Remember, you don't have to respond to my questions if you can come up with relevant comments on your own. But some of them will be on the exam, so you should still read the texts that address them.
[Catch up on last time's questions first...]
Moral Theories (Basics 2); Premonition 2
1. (T/F) In Anna's story, why did she wish not to be resuscitated?
2. Which theory has been dominant in bioethics and often used by many health professionals?
3. In deontological theory, what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
4. What ethical principle (and whose), in the name of rational consistency, absolute dutifulness, and mutual respect, "requires unconditional obedience and overrides our preferences and desires" with respect to things like lying, for example?
5. What would Kant say about Tuskegee, or about the murderer "at our door"?
6. What more do we want from a moral theory than Kant gives us?
7. What is the distinctive question in virtue ethics?
8. What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?
9. What is the Harm Principle, and who was its author?
10. Name one of the Four Principles in Beauchamp and Childress's theories on biomedical ethics?
2. Which theory has been dominant in bioethics and often used by many health professionals?
3. In deontological theory, what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
4. What ethical principle (and whose), in the name of rational consistency, absolute dutifulness, and mutual respect, "requires unconditional obedience and overrides our preferences and desires" with respect to things like lying, for example?
5. What would Kant say about Tuskegee, or about the murderer "at our door"?
6. What more do we want from a moral theory than Kant gives us?
7. What is the distinctive question in virtue ethics?
8. What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?
9. What is the Harm Principle, and who was its author?
10. Name one of the Four Principles in Beauchamp and Childress's theories on biomedical ethics?
[Premonition...]
11. What was Dr. Hosea's diagnostic style? (And of what classic Greek philosopher might it remind you?)
12. What misleading practice of self-promotion did doctors of orthopedic medicine engage in?
13. How did Dr. Dean learn to persuade elected officials to finance disease control?
14. What was the root of the CDC's reluctance to support Dr. Dean's decisions?
15. What famous ethical problem did the Casa Dorinda mudslide resemble?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- In Anna's story, do you find yourself more concerned with the specifying and insisting on the respective duties of Anna, her physician, and the ethics committee dealing with her DNR request, or with its consequences?
- Do you consider yourself more an ethical consequentialist/utilitarian, pragmatist, deontologist, virtue ethicist, or none of the above? Is it possible to be ethically responsible without first clarifying and claiming your own theoretical ethical commitments?
- Do you agree with Peter Singer that the ethical choice which best serves the goal of minimizing pain and suffering requires ending lives?
- Is a felicific calculus such as Jeremy Bentham proposed possible, or practical?
- Would life in Huxley's Brave New World really be nightmarish and dystopian, if universal happiness were its result?
- Kant's categorical imperative requires always treating individuals respectfully, as ends in themselves and never as means to any other social or collective good. Can you imagine any scenario in which it would be ethically correct to violate that imperative, in the name of medical progress or social welfare?
- Is virtue ethics "elitist and utopian" in its quest to articulate the conditions of a good life and death for all? Are virtues and vices culturally relative? 36-7
6. What more do we want from a moral theory than Kant gives us?
ReplyDeleteClarity and precision. Kant's three workings of the categorical imperative sometimes give us an absolute answer, but they give us little to no direction in complex moral questions. Anna's story from the reading gives us a perfect situation by which to critique Kant's moral theory. Kant was on record as having been unequivocally anti-suicide because (1) it debased the moral character of the person committing suicide and (2) a person can no longer commit moral acts after they are dead. It is not clear whether Anna decision to commit suicide violates (1), and Anna's condition severely limited, if not destroyed, her ability to participate in (2).
Although Kant recognizes that things are wrong regardless of their consequences, certainly CONTEXT must be recognized. For instance, murder is wrong, but most of us would agree that homicide in defense of one's self is justified. The context of Anna's situation complicates the search for the most moral answer. Committing suicide may be wrong, but is Anna's choice to end her life in light of the news she will be a financial burden on her family immoral? Kant's categorical imperatives do not provide us any clear answers here.
Would life in Huxley's Brave New World really be nightmarish and dystopian, if universal happiness were its result?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! There is more to life than being happy. A philosopher named Robert Nozick really drove this point home with a thought experiment called "the experience machine." It goes kinda like this: imagine you're hooked up to a machine where it causes you to have such vivid hallucinations that they were indistinguishable from real life. The machine keeps you alive and in no way harms you. Your hallucinations are all positive and you spend your days in a fantasy world where only good things happen to you. You spend all day smelling the best smells, seeing your favorite sights, tasting the best food, and feeling the best feelings. I think a lot of us would intuitively recognize something wrong with the decision to hook yourself up to this machine.
Remember Cypher, in the Matrix? He went for the machine. I hope and expect most of us wouldn't, but I wonder if living increasingly virtual lives in the internet age is changing that. Isn't Zuck's metaverse dream something like an Experience Machine? If so, I'm glad Zuck's figuratively shooting himself in the foot lately. I'd like to see him foil his own dream.
DeleteI agree with this. The idea that happiness can purely be derived from artificial means is not very practical since human happiness is not the only thing that humans need. Rather, humans require a source of meaning which is acquired through overcoming oneself, overcoming struggle and the general human experience of life. Meaning cannot be derived just from happiness.
DeleteI think this idea of fulfillment and the pursuit of an authentic life is definitely a noble aim, however those in the matrix living a good life may not wish to leave, those under the effect of soma may wish to remain in an ignorant bliss. Sometimes a lie is better than the truth perhaps, like a dog going out to the farm.
DeleteDo you consider yourself more an ethical consequentialist/utilitarian, pragmatist, deontologist, virtue ethicist, or none of the above? Is it possible to be ethically responsible without first clarifying and claiming your own theoretical ethical commitments?
ReplyDeleteI would consider myself more aligned with the Libertarian ideology. The only thing any individual has total control over is the choices they make. Others may impose their will upon you, things will happen that impact you that you have zero control over, and you may lose much your autonomy like Anna did but she was still able to choose.
When it truly gets down to it, the only one you re 100% responsible for is yourself. You take on obligation to family because you choose to. You do things you may not want that benefit the people around you because you choose to. You may even join a communist style "collective above all" system because you choose to.
I don't believe in "ethical commitments". I believe in mutual benefit and individual choice. A doctor should practice good medicine not because of the some nebulous ethic demand, but because it benefits them to do so. Otherwise, patients will learn he is not very good and choose to go elsewhere, eliminating the doctor's practice.
Do you believe that a doctor should practice bad medicine when it benefits him to do so? Say, prescribing a scarce weight loss drug to a wealthy patient who only wants it for cosmetic reasons over a poorer patient who needs them for health reasons? Let's assume the wealthy patient could afford to give the doctor more money for the drugs. To be consistent with your reasoning here, wouldn't it be the moral thing to do be to give the richer patient the drugs over the poorer patient "because it benefits [the doctor] to do so?"
DeleteDoctors are supposed to do no harm. That's not a nebulous ethic, though of course it's subject to rational interpretation.
DeleteLibertarians who are also physicians surely can and should make ethical commitments, can't they? And if they're given to ethical reflection, they'll surely have a preference between Kantian deontology, utilitarian consequentialism, Aristotelian virtue ethics et al.
If my physician won't commit to placing my health and well-being ahead of his own self-interest, as a matter of ethical integrity, I'll look for one who will.
But of course, most physicians--libertarian or otherwise--would say it benefits them AND their patients to foster a relationship of mutual trust and confidence. Caveat emptor, "let the buyer beware," is probably not conducive to that.
I do not disagree with the premise of individual decisions being all you can control but I would like to know more about your lack of belief in ethical commitments. If one could perform any act unnoticed and not be punished for it does that mean he should perform all acts that benefit himself? Should he take from others and engage in depravity so long as it is to his liking? There must be something in addition to doing things solely because they benefit you that allows society to exist. Should someone perform acts that benefit the greatest number of people? (consequentialism) Should someone not do that and instead treat others as they would be treated and follow their moral duty? (deontology) Or should one rather strive to be virtuous and to benefit from helping others because he knows that being virtuous is the best thing he can do? (virtue ethics) If each individual acted solely in self-interest society as we know it would never have come about. Caring for others, even when it is not of benefit to oneself, is what separates us from most animals.
DeleteQuestions 2:
ReplyDeleteThe most common approach to bioethics by health professionals has been Consequentialism. The idea of this approach is that when assessing all decisions and options, you should rationally choose the one that allows you to outweigh the harm done to people by the good you are doing. This type of moral theory comes from something known as utilitarianism. In essence, the idea is to promote as much happiness to as many people as possible over the amount of pain that is caused to individuals. The Great Happiness Principle by Jeremy Bentham states this idea. The problem with this is that we can do something immoral that would support a majority while harming a minority of people which would not be considered ethical. If I remember correctly, the book uses the example of harvesting the organs of a person to save multiple people. This is obviously not ethical and is one of the glaring issues with this moral theory.
Questions 8:
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest supporters of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. Rather than trying to answer how one should make decisions, he searched for the question of how one should orient themselves in life or what sort of life one should live. In general, a lot of his work has to do with understanding the self. The emphasis on this idea is that humans should live in a humane way that stays true to ones values while also avoiding life's vices. If an individual follows these virtues, moral decisions are thought to follow. While this is a good moral theory to abide by, it does not come without its flaws. Campbell talks about the idea of “moral luck” and how our environment is a large player in our moral development, so it is an ignorant assumption that most people will just be willing to and have the ability to live a moral life just by choice.
I think that, although it's more difficult for some than others, the vast majority of humans want to be "good people", whatever that means for them, since we all have subjective ethical frameworks and moral beliefs that come from a variety of sources (religion, human intuition, philosophy). I think when it comes to interpersonal relations, we are all intuitively good at being ethical. Treating people with basic respect is something integral to surviving in a society, but more abstract virtues may be more difficult to achieve for those without the means. For example, it may be hard for an impoverished individual to be as materially generous as someone who does have plenty.
DeleteDo you agree with Peter Singer that the ethical choice which best serves the goal of minimizing pain and suffering requires ending lives?
ReplyDeleteI do not think the ending of lives is a necessary precondition for minimizing pain and suffering, however in special occasion it may be the best option. In a world where all diseases and conditions have a cure, no one would need medically die, such as in anna's case. If there were a way to rehabilitate her, I'm certain she would've chosen that instead of death. With that being said I do believe the choice she made was a very fair one and that death should be an option given in cases of extraordinary suffering.
John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle is the idea that an action should only be prohibited if it causes harm to others. While it seems like this concept would be fairly cut and dry, it's still extraordinarily subjective, and while I find it appealing, I don't think it'd be useful to consider outside of perhaps using it as a starting point for one's own personal code of conduct. I find that the simplicity of it leaves several questions unanswered.
ReplyDeleteIf an action could have caused harm, but didn't, should it be punished? Has a drunk driver who didn't hit anything caused harm? A person who parks illegally in a disabled spot, if no one who needed that spot happened to show up while they were parked there? What about actions that harm one person but have a positive impact overall? Is pulling the lever in the trolley problem a violation of the Harm Principle? What about a person who steals baby formula, something that might cost a wealthy CEO somewhere a few bucks?
I think another way to describe what you're talking about is the limits of utilitarianism. Like what do we do when we're faced with an action that hasn't technically caused any harm in the world but we somehow know (or feel) that it's still wrong. And I think that's just where you have to rely on another ethical framework to fill in the gaps, or if you're not a nerd you follow your gut, which lead us in the right direction oftentimes.
DeleteI don't think that virtue ethics is necessarily "elitist and utopian" because it's useful for people of all kinds to have some sort of framework to use to guide their behavior for life. Everyone will have their own subjective versions, and it doesn't need to be a unilateral top-down thing. And when people critique it for being too idealistic, I believe there is nothing wrong with that because without an ideal to work towards, what hope is there for the future?
ReplyDelete9. What is the Harm Principle, and who was its author?
ReplyDeleteThe Harm Principle pertains to people being able to act however they want to act unless their actions cause harm those around them. This principle was introduced by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill.
8. What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?
ReplyDeleteAristotle was one of the earliest exponents of virtue in ethics. He was a pupil of Plato and believed that virtue is a good trait of character and that it's manifested in habitual action. He also believed that ethical behavior isn't about following specific rules but creating virtues that help you flourish in life.
3. In deontological theory, what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
ReplyDeleteIn deontological theory, a hypothetical imperative is a command that depends on a desirable outcome. It's the action you take if you want to achieve a specific goal. So if you strive to be healthier, workout. A categorial imperative is a command that can apply to everyone regardless of their goals. For example do not steal or do not lie.
I just want to post about the fact that the biggest issue right now is most likely the lack of education and respect for people right now, leading to a lot of anger and frustration in communication. There is a lot of miscommunication and mistrust right now leading to a further divide between fellow people, as well as a political split.
ReplyDeleteI do want to present my own question, what do you think we could do to tackle misinformation and skepticism along the likes of political figures such as RFK Jr. and the rise in anti-vaccine sentiments?
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that there needs to be a better system for educating people and a mutual understanding for why people are skeptical as well as how to quell that skepticism.
Sure does! We need genuine school instruction in critical thinking at all levels. Far easier said than done.
DeleteI also want to say that in terms of bioethics, and expanding on the idea of communication, it is important to consider other’s beliefs. I may not agree with someone being against medicine, but to begin with consideration and respect could get you towards the goal of trying to convince someone of the genuine benefits of medicine. Some people hold beliefs too strong to break, so it’s important to not try and push too hard.
ReplyDelete3. In deontological theory, or the study of moral obligations, the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives lies within goals. You perform hypothetical imperatives to achieve a certain outcome (e.g. exercise to lose weight), and you perform categorical imperatives simply because you must (e.g. do not lie). Having a cause/effect when adhering to imperatives makes them more appealing than categorical imperatives.
ReplyDelete9. The Harm Principle, proposed by Mill, regards the idea that power should only be exerted against someone's will in order to subvert harm. The importance lies within the certainty of said harm. I believe that heavy confirmation should be determined before prohibiting something, such as the perceived "danger" in gender identity.
10. One of the Four Principles in Beauchamp and Childress's theories on biomedical ethics is autonomy. A major factor in solving the problems in bioethical debates is a person's desire to be in control of their circumstances.