Bioethics 2

anthropology and moral diversity

Taking food from a child is wrong unless he is over eating

This is an error and interpretation that many evaluations at the same act show how there are different factors to evaluate



Subjective relativism = bypasses all unpleasantness of moral debate

That may be your truth, but not mine



Doctrine is difficult to maintain because one may not care too much about no non-relative issues but may let objectivism slip in when talking about genocide



Relativism conflicts with realities of moral life and claim that everyone is morally infallible. Action is right if you sincerely believe so and believing it’s genuinely right, makes it right.



Moral common sense confirms

Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate 17 boys and men and he killed them because he did not wanna be left alone. Does it cure to his loneliness make it OK?



In subjective moralism, the discussion of right or wrong does not occur

Cultural relativism is a better doctrine?



  • People’s moral judgment, differing from culture to culture makes moral norms relative to culture

  • Moral judgement differ from culture to culture

  • Moral norms are relative to culture, but there is no objective moral standard

Is this a good argument? Does this prove statement three?



Let’s talk about the second argument; moral judgement differ from culture to culture



Infanticide; some cultures condemn this and some cultures don’t



Honour killings



Somebody bury their dead and cremate their dead

Some say polygamy is OK and some say it is not



People’s moral judgement different from culture to culture makes moral norms relative to culture

This is false



Cultures have divergent, moral beliefs on issues, and there is objective moral truth



For example, some people disagree that Mars has no life. This doesn’t prove the nonexistent so someone’s gotta be wrong.



Conflict does not mean fundamental conflict between basic moral norms

This can happen when killing parents when they’re elderly, but not enfeebled 

Society would condemn because respect your parents, but in certain cultures, this is respectful



Diverse cultures do share basic moral principles even though it seems like they don’t



This fails to support cultural relativism

Subjective = culture

Moral infallibility 



This implies that we cannot criticize other cultures because there is no objective moral code to follow



Moral progress means people’s past versus present when current practises are morally better



Cultural relativism implies moral progress is impossible, and there must be a moral objective



Social reformer are fighting for change in society. Society is what judges what is morally right and wrong and social reformers are the ones who fight against society.



It is hard to use cultural relativism when moral rightness depends on society plus culture and what culture and society does one truly belong in



We all belong to so many cultures and societies so if you can’t identify what society you belong in, how do you know what cultural norms to apply to you?



Tolerance is the best policy

Cultural relativism doesn’t always lead to tolerance and it’s easy to justify tolerance and intolerance



Is it morally right for society to tolerate or tolerate?

Moral relatives would have said that there should be a universal tolerance



Ethics and religion



Ethics and religion are history which applied to their moral content. This can be codes, Commandments or precepts.



Secular and nontheistic systems of ethics have shaped morality

Many religious people don’t embrace moral theory related to religious tradition, and others prefer influential, moral perspective, like the natural law theory



Other say morality comes from God



Does morality depend fundamentally on religion?



Divine command theory: right actions are permitted by God and wrong actions are forbidden by God

Aquinas, Kant and Leibniz rejected this theory because the question of whether actions are morally right because God commands it or does God command them because they’re morally right came up.

This is a troubling statement for two reasons




Let’s look at an example

  1. God creates moral law

  2. Moral law is independent to God so he is also subject to it 



Some actions like rape, murder, and abuse can be morally right?

Defender say no because God is all good, but if God makes more a lot than good = commanded by God



God is good = God does what God commands = God is what God is



This tells us nothing about the goodness of God



Right and wrong or independent to God and moral standards are external to God, but if moral standards are not divine then they’re logically independent of religion

Therefore, morality is independent for all



Ethics = moral reflection, and moral life

  • Critical reasoning

  • Explore ethical issues

  • Test, moral theories



Bio ethics, religious and secular opinions matter the same

All parties must be open to listening



Religions need to use ethical tools like the commandments are apply to everyone and that’s conflicting so they need to explore broader terms to help



Believers deal with moral conflict like conflict with the church the pope and priests



Moral arguments



Critical reasoning = moral reasoning



Argument fundamentals



One statement providing support for another



Supporting statements = premises

Supported statement = conclusion

Statement assertion that it is or is not



Arguments do not mean persuasion

Persuasion is winning over without true statements or without emotion



Argument set out to prove something where the conclusion is supported by at least one true premise



An example of argument would be law enforcement is a failure because criminal rate has risen to double what it was last year



An example of persuasion would be law enforcement is a failure because nothing works anymore so it’s intolerable



The criteria for an argument is solid logic, and true premises



There are deductive and inductive argument



Deductive arguments are logically conclusive to support conclusions, and if the premises are true, the conclusion will also be true



Think about this;

It’s wrong to take the life of an innocent person and abortion takes the life of an innocent person so abortion is wrong



Deductive argument that has no conclusive support is invalid

Validity is only a structural matter, so it separates from the truth. If the premise is not true, they can still be a valid argument.



Inductive argument, arguments gives probable support for conclusions

This means that if the premise is true conclusion is also probably true



Think about this;

85% of students at university are Republicans. Sonia is a student at this university so Sonia is probably a Republican.

This is a strong argument



Valid means deductive, and that is a sound argument, which means that there’s a true premise and a true conclusion



Strong means inductive meaning that it’s a cogent argument and it is a clear well and organized persuasion argument



There are tools to check validity of an argument



Familiarity of arguments is very useful



Think about this;

If a surgeon operates, the patient will be cured. The surgeon is operating so the patient will be cured.

this is a conditional premise



if is the antecedent

Then is the consequent



A conditional argument would be

  1. if p, then q

  2. P

  3. Therefore, Q



modus ponen = affirming the antecedent

Any argument within modus ponens is valid



modus tollens = denying the consequent

  1. if p, then q

  2. Not Q

  3. Therefore, not P



This is also a valid form



Common forms are invalid, like affirming the consequent

  • if the patient is getting better than drugs are necessary

  • Drugs are necessary

  • Therefore, the patient is getting better



Denying the antecedent

  • if the rate of infections is going up, patients will die

  • The rate of infection isn’t going up

  • Therefore, patients will not die



Patterns of moral arguments

A moral argument is an argument, whose conclusion is a moral statement meaning good or bad



Common oral arguments are



  • it is wrong to take an innocent life

  • Abortion is taking an innocent life

  • Abortion is wrong



Standard features of a moral argument

  • at least one premise is a moral statement, pushing a moral norm

  • At least one premise is a non-moral circumstance

  • Conclusion is a moral statement expressing a moral judgement



Fallacies in moral reasoning



The defective argument is a fallacy



STRAWMAN 

This is the misrepresentation of used to easily attack or dismiss arguments

for example, the immunization program will save thousands of kids lives but will likely kill one and 500,000 kids. One may try to attack this by asking is one life worth more than 1000 and now you look like a bad person.



AD HOMINEM FALLACY

Appealing to an argument, just because it comes from a certain person

This can come from places like Catholicism, liberal versus republican and more

This can be valid if the claim represents dubious traits or characteristics



APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

Prove something by appealing what we don’t know

For example, no one’s proved a foetus isn’t a person so a foetus is a person or it’s false that a foetus isn’t a person because science has not said so



Proving an argument over, not being false or proving an argument over not being proven true



Being ignorant to facts do not enlighten us



BEGGING THE QUESTION

Trying to prove a conclusion by using the same conclusion as support

For example, the Bible says God exists, and the Bible is true because God wrote it therefore God exists. 



SLIPPERY SLOPE



Arguing erroneously that action shouldn’t be taken because it’ll inevitably lead to actions resulting in entire outcomes

This becomes a fallacy when there’s no reason to believe the consequential chain



  • Giving dying patients, the choice to refuse service

  • Doctors will then start approving treatments for them

  • Medically assistance in death will become rampant

  • Killing people for any reason will be the new norm

This obviously makes no sense



From a non-moral premise, a moral conclusion doesn’t logically follow

Non-moral is abortions are performed regularly so this doesn’t prove that abortions are immoral



We can’t reason from a moral premise alone either

For example, puppies are cute and innocent. You can’t hurt them because they are cute so hurting puppies is wrong.



When disagreements arise usually they have similar more principle and it’s just the non-moral facts that are arguments



It’s our job to imply what premises are because premises may not always be obvious



For example, IVF is an unnatural way to get pregnant. This is very far from a imaginable reproduction therefore IVF should not be used.

This is an incomplete and invalid argument



IVS is unnatural. Very and far away from imaginable reproduction and any process unnatural should not be used. IVF should not be used.

This is a complete and valid argument



Evaluating premises



A good argument means true premises

There is a way to check true and false premises

The empirical belief is confirmed by sense of experience so observation or science



Bio ethics has the most controversial premises and mostly in medical treatment and program and whether those will or will not affect a group of people



Help or harm, but to what degree



If there is no evidence, there are educated guesses and educated guesses can lead to dispute



In bio ethics, the most reliable evidence available is what is used



Morality can depend on how something is defined

You can kill someone for his sake, or you can mercifully kill and allow to die



Moral and non-moral premises should both be supported by good reasons



Support: moral principles, moral theories, like utilitarianism, moral theory, supports, affirming actions produce greatest happiness, reliable, moral judgment, like careful judgement with unbiased, opinions, and arguments given more or less credibility based on relevant reasons



Counter example is used to show how moral principles conflict could be abortion is wrong, but what if it was the result of a rape?



Assessing whole arguments

Step one: study the text until thoroughly understand it. Have a clear idea of what the author is getting at



Step two: find the conclusion. There may be one conclusion, or there may be many conclusions and many of those can be disguised under metaphorical language. Come up with a conclusion for every conclusion, even if you have to paraphrase a lot.



Step three: identify the premises

Also find these and keep your eye on the bigger picture. Is it ever morally permissible to let a child die if you could medically help? It’s hard to reject this other than religion.



Obstacles in critical reasoning

  • personal judgement

  • Professional decision 

  • High stakes, moral reasoning



Understand the concept of evidence. This takes out bias and introduces the truth.



Me belief doesn’t constitute evidence because this might be a reason enough to get evidence



Denying contrary, evidence would mean, denying or resisting evidence because it fits our prejudice. This might be psychologically, comforting, but stops understanding.

An example of this would be Donald Trump denying Kamala as a smart individual. This shows scrutiny is larger than outright rejection.



Statement evaluation shouldn’t be over until all relevant reasons are considered



Looking for confirming evidence

Confirmation bias

  • only seeking evidence that fit our prejudice

  • Seeing relationships that aren’t there

  • Finding confirmation that isn’t genuine



For example, let’s say the argument every swan is white. This was believed because the exploration of other coloured swans was never conducted so black swans were discovered in Australia, but this throws people way off course.



We may start choosing evidence we think is fair, but is actually not and that is the deluded idea of being right

This is a I’m right you’re wrong mentality



Always have to consider information supporting and conflicting with your point and this takes efforts and guts



Motivated reasoning: reasoning for predetermined conclusions, and pile of evidence that goes with our preferred conclusion. This occurs with very intelligent individuals too.

To avoid this

  • be sceptical

  • Ask yourself is it really irrelevant or is it my bias?

  • Give opposing view a shot

  • Read things you disagree with and hang around people who dis disagree with you

Preferring available evidence



The availability error is trusting memorable evidence over trustworthy evidence because it’s psychologically available

Stock = evidence

Convicting someone of murder because they look scary is not evidence to make him look guilty



Hasty generalization is drawing a generalization of a whole group based off of an inadequate sample of a group



Dunning Kruger effect is the least informed person on topics attempts to inform group on the topic because he fully believes that he is correct. He’s not ignorant he just doesn’t know how ignorant he is.

Basically the dumber you are the more confident you are that you’re not dumb



To avoid this

  • be aware of yourself

  • Know that all people have difficulty assessing their own competency levels

  • And confidence does not mean knowledge



KEY TERMS

  • Applied ethics

  • Availability error

  • Bio ethics

  • Confirmation bias

  • Cultural relativism 

  • Deductive reasoning

  • Descriptive ethics

  • Divine command theory

  • Dunning Kruger effect

  • Ethical relativism

  • Ethics

  • Evidence

  • Inductive argument

  • Meta-ethics

  • Moral arguments

  • Moral absolutism

  • Moral objectivism

  • Morality

  • Motivated reasoning

  • Normative ethics

  • Paternalism

  • Subjective relativism