Week One, Lecture 2

Introducing Some Key Concepts

Who, what, where, when:

Dominic Murphy
dominic.murphy@sydney.edu.au
(02) 9351 3762
Office: Carslaw 432
Office Hours: Tue 1-4, or by appointment

We will look at some key ideas. Ill introduce

some basic distinctions today, and some
theory tomorrow.

Simple definition- the study of what should be

done. But lots of decisions dont seem to be
ethical:
Should I go to the movies or to the beach?
What should I call my child?
Should I ask that attractive stranger out?
Should I cover my mouth when I belch?
Should I watch out for traffic before I cross the
road?

One idea: in none of these cases are you under

an obligation. You dont have to go to the beach
or call your kid Moonbeam. But you have to

do the right thing.

Immoral (not permitted, act is bad or

wrong)
Morally permissible (allowable)
- - obligatory (required)
- - neutral (neither good nor bad)
- - supererogatory (going above and beyond
what is required by morality)

Many people think: science just discovers

the facts. There are no good or bad facts.

Goodness and badness come in when you

decide how to use scientific knowledge.
- nuclear weapons?
- forced sterilizations?
- HPV vaccine?

Facts describe how the world is or

explain why the world is the way it is.
- Science most interested in facts and
explanatory or causal reasons

Values show how we think the world

ought to be
- They are normative, ie, prescriptive and
evaluative

John picks his nose and eats his snot while

he talks.

This is a factual statement, but it will

certainly have an effect on your opinion of
John, depending on your values. Is that a
moral reaction? If so, is it justifiable or
reliable?

Values are judgements about what is good

not mere taste or preference
In ethics, we can articulate reasons and
disagree about those reasons
Ethical values are is not based on gut
feelings
Principles are rules for guiding behaviour
based on values
They should be universalizable; they can be
rationally justified and defended; they
prescribe the right thing

Many people say yes to the trolley problem

and no to organ harvesting even if it saves
lives.

So what is the difference: why not go with

the theory that says you should save lives?

Reflective equilibrium involves reaching a

harmony between your general theories &
your particular judgements to make them
cohere.

Ethical theories try to provide systematic

principles (via philosophical argument) that
justify our moral decisions
They help to determine what is good, what is
the right action, and help us to live well
(eg. with integrity)
They help to identify morally relevant
aspects of issues, eg. consequences,
autonomy or justice your haircut doesnt
matter to your moral status, but whether
you tend to lie a lot does matter.

Most theorists argue that theories

(scientific, ethical etc.) should be:
(1) Internally consistent
(2) Clear and complete
(3) Fairly simple

OUR JOB THIS TERM is not reach ethical

agreement but look for principles that can
govern controversial issues in a democratic
society

Additional criteria:
(1) Implications should be reconcilable with
moral intuitions and experience (though
commonsense beliefs are often revised
in light of new ethical insights/theories via
reflective equilibrium)
(2) Should provide effective guidance,
especially for moral conflicts

There are several kinds of ethical theory

used in bioethics today: Each has strengths
and weaknesses
Act-based theories: Consequentialism and
Deontology
Agent-based theories: Virtue Ethics
Relational-based theories: Care ethics

MORE TOMORROW ON ALL THIS