Biomedical Ethics: Course Foundation and Ethical Frameworks Guide

Course Introduction and Learning Methodology

• Instructor: Tim Collins.

• Course Title: Biomedical Ethics Online (Summer 2025).

• Recording Policy: There is a recording for every two assignments due each week. While some recordings may be dated from previous semesters, the material and explanations remain relevant for Summer 2025.

• Core Learning Philosophical Goal: The course is designed for students to actually learn the material rather than merely repeating information found online or in the textbook. Students should explain concepts in their own words based on their understanding.

• Recommended Study Process:

  1. Complete the assigned readings.

  2. Listen to the weekly recording and the instructor's explanation of the material.

  3. Review understanding. If confused, ask questions on Canvas.

• Guidelines for Asking Questions: When asking the instructor for clarification, the most effective method is to state your current understanding of the material. The instructor can then confirm if it is correct or identify where the misunderstanding lies.

• Discussion Boards: Students are encouraged to post questions in discussion boards, as this benefits other students who may have similar issues understanding the content.

Course Logistics and Deadlines

• Requirement: Two assignments are due each week.

• Assignment 1 Due Date: Friday at 11:59 PM.

• Grace Period (Assignment 1): The assignment will not be closed until Saturday at 11:59 PM (a one-day grace period).

• Assignment 2 Due Date: Sunday at 11:59 PM.

• Grace Period (Assignment 2): The assignment will not be closed until Monday at 11:59 PM.

• Course Duration: Approximately seven weeks (as specified in the syllabus).

Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope Fallacy

• Overview: A very common fallacy in everyday life and biomedical ethics, particularly in arguments against euthanasia.

• Definition: A slippery slope fallacy occurs when an individual assumes that taking a specific action $A$ will inevitably lead to a series of steps $B, C, D$—where $D$ is a disastrous consequence—without providing proper evidence for that progression.

• The "Drugs" Example:

  • The Fallacious Argument: If you smoke marijuana ($A$), you will eventually try LSD ($B$), then move to crystal meth ($C$), and finally heroin ($D$), leading to addiction and death.

  • Why it is Fallacious: It relies on heavy assumptions without evidence. It is entirely possible to:

  • Try marijuana and never use harder drugs.

  • Use marijuana and LSD but never move to meth or heroin.

  • Use meth or heroin but not become addicted or face death.

• Slippery Slope Argument vs. Slippery Slope Fallacy:

  • An Argument becomes legitimate if it provides statistics or logical evidence (e.g., "If you try marijuana, you are $31\%$ more likely to move to harder drugs, and if you try LSD, you are $60\%$ more likely").

  • A Fallacy lacks this evidence and assumes the movement from $A$ to $D$ is inevitable.

• The "Potato Chip" Example: Assuming that if you eat one chip, you will necessarily eat the entire large bag. While it is likely you will eat more than one, it is an invalid logical move to assume the whole bag will be consumed as a certainty.

• The "Gay Marriage" Historical Example: Before gay marriage was legalized, some argued that allowing it would lead to legalizing marriage with pets, objects, or multiple people simultaneously. These outcomes did not occur, proving the original slippery slope argument was fallacious.

Logical Fallacy: Hypocrite's Fallacy (Tu Quoque)

• Common Misconception: Many people mistakenly believe this fallacy is simply the act of pointing out that someone is a hypocrite. This is incorrect.

• True Definition: Hypocrite's fallacy (also known as the "tu quoque" or "you do it too" fallacy) occurs when someone accused of a wrongdoing deflects the blame by accusing their accuser of the same or a similar wrongdoing.

• Core Principle: "Two wrongs do not make a right." The fact that an accuser is also guilty does not justify the original action or make it right.

• The "Milk" Example: If someone yells at you for leaving the milk out of the refrigerator, responding with "Well, you leave the milk out all the time" is a fallacy. Leaving the milk out is still wrong (it leads to spoilage and wasted money) regardless of whether the other person does it too.

• Serious Implications: Cases like sexual harassment illustrate this clearly. If person $X$ accuses person $Y$ of harassment, and person $Y$ responds that person $X$ also harpsses people, both individuals are wrong. Person $Y$'s guilt is not erased by person $X$'s behavior.

Utilitarianism (Assignment 2 Overview)

• Definition: Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that posits the right action is the one that causes the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering for everyone affected by the action.

• Consequentialist Nature: It is a theory based on consequences. An action is judged morally right or wrong based on whether it creates the best possible outcomes.

• The Torture Scenario:

  • In a hypothetical case where torturing one person would save dozens of lives, a utilitarian would argue that torture is the morally right choice.

  • Reasoning: The suffering of one person (and the trauma of the person performing the torture) is outweighed by the prevention of the massive suffering and grief that would occur if dozens of people died.

• Relevant Factors in the Utilitarian Calculus:

  • How many people are affected?

  • What is the happiness/misery level of those involved?

  • What are the ages/life expectancies of those whose lives might be saved?

  • How many people depend on or will be devastated by the potential victims' deaths?

  • Duration and intensity of the suffering vs. the duration and intensity of the happiness produced.

• Common Criticism and Response: Critics often claim utilitarians are fine with exploiting minorities for the benefit of the majority. However, most utilitarians argue that things like torture are almost always wrong because, in reality, they rarely result in a better world. Torture is often unreliable or done for the wrong reasons. The theory only justifies such actions in extreme, rare, or nearly impossible scenarios where the benefit clearly outweighs the cost.