Ethics and Public Policy: Prelim 1

Public Policy

decisions, rules, regulations, and guidelines that governments undertake to address societal issues.

Ethics

what people and institutions should and should not do (not because of practicality or efficiency but morality)

James Rachels: What is Morality

Cases:

Baby Theresa (organ donation) – Should we use someone’s body to help others if they can’t be harmed?

Jodie & Mary (conjoined twins) – Is it permissible to save one life even if it means actively ending another?

Tracy Latimer (mercy killing) – Is ending suffering ever justified, or is it discrimination against the disabled?

Core Moral Principles Discussed:

Benefits Argument – If an action helps someone and harms no one, we ought to do it.

Sanctity of Life – Human life is valuable no matter its quality.

Wrongness of Killing – Is killing always wrong, or are there exceptions?

Use of Persons / Autonomy – It’s wrong to use people merely as means.

Slippery Slope – Allowing exceptions might lead to dangerous abuses.

What Morality Requires:

• Reasoning – Moral judgments must be supported by reasons, not feelings or intuition.

• Impartiality – Every person’s interests deserve equal consideration (no arbitrary favoritism or discrimination).

Minimum Concept of Morality:

Morality = guiding conduct by reason + giving equal weight to everyone affected.

(relies on a set of assumptions 

1. Facts are knowable and agreed upon.

2. Reasonable deliberation will lead to conclusions that can guide moral action.

3. People are willing and able to revise beliefs in light of reason. 

—> If people don’t recognize others as having equal moral worth, Rachels’ minimum standard cannot be fully applied, no matter how careful the reasoning. This can lead to Pub Pol issues. Think pandemic 

Michael Sandel: Doing the Right Thing

Core Question: 

What does it mean to do the right thing—and how should society decide?

Three Approaches to Justice:

1. Max. Welfare (Consequentialism / Utilitarianism) Right action = greatest happiness for the greatest number.

2. Respecting Freedom (Libertarianism / Autonomy) Justice = respecting individual rights & free choice.

3. Promoting Virtue (the good life) A just society cultivates civic responsibility and moral character.

Sandel’s Argument

• Neutrality is impossible: policy choices always rest on moral values.

• To argue about justice is to argue about the good life, not just procedures.

Why does ethics matter for public policy? (civic usefulness—Howard)

Ethical reasoning isn’t abstract philosophy for its own sake: it helps citizens and policymakers justify their choices in ways others can understand and contest, allowing for more critical engagement with policy positions

Howard: Civic Usefulness

What should ethics and public policy (EPP) aim to do in society?

Two Key Roles of EPP

1⃣ Mapping the Menu of Moral Options

• EPP should present multiple reasonable positions on policy debates, not just the author's view.

• Must include both reasonable arguments and widely held unreasonable public views, to help citizens critique them.

2⃣ Bypassing Disagreement (Finding Overlap)

• Use “incompletely theorized agreements”: people with different moral theories (utilitarian, libertarian, etc.) can still agree on the same policy outcome for different reasons.

• Purpose = encourage coalitions for justice, not settle ultimate philosophy.

Reasonable disagreement arises when people share basic commitments (e.g., that people
deserve dignity, fairness matters, freedom is valuable) but weigh or prioritize those values
differently.
Unreasonable disagreement arises when someone rejects the basic moral starting points
needed for shared civic life (e.g., denying certain groups’ humanity, refusing to engage in
reciprocal reasoning).

Key Concept: Civic Usefulness

• EPP should increase citizens’ ability to reason about policy, not tell them what to think.

• Requires clarity, intelligibility, and public engagement (not academic jargon)

Howard challenges the idea that philosophy is just abstract — he argues it has a public role, helping democracies reason better about issues like punishment, poverty, migration, etc.

Blackburn: Seven Threats to Ethics

Main Goal of Book:
To defend ethics against doubts and show why moral thinking is necessary and unavoidable.

Key Idea:
Ethics = how we decide what kind of life is worth living & how we treat others. Blackburn explores threats that try to undermine morality’s authority.

Seven Threats to Ethics (Core Challenges):

• Death of God: Without religion, is morality groundless? (Euthyphro dilemma)

• Relativism: Morality varies by culture — so no universal truth?

• Egoism: Humans only act in self-interest — is altruism fake?

• Evolutionary Explanation: Morality is just survival instinct — not truth?

• Determinism: If choices are predetermined, is responsibility real?

• Nihilism/Pessimism: Morality is an illusion (Nietzsche, cynicism).

• False Consciousness: Morality hides power/ideology (Marxist critique).

Blackburn’s Response:

We cannot escape ethical reflection — even doubting morality is a moral stance. Ethics matters because we must justify how we live with ourselves and others.

Exam Takeaway:

Blackburn defends ethics as practical, human, and necessary — not divine or absolute, but built through reasoning, dialogue, and shared values in real life.

Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Main Claim:
We are morally obligated to give far more to alleviate global suffering than we currently do — giving to famine relief is not charity, but duty.

“If we can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.”

Key Ideas:

• Impartiality: Distance and numbers don’t reduce our moral duty — a child drowning nearby = a child starving overseas.

• Duty vs Charity: Current moral norms treat aid as optional generosity. Singer says this is wrong — failing to help is morally wrong, not just “less good.”

• Radical Implication: Morality demands major lifestyle change — we should give until giving more would cause serious harm to ourselves (possibly up to marginal utility).

• Objections Addressed:

  • “Governments should handle it.” → Doesn’t excuse personal inaction.

  • “Overpopulation makes aid useless.” → Then fund population control, not nothing.

  • “Too demanding.” → Our comfort doesn’t override others’ survival.

Utilitarianism/Consequentialism (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill)

An action or policy is right if it produces the greatest overall outcome for the largest number of people. (Which policy will create the best overall results or

most minimize harm?)

Deontology (Immanuel Kant)

An action or policy is right if it follows moral rules/absolute moral duties (regardless of the outcomes). (What rules or rights must we respect, no matter the consequences?)

Justice and Distribution (John Rawls)

An action or policy is right if it distributes benefits and burdens fairly across members of society. (Which policy distributes benefits and burdens most fairly?)

Virtue Ethics (Aristotle, Plato, Confucius)

An action or policy is right if it is what a

virtuous person would do. (to embody and act upon moral excellence and strong ethical principles, exhibiting qualities like honesty, integrity, fairness, and compassion) (How would a good/honest/responsible person respond in this situation?)

Care Ethics (Carol Gilligan)

An action or policy is right if it promotes healthy relationships, well-being, and strong interpersonal relationships, especially those who may be vulnerable. (How can we respond with empathy and responsibility to those who depend on us or are most vulnerable?)

Bowen H. McCoy — “The Parable of the Sadhu”

Main Idea:
McCoy’s encounter with a dying pilgrim (sadhu) on a Himalayan climb becomes a metaphor for how individual and group ethics conflict, especially in organizations under stress.

Key Points:

• Each hiker helped the sadhu a little, but no one took full responsibility.

• McCoy later realized this mirrored corporate moral failures—when responsibility is diffused and goals (like reaching the pass or profit) override ethics.

• True ethics are revealed under pressure; without shared values or leadership, groups fail morally.

Themes:

• Individual vs. collective ethics

• Diffusion of responsibility

• Stress as a moral test

• Importance of organizational culture and moral leadership

Moral:

In both business and life, individuals need group support—and clear values—to act ethically under pressure.

Diffusion of Responsibility: In groups, everyone assumes “someone else will take care of it,” but

often no one does.

Threshold Dilemmas: How much must we sacrifice personal goals (summiting a mountain,

economic growth, national interest, election) to meet moral obligations?

Individual vs. Institutional Responsibility: Relying on individual heroism is unreliable: we need

systems that clearly assign responsibility.

Policy Parallel: The Sadhu represents global dilemmas (climate change, refugees, poverty) where

no one actor feels fully accountable but collective inaction leads to harm.

Nagel

Main Idea:
Nagel argues that even though we believe people should only be judged for actions under their control (Kant’s view), in reality luck deeply affects moral judgment. This creates a paradox: our moral assessments depend on things outside our control.

Key Concepts:

• Moral Luck: When factors beyond a person’s control affect how we morally judge them.

• Types of Moral Luck:

  1. Resultant Luck – outcomes (e.g., drunk driver kills vs. doesn’t kill).

  2. Circumstantial Luck – situations faced (e.g., living under Nazism).

  3. Constitutive Luck – one’s character, temperament.

  4. Causal Luck – antecedent causes shaping actions.

• Problem: If moral responsibility requires control, nearly all moral judgment collapses—yet we can’t stop judging this way.

Moral/Philosophical Significance:
Reveals tension between control and responsibility—our moral system depends on luck even though we think it shouldn’t.

Should outcomes matter more than intentions?

Sandel

Central Question

What does it mean to act justly — and what principles should guide a just society?

Key Framework: Three Approaches to Justice

1. Welfare (Utilitarianism) → Maximize overall happiness or welfare.

2. Freedom (Liberalism/Libertarianism) → Respect individual choice and autonomy.

3. Virtue (Aristotelian/Communitarian) → Cultivate good character and civic virtue; promote the common good.

1. Price Gouging after Hurricane Charley (2004):

• Free-market argument (Sowell, Jacoby): High prices are efficient; they reflect supply/demand, attract needed goods, and respect freedom of contract.

• Anti-gouging argument (Charlie Crist): Buyers under duress lack freedom; exploitation violates civic virtue.

• Sandel’s takeaway: The debate reveals three moral logics — welfare, freedom, virtue — that underlie justice debates.

2. The Purple Heart Debate:

• Should soldiers with PTSD receive the same medal as those physically wounded?

• Reveals competing ideas of virtue:

  • Traditionalists honor physical sacrifice (“shedding blood”).

  • Reformers argue psychological suffering is equally honorable.

• Sandel: We can’t determine justice without asking what virtues society should honor.

3. The 2008 Financial Bailout:

• Public outrage over bonuses to failing executives.

• Anger not just about greed, but about rewarding failure — violating moral desert (“people should get what they deserve”).

• Raises question: If luck explains failure, does it also explain success? Challenges meritocracy and moral basis of market rewards.

Ancient vs. Modern Justice

• Aristotle: Justice = giving people what they deserve → depends on defining virtue & the good life.

• Kant/Rawls: Justice = respecting individual freedom → state should be neutral on virtue.

• Sandel: Modern politics can’t escape moral questions — justice always involves judgments about virtue and desert.

Moral Reasoning (Method)

• Begins with concrete moral intuitions → reflect → abstract principle → test principle against new cases → revise.

• Dialectical reasoning (like Socratic dialogue): moves between judgments and principles.

• Justice isn’t found in abstract theory alone — it’s developed through public moral discourse.

Major Takeaways

• Justice debates always involve tension between efficiency (welfare), autonomy (freedom), and morality (virtue).

• Moral outrage often reflects deeper questions of desert, responsibility, and the good society.

• True civic reasoning requires engaging with moral and philosophical disagreement — not avoiding it.

Young

Five Faces of Oppression

Exploitation: Transfer of labor’s fruits from one group to another.

Marginalization: Exclusion from participation in social, political, or economic life.

Powerlessness: Lack of authority, autonomy, or decision-making power in work and

society.

Cultural Imperialism: Dominant culture’s worldview is normalized. All else is “othered.”

Violence: Systemic threat or use of violence directed at groups simply because of who they

are.

What does consistent ethical reasoning look like?

• Same principles: apply the same moral standards

• equal protection of life: legal/political protections should not vary

• Proportionality and context-sensitivity: Treat similar harms similarly, but take context into account.

• Burden of proof and evidence

• Separate normative layers: Distinguish 1) moral evaluation of the act, 2) sympathy for the person, and 3) policy responses

• Institutional remedies first: Prioritize institutional mechanisms (independent investigations, courts, oversight) instead of ad hoc popular justice.

Sympathy and Public Policy

Sympathy is a form of moral recognition; not just an emotion but political resource (where sympothy flows so does policy); ethics demands that we seperate personal feelings from our moral and civic duties; we don’t need to feel sympathy for someone but we do need to extend sympathy equitably

Miller

Central Thesis:

States may ethically restrict immigration — not from xenophobia, but to protect legitimate national interests like culture and population stability.

Miller rejects 3 arguments for open borders:

Freedom of Movement: Only guarantees movement within a state, not entry into another.

Right to Exit: Doesn't imply a right to enter any country (like marriage—requires a willing partner).

Global Justice: States owe basic needs (aid, rights), but not equal opportunity via migration.

—> Rich states must contribute to alleviating poverty and injustice, or facilitate migration. “Simply shutting one’s borders and doing nothing else is not a morally defensible option.”

Legitimate Reasons to Limit Immigration

1. Cultural Preservation

2. Population & Resources

Priority may be given to migrants who:

● Already share cultural/linguistic values.

● Possess needed skills/talents.

When Must States Admit?

Refugees: Those fleeing persecution or deprivation have a stronger claim to entry (human rights).

But states may offer temporary protection or help abroad rather than permanent resettlement.

Fair Immigration Policy Must:

Avoid discrimination (race, religion, sex unacceptable).

Select migrants based on integration potential (language, skills).

Grant full citizenship to long-term immigrants—no permanent second class.

Carens

Central Claim:

Borders are morally arbitrary — like feudal privilege. If we take liberal principles (freedom, equality) seriously, we must endorse open borders as a matter of justice.

Core Argument: Nationality = Birth Privilege

Citizenship in a rich country is an unearned advantage, like being born into a noble class. A just world cannot morally defend such exclusion.

Liberal Frameworks All Point to Open Borders

Rawls (Justice as Fairness): Behind a “veil of ignorance,” no one would accept closed borders — they’d risk being born poor elsewhere.

Utilitarianism: Open borders maximize global welfare; rich countries won’t be devastated.

Libertarianism (Nozick): If individuals own themselves, they should be free to move and hire across borders. State interference violates liberty.

Individuals have natural rights simply by nature of being human (property, voluntary exchange, movement, etc.).

The state’s only job is to protect rights equally for all within its territory. Citizenship gives no special claim (i.e. people have rights as individuals, not as citizens). Therefore, citizens and non-citizens should be treated the same.

Objections Rejected

Cultural Threat? Diversity does not destroy democracy; institutions can adapt.

Social Overload? Justice may require redistribution—even if uncomfortable.

Carens flips the debate: Instead of migrants justifying entry, states must justify exclusion — and they cannot, under their own moral values.

Gibney

Central Focus:
Refugees raise unique ethical challenges — beyond immigration — about who qualifies, why states owe protection, what obligations are owed, and how responsibility is shared globally.

1⃣ Who Is a Refugee?

• Legal (1951 Convention): persecution-based.

• Ethical critique: too narrow — those fleeing war, collapse, or deprivation may be equally vulnerable.

• Ethical definition ≈ anyone whose basic rights cannot be protected by their own state.

2⃣ Why Do States Have Obligations?

• Humanitarian Rescue: Save strangers in peril.

• Reparative Justice: States may have caused or contributed to crises (war, climate, colonialism).

• State System Responsibility: Refugees are “orphans of the international order” — global system must protect those it excludes.

3⃣ What Do Refugees Deserve?

• Minimum: non-refoulement (no return to danger).

• Beyond safety: conditions to rebuild a meaningful life — community, culture, autonomy.

• Debate: asylum vs. citizenship, temporary vs. permanent protection.

4⃣ How Should States Share the Burden?

• Current system (location-based) is unjust — poorest states host most refugees.

• Fair sharing should consider capacity (wealth, stability).

• Tension: state fairness vs. refugee choice (respecting agency).

5⃣ Do Refugees Have Duties?

• Yes — as moral agents, not just victims: respect laws, engage in community, possibly aid their homeland.

• Raises hard questions: return? accept placement? solidarity with others?

Alienikoff and Owen

Core Question:

Should wealthy states protect refugees “here” (through asylum/resettlement in their territory) or “there” (by funding protection in regions near conflict)?

Central Argument

They critique the “protection-there” strategy (Betts & Collier), which keeps refugees in regions of origin, arguing it fails ethically under both ideal and real-world conditions.

Key Claims

❌ Problems with “Protection There”

Arbitrary & unfair: Burdens fall mostly on poor neighboring states.

Undermines refugee autonomy: Limits movement and political inclusion; refugees treated as warehoused labor, not agents.

Ignores refugee preferences: Many want to reunite with family or seek opportunity elsewhere.

💡 Alternative Vision – Mix of “Here and There”

Burden-sharing must include resettlement in the Global North, not just funding camps in the South.

Freedom of movement (e.g., Nansen Passport idea) supports refugee agency.

Justice requires voice + exit, not warehousing in limbo.

Ethical Foundations

Owen’s View

● Refugees are “orphans of the state system.” When states fail, the international community must step in. Political membership is central to restoring autonomy.

● Three categories of protection:

○ Asylum (persecution): need rapid resettlement and new membership.

○ Sanctuary (generalized violence): need protection and eventual citizenship.

○ Refuge (disasters): need short-term shelter and then return/repatriation.

Aleinikoff’s View

● Skeptical of state-centric system. Focuses on refugee choice and agency.

● Calls for freedom of movement. “Protection there” traps refugees where they don’t want

to be.

● Supports fair burden-sharing globally; North and South should both take responsibility.

Aleinikoff vs. Owen

A just refugee regime must provide options, not confinement.

Protection must allow refugees to pursue autonomy across borders — not trap them “there” for Northern convenience.

Damianos

Main Idea:
Asylum is denied through digital bureaucracy, not walls — a new, invisible form of border violence.

Example – Greece’s Skype System (2014–22):

• Only way to apply was via Skype calls.

• 8,835 calls → 9 answered (0.009%)

• Refugees trapped in legal limbo: no papers, no work, no safety.

Key Concept – Digital Pushback
Technology used to appear open while ensuring most are never heard.
Not inefficiency — intentional exclusion through silence and waiting.

Ethical Point:
Rights are meaningless without access. Digital borders let states deny asylum without visibly refusing it.

Exam Takeaway:
Damianos reveals bureaucratic cruelty without spectacle — asylum exists on paper, but not in reality.

borders are…

socially and politically constructed, not natural, immutable things. Territorial

borders and citizenship are historically recent, politically constructed, and not a universal or timeless condition.

The Communitarian Challenge (Waltzer) (Border policy)

Claim: States, like clubs, have a right to self-determination. They can exclude outsiders.

Carens’ critique:

● States ≠ clubs. States belong to the public sphere, where equal treatment is required.

● Internal migration (e.g., U.S. states, cities) shows communities can remain distinct

without border control.

● Liberalism’s own history involves expanding equal treatment to those who were once excluded. Immigration is the next extension.

○ If liberal societies are consistent, the equal treatment principle shouldn’t stop at the border. Denying entry or permanent membership to outsiders because of where they were born is parallel to older forms of exclusion that liberalism already rejected.

crimmigration

The hardening and securitization of borders. Historically, immigration issues were treated as civil or administrative matters. In recent years (1980s–present), immigration has been treated as a criminal matter, and

non-immigration infractions impact immigration status.

Externalization

The practice of enlisting other countries and private actors to prevent border crossers from reaching or residing upon a given territory

Territorial Frontier

Technologies used for detection, deterrence, identification, and verification.

Internalization

The inward encroachment of border controls within sovereign territory

Bordering isn’t just about drones or biometrics at the territorial line

it’s also about data infrastructures and systems of control that allow the

state to relocate the border deep inside and across society

Vulnerability

Exposure to risk and a limited ability to cope or protect oneself from that risk

Metcalfe, P. & Dencik

Main Idea:
The authors argue that Europe’s use of digital technologies and data systems in border control creates “big borders” that criminalize, surveil, and exclude refugees—turning migration management into a system of data injustice.

Quote:

“With big data comes big borders.”

Moral:
Border data systems are not neutral—they reproduce injustice and control under the guise of security and efficiency.

Mittelstadt

Main Idea:

Mittelstadt argues that while many AI ethics frameworks promote high-level principles (like fairness, autonomy, and transparency), these alone cannot ensure ethical AI. Unlike medicine, AI lacks the institutional, professional, and legal structures needed to make principles effective.

Key Points:

• AI ≠ Medicine: AI ethics borrows from medical “principlism,” but fails because AI lacks:

  1. Common aims & fiduciary duty – developers serve corporate, not public, interests.

  2. Professional norms/history – no unified profession or moral standards.

  3. Translation methods – vague principles rarely lead to concrete action.

  4. Accountability – weak enforcement or regulation.

• Result: Principles risk becoming virtue-signaling or moral window dressing.

• Solutions proposed:

  • Clearer accountability and regulation.

  • “Bottom-up” ethics—case-based and participatory.

  • Licensing high-risk AI developers.

  • Focus on organizational ethics, not just individuals.

  • Treat ethics as an ongoing process, not a technical checklist.

“Shared principles are not enough to guarantee trustworthy or ethical AI.”

Yuste

Core Idea

Neurotechnologies (implantable + nonimplantable) can record and alter brain activity — promising for science and medicine but posing unprecedented ethical risks to mental privacy, identity, and agency.

Key Ethical Issues

• Neuroprivacy: AI can decode thoughts, images, emotions → risk of “mind reading.”

• Mental integrity: Brain stimulation can alter personality or decision-making (threat to free will).

• Bias & access: Algorithms may discriminate; unclear who controls or benefits from neurotech.

• Neuroenhancement: Raises questions about consent, fairness, and identity.

Proposed Protections

1. Ethical Guidelines + Neurorights:

   • Protect mental privacy, identity, agency, equal access.

   • Chile pioneered constitutional neurorights; others (Spain, UN, OECD) following.

2. Technical Safeguards:

   • Encryption, differential privacy, federated learning to secure neurodata.

3. Regulatory Models:

   • Treat all brain data as sensitive health data under laws like HIPAA/GDPR.

   • Apply medical model → all neurodevices (even wearables) regulated as medical devices.

4. Technocratic Oath:

   • Ethical pledge for neurotech developers (“Do no harm,” like Hippocratic Oath).

Main Takeaway

Neurotechnology’s power demands new ethical, legal, and technical safeguards.
Yuste calls for a global framework that treats neurodata like health data and embeds moral responsibility in the field’s growth.

Americas AI Action Plan

Goal: Ensure U.S. global dominance in AI for national security, economic power, and technological leadership.

3 Pillars: Innovation | Infrastructure | International Leadership

⚙ I. Accelerate AI Innovation

• Deregulation: Cut rules; repeal prior AI safety orders.

• Free Speech: AI must reflect “truth,” not “ideological bias.”

• Open-Source: Promote U.S. open-weight models.

• Workforce: AI literacy, retraining, apprenticeships.

• Science & Data: Automated labs, public datasets.

• Defense & Gov’t AI: Adopt AI widely; fight deepfakes.

---

⚡ II. Build AI Infrastructure

• Build Fast: Streamline permits for data centers, chips, energy.

• Energy Grid: Expand nuclear / geothermal power.

• Chips: Reshore semiconductor manufacturing.

• Cybersecurity: “Secure-by-design” AI + AI incident response.

• Skilled Trades: Train workers for AI infrastructure jobs.

---

🌍 III. International AI Leadership

• Export U.S. AI: Spread American models + standards to allies.

• Counter China: Block CCP influence + tech theft.

• Export Controls: Restrict AI chips & manufacturing tools.

• Security & Bio: Monitor frontier-model risks + enforce DNA-screening for biothreats.

Jake Sullivan Remarks at Brookings

Core Idea:
Calls for a “new economic consensus” — replacing free-market globalization with state-led investment + allied cooperation to rebuild U.S. industry and middle class.

Why?
Old model (deregulation, free trade) caused:

• Industrial decline

• Inequality

• Supply chain & security risks (esp. China)

New Strategy:

• Industrial policy (chips, clean energy)

• Allied supply chains (not China dependence)

• Trade tied to labor, climate, security

• Global investment (PGII, World Bank reform)

Goal:
Economic strength = national security + democracy protection.

Elizabeth Anderson

Core Question:

Is democracy valuable only for its outcomes (instrumental) — or for its own sake (non-instrumental)?

Main Argument

Democracy is both instrumentally and non-instrumentally valuable.

• It’s instrumental because it helps protect rights, avoid oppression, and promote learning.

• But it’s also non-instrumental: people value self-rule, equality, and participation as parts of a good life — even if a benevolent dictator produced the same results.

Key Concepts

• Democracy as a way of life (after Dewey & Mill):

• More than institutions — it’s a culture of equality, mutual respect, cooperation, and shared problem-solving.

• Involves three dimensions:

  1. Membership → universal, equal citizenship.

  2. Government → deliberation among equals (“government by discussion”).

  3. Culture → everyday civic habits of respect & cooperation.

• Deliberative Democracy: Focus on discussion, feedback, and learning — not just majority rule.

• Equality as central value: Every person counts as an equal source of moral claims (“self-originating sources of value,” per Rawls).

• Autonomy + Sympathy + Intelligence: Core democratic virtues—citizens act together, respect others, and learn collectively.

Instrumental vs. Non-Instrumental

• Instrumental: Democracy prevents abuse, protects rights, promotes collective learning.

• Non-Instrumental: People prefer to rule themselves—democracy expresses autonomy and equality, not just produces outcomes.

• Like shopping analogy: even if a dictator gave us what we want, we’d still want to choose together.

brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)

connect brains to computers, machines, or other devices

The Five Neurorights

● The right to mental privacy, or the ability to keep mental activity protected against disclosure.

● The right to identity, or the ability to control one’s mental integrity and sense of self.

● The right to agency, or the freedom of thought and free will to choose one’s own actions.

● The right to fair access to mental augmentation, or the ability to ensure that the benefits of neurotechnology are distributed justly in the population.

● The right to protection from algorithmic bias, or the ability to ensure that technologies do not insert prejudices.

How is public health an ethical issue?

Public health is ethics in action: it’s about who gets seen as worth saving, which trade-offs we’re willing to make, and how power shapes assessments of both.

Emanuel et al.

Argument: The most difficult questions raised by COVID-19 were not technical, but ethical (how to balance competing values).

○ Although leaders often invoked values like “equity” and “solidarity,” they rarely operationalized them into policy.

● Values shape every stage of policymaking: from setting goals (e.g., minimizing deaths vs. preserving liberty), to making trade-offs (e.g., school closures vs. economic harm), to navigating uncertainty.

● Ethical reasoning was missing from pandemic decision-making. Governments relied on epidemiology and logistics, but not ethics.

Substantive ethics vs. prodedural 

Substantive ethics: which values we prioritize.

○ Focus: moral content of decisions.

Procedural ethics: how we make decisions (transparency, inclusion, accountability, responsiveness, etc.).

○ Focus: moral legitimacy of decision-making.

● There’s need for systems-level ethical foresight (i.e. scenario planning) and advising, with trained ethicists on staff and consulted at all times, not only in times of crisis.

Five Values for Ethical Allocation of Scarce Resources (Emanuel)

Five key values should guide resource allocation:

● Maximizing benefits and preventing harms*

● Mitigating disadvantage (prioritizing the least advantaged)

● Reciprocity (rewarding those who took on disproportionate risk)

● Instrumental value (prioritizing those who can help others)

● Equal moral concern (avoiding discrimination)

Substantive Ethics

which values we prioritize

Procedural Ethics

how we make decisions (transparency, inclusion, accountability, responsiveness, etc.)

Villarosa

Argument: Systemic racism explains why Black Americans were disproportionately likely to die from COVID-19.

○ This was not due to individual behavior or biology, but social determinants of health: unequal access to care, environmental hazards, frontline work, and chronic stress from structural racism itself.

● Racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes reflected longstanding structural inequalities, not individual choices.

● “Comorbidities” reflect policy choices, not biology. Conditions like hypertension and diabetes are linked to social conditions (poverty, pollution, unequal access to care, etc.).

● Historical mistrust (i.e. Tuskegee Syphilis Study) shaped responses to public health measures and vaccination.

● Federal responses framed risk as individual responsibility (underlying conditions, individual action) rather than structural injustice.

● Lack of disaggregated data made racial disparities invisible for months.

Ethical failure → ignoring known inequities in designing pandemic response.