Week 1

Lecture Notes

Slide 1

bioethics is a branch of philosophy and so its important toto know the science of philosophy.

Philosophy aims at producing knowledge about beliefs about the world that are both true and justified.

Knowledge is composed of three things

• Belief - they aim to represent the world as it truly is and when we have good reason to have these beliefs we are justified. in science they are belived to be true and justified when supported by emperical (collected) evidence

• Truth,Justification - in philosophy they are not grounded in expirements but rather rational argumentation. and claims are justified by good reasoning. this is important cause in philosophy we look at arguments / claims in a diff way so when stating in a opinion in bioethics you ned to be able to back it up

Slide 2

we can therefore distinguish philosophy from science by its methode and content. philosophy relies on logical reasoning that is typicly deductive (could be inductive or abductive) and this is used to make claims about the world.

Philosophy usually answers questions that could be answerd by science althought they are not typiccly solved through scientific resoning and more philosoficaly.

Slide 3

Within philosophy there are different branches of the field. there are two central branches

• metaphysics - questions about being and existence what exists and what it means to exist

• epistemology - concerned with knowledge, belief, and justification

philosophy also includes areas such as the philosophy of language, logic, and value theory (bioethic falls in this).

• aesthetics - concerns art, beauty, and creativity

• political and social philosophy - examines justice, rights, and the organization of societies

• ethics - focuses on questions of right and wrong and how we ought to act

Bioethics is a form of applied ethics, in which ethical principles are applied to real-world issues, particularly in medicine and the life sciences.

Slide 4

there are two types of questions we can ask, and two types of claims we can make about the world: descriptive and normative.

• Descriptive - questions ask about the way the world is. descriptive claims tell us what people believe, what happens in nature, or how things work.science aims to ask and answer only descriptive questions, and it does so through empirical investigation.

• Normative - they are prescriptive meaning They are concerned not with how the world is, but with how it ought to be. this means asking what we ought to do, how we should act, or what is right or wrong.

slide 5

ethicists are concerned with a particular subset of normative questions. How ought we to act? and How should we behave? especially with respect to moral issues. This is what distinguishes ethics, and bioethics. This can be contrasted with what we might call descriptive ethics.

Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists may study how people actually behave, or what moral norms a particular culture follows. Even when these disciplines examine ethics, they are describing the moral beliefs and practices of a group. They are not evaluating whether those beliefs or practices are morally right or wrong.

Ethicists, by contrast, ask and attempt to answer normative questions about how we ought to behave.

Slide 6

In bioethics, then, you are asking and answering questions about what we ought to do with respect to bioethical issues.

The answer is the third claim. This is because it concerns how a person ought to act morally in relation to others. The first claim involves practical or instrumental reasoning how to achieve a goal efficiently. The second involves aesthetic judgment what looks good or bad. Only the third involves a moral norm governing interpersonal behavior.

Slide 7

Ethicists are not primarily concerned with how we ought to act as isolated agents, but with how we ought to act given that our actions typically affect the well-being of others.

I ought not to spread salacious rumors about my colleagues because doing so would unjustifiably harm their well-being. They are not moral dilemmas and do not involve moral reasoning.

Slide 8

Ethical theories such as utilitarianism and deontology tend to have two main aims.

these theories tell us what we ought to do. They offer moral guidance. More importantly, they explain why we ought to act in certain ways rather than others: they provide reasons for action. And ethical theories allow us to evaluate the actions of ourselves and others. They make it appropriate to attribute praise or blame

Slide 9

Scenario:

Walking to class, you see someone trapped under heavy debris on a mountain trail. Rescuing them requires climbing over sharp rocks, which will ruin your brand-new shoes.

Key Elements:

1. Stakes:

   • Trapped person: Life-threatening situation. Immediate help could save them.

   • Your shoes: Material loss; inconvenient but not life-threatening.

2. Moral Conflict:

   • Self-interest: Preserve your property, avoid personal loss.

   • Altruism / Duty: Help someone in urgent danger, potentially save a life.

Slide 10

Key Idea:

• Utilitarianism: Morally obligated to maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

Application to Rescue Scenario (Person Trapped / Drowning):

1. Comparing Suffering:

   • Trapped/drowning person: Severe suffering, potentially life-threatening.

   • You / shoes: Minor loss or inconvenience.

   • Conclusion: The suffering prevented by saving the person far outweighs the minor suffering caused by ruined shoes.

2. Moral Obligation:

   • Choosing not to help results in greater overall suffering.

   • By failing to act, you are doing something morally wrong → subject to moral blame.

Slide 11

Moral Obligation:

• If you choose not to rescue a drowning person:

  • You are committing a moral wrong.

  • You are worthy of blame.

Course Focus:

• This class does not aim to survey ethical theories in isolation (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology).

• Normative ethics: The study of what makes actions morally right or wrong.

• Applied ethics: The domain we will focus on:

  • Applying ethical theories and concepts to real-world areas where moral issues arise.

slide 12

bioethics primarily concerns the ethics of medicine and the biomedical sciences.

is morally permissible for doctors to assist in ending a patient’s life…

Slide 13

In bioethics we construct arguments that defend claims about how the world ought to be, rather than merely describing how it is. These arguments often draw on what each of us has an innate sense of as right or wrong. In philosophy, these pre-theoretical beliefs are called moral intuitions. bioethics relies on reasoning rather than opinion, using our intuitions as a starting point to generate ethical arguments.

For example, many people hold the intuition that lying is generally wrong. Philosophers study these intuitions not just to record them, but to identify moral reasons that weigh for or against particular actions.

slide 14

The aim of ethics is to take our moral intuitions our gut feelings about right and wrong and use them to construct arguments that are both valid, meaning the reasoning logically follows, and sound, meaning the premises are justifiable. This does not mean our intuitions are always correct

Ethics distinguishes between descriptive facts, which tell us how people behave, and normative questions about what we ought to do. While some ethical approaches give weight to our desires and preferences, they do not treat them as indisputable sources of moral truth.

Philosophy’s role is to lay these deep-seated intuitions on the table, examine them critically, and evaluate their consistency

Slide 15

The goal of ethical reasoning is to generate principles that are independently plausible—plausible on their own, apart from our intuitions. Sometimes we may need to revise our principles to align with our considered judgments, while in other cases we may need to revise our intuitions to fit independently plausible principles (reflective equilibrium by John Rawls)

we critically examining our assumptions, laying them out, and considering the principles they would generate or, conversely, the assumptions we should adopt in light of plausible principles. doing ethical reasoning, we also make use of descriptive facts about the real world facts about people, actions, and outcomes to apply our principles to concrete cases. ethics does not generate facts as its primary focus

slide 16

going back to the questions

If death is bad, and we can prevent it without sacrificing anything important, then we ought to act → we can prevent it without sacrificing something important → therefore we ought to save the person.

slide 17

An argument is valid if the logical structure guarantees that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. For example, the argument “If it’s Friday, then the moon is made of cheese; it’s Friday; therefore, the moon is made of cheese”

this is valid because it follows the correct logical form, even though the premises are obviously false An argument is sound if it is both valid and all of its premises are actually true For instance, “All humans are mortal; Socrates is a human; therefore, Socrates is mortal”

Slide 18

In ethics, actions can be classified as obligatory, impermissible, or permissible.

• obligatory - if we morally ought to perform it; failing to do so typically makes one blameworthy. For example, telling the truth is generally considered obligatory, though certain situations like lying to protect someone from a murderer can override that obligation.

• impermissible - if we morally ought not to perform it, and doing so typically invites blame or reproach. Examples include lying or breaking a promise.

• permissible - if it is neither wrong nor obligatory—performing it is morally allowed. All obligatory actions are also permissible, but some permissible actions are not obligatory. For instance, spending money on a fancy dinner is permissible, even though donating that money to charity might also be permissible.they do not carry a requirement or a prohibition.

slides 19

obligatory, impermissible, and permissible actions, philosophers also discuss supererogatory and suberogatory actions.

• supererogatory action - it’s morally good to perform but not required; doing it earns praise, though failing to do it is not blameworthy. For example, rescuing someone from a burning building is supererogatory: it is morally admirable and deserving of praise, but no one is strictly obligated to risk their own life in order to perform it.

• suberogatory action - is morally bad but not strictly impermissible; performing it is deserving of some disapproval, though it is not forbidden. For instance, choosing not to give up your seat on a bus for an elderly person might be seen as suberogatory: it is a morally regrettable action, but it does not rise to the level of a moral violation like lying or breaking a promise.

slide 20

moral obligations are relatively limited—for instance, telling the truth—supererogatory actions include anything that would be good to do but is not required, such as donating to multiple charities or helping as many people as possible. One is morally praised for performing these actions, but there is no moral fault for failing to do them.

ethics also considers virtues and vices, which are traits, habits, or dispositions that shape a person’s moral character.

• Virtues - qualities that promote the highest or most excellent form of human life, such as honesty, generosity, and courage.

• vices - raits that interfere with living excellently, such as dishonesty, greed, or cowardice.

Slide 21

Something has intrinsic value when it is valuable in and of itself, independently of anything else. Examples include flourishing, happiness, or pleasure.extrinsic value when its worth depends on something outside of itself. For instance, a wedding ring A subtype of extrinsic value is instrumental value, which occurs when something is valued specifically as a means to achieve something else that is valuable. Money is a classic example

Readings

Driver - Ethics

What should we do to be good?, what considers an action right or wrong? how should we go about deciding if something is morally right or wrong?

Moral norms - look at our interactions with others in a way where we see how we have an impact of their well being. so only is it could harm or benefit someone else. so for example if we dont eat the recomended about of fruit we ought to eat it dosent harm anyone but ourself and therefore is not a moral norm.

Normative ethics - the standard for right conduct and moral evaluation. we can either have a “right” action and have reasons to justify why it is a right action but many writters focus on the charecter evalutaion (we have been putting more enphasis on this throughout the years). basicly we want toknow what makes someone a good/virtous person.

moral theories are concerned with 1. providing moral guidance and 2. moral evalutaton of a human

Moral problem case

Mary,who must decide whether or not to authorize additional medical treatment for her mother. her mother is in intense pain from her illness but because of her dementia she cannot authorise cessation of treatment herself mary needs to

an ethical theory would give mary guidance and she might ask the question”one ought to try to minimize needless suffereing” or she could think “one ought to do whatever one can to keep a human alive” basically we are not trying to argue but just how morals can help guide someone.

ethical theories might also be able to evaluate an action in this case mary might want to minimise her moms pain so she would be critisied if her actions dont follow that.

John stuart mill used his theory of utilatarianisim to critisise laws that felt pointless and were harmful to society. he would go on to stand up for multiple peoples rights and to have free speech.

ethical theories can also be used to provide arguments. for example killing is wrong but why is killing wrong. and therefore we are able to dive into what is right or wrong and how does that enable us to justify our actions.

normal ethical theory is easier to understand then moral justification. remember mornative ethics - what we ought to do or what we ought to be like

but when we talk about how people do act and how they go about a situation that is descriptive not normative. and descriptive ethics ae not evaluative. so basicly how we ought to act (normative) how we do act (descriptive)

nor mative ethics is alo diff from metaethics meta ethical issues are issues about ethics “when one says that "murder is wrong," they are not saying something that has a truth-value, like "Obama is a man."

moral relativism is the idea that there are no universal moral standards on right and wrong. “tourturing and innocent person is wrong” some say that if moral relativisim is true then normative ethics has no ground cause no universal justification can be given

one thing in ethics is that normativity is evaluative. the kind of evalutations have to do with value and disvalue as well as right or wrong. if something is deemed to be wrong is sould be impermissible and the person should be a subject to blame/punishment.

normative theories can be divided to two thing

1. identify that this cource is external to humans (gods authorities underlies morals)

2. the source is dependent on human nature as humans are self obssed creatures and so moraly they look at it through self interest.

morality gets it content and authority is meta ethical but views about this issue have helped inform how people have developed diff theories in the past.

obligatory actions - things we ought morally to do and a failure to do them is wrong

right actions - include obligatory superogatory and morally neutral actions and some people would argue suberogatory

forbidden actions - these are wrong and are actions you are required not to do and are morally impermisible

superogatory action - actions that are good but not obilagoty so giving up your seat for someone on the bus

suberogatory actions - these actions are bad but not forbidden and this category is quite controversal.

permissible actions - thewse are morally acceptable actions and it includes obligatory the right superogatory and subergatory and neutral actions

value theory is important in ethics. if a theory of right action claims that an action is right because it produces a good—or at least a better—state of affairs, then the theory must explain what counts as “good.” What is good in itself is usually called intrinsic good. This leads to an important distinction among different kinds of value, including intrinsic, extrinsic, and instrumental value. Detailed accounts of what has value will be explored later when specific ethical theories are discussed.

intrinsic value - something has intrinsic value if it has value in itself

extrinsic value - depends on a factor that is external to it

instrumental value - has value throught consequences

one of the basic criteria of goodness for a theory is consistency. if a theory is inconsistent then it must be revised or rejected.

how well the theory explains the phenomena in question or in the case of ethics how well it identifies reasons that are justifying. all actions have some explenation or other but not all can be morally justified.

when someone writes a check to buy something maybe they feel sorry for not using that money for children that are starving. this action is justified as an action can be made to alleviate human suffereing.

in utilitarianisism which holds the right actions maximises the good and they see good as pleasure . therefore we can explain why a wrong action is wrong and justify why it is wrong

scientific theories are another way of evalutation as scientist come up with an explenation to a phenominon then we can make predictions on if it is true or false. so if it is tru then it is slightly confirmed and if it is false its slightly disconfirmed.

if certain implication conflict with out moral convictions then this is viewed as a problem for the theory and it needs to be revisited or rejected.

in ethical theories we look for novel guidance as they are suppost to provide us with procedures and or criteria for evaluation of actions and charecter. so if a theory does not give us answers that go beyond our intuition then the theory is not doing any independent work for us and this would be a drawback

a powerful scientific theory can lead us further into areas of inquiry.

we also sometimes belive that simple theories are superior to complicated ones but their is no connection between simplicity and truth. simple theories are just easier to use and they are less likely to make a mistake when using them as opposed to a highly complex one.