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 its
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 Relativism
1. 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 its
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 whats 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, thats not fair = The Ethics of Justice
Be a good person= Virtue Ethics
Your Peers Moral Orientation
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
V
e
r
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
N
o
t

a
t

a
l
l
Religious Commands
Your Conscience
Your own self interests
Duties or obligations
Respect for others
Rights
Consequences for Everyone
Justice
Personal 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?
Fundamental
Question
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-oriented
approaches



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-
sacrificewe 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
peoples 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.
Consequentialist
Approaches
Consider this example
A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed
to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassins
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 strengths
1. It is a very practical moral theory
2. It is concerned with consequences
and consequences are important
3. 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:
Reason
Kant: Do what any rational agent
should do
Professional role
A physicians duty to care for the sick
Social role
A parents 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.
Its never ok to cheat if you need to.

Example: Lying
Is it possible to universalize a maxim that
permits lying?
What is the maxim?
Its 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 assassins
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
Kants argument: in valuing anything, I (a human
being) endow it with value; it can have no value
apart from someones 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?
Fundamental
Question
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 Mean
The
Golden
Mean, for
facing
danger
Acting
cowardly =
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 learnedit 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 doesnt really give us any moral
guidance.