Course Description

 Course Exam

Ethical Problems Introduction

This course helps you deal with ethical problems by addressing these issues:

GUIDING QUESTIONS:

1. What is Ethics?

Definitions

Ethics deals with right and wrong and reflects one’s morals. Look at ethics from the following perspective: Laws and rules were made to limit very bad behavior and to highlight good behavior. Bad behavior is further limited by your personal ethics, which tells you what is bad and what is good. Thus some actions may be lawful, but still unethical. Ethics deals mainly with the area between the clearly bad and the clearly good.

Ethical problems concern decision making when there is a not a clear choice between right and wrong.

Ethical dilemmas arise when there at least two good choices or two bad choices. The decision then becomes between good and good or bad and bad, not between good and bad.

Environmental ethics is the ethics of ecology.

Ethical egoism deals with the ethics of self-interest.

Hedonism is the philosophy of pleasure.

Nihilism is a belief that nothing really matters.

2. What did the Ancients say?

2.1 What did the Greeks write about ethics? Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.

The ancient Greeks were known to use ethical reasoning in solving ethical problems.

The Greeks laid the foundation for ethical thinking. They leaned somewhat to “RuleRight.” In this course, RuleRight describes ethics founded on a value that one should do actions that are right in themselves.

Click here to learn more about ancient Greek ethics

2.2 What did Moses and Christ write about ethical living?

Christian ethics uses a number of central themes, among them the concept of forgiveness.

This approach to ethics will be called “CareRight” in this course. This describes ethics founded on a value that care for others is a major reason motivating right actions. It is generally an objective approach.

CareRight

3. What did the Moderns say?

3.1 What is one modern approach to ethics?

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative 

Kant advanced a deontological ethics, meaning that one should do what is right no matter the consequences. His most famous concept was “the categorical imperative.” A summary is, “If you are considering an action, you should imagine that a law is made so that everyone always has to do the same thing you are considering. If that universal law does not lead to problems, then it is an ethical choice.”

You can learn more about Kant and his ethics here.

This approach to ethics will be called “RuleRight” in this course. It is generally an objective approach.

RuleRight

3.2 What is one of the most influential ethical approaches today?

Utilitarianism emphasizes, among others, the consequences of actions. This value holds that ethics should focus on what happens as a result of an action to determine whether the action itself is right. It is the relativistic or pragmatic approach in the post-modern area. This approach to ethics will be called “EndRight” in this course.

John Stuart Mill was one of the major thinkers of utilitarianism. Mill and others argued that ethical actions would result in happiness, and actions that made for less happiness were unethical.

Click here to learn more about John Stuart Mill and Utilitarian Ethics

4. What do the Codes say?

4.1 What are some Codes of Ethics that are used today? 

4.11 The West Point Honor Code:

“A cadet does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.”

4.12 The Rotary 4-way test: 

• Is is the Truth?
• Is it fair to all concerned?
• Will it build goodwill and better understanding?
• Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

4.13 The Boy Scout Law:

“A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent.”

4.14 The Ten Commandments (summarized):

Don’t worship false gods, don’t worship images, don’t take God’s name in vain, don’t break the Sabbath, honor your parents, don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t envy.

4.15 The Declaration of Geneva by the World Medical Association:

AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

• I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity
• THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration
• I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient
• I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life
• I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient
• I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died
• I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice
• I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession
• I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due
• I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare
• I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard
• I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat
• I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

5.  How do you reason Ethically?

5.1 Cloning to Produce Children

Excerpted from Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002.

The Ethics of Cloning-to-Produce-Children

Two separate national-level reports on human cloning (NBAC, 1997; NAS, 2002) concluded that attempts to clone a human being would be unethical at this time due to safety concerns and the likelihood of harm to those involved. The Council concurs in this conclusion. But we have extended the work of these distinguished bodies by undertaking a broad ethical examination of the merits of, and difficulties with, cloning-to-produce-children.

Cloning-to-produce-children might serve several purposes. It might allow infertile couples or others to have genetically-related children; permit couples at risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disease to avoid having an afflicted child; allow the bearing of a child who could become an ideal transplant donor for a particular patient in need; enable a parent to keep a living connection with a dead or dying child or spouse; or enable individuals or society to try to “replicate” individuals of great talent or beauty. These purposes have been defended by appeals to the goods of freedom, existence (as opposed to nonexistence), and well-being – all vitally important ideals.

A major weakness in these arguments supporting cloning-to-produce-children is that they overemphasize the freedom, desires, and control of parents, and pay insufficient attention to the well-being of the cloned child-to-be. The Council holds that, once the child-to-be is carefully considered, these arguments are not sufficient to overcome the powerful case against engaging in cloning-to-produce-children.

First, cloning-to-produce-children would violate the principles of the ethics of human research. Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical. Indeed, our moral analysis of this matter leads us to conclude that this is not, as is sometimes implied, a merely temporary objection, easily removed by the improvement of technique. We offer reasons for believing that the safety risks might be enduring, and offer arguments in support of a strong conclusion: that conducting experiments in an effort to make cloning-to-produce-children less dangerous would itself be an unacceptable violation of the norms of research ethics. There seems to be no ethical way to try to discover whether cloning-to-produce-children can become safe, now or in the future.

If carefully considered, the concerns about safety also begin to reveal the ethical principles that should guide a broader assessment of cloning-to-produce-children: the principles of freedom, equality, and human dignity. To appreciate the broader human significance of cloning-to-produce-children, one needs first to reflect on the meaning of having children; the meaning of asexual, as opposed to sexual, reproduction; the importance of origins and genetic endowment for identity and sense of self; the meaning of exercising greater human control over the processes and “products” of human reproduction; and the difference between begetting and making. Reflecting on these topics, the Council has identified five categories of concern regarding cloning-to-produce-children. (Different Council Members give varying moral weight to these different concerns.)

• Problems of identity and individuality. Cloned children may experience serious problems of identity both because each will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already lived and because the expectations for their lives may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the “original.”
• Concerns regarding manufacture. Cloned children would be the first human beings whose entire genetic makeup is selected in advance. They might come to be considered more like products of a designed manufacturing process than “gifts” whom their parents are prepared to accept as they are. Such an attitude toward children could also contribute to increased commercialization and industrialization of human procreation.
• The prospect of a new eugenics. Cloning, if successful, might serve the ends of privately pursued eugenic enhancement, either by avoiding the genetic defects that may arise when human reproduction is left to chance, or by preserving and perpetuating outstanding genetic traits, including the possibility, someday in the future, of using cloning to perpetuate genetically engineered enhancements.
• Troubled family relations. By confounding and transgressing the natural boundaries between generations, cloning could strain the social ties between them. Fathers could become “twin brothers” to their “sons”; mothers could give birth to their genetic twins; and grandparents would also be the “genetic parents” of their grandchildren. Genetic relation to only one parent might produce special difficulties for family life.
• Effects on society. Cloning-to-produce-children would affect not only the direct participants but also the entire society that allows or supports this activity. Even if practiced on a small scale, it could affect the way society looks at children and set a precedent for future nontherapeutic interventions into the human genetic endowment or novel forms of control by one generation over the next. In the absence of wisdom regarding these matters, prudence dictates caution and restraint.

Conclusion: For some or all of these reasons, the Council is in full agreement that cloning-to-produce-children is not only unsafe but also morally unacceptable, and ought not to be attempted.  

5.2  Moral reasoning among medical geneticists in eighteen nations

Wertz DC, Fletcher JC.

We surveyed the approaches of 661 geneticists in 18 nations to 14 clinical cases and asked them to give their ethical reasons for choosing these approaches. Patient autonomy was the dominant value in clinical decision-making, with 59% of responses, followed by non-maleficence (20%), beneficence (11%) and justice (5%). In all, 39% described the consequences of their actions, 26% mentioned conflicts of interest between different parties and 72% placed patient welfare above the welfare of others. The U.S., Canada, Sweden, and U.K. led in responses favoring autonomy. There were substantial international differences in moral reasoning. Gender differences in responses reflected women’s greater attention to relationships and supported feminist ethical theories.

PMID: 2781504 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Ethics Library

Explore your concerns in ethics at three of the following sites:

Exam