Unit 3–4 Study Guide: Ethical Theories and Bioethics

PART I: UTILITARIANISM (CONSEQUENTIALISM)

  • Associated Philosophical Figures:     * Jeremy Bentham     * John Stuart Mill

  • Core Principle:     * The right action is that which produces the greatest net happiness for the greatest number of people.     * Also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle.     * Also referred to as the Principle of Utility.

  • Key Features and Characteristics:     * Consequentialism: A focus exclusively on the outcomes or consequences of actions.     * Impartiality: Everyone’s happiness is weighted equally; no one person's pleasure is more significant than another's.     * Intrinsic Good: Happiness and pleasure are the only things considered good in and of themselves.

  • Bentham vs. Mill: Specific Differences:     * Jeremy Bentham: Focused on the Quantity of pleasure. He utilized the Hedonic Calculus to measure pleasure and famously stated that ‘Pushpin is as good as poetry’ (implying all sources of pleasure are equal in kind).     * John Stuart Mill: Focused on the Quality of pleasure. He distinguished between Higher vs. Lower pleasures and famously asserted, ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’

  • Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism:     * Act Utilitarianism: Evaluation of each individual action on a case-by-case basis to see if it maximizes utility.     * Rule Utilitarianism: Following a set of rules that, if generally adopted, would maximize happiness over the long term.

  • Exam Triggers for Utilitarianism:     * Phrases like: ‘Maximize overall benefit,’ ‘Least overall suffering,’ or ‘Most measurable improvement.’     * Scenarios involving the justification of actions ‘even if rights are compromised.’

  • Standard Objections:     1. Tyranny of the Majority: It can be used to justify harming or marginalizing minorities for the benefit of the majority.     2. Rights Violations: It may ignore individual rights if doing so increases total happiness.     3. Integrity/Psychological Problem: It may require individuals to lie or breach personal integrity to achieve a better outcome.     4. Trolley Problem Tension: Highlights the difficulty of choosing between sacrificing one to save many.

PART II: KANTIAN THEORY (DEONTOLOGY)

  • Associated Philosophical Figure:     * Immanuel Kant

  • Core Idea:     * Morality is rooted in Duty rather than consequences.

  • The Categorical Imperative (CI):     1. Universal Law Formulation: Act only according to that maxim (rule) whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.     2. Humanity Formulation: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

  • Key Terminology:     * Good Will: The only thing that is good without qualification; doing the right thing because it is right.     * Autonomy: Rational self-legislation; the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision.     * Persons: Considered ends in themselves because of their inherent dignity and rationality.     * Perfect Duties: Duties that allow for no exceptions (e.g., the duty not to lie).     * Imperfect Duties: Flexible duties that we must act upon some of the time but have choice in how we fulfill them (e.g., developing one’s talents, practicing charity).

  • Exam Triggers for Kantian Theory:     * Phrases like: ‘Regardless of consequences,’ ‘Respect for persons,’ ‘Cannot universalize,’ ‘Treating others merely as means,’ or ‘Moral rules must apply universally.’

  • Contrast: Kant vs. Utilitarianism:     | Feature | Kant (Deontology) | Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) |     | :--- | :--- | :--- |     | Focus | Motive matters | Outcome matters |     | Application | Universal rules | Case-by-case possible |     | Individual Rights | Rights protected | Rights may be overridden |     | Priority | Duty over good | Good over right |

PART III: PRIMA FACIE DUTIES (W.D. ROSS)

  • Associated Philosophical Figure:     * W. D. Ross

  • Core Idea:     * There are multiple moral duties that are initially binding (‘at first face’), but they are not absolute. They can be overridden by other, stronger duties in specific contexts.

  • Common Prima Facie Duties:     1. Fidelity: Keeping promises and being truthful.     2. Reparation: Making amends for previous wrong acts.     3. Justice: Ensuring a fair distribution of pleasure or happiness.     4. Beneficence: The duty to help others and improve their condition.     5. Non-maleficence: The duty to do no harm to others.     6. Self-improvement: The duty to improve our own virtue or intelligence.     7. Gratitude: Expressing thanks for services rendered by others.

  • Key Difference from Kant:     * While Kant believes in Absolute Duties that can never be broken, Ross argues that duties can conflict and must be weighed against one another to determine the ‘actual duty.’

  • Exam Triggers for Prima Facie Duties:     * Phrases like: ‘Weighing duties,’ ‘Conflict between honesty and harm,’ ‘None are absolute,’ or ‘Which duty is stronger?’

PART IV: VIRTUE ETHICS

  • Associated Philosophical Figures:     * Aristotle     * Philippa Foot

  • Core Idea:     * Morality is fundamentally about Moral Character and the kind of person one is, rather than specific rules (Kant) or specific outcomes (Utilitarianism).

  • Key Concepts:     * Eudaimonia: Translated as ‘human flourishing’ or ‘living well’; the ultimate goal of human life.     * The Golden Mean: Virtue is the desirable middle ground between two extremes—an excess and a deficiency.         * Example: Courage is the Golden Mean between the deficiency of Cowardice and the excess of Recklessness.     * Phronesis: Practical wisdom; the ability to use reason to determine the right course of action in specific circumstances.

  • Theoretical Emphases:     * Moral education and character building.     * Identifying and imitating role models.     * Developing virtuous habits over time.

  • Exam Triggers for Virtue Ethics:     * Phrases like: ‘Character development,’ ‘Moral education,’ ‘Practical wisdom,’ ‘Golden mean,’ or specific virtues like ‘Courage, honesty, compassion.’

PART V: THEORY CONTRAST AND SCENARIO ANALYSIS

  • Maximizing overall good: Utilitarianism.
  • Refusing to lie even if consequences are bad: Kantian/Deontology.
  • Weighing competing duties (e.g., honesty vs. harm): Prima Facie Duties (Ross).
  • Focusing on the development of moral character: Virtue Ethics.
  • Harming a minority for the benefit of the majority: Utilitarianism.
  • Prioritizing promise-keeping over outcomes: Kantian/Deontology.
  • Navigating a conflict of duties: Ross.
  • Cultivating habits of excellence: Aristotle/Virtue Ethics.

PART VI: BIOETHICS (CHAPTER 10)

  • The Four Essential Principles of Bioethics:     1. Autonomy: Respecting the patient's right to make their own healthcare decisions and choices.     2. Beneficence: The obligation to promote the well-being of the patient and act in their best interest.     3. Non-maleficence: The fundamental duty to ‘do no harm’ to the patient.     4. Distributive Justice: Ensuring the fair and equitable allocation of medical resources and benefits.

  • Key Specialized Terms:     * Casuistry: A case-based method of reasoning that focuses on comparing new cases to clinical paradigms rather than starting from abstract rules.     * Paternalism: When a healthcare provider or expert overrides a patient’s choice, ostensibly for the patient’s own good.     * Primum non nocere: Latin phrase meaning ‘First, do no harm’ (linked to Non-maleficence).

  • Critical Historical Reference:     * The Nuremberg Code: A set of research ethics principles for human experimentation established as a direct response to medical atrocities committed during World War II.

PART VII: HIGH-YIELD OBJECTION AND SCENARIO PATTERNS

  • Utilitarianism vs. Kant:     * Scenario: ‘Harm a minority to help a majority.’     * Utilitarian View: Likely acceptable if net happiness is higher.     * Objection: This violates Kantian rights and treats people merely as a means to an end.

  • Kant vs. Consequentialism:     * Manager Scenario: A manager keeps a promise to an employee despite it resulting in bad financial results for the company. This is a Kantian approach.     * Employee Response: An employee argues that only the best company outcomes matter. This is a Consequentialist approach.

  • Virtue vs. Utilitarian (The Two Judges):     * Judge 1: Bases a decision on fairness, integrity, and personal wisdom. (Reflects Virtue Ethics).     * Judge 2: Bases a decision on what will lead to the best social outcomes for the community. (Reflects Utilitarianism).

  • Ross vs. Consequentialist (The Administrator and Physician):     * Physician: Weighing the duty to tell the truth against the duty to prevent harm to the patient. (Reflects Prima Facie Duties/Ross).     * Hospital Administrator: Making a decision based solely on maximizing the interest and efficiency of the hospital. (Reflects Consequentialism).

PART VIII: QUICK RECOGNITION AND FINAL STRATEGY

  • Keywords to Theory Mapping:     * ‘Max happiness’ or ‘Measure suffering’ → Utilitarianism     * ‘Universal rule,’ ‘Ends not means,’ or ‘Respect autonomy’ → Kantian Theory     * ‘Conflict of duties’ or ‘Weighing duties’ → Prima Facie Duties (Ross)     * ‘Character cultivation,’ ‘Practical wisdom,’ or ‘Moral habits’ → Virtue Ethics

  • Final Exam Strategy Checklist:     1. Identify the Core Focus: Determine if the problem centers on consequences (Utilitarian), universal rules (Kant), competing duties (Ross), or character (Aristotle).     2. Differentiate the Duty Types: Is it an Absolute Duty (Kant) that cannot be broken, or an Overrideable Duty (Ross) that depends on context?     3. Determine the Value Priority: Is it Outcome-only (Utilitarian) or Character-first (Virtue)?