May 21: Ethics 2
|
|
|
To do for next class: 1) Read pp. 76-131. 2) Think of a medical ethics issue that hasn't been raised by the chapter. I'll give bonus points to those who bring in a relevant newspaper article. 3) Give two examples of how ethical theory is applied in the same-sex marriage dispute. Identify the theory. |
To do for next class: 1) Read pp. 132-156. 2) What problems do you think there might be for laissez-faire liberalism? 3) What do you think of Marx's analysis of capitalism? Does it seem right, or misguided? Why? |
Introduction
Today we're doing two very different topics within ethics, and we will treat them separately.
Recall from last day the three questions of ethical theory: 1) Proof of moral principles. 2) What to do in 'hard cases' 3) How to lead the good life. Who gave answers to the questions? What philosophers have had the most influence in answering these questions? (Kant, Bentham, Plato, Aristotle, Marx). All men. Many of the ideas expressed have purported to be universal. But if they are all by men, for men, critiqued by men, is this a valid claim? Would philosophy have advanced the same ideas (some, all) if there were only women participating? Why, why not? If we did a survey of all the styles of music (rock, grunge, country, pop, house, rap, punk, classical) we find in the U.S., can we draw valid, universal, conclusions about the state, form, or purpose of music? Is this analogy appropriate (or the religion analogy in the text)?
There are two lines of reasoning to validate a feminist approach. Social and Genetic. The truth is probably somewhere in between as with all Nature/Nurture debates. Social: women are raised differently, have different expectations put on them, have different life experiences which are more similar to one another than to men, and are different enough from men's experiences that they have a novel perspective on the world. Thus, philosophical insights from women will be different from those of men and are necessary to get a balanced world view. Genetic: The same argument as above, but the difference is constitutional or inherent; i.e. women just are different from men no matter how they are raised and will have novel philosophical insight into the functioning of the world.
According to Jaggar, there are 3 fundamental themes in a feminist ethical theory:
Can we see each of these principles in Raugust's piece on Feminist Ethics and Workplace Values? Does she violate or ignore any of these principles? What do you think of Wolff's concluding comments to this section? (Catholic vs. Protestant; Emotion vs. (narrow) Rationality) As he notes, the Greeks had a very different conception of morality than Kantians. Is it really 'men' that are being argued against? Is the female/male split still a valid one? How do you think cultural differences (i.e. white/nonwhite) compare to sex differences?
What question is the debate over? (What is marriage?) What sorts of answers are provided? 1) A union between an man and a women for the purpose of raising children. 2) A conventional expression of the morality of our society. 3) A life-long commitment to someone we love. 4) A unique life-long commitment to someone we love (what that difference?).
This is clearly an ethical question (as opposed to meta-ethical). What part(s) of ethics is it most concerned with? (Proof of principles and the good-life). For Bennett, marriage is as it is because it is 'natural' and 'of God' - these are valid ways for him to make moral decisions. As well, if it is changed, the good life will no longer be available as it once was. Sullivan says the liberal ideal of equality should most inform our moral choices. As well, this would finally allow all members of the population to at least have a shot at the good life.
Look at the current legal status of same sex marriage here.
This section of the course discusses the most practical current application of philosophy. In fact, philosophers even get hired into medical institutions as ethical consultants! More importantly, many people face hard moral decisions in the realm of medicine. This more so in the U.S. than in other countries with universal health care. Americans must decide how much their health is worth and how many dollars to spend to protect it. This decision will someday confront all of us. But there are even more difficult decisions to be faced when it comes to our health, someday you may have to face one. Maybe you've already experienced these sorts of decisions. They are 'hard cases'. They are where theory meets practice which, like normal, is messier than we may have thought. Many of these theories are tested with thought experiments (as we've seen), but in these instances, they are really tested.
However, there are so many theories it is not clear how we should decide amongst them (meta-ethics). Perhaps the how satisfying their performance on real problems is can help us decide. Ironically, it is the amazing success of medical science in recent (the last 100) years which has caused these difficult moral problems. Decisions never before faced by people, we don't have 2500 years of thinking to helps out (in some ways). We are presented with many ways of making medical decisions, for example, the meritarian concept (personal merit determines availability of treatment); needs principle; ability (i.e. ability to pay); compensatory principle (if you've suffered til now you deserve a break); etc. However, these theories are not formulae, there are many ways to apply them. Individuals will apply them in different ways, philosophers try to clearly identify the alternatives and their consequences so people can better 'examine their lives' ala Socrates. But in the end the questions are often ones of valuation (how expensive it is to keep a comatose patient alive) and are made on incomplete knowledge (i.e. what are the chances a patient will come out of a coma or what the comatose patient might want).
Distribution of resources; in the 1960s many institutions were faced with a limited supply of dialysis machines. They had to decide who got dialysis and who didn't. Who gets a transplant when it is available?
Food and water; is it ever right to withhold nutrients (assuming the patient can't express an opinion)? What moral principles can/do inform this sort of decision? Wolff identifies three issues (trust, uncertain knowledge, and professional principles), can you think of others? (role of family)
Organ trade: This raises many questions. Should organs be transplanted ever? Who should get one? Should we be able to buy them? Should people be forced to donate? What if they have had a transplant? What about the economics (have you read the urban myth?)? What if they have no family? People currently sell blood, what about organs? Do people have a right to sell their body (prostitution)? Or is it morally wrong? What would the Categorical Imperative say?
Have you ever seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is told he has a day to live after eating a poorly prepared puffer fish (fugu)? Should Dr. Hibbert have told Homer that he only had a day? Homer decides not to tell his kids, is that right?
What about the case of Anne S.? Were her doctors morally obliged to tell her of her condition? Or did they do the right thing by withholding information from her? This, like many other cases we've seen in this class, is not a made up case, but a real decision made by a real doctor.
Dr. Kevorkian and assisted suicide. Most of us are in the somewhat comfortable position of not really having to make a decision about this issue. However what would you do if you were in the position of a legislator or judge who must make decisions on the legal status of assisted suicide? Even if we believe, say, that people have a right to take their own life does that mean we want to legalize it? What if the decision on the part of the patient is hasty, or encouraged by cost-cutting measures in hospitals (and so encouraged by doctors)?
To do for next class
1) Read pp. 132-156. 2) What problems do you think there might be for laissez-faire liberalism? 3) What do you think of Marx's analysis of capitalism? Does it seem right, or misguided? Why?