Summary notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary notes of all lec...

Description

1. What is morality? 2. Are moral disagreements solvable? 3. What are the major (normative) ethical theories? Morality: a system of beliefs, judgments, and rules about right and wrong  tell us how to act  Except for law, professional code, prudential code, etiquette which all do action guiding too  At the end of the day morality overrides all of the exceptions listed above because it takes the well being of other’s interest into account in addition to your own. Also moral rules apply to everyone in society (universal) Ethics: study of morality with 2 ways to analyze:  Descriptive: investigating what is the case of morality o Example: trying to describe moral situations  Normative: what are the correct moralities using judgment  Does personal morality apply to those around you?  Example: Your opinion on abortion  Moral disagreement:  Relativism: there is no objective truth about morality, given the huge difference in moral beliefs among individuals and the variations in moral norms across societies and cultures o You cant say objective truth doesn’t exist  Facts vs. value: o It is possible in a disagreement that people know different things and thus have different conclusions may still have same values o however, it is also possible that people may prioritize their values differently which leads to different conclusions o fundamental values are abstract so you can apply them differently o people have fundamental differences in their values  no way to solve a disagreement  reason versus emotion  normative ethical theories: they are intended to map out the correct amount of morality  for each theory ask yourself: what are the standards by which we can judge the rightness  utilitarianism: the right action maximizes the good action a consequence is good or bad in terms of happiness  Kantianism: act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law 



 



Why is stealing bad?  Utilitarianism: the bad outweighs the good  Kantianism: not everyone can do the act of stealing because you are assuming everyone has private property to be stolen. However, if everyone stole, there wouldn’t be private property to be stolen anymore o This contradicts itself o Another example; lying: if everyone lies then lying doesn’t theoretically exist  Virtue ethics: emphasizes dispositions and motives underlying the action practical wisdom  Ethics of care: the right action may be different depending on the particular relationship and your role emphasize relational nature of human beings  Causality: evaluating a new case with reference to previous cases “Begging the Question” =making a circular argument Morality and Law  Immoral and illegal are two different things o Just because something is immoral, it isn’t illegal and Vice/Versa o Positive negative rights  + to do something to benefit A  - not to do something to A Principal of Biomedical Ethics  Respect for Autonomy o Making a well rounded decision o Self governance o How should we respect someone’s autonomy  Refrain from undue interference in others decisions  promote and help foster other’s autonomous decision making (truth telling) o when is patient competent to given consent o what should the doctor do if the patient lacks competence to give consent















Principals of Biomedical ethics CONTINUED  Beneficence: we should actively promote the welfare of others and to prevent harm to them o non-maleficence: we should refrain from intentionally harming others o what is harm: is something good for a person’ s welfare as long as that person thinks so o paternalism: overriding of a person’s actions or decision making for her/his own good  when is paternalism justified though? o Justice: equals are treated equals  Stipulations:  Moderate scarcity of resources  That we aren’t completely altruistic  Who are equals and what does it mean to treat people equally  Libertarian: no  Egalitarian : yes Ethics of medical research  Autonomy  Non-maleficence  Justice Codes  Hippocratic Oath (5th Century)  Declaration of Helsinki (1964)  Nuremburg Code (1947)  Declaration of Geneva Tasks  The experiment  The subjects participation in the experiment Justifying the experiment  Benefit  Necessity  Efficacy  Safety Utilitarianism and its limits:  Should good of state have precedence over everything? o No there should be constraints put on the cost of the benefits o Justifying the subjects participation Nuremburg code:  Risk of harm minimized  Right to withdraw from study

Informed consent: the action of an autonomous informed person agreeing to submit o Conditions: 1. Competence 2. Disclosure 3. Understanding 4. Voluntary 5. Consent Chester Southam: unethical  Injected cancer cells into healthy patients (prisoners) at the Ohio State Penitentiary (1956)  only viewed the patients as objects (Biological Thinking) 





what is science for?  To explore answers  Promote wellbeing of humans  Richard Feynman value of science speech o Scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and make all kinds of things o Intellectual enjoyment o We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt What is medicine for?  Henry Beecher for the well being of the individual  What is good thinking for a scientist or a researcher?  Beecher “thoughtfulness and carelessness, not a willful disregard for the patient’s right”  Is this study (example 4 from Beecher) unethical? and why?  I believe that this study is was unethical. I think so because the study was performed on a wide range of age which included minors. This study was also performed on patients who were mentally ill and unstable. Thus they could not make autonomous decisions even if they were give the voluntary option to join. Furthermore, the experiment negatively impacted the patients and the patients were given no compensation. These kids were also further exploited with life long injuries, and despite the kids showing fatal signs, the researchers continued with the research. 

External excuses  Reference to authoritative figure is a common fallacy o i.e. priest, mom, Jesus  its time to think for your self o why does my priest/mom/teacher think that o what valuable lesson can I take from them o how can I support my views when challenged o how can I convince my opponents who do not share the same religion/culture/teacher/mom  what does sanctity of life mean?  Taking life is wrong  Taking life is always wrong  Taking life is directly wrong o Wrong for the subject of the life, not others  Taking life is intrinsically wrong o Wrong because of the loss of the life itself, not because of the other reasons  Taking human life is intrinsically wrong o When does the human life start o When does it end o What sort of life is human life  Glover- on drawing the life and death boundary o It seems preferable to decide first on the central problem why we value life, and on that basis draw its exact boundaries, rather than to stipulate the boundaries arbitrary in advance. o There is no objective way to determine the life-death boundary independently of the values or proposes we attach to the life (and death) from a particular point of view. o SO THEN WHY IS TAKING LIFE SO BAD?  Being alive is intrinsically valuable  1st objection: given a choice between being alive but miserable and not being alive, some would prefer death  Being (merely) conscious/having consciousness is intrinsically valuable  1st objection  using the thought experiment (comparing 2 otherwise identical world, one lacking in “mere” consciousness), it is hard to see why one would prefer the merely conscious world to the other  2nd objection from the subjective point of view, there is no difference between merely conscious and death



 

Being human is intrinsically valuable  If this means species membership is what makes life valuable, than its arbitrary (specialism)  If this means something that humans have is what makes the life valuable, then it is that feature (and not being human itself) that matters GLOVER: a life worth living is intrinsically valuable Is it subjective  Glover:  ones own evaluation matters most  third party evaluation may also be relevant

 

What does it mean to have the right to life Is abortion ever morally permissible? If so, when?  An argument against abortion: o P1: the fetus is a person o P2: abortion is the killing of a person o C: therefore, abortion is wrong  Thomson the argument is invalid and she created a new argument: the right to life does not mean it is always morally permissible to outweigh consent with life o P1: the fetus is a person o P2: every person has a right to live o P3: the fetus has a right to live o P4: the mother has the right to decide what shall happen in and to her body o P5: a women has the right to have an abortion o P6: a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than a mothers right to decide what happens to her body o P7: The fetus’s right to live outweighs the mothers right to her body o C: So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed  Lessons from “the Violinist”: o Is it wrong to unplug yourself (remember, the violinist has a right to life)  most people would walk away, so how is that different from a mother walking away from her fetus?  Is this analogy appropriate with an abortion?  Differences between the two:  The relationship between a mother and a fetus is very different than a stranger and a violinist (no prior relationship or obligation)  Consent o I didn’t choose to be connected up with the violinist, so it is not wrong to unplug myselfmaking an exception for pregnancy due to rape: if the women didn’t choose to be impregnated, then its not wrong for her to get an abortion  Thomson: does a fetus have less of a right to live if it is a product of rape?

Thomson: consent is somehow more important than the right to life, then you no longer accept the supposed inviolability of one’s right to life  Killing (actively taking life away) vs. letting die (violinist was going to die anyway) o “If I unplug myself, I don’t kill the violinist, but his disease kills him (whereas if the women aborts the fetus, she kills the fetus)”  killing an innocent person is absolutely impermissible  killing an innocent person is always worse than letting the person die what does the right to life entail?  When the mother’s life is not at stake, does the fetus’s right to life outweigh what ever rights the mother has?  Positive: have right= to have at least the bare necessary to keep one alive  Negative:  Thomson: a right having right = others must refrain from killing to life does not extend to a right to just anything one needs to be kept alive, but only those things that one has a right to  a right to life is not a right to not be killed, but a right to not be killed unjustly  In the case of abortion, it would be unjust for the woman to deny the fetus the use of her body if se has previously granted it that right o When can a women be considered to have given the fetus the right to her body  Whenever she voluntarily participates in sexual intercourse  So what if she has sex with protection and no intention of getting pregnant  House protected Burglar and house analogy  Justice and decency o You cannot demand Fonda to help you, because your life to right doesn’t cover something you don’t already have a right to o Justice: rights o Decency: character 



Unplugging from the violinist when he only needs one hour and it doesn’t affect your health  Refusing to share with your brother some of the chocolates you were given  (henry Fonda) refusing to walk over in the room to save a dying Thomson o we can require people to be minimally decent, but we cannot require people to be exceptionally good. 







The fundamental problem  Gap between moral and natural properties o Establish creature A has certain natural biological, physiological, psychological, etc.) properties  Establish the connection between these natural properties and moral status  Show that the set of natural properties are necessary and sufficient for moral status  Is this connection arbitrary  Is the set of natural properties to broad or too narrow o Test cases human cells/tissues; fetus “marginal humans” “normal tissues” (for example just saying it has to have human DNA would mean the hair that you shed is included) o Establish A has moral status (rights etc.) Marquis’ argument against abortion  Why is killing wrong? o Pg 189 “what primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect…..projects, and have enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future”  How you reach your conclusion is what really matters, not what the conclusion is  Argument: o P1- killing is Prima Facie wrong because it deprives on of the value of its (his/ her) future  Prima Facie- we have reason fro killing here but this reason could potentially be overridden depending on the situation  Value future- not just because you lose your future, but because of the value in your future  this is a sufficient, but not necessary or the only reason against killing  what does marquis mean by a “future like ours”?  P2- the future of a typical fetus is valuable (just like the future of an adult human)  Conclusion- therefore, it is prima facie wrong to kill a fetus (just as it is prima facie wrong to kill an adult human Advantage of his views  The natural property picked out is not arbitrary

It is not too narrow (doesn’t rule out nonhuman animals or creatures, infants, fetuses)  Its not too broad (rules out human cells; allows for active euthanasia)  The argument does not rely on the assumptions regarding the person hood of the fetus Potential objections and replies  Objections to P1- killing is Prima Facie wrong because it deprives on of the value of its (his/ her) future o The Desire account  Killing is Prima facie wrong because it interferes with the fulfillment of a strong and fundamental desire (ex: the desire to live)  But it can still be seriously wrong to kill someone who does not have the desire to live (ex: suicide) o The discontinuation account  Killing is prima facie wrong because it is discontinuation of one’s experience  Its bad to discontinue ones life because there’s value in it  Its bad to discontinue one’s life because it deprives one of the value in ones future  Objections to P2- the future of a typical fetus is valuable (just like the future of an adult human) o the valuing objection:  the future of the fetus is not valuable because the fetus doesn’t value it, and being valued is necessary for something to be valuable (p. 705)  who is to say whose life is valuable how can we determine whether the life is valuable?  It is or will e valued by the self (pg 189190) o But what if the person is permanently depresses and has a low esteem  It is of value if valued by someone o but the depressed person has no friends o it is or will be valued by someone o 

...