the best consequences

Deontology:

Look at the rules and follow the rules (ten commandments, duty, human rights, justice, etc).

Act-orientedapproaches

Utilitarianism: “Make the world a better place”

Made popular by Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) & John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

Seeks to reduce suffering and increase pleasure or happiness

Demands a high degree of self-sacrifice—we must consider the consequences for everyone.

Utilitarians claim the purpose of morality is to make the world a better place.

Utilitarianism: the purpose of morality The utilitarian has a very simple

answer to the question of why morality exists:The purpose of morality is to guide

people’s actions in such a way as to produce the best possible outcome.

Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions.

Two main features of Utilitarianism 1. The Consequentialist principle: the

rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the results that follow from it.

2. The Utility principle: the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state (e.g. pleasure, happiness, well-being, etc).

Utilitarianism: Greatest happiness principle

Greatest happiness principle: Right actions are those that

produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

The fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is GHP: always act in the way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world.

The emphasis is clearly on consequences.

Utilitarian Calculus Utilitarian Calculus: To determine the

right course of action Step 1 – Figure out how much pleasure (or

happiness) and pain (or unhappiness) each possible action is likely to cause or involve.

Step 2 - The right action will be the one that produces the most good and the least pain for all those involved.

NOTE: An action can be right in one situation and wrong in another.

• Two approaches:

Utilitarian theories

Act Consequentialism: Argues that in all situations the good of an action is based on an act that leads to the greatest good for the greatest number

Rule Consequentialism : The morality of an action should be evaluated on the basis of principles or rules designed to promote the greatest utility for the greatest number.

ConsequentialistApproaches

Consider this example A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed

to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin’s bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do?

Rule v. Act Utilitarians For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one

could approve a general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in the medical establishment.

For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant of the leader.

Utilitarianism: some strengths1. It is a very practical moral theory2. It is concerned with consequences

and consequences are important3. It is impartial (?)

Utilitarianism: some weaknesses 1. Utilitarianism often demands that we put

aside self-interest. Sometimes this means putting aside our own moral convictions.

2. Utilitarianism is concerned almost exclusively about consequences, not intentions.

3. You could spend all day trying to calculate possible actions, choosing which is the best course to take

4. Does not consider relationships but relationships seem to be morally significant (e.g. two drowning people…)

The Ethics of Duty : "Do the right thing"

More than any other philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), emphasized the way in which the moral life was centered on duty.

Kant wanted to find the absolute foundation of morality, which he thought was not religion, sentiment, or human opinion.

According to Kant the foundation of morality is duty; to “do the right thing.”

The Ethics of Duty : "Do the right thing" Begins with the conviction that ethics is

about doing what is right, doing your duty. Duty may be determined by:

ReasonKant: Do what any rational agent

should do Professional role

A physician’s duty to care for the sick Social role

A parent’s duty to care for his or her children

Two Types of Imperatives Most of us live by rules much of the time. 1. Hypothetical Imperative:

“If you want to get an A in this class, then you need to study.”

Kant has shown that the acceptable conception of the moral law cannot be merely hypothetical. Our actions cannot be moral on the ground of some conditional purpose or goal. Morality requires an unconditional statement of one's duty.

2. Categorical Imperative Unconditional, applicable at all times “Always tell the truth”

Categorical Imperative: Three Formulations

1 & 2 Universal law formulations “Always act in such a way that the maxim of

your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity.”

"Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature."

All actions have maxims, such as, Never lie to your friends. Always do to others as you would have them

do to you. It’s never ok to cheat if you need to.

Example: Lying Is it possible to universalize a maxim that

permits lying? What is the maxim? It’s ok to lie when you really need to? Can this consistently be willed as a universal

law? Kant says no, because it undermines

itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it depends.

Another example Is it possible to universalize a maxim that

encourages helping innocent people? What is the maxim? When some innocent person is in imminent

danger and we can help them without any risk to ourselves, then we should always help.

Can this consistently be willed as a universal law? It seems like it.

Categorical Imperatives: Three formulations

3. Respect humanity formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat

humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” - Kant

According to Kant, each person has dignity and profound worth, which means that we must never exploit or use others as a means to a good.

What would Kant say? A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed

to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin’s bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do?

Using People as Mere Means

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments: a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, by the U.S. Public Health Service.

Investigators recruited 399 African-Americans who had Syphilis to determine if patients were better off not being treated with the standard toxic remedies. Additionally, researchers wanted to understand each stage of the disease in hopes of developing suitable treatments for others.

The 40-year study was controversial for many reason but primarily because researchers failed to treat patients appropriately after penicillin was validated as an effective cure for the disease.

Respect humanity formulation Kant’s argument: in valuing anything, I (a human

being) endow it with value; it can have no value apart from someone’s valuing it. As a valued object, it has conditional worth, which is derived from my valuation. On the other hand, the person who values the object is the ultimate source of the object, and as such belongs to a different sphere of beings. We, as valuers, must conceive of ourselves as having unconditional worth. And there is no reason to suppose that one person should have unconditional worth and not another.

Kantian Ethics: some strengths 1. What are the strengths of Kantianism? 2. It provides us with a foundation for

individual autonomy and respect for persons.

3. It is impartial 4. It takes motives into account

Kantian Ethics: some weaknesses

What are some weaknesses? 1. Gives little guidance to resolve

conflicting duties (e.g., to lie or be kind) 2. It ignores relationships

The basic question of ethics•Historically, philosophers have disagreed about what the basic question of ethics is. They fall into two camps:

Act-oriented approaches: How ought I to act?

Character-oriented approaches: What kind of person ought I to try to be?

FundamentalQuestion

Virtue Ethics : "Be a good person”

Seeks to develop individual character

Places an emphasis on developing virtue

Assumes good persons will make good decisions

Developed by Plato and Aristotle

Integral to the Jesuit tradition The Spiritual Exercises

An Analogy from the Criminal Justice System• As a country, we place our trust for just

decisions in the legal arena in two places: Laws, which provide the necessary rules People, who (as judge and jury) apply rules

judiciously• Similarly, ethics places its trust in:

Theories, which provide rules for conduct Virtue, which provides the wisdom

necessary for applying rules in particular instances

Character-oriented Approaches Fundamental Question: What kind of

person should I be? This approach is known as Virtue Ethics:

Emphasizes strengths of character necessary for human flourishing

This moral theory suggests that morality is comprised of virtue, which has to do with a person's character and the types of actions

that emanate from that character

Virtue As the Golden Mean Virtue Ethics is usually associated with

Aristotle Aristotle said that strength of character

(virtue) involves finding the proper balance between two extremes. Excess: having too much of something. Deficiency: having too little of something.

Not mediocrity, but harmony and balance.

Virtue As the Golden MeanThe

Golden Mean, for

facing danger

Actingcowardly =A deficiency

Acting with courage =A virtue

Acting hasty or rashly =An excess

Exercise: virtue as a golden mean

Excess Mean Deficit

Trustworthy

generosity

Being realistic

Fairness

Moderation (e.g. eating)

humility

Exercise: virtue as a golden mean

Excess Mean Deficit

Boasting or tattle telling

Trustworthy lying

extravagance generosity stinginess

Overly optimistic Being realistic pessimism

Unfair advantage Fairness Disadvantaged

gluttony moderation anorexia

boasting humility self-deprecating

Virtue and Habit For Aristotle, virtue is something that is

practiced and thereby learned—it is habit. This has clear implications for moral

education, for Aristotle obviously thinks that you can teach people to be virtuous.

Virtue Ethics: some strengths 1. Virtues are those strengths of character

that enable us to flourish 2. Like judges, the virtuous person has

practical wisdom, the ability to know when and how best to apply various moral perspectives.

Virtue Ethics: some problems 1. How do we determine a virtuous action?

Many people have varying definitions of what traits are considered virtuous.

2. It doesn’t really give us any moral guidance.