Bioethics Flashcards
Descriptive ethics
How things are and how we think
Aim to describe and explain moral views that people do have right now
Normative ethics
How we should think
What moral views ought to be expected
Which views are justifiable
Moral philosophy (ethics)
Core questions about how we make decisions in daily lives and in society
Respectful ways
Epistemic humility
There is a lot we don’t know
Have to be open to the possibility that you might be wrong and your position could change
What is morality?
A set of fundamental rules that guide our actions
Morally forbidden
You must not do X
Morally obligatory
You must do X
Morally permissible
Morality permits you to do X
It would be nice if you did X
Morally supererogatory
Ethical imperialism
Belief that you are right and have the right to enforce your beliefs on others
Cultural relativism
Different cultures have different moral codes
Ethical relativism
There is no objective truth in morality
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture
6 problems with ethical relativism
- Can’t criticize other cultural practices or beliefs; they are “just different”
- Fails to appreciate common ground
- Contrary to appearances, it doesn’t make people tolerant
- Doesn’t fit with our ethical practices
- Unclear whether/how moral progress is possible
- Which society/culture?
Philosophical high ground
Appeal to reasons, follow reasons, acknowledge you can be wrong
Utilitarianism
Consequences/outcomes are all that matter
Actions should be done that have the greatest benefit possible
Consequentialism + theory of the good
Impartially rendered (your happiness is not more important)
Principle of utility
A person ought to act so as to maximize utility
Utility
The net balance of good over bad (ex: net happiness)
4 main problems with utilitarianism
- Calculations (how can you measure things like happiness)
- Special relationships (are you really not going to value some people more than others)
- Too demanding
- Rights/justice (what if something violates someones rights but makes people happy)
Deontology
Motives/intentions are all that matter
The consequences are not what we should focus on, just want the reasons to be right
Hypothetical imperatives
Things we think we ought to do
Linked to goals we have set for ourselves
If you want to do X then you should do Y
Categorical imperatives
Not dependent on us setting goals for ourselves
They arise because we have the capacity for reason
Just because we have reason we are bound to act certain ways in the world
Applies to all of us unconditionally
First formulation of categorical imperative
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
Before you do an action, think about what it would be like if everyone did that
Second formulation of categorical imperative
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end
Casuistry
Anti-theory theory
Case based reasoning
Instead of starting with a grand moral theory, just look at a case and figure out what’s right and then move on
Tendency to move towards this in bioethics
Respect for autonomy
Respect the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons
Enable individuals to make well-reasoned choices for themselves
Beneficence
Acts in a way that benefits the patient
Non-maleficence
Avoid causing harm to the patient
Justice
Treat like cases alike
Distribute benefits and burdens fairly
4 Principles of health care
Respect for autonomy
Beneficence
Non-maleficence
Justice
4 characteristics of rights (Arras)
Entitlement vis a vis other people
Moral versus legal rights
Positive versus negative rights
They are weighty and demanding
Rights and Correlative Social Duties (3 - Arras)
- Avoid violating negative rights
- Protect vulnerable parties against deprivation of their rights (need police/military)
- Assist those whose rights have already been violated (need court system)
2 and 3 require significant investment from the public
Negative rights
Basically the right to be left alone
Correlate with the duties of all others to refrain at all times from intervening against them
Easier to justify and fulfill
Ex: not be killed, not be stolen from
Positive rights
Require that other people provide the goods and services to which we are allegedly entitled
Ex: health care?
Function of rights
To resist the idea that people have to beg for the help of others
Matter of justice instead of charity
Libertarianism
Never going to give you a right to health care
“There’s nobody here but us individuals, and the one life we all have to live”
Everyone should be treated as an end themselves
Separateness of persons
Only rights we have are negative rights
Communitarianism
Traditional theories have been too focused on individual rights - should start by asking what kind of society you want to live in
Bundles a lot of theories
We can get to the idea of a good life and design a society that does that
Health care is a public need
Main problem: starting point violates conditional neutrality - it imposes conceptions of the good life on people
Liberal egalitarianism
Most dominant view today
What is required for fair equality of opportunity in society?
Rawls was major supporter
John Rawls
Defended liberal egalitarianism
We should think about the basic structure of society and what a well organized society would look like
Start with justice!
Accept and know others accept the principles of justice and know the basic structure of society satisfies principles of justice
Social contract theory
Moral equality of human beings
No human being is inherently subordinate to any other human or group of humans
How can free and equal people be governed?
Hypothetical social contract
Fact of reasonable pluralism
In a free society people will have conflicting moral values
These views are reasonable insofar as their adherents accept pluralism and are willing to live within the bounds of justice
Liberal egalitarianism
Hypothetical social contract
The “original position”
Imaginary scenario where citizens make social contracts with each other to set up a society from scratch
Agreeing together what the rules of society are going to be
Have to agree to disagree
Why use the ideal theory?
So that you can use it as a benchmark to assess actual societies
Justice as fairness
Justice is what free and equal persons would agree to as basic terms of social cooperation under conditions that are fair for this purpose
2 basic principles we are going to get from the social contract (and basically every theory can agree on)
- Liberty (as much freedom as people can have without impeding on the freedoms of other people)
- Equality (2 conditions)