1-1/2: Course Overview & Moral Reasoning

Applications of Bioethics (3)

The branch of philosophy concerned with moral questions about health, disease, treatment, etc. This includes…

1. Clinical ethics

2. Research ethics

3. Health care distribution; triage

And proposes questions on many topics, such as…

• Bodily autonomy & alteration

• Definition of health and illness

• Categorization of mental constructs

Nuremberg Code

A set of research ethics principles for human experimentation established after World War II, spearheading informed consent and the necessity of scientific validity.

This was a reactionary response to the atrocities performed by Nazi scientists, addressed via the Nuremberg Trials.

Subjectivity of Morality

Moral judgements are not universally applicable, and are largely shaped by social belief and personal influences.

Types of Subjective Claims (3)

1. Claims of Preference
   Untestable. Unjustifiable. Claims based on personal beliefs or perspectives.

2. Empirical Claims
   Testable. Justifiable. These claims are categorized based on their nature and the criteria used to evaluate them.

3. Moral Claims
   Untestable. Justifiable. Ethical evaluations of right and wrong. More “serious” than claims of preference, due to higher intersubjectivity.

Cultural Relativism of Morality (2)

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.

2. A person is expected to comply with the moral code of their culture, and not impose their moral code on other cultures.

Moral codes may represent implicit agreements between people in a society, and there may be moral reasons to respect those agreements.

Moral Changes to Culture

The evolution of moral beliefs and practices over time must depend on reformers believing that their own culture is morally mistaken.

“Universality” of Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism posits that moral codes are not universal and should be understood within their cultural context. However, it simultaneously imposes the universal rule of non-intervention in cultural reform.

Commonality of Moral Reasoning

Moral arguments define and shape relationships, ideals, and beliefs, occurring with great frequency. From the conduct of “big corpo” to individual actions, these arguments highlight shared values and ethical dilemmas.

Without moral reasoning, it is impossible to communicate as social creatures.

Refinement of Moral Philosophy

The deconstruction and synthesis of moral arguments, breaking them down into their component arguments and proposing counter-arguments to these claims.

Through the shared evaluation of these moral arguments, we can better analyze moral arguments as they present themselves in real-time.

Argumentive Reasoning

A collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition or support a particular conclusion. It is NOT snap contradictions.

Practical arguments appeal to reasons; considerations in favour of something. Reasons are nested within other reasons, but are ultimately exhaustable.

e.g. Vaccine mandates are justified BECAUSE this saves lives. Why does that matter? Saving lives is justified BECAUSE life is valuable. Why? Eh.

Argumentive Principles

Reasons of broad applicability, forming the abstract grounds that make actions right or wrong.

These generally take the form as rights, including principles such as non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, etc.

These principles, however, are open for interpretation, and may even support both sides of a disagreement.

e.g. Should I strip my patient’s autonomy to save their life or others? Who do we prioritize medicine for?

Reasoning by Analogy/Disanalogy

A method of reasoning that involves drawing comparisons between two similar or dissimilar situations to support an argument or conclusion. It helps clarify complex issues by relating them to more familiar contexts.

Analogy: “Withholding information is NO DIFFERENT THAN lying: both manipulate the patient’s decision to make a decision.”

Disanalogy: “THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between doing and allowing: between actively lying and letting a person persist in a misconception.”

Reasoning by Counterexample

1. Propose a principle.
   “Patients ought to decide their own medical treatment!”

2. Pose a counterexample.
   “What if they had a highly contagious lethal disease?”

3. Respond to the counterexample in one of three ways.
   a) Abandon the principle.
   b) Refine the principle to accommodate the counterexample.
   c) Ignore the counterexample; bite the bullet.

Private Morality vs. Public Policy