Lecture 7-Ethics and Gender Flashcards
(35 cards)
What are ethics?
is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct, more specifically the behaviour of individuals in society. Ethics can be viewed as a set of principles which govern our behaviour with respect to what is morally good or bad and morally right and wrong.
Purpose of ethics
seek to determine the best course of action when there are alternative options and provides a reason (not gut feeling; not based on religion, law, social conventions). Each discipline develops its own standard of conduct- a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues.
Examples of ethics
For example, in considering a complex issue like global warming, one may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles
What are morals
specific principles, beliefs and behaviours concerning right and wrong. One’s morals are judged to be good or bad through systematic ethical analysis.
Difference between morals and ethics
ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct while morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.
Historical overview on ethics
Ancient Greece was the birthplace of western philosophical ethics as the known history of pure ethics or ethical theories begin with ancient Greek philosophers (Sophists, Socrates, Socratic schools, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Stoics) in the period from the eighth century BC to the end of antiquity (ca. fifth century AD). Greek philosophy is important not just as a forerunner of modern versions of virtue ethics but also because of its pioneering work on applied or practical ethics. The rise of Christian philosophy, out of a fusion of Greco-Roman thought with Judaism and elements of other Middle Eastern religions, produced a new era in the history of ethics. The medieval period contains an extraordinarily rich variety of approaches to ethics. Until the end of the twelfth century, much of moral philosophy was developed in the context of theological debates within the intellectual tradition of Western Christianity. Monks and teachers in cathedral schools developed the thought of the earlier Christian Fathers, which was heavily influenced by the thinking of some Greek philosophers.
Criticism and comparison
methods of ethics especially modern
Who created modern ethical theory?
Hobbes
Kantian ethics/Deontological ethical theory
developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant that is based on the notion that: “It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will.”
Utilitarianism,
an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes.
Comte, Darwin, and finally Spencer followed by Green
who set the evolution concept into physical sciences as well as the development of ethics
More on the atom bomb
Szilard also requested that there be permanent contact between the United States administration and the group of scientists working on the chain reactions, and that funds be provided for experimental work. However, the commitment to build the bomb was not the scientists’ decision, but President Roosevelt’s. The order to drop the bomb came from yet another individual, President Truman.
Here we have a chain of events in which each link in the chain knew how the science could be used and what it would do. The fact that the ultimate decision and responsibility was that of President Truman is not at issue. However, the contributions of scientists to that decision cannot be ignored. Building the bomb was a gigantic engineering feat, but there was an enormous gap between the scientific knowledge and developing the technology that used the knowledge.
What we can agree on is that: 1. Scientists are aware of how their work can be used.
2. There is no clear relation between scientific ideas and their implementation, that is, between science and technology.
3.Implementing applications of science can be considered a social and/or political decision, for which science is not responsible. Perhaps efforts to apportion responsibility are misguided. What we can agree on is that when scientists provide knowledge, they are obliged to report the implications of such knowledge, not only to an inner circle, but to the public at large.
What are research ethics?
involves the application of ethical principles in conducting research. It is most developed as a concept in medical research but in some form, it is essential to all research especially where human subjects are involved.
Nuremberg Code 1948
Throughout the ages – and especially after the scientific revolution in the 17th century – the behaviour of researchers has been subject to some form of regulation. Many consider the Second World War as the most important landmark. This is mainly due to the reckoning with the scientific, medical experiments conducted on prisoners of war in the concentration camps. This research provided important results but was based on causing injury or death to the people who participated in it. Other key events during the Second World War also helped raise awareness of the consequences of participation in research. One prime example is the Manhattan project, a large-scale research project to produce atomic bombs. Altogether 23 doctors were brought to justice in Nuremberg in 1947 for having conducted medical research on people in the concentration camps. As a direct response to the terminal experiments that had been undertaken, the verdict defined an ethical code - The Nuremberg Code 1948 consisting of ten rules intended to prevent the same abuse from happening again. Since then there have been several instances of unethical research for example the Thalidomide tragedy in 1957 and the syphilis studies. It is now mandatory for scientists to follow a code of ethics in conducting experiments and further, to get ethical clearance from an established Research Ethics committee.
FOUR fundamental principles,
autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
Autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice in expansion
- The Principle of Respect for Autonomy Respect for persons incorporates at least two other fundamental ethical principles, namely: ❖ autonomy, which is Latin for “self-rule”, requires that those who are capable of deliberation about their personal goals should be treated with respect for their capacity for self-determination; and ❖ protection of persons with impaired or diminished autonomy, which requires that those who are dependent or vulnerable be afforded security against harm or abuse.
- The Principle of Beneficence is the ethical obligation to maximize possible benefits and to minimize possible harms and wrongs.
- The Principle of Non-maleficence (“Do no harm”) holds a central position in the tradition of medical ethics, and guards against avoidable harm to research subjects.
- The Principle of Justice requires that cases considered to be alike be treated alike, and that cases considered to be different be treated in ways that acknowledge the difference.
History of eugenics pt 1
In 1883, Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, coined the word eugenics. It came from the Greek “good in birth” or “noble in heredity”. Eugenics was defined as the science of improving the human stock by giving “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable”. In other words, humans could be improved by scientific methods, in the same way that plant breeders improve their stock. Galton thought it would be “quite practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations”.
The scientific assumptions behind this are that most human attributes are inherited; the possible effects of socialisation are ignored. Galton’s views were derived from ideas about natural selection and evolution. An American, Charles Davenport, was particularly influenced by the idea of eugenics. In 1904 he persuaded the Carnegie Foundation to set up the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratories for the study of human evolution. From his studies on human pedigrees, Davenport came to believe that certain races were feeble-minded. Negroes were biologically inferior, Poles were perceived of as independent and self-reliant, though clannish; Italians tended to crimes of personal violence. (On what type of reasoning do you think this was based? See Module 1, Unit 2.) He expected the American population to become through immigration, “darker in pigmentation, smaller in stature, more mercurial… more given to crimes of larceny, kidnapping, assault, murder, rape and sex-immorality.”
His aim was to promote negative eugenics – preventing proliferation of the bad. To this end he favoured a selective immigration policy to prevent any further contamination of the “germ-plasm” (the genetic information transmitted from parents to offspring). To deal with the “badness” within the present population, he tried to prevent reproduction of those whom he considered genetically defective.
History of eugenics pt 2
Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbour, used prison and hospital data to lobby at the state level for the passage of eugenic sterilization laws which would allow individuals in state institutions to be forcibly sterilized if they were judged to be genetically defective. Over 35 states passed and used such laws. By the 1960s, when most of these laws were being repealed more than 60,000 people had been sterilized for eugenic purposes (Allen, 2001).
Although in the 1930s many biologists had begun to react against many of the claims for eugenics, it was too late. The ideas had spread to Europe and in Germany the National Socialists used Laughlin’s model as one of the bases for their sterilization law. This law led directly to many atrocities by doctors and others in the concentration camps. More than 400,000 people were sterilized for perceived genetic defects (Allen, 2001). An increasing number of bioethicists distinguish between “bad eugenics” and “good eugenics”. The former is totalitarian and involuntary; the latter is individual and discretionary. Some strongly support the idea of “embryo editing” and feel that this time around, eugenics could be a force for good. Also, we should also recognize that there is a crucial difference between the old eugenics and the new modern version. Rather than demonizing “unfit” people and working to sterilize them, modern eugenics regards their inherited disabilities as treatable medical conditions and seeks to help them have healthy children.
History of eugenics pt 3
Doctors may be regarded as technologists applying the science of human biology, rather than as scientists, therefore science is not to blame. However, we need to examine the responsibility of the scientists for the genetic theories that underlay the eugenics movement. It appears that these scientists did not consider the social implications of their conclusions, nor did they make them public.
Moreover, the conclusions on which they based their theories seem to have been driven by what they saw as desirable social outcomes. The public was never informed about the absence of reliable evidence to support these conclusions. Many are of the view that scientists are obliged to examine the social implications of their work. This may be debatable. What is clear is that they need not decide how or if it should be used but make clear the extent to which their observations and conclusions can be reliably put into practice. This is especially important in sensitive social areas, when they should be clear to the point of being overcautious. The responsibility of a vigilant public is to be as informed as possible, to demand the evidence and evaluate it critically. Allen (2001) issues a warning about the present tendency to use advances in biotechnology to portray genetics as the new “magic bullet” of biomedical science which will solve many social problems.
He considers it unlikely, that we will see a return to sterilization proposals. However, the requirement of anti-fertilization medication for continuation of welfare benefits in the United States, and tough immigration sentiments in that country and in Europe, remind us that that we are not entirely free of the prejudices of earlier generations
Science for profit-pt 1
There is another dimension to the debate on eugenics. In the highly competitive world in which we live there is no doubt that certain characteristics provide those who have them with distinct advantages. On completion of the Human Genome Project it may not be too long before parents-to-be can decide what careers they would chose for their offspring and, in light of that, what characteristics each child will need to fulfil their parents’ dreams for their success. It may be difficult to resist the temptation to use the methods now touted for gene therapy to alter the genotypes of embryos to produce a custom- designed child.
Who knows to what excesses this could lead? We may yet see a return to eugenics but this time it would be positive eugenics by personal choice rather than the imposition of discriminatory laws. These decisions could become a major issue because the procedures involved would only be affordable by the very rich and in the already developed world. This may yet become another way in which the achievements of science separate rather than reduce the divide between social groups or countries. The scenario described above may never happen. However, there are other important concerns that relate to the economics of science and technology. As noted earlier, most scientific research is being funded or conducted by agencies with a commercial interest in the applications of what they underwrite. Two problems arise because of this. Firstly, the objectives of scientific research and technological development are not necessarily directed to areas that are most in need or of greatest scientific interest. Instead, they are directed to those areas that will yield the greatest profit. An outstanding example is in the area of medicine where certain disorders and potential cures are over researched because the results can be successfully marketed. Diseases that are common in the Third World and kill millions every year receive much less attention and funding.
Science for profit pt 2
The second concern arises from the first but is more general in scope. Even when technology and science produce research findings that are in the interest of humanity in general, the benefits may not reach the potential beneficiaries because they cannot afford them. A recent example makes the point. Drugs that can alleviate the symptoms of AIDS or prevent it from developing are too expensive for the countries that need them most. It took determined political action, threats to ignore patents, and public censure to convince drug companies to bring the prices to those nations within reach of their economies.
Find out about the research mentioned Are there any solutions to these problems? We return to the starting point of our discussion and to related issues that have been reiterated throughout the course. Basic scientific knowledge should remain in the public domain. Within the Caribbean region citizens can support regional governments when they make budgetary allocations to provide funding and facilities for universities and other centres of research such as the Scientific Research Council in Jamaica, the Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI), and the Caribbean Epidemiological Centre (CAREC) in Trinidad.
We must also support local ventures, commercial or otherwise, that use research findings to cost. develop materials that can be made available to the public at reasonable Our governments can be urged to support international agreements that would allow access to scientific information and enforce already existing agreements that would assist less developed countries to share in the technology that would assist us in our development. In the absence of such efforts scientific and technological advancements will provide yet another criterion for dividing the rich and the poor within and between countries. Very importantly, we can only play our part if we make it our duty to remain informed about scientific events and the issues surrounding them.
What is gender?
is a social construct. It refers to the social and cultural differences a society assigns to people based on their (biological) sex. A related concept, gender roles, refers to a society’s expectations of people’s behavior and attitudes based on whether they are females or males. Essentially it is reflective of the notions of masculinity and femininity. Gender roles and expectations are learned, they can change over time and they vary within and between cultures.
What is sex?
is biologically determined and refers to the anatomical and other biological differences between females and males that are determined at the moment of conception and development in the womb and throughout childhood and adolescence.
What does gender influence?
Gender beliefs and practices greatly influence several aspects of our lives, including language, dress, family structure, health, and educational and employment opportunities. We look briefly at certain aspects of two of these– gender and science, and gender and health.