Ethics & Moral Philosophy Series Part 6: Applied Ethics & Case Studies

Informed Consent requires that patients:

• Understand the nature of their condition and proposed treatment
• Know the risks, benefits, and alternatives
• Voluntarily agree without coercion
• Have capacity to make the decision

Paternalism Debate: When, if ever, may doctors override patient wishes "for their own good"? Strong autonomy views say almost never; moderate views allow exceptions (e.g., psychiatric emergencies).

The Doctrine of Double Effect: An action with a bad effect (death) may be permissible if the bad effect is foreseen but not intended, and the good effect (relief of suffering) is the aim.

Therapy vs. Enhancement: A key distinction:

• Therapy: Correcting genetic diseases (e.g., sickle cell, cystic fibrosis)
• Enhancement: Improving "normal" traits (intelligence, athletic ability)

Ethical Concerns:

• Safety and unknown risks of germline editing
• Creating "designer babies" and genetic inequality
• Playing God / "hubris" objections
• Informed consent for future generations (who can't consent)

Key Ethical Issues:

• Intergenerational Justice: What do we owe future generations? How much should we sacrifice now for people who don't yet exist?
• Global Justice: Rich countries caused most emissions but poor countries suffer most. Who should bear the costs?
• Collective Action: Individual actions seem trivial, but collective impact is huge. What are individual vs. collective responsibilities?
• Discounting the Future: Should future harms count less than present harms? If so, how much less?

Peter Singer's Utilitarian View:

• Sentience (capacity to suffer) is what matters morally
• Equal consideration of interests—animal pain counts like human pain
• "Speciesism" (favoring humans just because they're human) is like racism or sexism

Tom Regan's Rights View:

• Animals are "subjects of a life" with inherent value
• This gives them moral rights—not to be used merely as means
• Stronger protections than utilitarianism provides

Milton Friedman's View (Shareholder Theory):

• "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits" (within legal bounds)
• Managers are agents of shareholders—spending on CSR is "stealing" from owners
• Let the market work; government handles social problems

Stakeholder Theory:

• Corporations have obligations to all stakeholders: employees, customers, communities, environment—not just shareholders
• Long-term sustainability requires considering broader impacts

The Tension: Loyalty to employer vs. duty to public interest

Conditions for Justified Whistleblowing (DeGeorge):

1. The harm is serious and considerable
2. You've reported concerns through internal channels first
3. There's documented evidence, not just suspicion
4. There's reasonable chance that blowing the whistle will prevent the harm

When does it become obligatory? When you can prevent serious harm at relatively low cost to yourself.

• Algorithmic Bias: AI systems can encode and amplify human biases (racial, gender, etc.). Who's responsible?
• Autonomous Weapons: Should we allow lethal decisions without human oversight?
• The Alignment Problem: How do we ensure AI systems pursue goals we actually want?
• AI Rights: If AI becomes conscious, would it have moral status?
• Job Displacement: What do we owe workers displaced by automation?

• Surveillance Capitalism: Is the business model of harvesting personal data for profit ethical?
• Government Surveillance: How do we balance security and liberty?
• The Right to Privacy: What privacy expectations are reasonable in a digital age?
• Data Ownership: Who owns your personal data? What rights should you have over it?

The Scenario: A self-driving car must choose between swerving (killing its passenger) or staying course (killing five pedestrians). How should it be programmed?

Analysis:

• Utilitarian: Minimize deaths—swerve. But then who would buy such a car?
• Deontological: There's a difference between killing and letting die. Actively swerving to kill is worse.
• Virtue Ethics: What would a wise person do? Perhaps: build cars that rarely face such choices.

Real-World Complication: Survey shows people want others' cars programmed utilitarian, but their own cars programmed to protect them.

The Scenario: Heinz's wife is dying. A druggist has a cure but charges $2,000 (10x his cost). Heinz can only raise $1,000. The druggist refuses to sell cheaper or let Heinz pay later. Should Heinz steal the drug?

Analysis:

• Utilitarian: Probably yes—a life outweighs property rights and minor harm to the druggist
• Deontological: Tricky. Stealing violates duty, but so does letting someone die when you can save them
• Virtue Ethics: A compassionate, just person might steal. But also: a just society wouldn't create such dilemmas

Kohlberg's Point: What matters for moral development isn't the answer but the reasoning—are you thinking about punishment, social rules, or universal principles?

The Facts: In the 1970s, Ford knew the Pinto's fuel tank was vulnerable to rupture in rear-end collisions. An $11 fix per car would prevent an estimated 180 burn deaths, 180 serious injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles.

Ford's Analysis:

• Cost of fix: $11 × 12.5 million cars = $137.5 million
• Benefits: 180 deaths × $200,000 + 180 injuries × $67,000 + 2,100 vehicles × $700 = $49.5 million
• Conclusion: Don't fix it—costs exceed benefits

What Went Wrong:

• Utilitarian Critique: The numbers were wrong (undervalued lives, underestimated injuries)
• Deontological Critique: Using people merely as means—sacrificing lives for profit
• Virtue Critique: What kind of company (what kind of character) makes such calculations?

1. Foundations: What ethics is, why it matters, and the fundamental questions
2. Utilitarianism: Judge actions by consequences—maximize overall well-being
3. Deontology: Judge by duties—some acts are wrong regardless of consequences
4. Virtue Ethics: Focus on character—become the kind of person who does right naturally
5. Metaethics: Debates about the nature and existence of moral truth
6. Applied Ethics: How to bring these tools to real-world problems

• Practice: Apply these frameworks to dilemmas you encounter. What would each theory say?
• Read: Explore primary sources—Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Kant's Groundwork, Mill's Utilitarianism
• Discuss: Engage others in ethical conversation. Test your views against objections.
• Reflect: Notice your moral intuitions. When do they conflict with theory? What does that tell you?
• Act: Ethics isn't just theoretical—it's about how we live. Practice the virtues.