Summaries of classes
Please
note that these are summaries, not 'the notes' for the
class. These have been prepared by students in the class,
and I have posted them here, unchanged, as a ready reference
for those who could use a quick idea of what topic(s) have
been discussed. But there is no
guarantee of accuracy (or even proper spelling)! Caveat
lector!
September 10th, 2015 / Angela Mazerolle
What is Ethics?
A branch of philosophy(love of wisdom - trying to become wise)
-ethics
-metaphysics
-epistemology
Philosopher has a toolkit with 2 tools
-reason: capacity to judge. It it natural. All intellectually mature beings have this ability. All arguments should be understood by other intellectually mature beings.
-public evidence: evidence that others have access to.
Philosophy doesn't assume the truth about private ideas, it ask why. It pursues assumptions (what assumptions do you have, what is the root of these assumptions). It looks at facts & values.
*Every argument in class should be able to follow reasoning and have public evidence available.
Where does the evidence come from?
Use critical reasoning to analyze someone else assumptions, facts & values.
If their views aren’t rights, it is speculative.
There are always answers in ethics, they may be hard & others can disagree or may not be able to answer with certainty for a long time.
Objective = to get answers that we know to be true or believe to be true.
What is ethics? *In text*
Concepts of ethics
-right & wrong
-good & bad
-virtue & vice
Can ethics be called a science?
It can because it deals with issues of conduct, deals with judgements, looks for rules/ principles. Focuses on human conduct.
Science is a systematic study of something.
Ethical questions ( ‘Is it’ can be replaces with ‘should we’)
Is it ethical to harm someone else?
Is it ethical to restrain patients?
Is it ethical to do something against a persons will? (force feed)
Is it ethical to end your life when you choose?
Is it ethical to cheat on your partner?
Is it ethical to go to war?
Is it ethical to be a vegetarian?
Is it ethical to allow refugees into Canada?
You shouldn’t have done that = ethical statement
Ethics is looking for a standard/ norm. The norm can be what benefits the community or a right.
Is your body your property?
how do you get something - compensation, gift, work for it.
you do have a right to your own body but the why gets complicated.
Normative ethics - what are the norms/principles that can be used to solve ethical questions.
Metaethics - deals with the meaning of ethical words (ex. good - what is the definition of good?)
September 10th, 2015 / Christena Clark
WHAT IS ETHICS?
-
Ethics
is a branch of philosophy.
-
Philosophy
is defined in two parts
o
PHILO
à love/passion
§ Ex) philanthropist is someone who loves human
beings
o
SOPHY
à wisdom (insight/judgment)
o
Therefore
philosophy can be defined as the love of wisdom & trying
to become wise
-
Branches
of philosophy include; the fundamental principles of reality
(metaphysics), ethics, what we know, epistemology, logic
-
A
philosopher has two tools à
o
1.
REASON – “We all have the capacity to reason”. A capacity to
judge that is natural of humans. It is public therefore we
should all be able to understand philosophy topics.
o
2.
PUBLIC EVIDENCE – that in principle anyone else can access it
and understand reasoning between beliefs
o
Philosophy
asks the question “WHY” and presumes assumptions
-
Question
– What is more important donating a two dollars to charity or
buying a cup of coffee?
o
Why do
you assume you can do what you want with the money because it
is yours?
o
What
assumptions can you make?
o
What
are the facts?
o
Values
we accept such as the desire to do good
-
Sometimes
assumptions are the problem, we don’t know all the facts all
the time.
-
Reason
and evidence aren’t enough; you have to show proof of
assumptions/ values.
-
Ethical
question – Should you/I/them be a vegetarian?
o
Meat
source – protein but only if we need it. (FACT)
o
Normally
animals are eaten and caged in pens (VALUES)
§ When is it acceptable to allow pain and
suffering?
o
Where
should I go to get more information?
§ Find out their (REASONING)
§ Critical reasoning with what the presenter had to
say & analyze what they said.
§ One could disagree with their assumptions
(VALUES)
§ What is your evidence?
§ What if their views aren’t right? Be speculative.
§ Both views cant be
equally right
§ Some answers are harder to prove
-
Ethical
question – What is love?
o
Should
we love our neighbors? Such as Christian traditions
o
Takes
time to figure out the answer of “what is love”
-
What
makes Ethics a branch of Philosophy?
o
Defined
in many dictionaries such as “ philosophy
involves systematizing concepts of right and wrong conduct.”
-
Key
concepts of Ethics
o
Rightness,
wrongness, good, bad, virtue, vice, self
control, truthful, vicious, judgments, conduct,
looking for rules
o
All
focused on human conduct. Concepts and judgments
o
Looking
for rules can be classified as a science
§ What is a science?
·
A
systemic study of anything such as astrology if it is done in
an organized/ systemic way. Ex) music may not be a science but
the history of music may be.
-
Different
kinds of Ethical Questions
o
Is it
ok to steal?
o
Is it
ethical to harm someone else?
o
Are
the uses of restraints ethical?
o
Is it
ethical to force feed patients?
o
Is it
ethical to end your life when you choose?
o
Is it
ethical to commit adultery?
o
Is it
ethical to go to War?
o
Is it
ethical to bring refugees into Canada?
o
Why
should I have to pay taxes – leads to extortion
-
You
are looking for norms
o
What
is the benefit to the community
o
Do
what it is your right to do
o
What
are the principles to help answer the question
o
The
difference between legal and right
o
Conditions
on property à heart donation example
o
Is
your body property?
o
Does
having something mean its my property?
-
Normative
Ethics- what are norms of principles to help me solve ethical
questions
-
Metaethics –
the meaning of ethical terms
Comment: We talked
about looking for norms to help answer different ethical
questions, however the norms are continuously changing, which
can lead to difficulties. Second comment: We talked about
norms being a benefit to the community. However in our
profession we are not benefiting the community, we are engaged
in patient care to one person at most times the expensive of
the community.
September 16, 2015 Robyn
Billington
Review from last class
-Ethics-part of
philosophy.
-Philosophy
uses reason as its primary tool.
-we’re all capable of reason.
-philosophy uses surroundings to draw reasonable
conclusions.
-can be considered a science (systematic study).
-aims at providing rational conclusions to problems.
-answers should be as reasonable as possible, could
convince a neutral person.
-Philosophy is
rigorous and rational to arrive at reasonable conclusions.
-Ethics focuses
on concepts
-making judgements.
-ethical norm- what is reasonable to normatively do?
Ex) How should I behave?
-metaethics- deals with ethical terms.
Today
-Studying
ethics cannot make you ethical, but if you’re already an
ethical person it can improve on your values.
-Ethics is a
part of our personal and professional lives.
-Personal
-decision making
-what you’re concerned about ex) climate change
-should you treat people fairly
-making judgements ex) public/private issues, how to
act
-character ex) honest, loyal, trustworthy
-not only doing the right thing but being the right
kind of person.
-integrity
-Professional
-decision making ex) how we treat co-workers
-What is the
fair way to treat people? (personal & professional)
-Ethical
Dilemmas- no decision is the obviously right decision
-ex) Not enough money in healthcare, how do you choose
what/where to make cuts?
-Need to use
ethical judgements. Ex) quality of life.
-Have to
understand not only our beliefs and values but also understand
where other people are coming from.
-Code of
Ethics- non-specific,must
make ethical judgements.
-help with ethical reasoning in our professional
capacity.
-provides guidance, not only for professionals but also
for the public as to how they should expect to be treated.
-shows key values of the profession.
-guidelines for regulating the profession.
-note: not all professions have a code of ethics ex)
professors.
3 Examples of
personal versus professional
1)
You’re a physician, you’ve
made a promise but you get an emergency call from the
hospital.
-professional commitment trumps
personal, see CMA Code of Ethics.
2) You’re a soldier
ordered to fire a missile at a building. You are unsure
whether it is
a military building or a hospital.
-you have a duty to obey.
3)
Guard in concentration camp in WWII, ordered to kill but you
know they’re innocent
civilians.
-you do it out
of obligation, knowingly it’s unethical to kill innocent
people.
September 16, 2015 -
·
All intellectually
mature individuals are capable of basic reasoning.
·
Ethics focused on
concepts (good/bad, right/wrong) and making judgments.
·
Normative – What
values should I have?
·
Metaethics – What
does good mean?
·
Affects personal
and professional lives
·
Personal
o
Making decisions
in life. Should we be concerned about climate change? Should I
treat people fairly?
o
Ethics in personal
life: Judgments
o
Ethics and
character: What kind of person am I? How do I see myself? I
want to do the right thing.
·
Professional
o
Have to make
decisions about how we treat colleagues in work place.
o
Ethical Dilemma:
No decision is the obviously right decision
o
Not only
understanding ourselves but also being aware of others.
·
What’s the purpose
of the code of ethics?
o
Guides me as a
professional. Not just to help the practitioner; also gives
the public an idea of what to expect from their practitioner.
·
Nursing is a
self-regulated profession. The code of ethics also gives
guidelines of the regulation of the profession. The code of
ethics comes from professional associations.
·
Why do some
professions have codes of ethics and others don’t? These codes
give us guidelines but they don’t give us enough. Don’t tell
us specifically what to do in certain situations. Have to use
ethical reasoning, which means you have to make judgments.
These codes by themselves aren’t going to make you ethical.
·
You are a
physician. You make a promise and you get an emergency call
from the hospital.
o
Choice is
professional responsibility. Conflict of obligations.
Obligation to hospital/patient trumps personal obligation.
o
Nurses getting
called in to work on their days off. Is it ethical to pretend
not to be available?
·
You are a soldier
in time of war, and are ordered to fire a missile at a
building. You are unsure whether it is a military building or
a hospital.
·
A guard at a
concentration camp in World War II. He is ordered to kill, but
he knows that the people he is told to kill are innocent
civilians.
o
Private morality
VS professional morality
·
Does personal
always trump professional or vice versa? When uncertain about
what is going on the decision becomes harder. What do I do in
cases of uncertainty?
Thurs. Sept. 17th 2015 Lacey Callaghan
Codes of ethics provide guidelines for you to
follow but you must be able to engage in ethical reasoning and
make judgments in order to know how to act in both your
professional and personal life.
·
Personal
Vs. Professional 3 cases:
·
You
are a physician. You make a promise and you get an emergency
call from the hospital.
·
You
are a soldier and your commander tells you to bomb a building
but you are unsure if it is an enemy headquarters or something
else like a school or hospital.
·
A
guard at a concentration camp in World War two. He is ordered
to kill, but he knows that the people he is told to kill are
innocent civilians.
·
Case
study: Jane Jenkins is walking over a bridge that spans a
river. As she does so, she sees her philosophy professor
splashing about in the water. She shouts “Don’t Worry” and she
jumps in. Is what Jane did good?
·
What
are we looking at in making an ethical judgment? Intentions,
motives and consequences.
·
What
do I need to know? Values and facts.
·
Suppose:
the professor was just playing in the water. Should she feel
good because she had good intentions, was just trying to help,
and no harm was done?
·
We
don’t actually know what people’s intentions are but the
consequences are visible to everyone.
·
Suppose:
Jane doesn’t know how to swim, she tries to rescue him, but
gets too close and is pulled down by him, and drowns.
·
Do
only intentions count; do only consequences count or both, in
determining if what Jane did was good?
·
Why do
people do good things? Altruism or for selfish reasons
(recognition)?
·
Suppose:
she is walking alongside someone who has worked as a
lifeguard.
·
Or:
She hopes to get a reward and some kind of award or medal for
doing this.
·
A
Framework for ethical decision making (RESPECT):
R-
Recognize the moral dimension of the task or problem.
E-
Enumerate the guiding and evaluative principles.
S-
Specify the facts, including stakeholder and their guiding
principles.
P- Plot
various action alternatives.
E-
Evaluate alternatives in light of principles and stakeholders.
C-
Consult and involve stakeholders as appropriate.
T- Tell
stakeholders the reasons for the decision.
·
Values:
are subjective, we all have them but they may differ from
person to person. How do we prioritize them? When it comes to
a conflict how do we decide? Examples of values: courage,
honesty, respect, loyalty, self-discipline, compassion,
dignity, autonomy, and justice.
·
Principles:
are not subjective, they are universal rules.
·
Next
class: Values Vs. Principles. What makes an ethical principle
ethical?
September 17th
2015 - Andrea Campbell
Case Study in our text
book:
Jane Jenkins is walking
over a bridge that spans a river. As she does so, she sees her
philosophy professor splashing about in the water. She shouts
‘Don’t worry,’ and she jumps in.
At this point, can we say
whether what Jane did was good? (For example, some people
would say that what she did was good – that she had, for
example, a good motive – to save someone’s life.
Now, suppose that:
The professor was just
playing around in the water.
·
Jane
doesn’t know how to swim.
·
she
tries to rescue him, but gets too close and is pulled down by
him, and drowns.
·
she is
not a great swimmer, but is walking alongside someone who has
worked as a lifeguard.
·
she
hopes to get a reward and some kind of award or medal for
doing this.
Do any of these
circumstances – and, if so, which –affect the judgement that
what Jane did was good?
Two things to consider
when making ethical decisions and judgements :
1)
What
are we looking at in making an ethical judgement?
2)
What
do we need to know about the action to know if it is ethical?
Answer 1) we are looking
at the motivation/intent and the consequences. We can also
look at the act itself, separate from the intent/motive and
the consequences.
We also need to look at
the facts, and how do the facts change our understanding of
the situation. The same facts should be able to be seen by any
intelligent logical person looking at the same situation as
you.
Answer 2) we need to know:
The intent/motivation and
consequences
We need to know the values
(ie, if the intent counts) and what are the nature of the
consequences. An action that produces positive consequences,
is that considered a good act, and an action that produces bad
consequences, I that considered bad?
In order to make an
ethical judgement , we need to know values of the person doing
the action, and also out own values. However, values are also
facts of the situation. Facts are relevant in making an
ethical decision.
So, how do we know how to
make ethical decisions? We use frameworks. An example of a
framework is on page 9 of our text (RESPECT frame work)
Frameworks are used as
guides to aid us in ethical decision making, they help us
develop good habits. These models are not going to give use
specific answers, but they will help us learn how to reason
ethically.
As, mentioned above we
need to know the facts of a situation in order to make an
ethical judgement. Since facts are also values, we need to
understand our values and the values of the person in the
situation, but also we need to understand what values are.
What is a value? Values
are subjective. We may have the same values as others, but our
ranking of the importance of these values may be different.
Values can also differ between person to person and society to
society.
Our personal values may
also conflict with each other, meaning that people can be
inconsistent in their values.
How do we deal with
conflicts of values? We use principles. Principles are not
subjective, they are objective. They are fundamental,
universal rules.
Review of last class
-We must practice
ethics/philosophy to develop the skill
-Must train
ourselves on what to look for
-Objective of
ethics = come to a reasonable decision. There may not always
be a ‘right’ answer, but there are those that are more
reasonable than others.
Values
-
Subjective, feelings, beliefs
-
Most people share values
-
Some may weigh values differently, ie:
“I value loyalty over honesty”, “civic loyalties are more
important than personal”
-
How do I figure out what to do if my
values conflict? Examine principles.
Principles
-
Normative rules, rules of conduct
-
Ie: “Do what makes most people happy”,
“do no harm” (non-maleficence)
-
Helps to try to resolve conflicts of
values
Case study:
Case of Dr. Olivieri, a physician and
researcher at a children’s hospital, affiliated with University
of Toronto, who signed a contract to test a new drug. The
university was looking for funding from the drug company. Dr
Olivieri signed a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement in
order to do this research on the new drug.
She noted that the children developed iron
toxicity, precursor to cirrhosis of the liver, and immediately
stopped testing and demanded that the parents of the children be
informed. The company said they would not, they had
confidentiality forms signed. They confiscated all medications
being trialed, fired Dr Olivieri, she received threatening
letters from co-workers.
What is her legal duty? What is her ethical
duty?
*RESPECT model framework
R (recognise the moral issues)
-
She has an ethical
obligation to herself, the treatment of her patients, the
confidentiality agreement (what are its limits? When is it ok to
break it?), her colleagues and employer
E (enumerate guiding and evaluative
principles)
-
Beneficence,
non-maleficence
-
Do your duty as a
professional, maintain professional integrity
-
Duty to oneself
S (specify the facts, including stakeholders
and their principles)
-
She is a
physician/researcher, an expert in her field
-
She signed a
confidentiality agreement
-
She conducted a study and
found dangerous results
-
If she releases the
results there will be harm to the university
P (Plot various action alternatives)
-
Stop the trial, say
nothing/do nothing more
-
Go public with the info
-
Could have investigated
more, talked with other researchers, checked that she did not
make a mistake, make the company aware of the results
-
Continued the study and
hope no one figured out the issue
E (Evaluate alternatives in light of
principles and stakeholders)
-
Professional legal duties
vs. legal duties to the company due to confidentiality
-
Check results with
company/colleagues (however they may have found the same
results)
-
Hold a press conference
=> ethically, may break confidentiality if it prevents harm
being done to someone
*to do nothing is a bad option
*to be a whistle blower may not be a good
idea if you haven’t checked your data, made sure you are 100%
correct in your findings
In the end she held a press conference, lost
her job, went through 7 years of litigation, and finally was
found to have made the right decision and done the right thing.
But was it all in her own best interest, to have gone through so
much personally?
A key role in working through this scenario
is evaluating the principles involved:
*beneficence
*do no harm
*duty/integrity
Some things are a matter of:
1)
Prudence – ie: tying
shoelaces to avoid injury to self or others, causing avoidable
disruption and possible medical resources
2)
Preference – subjective,
differs amongst people, relative, can vary across cultures
Ethics – should be objective, and have
guidelines that apply to everyone – all rational beings.
September 24, 2015 -
THEORIES ABOUT ETHICS
Using ethical PRINCIPLES we may weigh ALTERNATIVES to
make JUDGEMENTS. But...
Which principles are useful in ethical reasoning, and which
problematic?
3 common elements of 'dead end' theories of ethics: they are
not universalizable, not authoritative and they often
reflect merely prudence or personal preference.
Examples of such theories:
1.Relativism
2.Egoism
3.Legalism
4.Amoralism
1.RELATIVISM
a. Individual moral subjectivism; b. communal moral
conventionalism.
Premise: there are no ethical
standards ('ethical facts') which apply to all people in all
places at all times (as an objectivist would claim);
therefore ethics must relate to individuals or to cultures.
e.g. "When in (Ancient) Rome...." re slavery.
The moral subjectivist would argue that moral matters are
entirely a matter of individual opinion. Therefore
contradictory views can both be right, there can be no proof
one way or another and conflict can thereby be avoided in a
tolerant pluralistic society, where people are free to opt
out of beliefs shared by most members of their own culture.
Where do these varying values come from and are there good
reasons to believe in and adopt one of two or more
conflicting points of ethical view? The values we choose
reflect our needs, the action which is 'right' for ME -
which meets my needs, makes me feel better, something of
which I approve or which is beneficial to me.
BUT where do these values come from, and is moral
subjectivism a credible theory?
24 September 2015
-- Sarah Beattie
Review
What
criteria do ethical principles have to meet? Ethics involves
weighing right and wrong, values, making judgments. If we do
not have principles, we are lost. Which principles are useful,
and which are problematic? What principles are helpful?
Elements
of Principles of theories of ethics:
1. Universal
a. In
physics,
you have principle that every effect must have a cause. What
if someone said there was no cause? We all work off of this
basic principle. We have this rule that for ever effect in the
universe, there is a cause. Another basic principle we have is
the principle of non-contradiction. A thing cannot both be and
not be at the same time in the same place. These are
principles we use and depend upon. These principles, we say,
are universal. Principles advocated by dead end theories of
ethics cannot claim to be universal.
2. Authoritative
a. They
ought
to govern our lives even when the law tells us differently.
Ethical principles should be supremely authoritative. The law
should fit ethic, not ethics fitted to the law.
i. Why
shouldn’t we kill people? Because “Thou shalt not kill”? Is it
just a law because we don’t do it? This cannot be the case,
because we do. It’s illegal for religious and ethical reasons,
probably. But is it always wrong? Perhaps not in self-defence.
b. We
have
laws because it is normally unethical to kill. Sometimes
principles take priority over the law. Is it okay for you to
take from a wealthy person if your family is starving?
Legally, no. But what about ethically? The authority of ethics
in these extreme cases might take priority over the law.
c. Ethics,
presumably,
is not just about what you like and don’t like. It tells you
what your obligations are.
d. In
ethics,
we’re not looking for preference, prudence, etiquette, or
custom. We’re looking for things that are authoritative and
‘universalizable’.
Theories
About
Ethics
We
will
come to see that these are ‘dead end’ theories of ethics. Relativism is a
potentially confusing term. We will discuss relativism today,
cover other theories in upcoming classes. Egoism says to
always act in your own self-interest. Legalism says to do
whatever the law says; do whatever you are told. Amoralism asks “Why
shouldn’t I kill someone?” There is no ‘oughtness’ in this
theory. There is an indifference to ethical norms or
obligations in this theory.
Relativism
Relativism
might
say something like “There is no ethical standard that applies
to all human beings at all times.”
Could
be relative to
(a) subject
(moral subjectivism), or
(b) culture
(conventionalism)
Ethical
standards
are not always just relative from culture to culture, but even
within the same culture over a period of time. In Canada, we
cannot own slaves. 300 years ago, we could own slaves. Have we
grown in our moral knowledge? One sense of relativism is that
there are standards but they vary from culture to culture,
time to time. (Conventionalism).
Yet within our own culture today, ethical standards
vary. Some people adhere to Biblical principles, pursue what
causes the most happiness, virtue, self-interest. It’s not
just that standards vary from culture to culture. Some would
say that “there are as many standards of good as there are
people in the world.” Standards can also be relative from
person to person. (Moral Subjectivism).
Objectivism.
Moral
Subjectivism
and Conventionalism are both opposed to Objectivism.
Objectivism says that if slavery is wrong, then it is always
wrong. It was wrong in the past, it is wrong now. People can
be mistaken. Was there ever really a time where the world was
flat? No. An objectivist would say that just like scientific
facts, there are ethical facts. There are some things, like
friendship, that all cultures seem to value.
There
are at least some reasons why people hold these views. Whether
their reasons are good or not is what we will discuss.
Moral
Subjectivism
(There are reasons for
believing in moral subjectivism. Are they good reasons?)
All
people have are their feelings, opinions, beliefs. Suppose I
said that euthanasia is good, but you say it is wrong. About
our disagreement, a moral subjectivist would say both of us
are right. In ethical disagreement, there is no way to
determine who is right and who is wrong. Because there is no
objective way to resolve the debate. This fits with how many
people think about controversial ethical decisions today.
Reasons
why people hold this theory:
·
There
is
no proof that one opinion is right and another is wrong
·
There
is
difference in opinion
·
There
is
no consensus
·
This
view
allows for ‘tolerance’ (put up with/don’t dare to criticize
other people’s views) when you live in a pluralistic world
·
All
a
matter of private belief – not public ethics
Likely,
we come to these views through our upbringing. Religion.
Feelings, opinions, belief are all informed by this, but yet
we have a choice. We can give it up, opt out of our culture or
tradition.
Where
do our values come from? Our needs. In some societies, they
may hold value of private property. Perhaps in their society
there is not a lot to go around, so they hold on to what they
have. In North America, bodily autonomy is very important to
us. We see it as very important to be able to make choices and
govern oneself. Our values reflect needs, interests. There are
certain things that, given your needs, you ought to do. If
there are certain individual needs that I have, that you
don’t, we might have different values. In subjectivism, there
is no reason why my needs should affect your values.
What
does this position mean?
1. If
someone
thinks that an action is right, then it is right --- period.
If someone thinks and action is wrong, then it is wrong ---
period. BUT … then, “It is right and it is wrong.” We
arrive at a contradiction.
2. No
judgment
or action is simply right or wrong (i.e. right or wrong
period), but is right or wrong to individuals.
a. If
I
say that X is wrong, I mean that X is wrong to/for me.
b. If
you
say that X is right, you mean that X is right to/for you.
Sept, 30th,
2015 -- Ruby Curwin
Case Study
-Ought the hospital/staff
respect Mr. X’s requests?
·
Yes-
autonomy, identity
·
“Yes”-
if others do it
·
No-
risk of liability, possible harm
Reasons for adopting moral objectivism:
-Objectivism seems to go
to far (no right or wrong)
-Intelligent people
disagree (nobody can decide, personal preference)
-Seems to be no proof on
ethical issues
-Values are based on
needs/interests and they vary
-Importance of toleration
in pluralist societies
You may say:
-When something is right,
its right period
·
Leads
to contradictions
-Nothing is right or wrong
period, but right or wrong to individuals
·
This
avoids contradictions
What does “right for me”
and “wrong for me” mean?
·
Enjoyable,
preferred, pleasant, beneficial
How do you know what is
wrong for you?
·
It is
wrong because I think its wrong
·
But
thinking doesn’t make something wrong
·
You
could make a mistake (I think this way, but I could be wrong)
Good is not just what you
think it is, it has to be more
A related problem:
-I think it is wrong vs. I
think it isn’t wrong
1. Then we stop talking
about what is right (matter of morality) but about what an
individual thinks (matter of history, psychology)
2. Moreover, the two
people aren’t really disagreeing
3. Moral subjectivism
means that there is no moral disagreement (and no morality) at
all
Moral conventionalism (Cultural relativism)
- The very same action
that is right in one country/period may be wrong in another
·
Different
cultures have different values
a) This is how we acquire
moral values
b) There seems to be no
other source
c) We share many moral
views with members of our culture but do not with members of
other cultures; nothing is universally believed to be right
-Vary rarely do we get our
views outside of our culture
-No way to prove one
culture’s values are better than another
Criticisms:
a) Flat earth- people
believed this was true, which follows along with cultural
relativism
·
We
know otherwise due to scientific evidence
Theories of Ethics:
·
People generally hold
these theories
·
All theories of ethics
are “dead-end” theories -> if you follow these theories,
you cannot do ethics
“There is proof in
ethics.”
In order to have proof,
you must have:
·
Reasons that are clear, true, relevant and give sufficient evidence
·
Proof -> reasonable
but not infallible; not reasonable to doubt
Mr. X Story
Mr. X wants alterative
remedies/therapy. Ought
the hospital staff respect Mr. X’s request?
Two Arguments:
1.
HCP should give patients
what they want, therefore HCP should give Mr. X his requested
alternative remedies.
2.
Alternative remedies are
risky and dangerous. HCP should not do things that are risky
and dangerous, therefore Mr. X should not get his alternative
remedies.
Mr. X ‘wants’
alternative remedies.
§ Can’t be true until we
know what ‘wants’ means
§ How much does he want
it?
§ Must be clear
§ Then ask, “Is this
true?”
HCP should
give patients what they want.
§ Is this true?
§ If yes, then Mr. X
should get his alternative remedies
§ Becomes reasonable
How do I evaluate
arguments?
·
Reasons, evidence, proof
o
But what counts as a
good proof? Does it matter if it convinces people or not?
Moral Conventionalism
·
The very same action
which is right in one country/period may be wrong in another
o
This is how we acquire
moral values
o
Nothing is universally
believed to be right
o
We share our moral views
with members of our culture
·
Criticisms:
o
Flat earth – true in one
country but not in another?
o
Moral Reform
§ Is right = what that
culture believes to be right
§ Is wrong = what that
culture believes to be wrong
§ Moral Reformer: “What my
culture believes to be right is WRONG
§ Therefore, if moral
conventionalism is true, this means: “What my culture believes
to be right is what my culture believes to be wrong.”
·
Contradiction
·
Moral conventionalism
can’t be true
Female Genital
Mutilation
Two Arguments:
1.
It’s harmful. HCP should
not do what is harmful, therefore HCP should not allow/condone
FGM.
2.
FGM is beneficial. HCP
should do what is beneficial, therefore HCP should allow FGM.
Are HCP ethically
required to report cases of FGM to the authorities?
§ Some women want FGM due
to traditions, culture, wanting to fit in, etc.
If
you are a moral conventionalist, what do you do?
§ There is no universal
standard
§ If it is right in that
culture, then let it be?
Summary
of subjectivism and conventionalism:
We are looking for principles
when talking about theories about ethics. However these are
not the same as values (subjective). Principles
should help us to sort out conflicts between values, by
working as laws or rules.
Do theories really give us
rules/principles to sort out problems?
Subjectivism: Describes how we
feel, which is not helpful.
Different people have thoughts and views and they may
disagree (which is okay).
Sometimes our interests corrupt our decision-making.
Conventionalism: Think is
this reasonable? Many
cultures have different practices, but does that make their
principles and values right?
Just because we learn something in a culture does not
make it true. For
example 1 + 1 = 2 is true no matter what culture you’re in;
it’s proven independently of culture. If values are based
on culture, all you have to do is take a poll to find the
right answer. But
what if that culture is wrong?
Therefore culture should not determine all values, as
there cannot be a way to ethically disagree. Conventionalists
often confuse moral principle with moral practice. Just because
practices may differ does not mean the underlying principle is
different. For
example, burping after a meal may be a sign of appreciation in
some cultures, however here in Canada we do not show our
appreciation that way.
Egoism:
Is the underlying motive
of human action, self interest should always come first.
People should do what is good/helps themselves before anything
else.
Psychological egoism: All actions are based on pleasure, even
altruistic people must take pride in themselves, it must be
rewarding to be doing something good for others. Why would you do
something if it doesn’t help or benefit you? (Mandeville, pg
33). Sigmund
Freud proposed the idea of id/ego and superego, where id is
basic desire, which is internalized by social conventions. In psychological
egoism, the result is pleasurable, and all steps are taken to
get to that end reward. It’s
in self-interest of someone, they should do it, but what if
they are wrong? There
is nothing ethical about this theory, it is not telling us how
to act. It is
simply stating a fact, that we get pleasure of out actions
relating to self-interest.
However, just because you feel pleasure after an event
does not mean it was the reason you did it. There are exceptions
to this theory, making it untrue. You may think that
your motive is good, however you could be wrong. It is quite
implausible that all motives are self-interested. There is not really
enough evidence to support egoism
Ethical egoism:
People ought to act in a way that maximizes their own
self-interest. If
you don’t look after yourself, who will? You should only help
others if it’s in your own self-interest.
October 8 -Antonia Di Castri
Ethics:
-Make judgements about what is
right and wrong, good and bad, etc.
-Decisions about what human
beings ought or ought not, rationally, to do
Psychological Egoism:
-Theory of motivation
-Doesn’t tell us what we ought
to do, but rather what we are
-Sometimes used as a basis for
ethical egoism
Ethical Egoism:
-People ought to act in a way
that maximizes their own self-interest
-Possibly based off
psychological egoism
-Ethical egoism is rational
(reason for it)
-My existence and wellbeing are
fundamentally valuable (am I then more valuable than you? Or
you more than me?)
-In order to protect and
preserve my existence and wellbeing, I need to look out for
myself
-There is no reason to be
concerned about others (I might feel like doing so because
other people are beings of value, but there is nothing
unreasonable in not doing so unless it helps me in some way)
-I ought therefore, to act in a
way that maximizes my own self-interest
-If I want something, and you
want it too, how ought I to act?
-I ought to be an egoist but
others ought not – only one person should be an egoist and
that’s me
-I’m better off if you
sacrifice yourself for me
-Not a universal principle but
rather an individual one
-Social vs. individual – egoist
would say that social is only valuable inasmuch as it
ultimately benefits the self
-Must ask oneself:
-Do we really know what is best?
-Do we know what is in our self-interest?
-What is fundamentally valuable here?
-Why is my existence so
important?
-Arguments against ethical
egoism:
-Could we make ethical egoism a
universal policy? Ethical egoism is a matter of private policy
because nobody else can be an ethical egoist!
-Can this be genuinely ethical?
-Aren’t some things more
important than our own wellbeing?
-Should I always come first?
-Moral subjectivism,
conventionalism and egoism all won’t work!
Case Study: Taking a sick day because one
is ill, because one’s dear friend is ill or because one has
errands to run
-A legalist would say
one must follow the rules – the rule for sick days is that
they are allotted for a reason so do with them what you will!
Legalists- what is legal is ethical. It is what you
(morally) ought to do. If
the law tells us that we can do it, we do it. You may be a legalist
because it is easy because you may think the law is clear. You may also do it
because it is the law and you need to do it.
Zero Tolerance Rules- if you did it you are
in trouble, it does not matter how/why you did it. Example: cheating on
an exam.
People are afraid of consequences, or who just want to
please and follow the rules may want to be a legalist. Some consequences of
legalism are: there are different rules within the law and the
law can be vague. For
example: Gambling- the law says it is not allowed, however there
are horse races in which people take bets and therefore the law
is not always clear and may have exceptions. The code of ethics
says that we need to provide safe and compassionate care, but
what is compassionate care?
The law can also be inconsistent, ad contradictory. Example: it is illegal
to pay for sex, but legal to receive.
Legalism puts potentially unjustified trust in law
makers. What if the
law makers are bias? And, different countries have different
laws. Following the
law does not always make things clearer. Legal does not mean
ethical. Some
people may say that the law may be wrong/ immoral.
If legalism is suppose to male things more
clear, there will be problems because you cannot claim to be
ethical by following the law.
Legalism fails because it does not want to recognize that
legal is not equal to ethical.
Amoralism- does not possess ethical notions,
and does not subscribe to any moral code.
1.
Radical: complete
rejection of the existence of the moral good
2.
Moderate: I know what is
right but why should I care?
Reasons:
Metaphysical: no human nature or purpose and
therefore no goal, no final good, no destiny for humanity
Epistemological: not possible to know
objective truth or cannot explain or justify moral behavior or
behaviors are not right or wrong, they just are.
Anthropological: human freedom is an
absolute- beyond good and evil.
Could someone be a consistent Amoralist?
Thinking there as no morals anyway/ anywhere?
Amoralist would think we are higher up in the
food chain, we are vulnerable.
Does an amoralist have a mental illness?
Summary
·
Aim of ethic- have to go
back and remind self, increase your level of ethical
understanding and ethical reasoning. The study of ethics is
important to you, gives you values, helps you make judgments and
shows that it is reasonable to do what you ought to do.
·
Need to identify basic
reasonable values and principles.
·
Some people say ethics is
just opinion. This is a problem.
·
Having opinions but
having your reasons and being able to justify it.
·
Ethics looks for
reasonable principles and reasonable values to make judgements/
evaluations/ prescriptions.
The principles need
to be:
·
Universal
·
Normative: supremely
authorities and have priority over law
·
Not just matters of
prudence, subjective self-interest, cultural social practices
·
What ethics says is that
ethics is important to life because it can go over law, because
its supported by laws.
·
The aim of ethics is to
end at dead end theories fails.
·
Subjectivism- own
opinions
·
Conventulalism- what
culture does
·
Legalism- follow what the
law says
·
Looking for principles
and values that you can justify and apply them.
Religious theory of
ethics
·
Ethics is somehow based
on religious beliefs
·
In any culture ethical
beliefs are rooted in religion
·
Religion will tell you
how to live, how you ought to treat others
·
Christianity- 10
commandments
·
Don’t kill, steal, cheat,
lust, lie, curse.
·
If you look at these,
they are problems, why not do these things? Because god commands
it. It is kind of reasonable imagine society without these rules
·
Religion is the
foundation of ethics but there is another way to look at it, is
it reasonable.
Divine command theory
·
Order in the universeà God is the
source of order
·
There are things that
give us order and stability. Based more on an order than anyone
telling us what to do. This is where we all learn what is good/
bad, right/ wrong, our religious influences.
·
When people want to
challenge the commandments, what is preventing them killing? à
the law. Why should people be able to lie, steal, or kill if I
can get away with it?
·
Religion would say “maybe
you avoid the law, but someone/ God is watching!” God insures
where the law fails there is still a punishment in the end.
·
Societies that have a
higher religious belief are more stable
·
Religious beliefs claim
to be universal, some people have a strong sense of law
·
Strong- applies to
everyone, even if you don’t believe it (Islam)
·
Weak- only applies to
people who follow religion (Buddhism)
Problems:
·
Some of the commandments
don’t apply to ethics. Are they absolute? à
where is the room for conscious and expectation?
·
Religion is the source of
ethics based on who’s interpretations. How can I be sure that
this is the correct way to interpretation of the commandments-
you would have to have justifications
·
What do you know what you
really can/can’t do- weak
·
Pg 56- loving neighbour
good? God commands its and it ends up arguing in a circle.
·
If divine command theory
is true- God does things, because God does things
·
This theory is right in
some sense but not strong
Rights
theory
·
Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms
·
Where do these rights
come from? Country- government, can take it away too, but can
you complain? (Some rights come from Government). Even the
government has to recognize the rights of people and if they
limit any of them they have to justify it. Maybe ethics is
founded on basic human rights.
·
Priorities of rights can
over power the law. If rights come from the government they can
cancel them, if rights came from nature then the government
cannot cancel them.
October 21 - Lily Gordon
Rights based ethics- example is the CNA code of
ethics (this talks about human rights) If professional duties
tell you one thing and your employer tells you another you do
what is right for the patient.
What is a right? A right is a power, or an
entitlement (such as to vote.) A right is one that no one can
interfere with; it is their obligation not to interfere!
Human Right- we, as humans, have this
right because we are human… It is a natural right. All humans
have a right to life and to live. If we all have these rights
than we all have an ethical claim of what we can do, and what
others will have to deal with from our actions. So, we can let
others do what they want as long as it doesn’t disrupt our human
rights, this shows that these rights are pluralistic and
reciprocal. This is a nice thing.
These rights are challenged, or in conflict
with other rights on page 61- HIV/AIDS question.
Liberties- are basic human rights that
state to do your own good in your own way.
Civil rights- Are basic rights that we
have in any society. (Right to vote, right to free
speech, the right to practice religion, right to participation
in elections etc.).
The law decides the civil rights- what age
must you be to vote? 18… Who decided that? The law.
Legal rights- these rights vary from
society to society (drinking age, age to vote, age to drive, age
to join the army).
October 22nd 2015: Laura Gray
Midterm will include a definition section (3 or 4 concepts
explained), Short essay question 120 words, longer essay
question 300 words with a case.
Rights Based Ethics:
-
We spoke about this last class. What you ought to
do? Look at rights.
-
Is this theory consistent? Applicable?
Reasonable?
-
The HIV/AIDS case… conflict of rights for the
patients who are sick and need medicine… although the
researchers believe it is their property. How is this
resolved? Right to life vs. right to property.
-
Outside standard/common good
-
Dr. Dawson not prescribing birth control….
Freedom of religion, practice how he likes. But women want
this service. How do we solve this? Is there a limit on rights? Can
you impose your values on others?
-
Guarantee of rights and freedom in constitution
act
-
We won’t solve problems just by looking at
rights, we have to look outside.
-
To provide us with extra help let’s look at
consequentialism/utilitarianism.
Consequences/Utilitarianism
-
Determined by consequences
-
John Stuart Mill: What is the standard of right action? What makes
an act right?
-
What’s right and wrong isn’t what just makes me
happy, it’s the greatest number… Are people generally better
off? What kind of things cause society pleasure?
-
Mill is a hedonist
-
It’s easy to live a pleasure full live…. Just be
a pig!
-
Not a life of constant pleasure, different kinds
of pleasure.
-
Sensual pleasure, a glass of wine. Some increase
in quantity or quality. Higher pleasures.
-
We can prove that some pleasures are higher than
others by means of an empirical test by appealing to people
with experience.
-
Based on human nature: what motivates human
beings to act?
-
Whose pleasure counts? 1.) The whole of sentient
creation, anything that can feel pleasure and pain. 2.) An
underlying equality in utilitarianism: each to count for one
and no one for more than one
-
Quote from textbook
-
Case on page 65. Consequences, greatest
happiness.
October
28, 2015 - Alyssa
Gosbee
Rights Based Theory
When looking at theories it is
important to think about how they fit into the real world or
policies. For example – How would a rights based theory fit
into a health care policy?
Is there a right to health
since it is not on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
We have rights but we have
problems when our rights conflict. We need to look for
something more objective.
Consequentialism aims to resolve these
conflicts. The type of consequentialism we look at is
utilitarianism, which is doing what makes the most people
happy overall. An action is right if it promotes the greatest
happiness of the greatest number of people and an action is
wrong when it doesn’t. This happiness is of sentient beings –
those who experience pleasure and pain (human beings).
What is happiness? The presence
of pleasure and avoidance of pain.
How much pleasure? It varies
from person to person based on the activity. There are degrees
of pleasure and a quality of pleasure.
Example utilitarianism
questions:
Should expensive medications be covered by the health
care system?
Should we devote scare resources to people over 80
years old?
Why should anyone believe that
consequentialism is plausible?
Evidence
Why people might work for the
general happiness when they naturally seem to seek only their
own.
-
An identity of interests of
persons
Ex. Why respect the law? à Safety and security of people
-
“Sanctions”: Internal and
external
Ex. Penalties à people want to avoid public
ridicule/shame or feeling of guilt
Usually external and internal
sanctions work together
Is it reasonable to promote
this view?
Proof:
We ought to be concerned about
others – then we ought to be concerned about others at least
as much as ourselves.
1.
Happiness is a good
2.
Each individual’s happiness is
a good to the individual (i.e. Intrinsically valuable)
3.
General happiness is a good to
the aggregate/sum of persons (i.e. Everyone recognizes that general
happiness is intrinsically valuable)
4.
Therefore, we all ought to
pursue the general happiness
Format of the midterm exam –
October 29th
1.
Explain the difference between
pairs. Define both and state the difference between the
concepts. ½ dozen of these and write 90 words on each. Some
choice.
2.
Identify some theory that a
person is using in an argument. Be able to justify why the
person is using the theory and how you might respond. Applies
to all theories. Some choice and you choose one. Write 150
words.
3.
Case Study question. What way
would you respond to this? Can use a specific model to get
through the case. Justify what option you choose. Be familiar
with the Code of Ethics. Write 300 words.
November 4 - Rachel Kluska
Ethical Principles & Rules
of Consequentialism
-
Do what promotes the greatest
happiness in the greatest number of people
-
Class example #1: would
increasing Nova Scotia taxes to pay for twinning the highway
promote the greatest happiness? Would increasing tax cause a
little or a lot of pain, how much pain is acceptable? When
does someone else’s pain outweigh your own pain?
-
Class example #2: are you
justified to kill a person, to experiment on them if it’s for
the greater good or promotes the greatest happiness of people?
Is it a fair response to feel guilty at the thought of killing
another person for the greater good? Everyone is counted while
considering what outcome will produce the greatest happiness,
but not everyone will be treated fairly or directly benefit
from said outcome
-
Class example #3: why do we
allow physician assisted death? Does it relieve a person’s
pain/suffering? How can one argue someone’s pain over
pleasure? If someone is suffering, they should be put to
death.
-
Not everyone will be treated
fairly with utilitarianism
-
Should someone be rewarded with
what they deserve based on merit, or should they be rewarded
out of want & greed
-
Does utilitarianism have room
for natural affection?
-
What are the consequences, the
restraints that utilitarianism overlooks?
-
Why is utilitarianism concerned
with outcomes over the intentions of a person? Motive, human
rights, morals?
Deontology
-
Focuses on duty
-
You
may have a duty to fulfill but as stated in the nursing code
of ethics, you can withdraw your care if you’re uncomfortable
or at risk
-
What is the difference between
duty & obligation? Duty tells you what you must do,
obligation is what you “ought” to do
-
Duty is generally nonnegotiable
-
You have an obligation to treat
yourself with respect, to take care of yourself before you
fulfill your obligations to others
-
How do you find out what your
duty in life is? It must be a universal duty and applies to
all human beings
-
Everyone should be treated
fairly due to intrinsic value
-
If you are to perform your
duty, is it considered to be good? Is it good for something?
-
How much of our lives are a
hypothetical good? Does anything ever really last as a good?
-
Is good will the only thing
that is truly good and can remain good over a period of time?
-
Is beauty good? Is courage
good? Intelligence?
-
Only analyzing consequences
cannot discover the will or intention of a person
-
What motivates people to do
anything?
Deontological Ethics
-
Why is autonomy, dignity, and
intrinsic value important?
-
Holds that:
o There are universal ethical
principles that are foundational
o They determine the basic duties
or obligations of all human beings
-
A good will is the only thing
that is good without qualification
o Other things can be used as
evil, accept a good will
o Even if there are bad outcome,
it does not matter as long as you acted with a good will
-
Three kinds of motives for a
good will
o Self interest = where we calculate the
benefits to ourselves before acting
o Inclination = where we just “feel” like
acting in this way
o Duty = where we believe it is the
right thing to do
-
Which of these motives can
provide me with a good will?
o Something that will always he
the right intention/motive
o Which can be applied to
everyone
-
Need universal rule
o Which motive can be the basis
for these rules
-
Self interest will vary
o If I need this course than it’s
in my self interest, once I pass it, it’s not in my self
interest
-
Inclination won't give a
universal rule
o May love someone one day and
hate them then next
o I ought to be loyal to my wife,
is conditional
o “If it is in my self interest
than I ought to do it”
-
“I must do it” = categorical, absolute, my duty
-
A distinction between
hypothetical and categorical
o Universal rule has to be
categorical
-
How do people find out their
duty?
o Everyone is capable, without a
lot of experience
o Ability to reason
Kant
-
First, must find out the maxim:
“a general principle under which a person in fact wills a
particular action”
o Willed to get up, eat
breakfast, walk out the door and into class
o Making a choice, have
principle, decision
-
What is it that I choose to do
now?
-
Quote page 72
-
Motive of duty = you are here because you ought
to be here
-
What I must do as if it is the
law
-
Second, could this maxim be
universal and necessary
-
Must ask yourself, when I have
a maxim could it be universal like the law?
o Could I will everyone to do the
same thing in the situation I am in
-
If I act on my maxim, I am
committing myself to act the same way in the same situation.
If acting on this maxim is legitimate, than its legitimate for
all other people to act on it as well
-
The first formulation of the
categorical imperative
o “I am never to act otherwise
than so that I can also will that my maxim should become a
universal law”
o if you can cheat someone coming
into your store, than you should cheat everyone
-
Suicide is unethical
o Will everyone to do it
o Irrational to will everyone end
their life
o Can’t will it for everyone,
can’t will it for myself
o Absolute rule, no exceptions
for myself
November 18 - Cameron Veinot
Deontology Cont’d
• Says there is a basic ethical principle
• Ethics is not based on love/inclination
as it can change over time
• Need a universal, stable principle
o Constant, unchanging
• Duty is the purpose of ethics
o What is your duty? How do you find out
what it is?
o Reason can tell you what your duty is
o Start with your maxim, subjective
principle of the will
o Could I make it so my intention can
apply to all people at all times
o If reason tells you that you can do this
than it is a universal principle
• Categorical Imperative (CI)
o Gives what you’re thinking of a test of
willing it to everyone through reason
o If it passes this test then do it, if
not then don’t
• Second way of looking at the CI
o What is the function of the CI?
To tell a person to make her will good,
and to give her a way of testing whether she is acting
morally
The capacity for good will is in all of
us
So, each of us must act in a way so that
every individual can act according to the CI
Others must not be used as a “means”
• “every rational being exists as an end
in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used
by this or that will”
Always treat people as though they are a
means to an end, but ethically valuable, with respect
• Autonomy is discovering what you ought
to do and then doing it, through good will
• This view of humanity lies at the root
of three key ethical values
o Dignity
o Autonomy
o Intrinsic Value
• Page 74 – People aren’t things, they are
priceless/having intrinsic value, autonomy is discovering,
and voluntarily submitting oneself to moral law. Dignity is
an objective characteristic
• READ page 76 ~Ecihmann~ for next class
• Returned and discussed midterm for
remainder of class
November 19 - Angela Simms
Midterm exam review:
·
Reviewed
question #3 case study
·
Respect
model – can use others to answer question. Put up on Moodle as
a resource.
·
Question
#3- The judge ruled in favor of family, legal decision, not
same has an ethical decision.
·
Focused
on Aboriginal rights in Canada not because of autonomy,
beneficence (human) rights.
·
Judge
later revised his decision recognizing beneficence. The best
interest of the child, remain paramount which is more of an
ethical decision.
·
Rights
caring obligations- can’t use rights to harm someone or not
ethical, rights are absolute, limits of rights, can’t harm
others.
Deontology:
·
This
view of humanity lies at the root of three key ethical values:
dignity, autonomy and intrinsic value.
·
People
can’t be things, they are priceless/ have intrinsic value,
autonomy is disparity and voluntarily submitting oneself to
moral law, dignity is an objective characteristic.
·
Principles
are going to give you a rule, a way of privatizing options.
Principles are useful to you to dissolve conflict.
·
Deontology
is an ethical theory that gives us principles and rules, what
principles are the best, some are not the best.
·
Example:
Utilitarianism, greatest happiness for the greatest number. In
Deontology this isn’t compatible; you have to prove which
principle is the best.
·
You
need evidence and reason to choose which ethical principle is
the best.
·
There
are some challenges… in deontology you have to know your
“Duty”.
·
Do you
duty, be motivated about your duty, example nurses code of
ethics.
·
You do
your duty because it is your duty; you do it because it
motivates you.
·
If you
do your duty is to do the right thing, good will but not for
self-interest but because it is your duty.
·
You
know what your duty is through reasoning. Reason is going to
give you a test, categorical imperative. Quote from text page
73
“Act
in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an end” (Sweet, p. 73).
·
Why
treat humans with respect? - Because they are empathic,
reciprocity, some people are and some people are not. Kant
would say that empathy varies, it is variable, we care but it
changes.
·
Reciprocity
also varies; sometimes you do good things and get nothing in
return.
·
Why
should I show people respect or give people value? Kant would
say these are all beings that have reason that could have a
good will, trying to improve good will, capacity for good
will.
·
We
have the capacity, we aren’t just things we can discover
ethics, the good. Discover law; obey law- respect humans
because they are rational beings to make these decisions.
·
Kant
says that the bases –cause they are rational beings not
things.
·
In
regards to animals...Kant says if you are the kind of person
that is harmful to animals then you are the kind of person
that hurts other people.
Reading on page 76-Adolf Eichmann
Lieutenant Colonel in the Schutzstaffel:
·
In the
beginning carrying out orders, following the law, law abiding
citizen, that was the law of the land- legalism.
·
Later
said he was doing his duty following Kant’s moral precepts,
Kant’s definition of duty.
·
Think
these people are not human, so not treat them with respect-
subhuman.
·
Kant
would say they are rational beings; you can’t ethically treat
them like as if they are things.
·
How
can you find out what your duty is?
·
Reasoning
and categorical incentive, would it be rational to follow the
law just because it’s the law? Maybe Eichmann duty to be a
soldier follows the law, doing his duty.
Deontologist
do
not devalue
What kinds of challenges do deontologists
face?
·
Conflicting
duties? How do you decide? Duty to your family, duty to your
profession, you can’t do both.
·
You
can’t look at the consequences, deontology isn’t about the
consequences, and it is about your intentions/motive.
·
Have
to go back to your intentions, family and profession a little
abstract. Go back to your maxim, what my duty is?
·
What
do reasons tell you? Perfectly rational beings have
differences and disagree. It is in my best interest, bias,
need to have adequate information, some think more clearly
than others, differences in talents and abilities. This theory
gives you an explanation of what your duty is.
Virtue Ethics:
·
What
is a human being?- mammals, the capacity to reason, social
beings, feelings, empathetic, self-conscious, abstract
thought, consumption of good- we are free; able to make choice
to do good or evil. Next theory be focusing on is Virtue
ethics which bases in human nature.
Ethical Theories
Religion Based theories:
do what god reasonably believes
Utilitarian/
Consequentialist- what is good for the greatest happiness
for the greatest amount of people.
Rights based theories:
Follow basic human Rights
Deontologist: Do your
duty
What kind of person
should I be? This focuses on not just the action, focuses more
on the long term. This relates more to Virtue ethics and
care-based ethics. Good people can do good by accident, good
people make mistakes, this character does not hold all the time.
Virtue ethics and care
based ethics: Brings together consequences, intention,
experience, and reason.
Human nature:
affections, self-aware, concept of a good plan for future needs,
are animals, rational, capacity to use reason, free, minds,
teleological, humans seek to achieve goals what will make us
happy.
Characteristics about you:
relationships, age, characteristics, likes, dislikes, what we
appear to be, and goals.
Goals that lead to
teleological/ virtue ethics: based on experience, what we look
for naturally, security, friends, intimacy, education, pleasure,
peace, health, inner peace, spiritual (not necessarily
religious)
Virtue ethics looks
at what humans naturally seek
What is happiness?
Aristotle defines pg 79 of text
Happiness is not
momentary; happiness should be lifelong, activity of mind and
soul. This is an ACTIVITY, it is not passive, involves
excellence, if we don’t do things well, we won’t feel satisfied.
Mind and
intellectual virtue, body/ passions moral virtue.
Intellectual and
moral qualities thirst for knowledge, good sense, prudence, and
interest in study, moral virtue/ moral excellence.
Needs intelligence/
wisdom/ not just knowledge.
Moral virtues: I do,
equal, loyal, faithful, trusting, honesty, generosity, courage
Aristotle moral
virtue: consists of observing the mean
Disposition/conviction:
character trait,
something that is part of your character.
Moral Virtue is a
disposition is something that is ongoing not natural not
something that is born with. To get a certain disposition; there
are things we must practice, go through a routine to study.
Practice makes second nature. Includes choice: Actions:
disposition. What are the positions?
For example picture
three different situations presented in danger.
1-
May act too reckless, and
die
2-
May not do anything,
cowardly
3-
Virtuous (The mean of an
individual) is aiming at the right position
Vices and Virtues
Balance between
finding not excess, but in between. Mean falls right in the
middle.
Relativism does not
equal subjectivism.
The mean is the
relative to who they are applying it to…this is not subjective,
it’s objective, not arbitrary, not up to you to choose. Relative
to who you are.
Develop the right
disposition to create happiness and flourishing.
The key to happiness
is the right intellectual amount and moral disposition.
This can be seen to
deny most humans happiness.
Intellectual:
Prudence, reflective.
Flourishing/
growing, developing. Challenge yourself, could decide not to be
happy.
Expertise- Knowing
the right kinds of things to do in certain situations,
understands knows the right thing to do at the right time:
wisdom.
Learners- If
reasoning cannot tell them what to do; find an expert.
November,
26 – Madeline Smith
Today:
-
What is Aristotle’s
reasoning to get to virtue ethics?
-
Care-based ethics
(similar to virtue ethics, but more recent)
Virtue
Ethics
-
What is it that all
humans seek? A virtue ethicist would say that the purpose of all
human life, and all humans seek Eudaimonia or
happiness (a flourishing
happiness).
-
Flourishing is activity
of the psyche, in accord with virtue/excellence.
-
Virtue meaning soul- but
the soul doesn’t have a religious condensations, the soul means
mind/consciousness
-
Since I’m a being of
mind/soul, I am going to have intellectual excellence
-
And also moral excellence, which
is trying to keep the passions within limits
-
When talking about moral
excellence, talking about the disposition/character.
-
In order to be happy, one
has to develop intellectual and moral character.
-
How do I develop moral
character? By making choices
-
Disposition including
choice, choosing to
follow a mean (seek middle points in actions) and choose
these repeatedly
-
Suppose I don’t act to
follow a mean and do things excessively.
-
I can develop
virtue/excellences, but also vices by acting
repeatedly
-
If I repeat an action
often enough it becomes a habit
-
If I repeat a good action
I develop excellence. If I repeat a bad action it develops onto
a vice.
-
These habits are not
natural, but they can become like second nature. Bad habits and
good habits are both very hard to change.
-
For a virtue ethicist,
the aim is to develop the habit of being good. To do this get
people to follow a mean as early as possible.
-
How do I figure out what
the mean is?
1. In
principle, this is something that reason will tell you.
2. But
as children, reason is not developed yet, so how would you
figure out the mean? You would look to others who have developed
that habit already. So, you would observe others (role
models) and then you are likely to develop that habit based on
experience.
3. The
third way to find out what the mean is are rules of thumb (Text
page 83):
·
Try to avoid the extreme
most opposed to the mean.
For example, when
trying to be honest it is better to be boastful than to be the
most opposed extreme, which is a liar.
·
Watch out for what
attracts us- if you are still trying to figure out what
morality is, you might be tempted by what attracts you. Until
you’ve developed your character, pleasure for example is very
volatile. If we can’t figure out what the mean is by reason or
observing, watch out for what attracts you.
·
Watch out for pleasure
-
So, we need to act in
accord with the mean to develop excellence and flourish. If not,
no excellence, and no flourishing, so we will be unhappy. It
starts with choice, and if I have the wrong choices and develop
bad habits, I will be unhappy.
Example
Case:
Suppose you have an illness hat is moderately
common but for which there is no standard reliable treatment and
which is potentially debilitating. It is still early in the
illness, and nobody knows you have it. The doctor stepped out
while you were there and you found a file marked “confidential.”
You open it, read it, and it reads in the next health district
there is a clinical trial for your illness. You take a picture
of it, and contact the other doctor later. They ask you how you
know about this study and you say you over heard people talking
about it.
You haven’t broken any laws or any promises.
Would a virtue ethicist criticize you for what you have done? If
so, should the criticism be influenced by the circumstances? Are
you a good person who may have done a bad thing?
-
You lied when they asked
you and made a series of bad choices. Violated trust between you
and the physician. You could have just asked the physician if
there were any treatment studies.
-
Would a virtue ethicist
criticize you? They would would you’ve done bad actions and if
you keep doing them you will develop a bad habit. The actions
are not bad because they hurt other people, but because they
lead to bad character.
-
Are you a good person who
may have done a bad thing? Yes, you’ve done bad things but they
may develop into vices.
Example
Case:
Rob is looking for a job as a history
professor. There is an opening spot at STFX which is his ideal
school to teach at. The interview and everything went well but
right before they could hire him there was a hiring freeze. He
got two other openings at other schools, and tried to put it off
but eventually signed a contract at Calgary. A week later STFX
calls and says to tell Calgary something came up and to take the
job here.
-
Ethics of care next week
December 2 Notes
–Keegan Stephenson
Virtue
Ethics Review
Virtue ethics
doesn’t focus as heavily on ethical actions such as
utilitarianism, or deontology, and is more concerned with
character or a way of being. It is also more focused on a
habitual way of being instead of ethical rules. Instead we aim
at acts with a mean, that tells us what is appropriate and
relative. Acts aim at bringing an excellence of virtue, which
results not in a fleeting happiness, but a flourishing of self.
It’s a kind of relativism, but not an arbitrary subjectivism,
which takes into account the appropriate response in a situation
that tells us what we must do. It is an objectivist theory that
isn’t absolute. Yet there is a level of moral luck. This is an
ethical theory that depends on luck, where situations and
opportunity are important features in the formation of ones
ability to flourish.
This theory is focused on the individual. We develop our
virtues as a means to our own happiness, and although others may
benefit from these virtues, we are nonetheless self-interested.
It isn’t egotism, but it is a focus on oneself that doesn’t seem
entirely altruistic. The virtues themselves seem relative to
culture and time, therefore making the virtues we aspire to
completely contextual.
Ethics
of Care
Ethics of care is a theory that stems away from
individual action due to its detachment from relationships,
taking into consideration compassion and gender. Kohlberg was a
psychologist that looked at how people developed ethically. Our
moral education is based on a fear of consequence as children,
then progressing to a want to please others and respect
authority. Eventually we develop moral independence, where it’s
not just social contracts with others, but a development of our
own moral principles. He concluded this model when applied to
woman showed that they did not develop morally as quickly as
men.
At this same time there was a revaluation of the standard
ethical theories, where theorists such as Gilligan called for an
Ethics of Care, which focuses on relationships and considers
female perspectives in child and elder care. It focuses on
women, but isn’t restrictive, and seeks to find men’s place in
the care of their own relationships. (See Gilligan’s stages of
Ethics of Care provided on pg 88 of our textbooks).
January 20th - Shannon Marsh
Ethical theories give us principles
×
Rules and guidelines that
help solve problems or decide what to do
×
Help solve conflicts
×
Can’t consistently hold
many different theories, why? Because it doesn’t help to solve
problems having many different theories to follow – can be
conflict
×
Choose which principle(s)
have the best offer or is the best overall. Which principle(s)
you’re most confident in (can it be employed consistently? Is it
internally consistent?)
×
Principles are abstract
but also what we have the least interest in, we have more
interest in our values
Values
×
We have more interest in
our values but they also may be involved in producing more
conflict to sustain our values
×
What are some values:
respect, honesty, family-related, loyalty, beneficence (doing
good), integrity, autonomy, money/wealth/financial security,
health, life, safety, compassion, dignity of everyone
×
What happens when
conflicts arise that conflict your values? Usually we have
values that are more important than others, we usually rank
values due to their importance to our life and make our
decisions accordingly to those values that rank higher than
others
×
Values are in some sense
subjective because
they are personal but that doesn’t mean that they are arbitrary
(random). Usually there is a background reason as to why we pick
certain values (family up-bringing, culture, religion). Personal
because we are committed to them, but they are also public (inter-subjective) –
other people hold the same values
×
We see values in the code
of ethics
×
There is also some objectivity about
values as well because they are public (ex. freedom as a value).
They’re not just your values, they’re also values you
share with other people like your community, although you may
have a different ranking for these shared values (which makes it
more personal – more subjective)
×
Your values may also
change with your lifestyle depending on what changes in your
life but there should be a reason for why you change them
×
One common way of
dividing values in by dividing them into intrinsic values and
instrumental values.
Intrinsic
Values: things that are good in themselves and by
themselves (ex. could be dignity, art/beauty,
pleasure/happiness) and the consequences don’t matter
Instrumental
Values: a means to something else > it’s only valued if
everything is a means to something else (ex. you go to school to
get an education, so you can get a job, so you can earn money,
eventually retire)
*You could have all instrumental values if
you are just doing things to get to another stage in life, just
going through the motions
Or you could have some intrinsic value
throughout your life, which puts value into the things you are
doing that ultimately get you to the next stage in life, but
you’re not just doing these things to “get to the next stage”
Jan 21/2016 – Kennedy Serviss
-
Thesis of essay
is to answer the question that is stated at the end of the
assignment
-
In intro include
how you plant to answer the question – what ethical theories
will be used; RESPECT model of reasoning
-
Think about what
the options are – why are those options plausible? What values
or principles are appealing or relevant in these options
-
Need to include
or have for excellent essay: coherent, use terms correctly,
proper paragraph structure, include 1 idea within a paragraph
-
What you say in
your essay must be an accurate depiction of the case (the
facts presented in the case)
-
Discuss the
reasonable option but also discuss why the other options
aren’t as good
-
Using just the
textbook will give you an adequate answer, involving your own
knowledge and insights along with the text will give you an
excellent answer
-
à think of it like
you are psychiatrist trying to persuade a judge
Values cont’d
Ø Values do not
exist in isolation from one another
Ø One value often
requires you to involve or appeal to other values
-
Ie. Justice
requires honesty, respect
Ø Main issue is how
can these values exist in a way to reduce the conflict between
them
Ø We need to try to
balance values. However sometimes there is a predominant value
ie. Justice within a courtroom – normally there are no
absolute values.
Beneficence
Ø Caring about the
good or well-being of others and acting, taking the steps
towards doing good
Ø Beneficence is an
action – promoting, considering, concerning yourself with your
own/patients well-being
Ø Primary value or
golden rule: treat others the way you would like to be treated
is an example of beneficence
Ø Fundamental
ethical value – to do good. It is rooted in CMA, nursing code
of ethics
Ø Benevolence- wishing well for
others. Not the same thing as beneficence however they can be
related – if you act in a way to promote someone’s well-being
(beneficence) often times you also wish them well
(benevolence)
Ø When someone is
in trouble, hurt, in need we tend to want to help them – a
disposition most human’s have
-
Beneficence is a
natural disposition in most
-
Professional
value
-
A value that is
rooted in most ethical theories
Ø BUT how far
should a person ought or should go to act with beneficence –
you must consider the facts involved
-
Are the
conditions safe?
-
Level of
professional knowledge
-
Do the acts being
considered have risks?
-
Potential harm to
me or others?
-
Rights to life
-
Rights to health
Beneficence and
Paternalism
Ø Laws- are these
doing good or treating the public like children?
Ø Laws forbidding/
laws requiring
Ø Are there limits
to beneficence? What is the limit of letting people decide
what is good for themselves and putting limits (laws) on what
people can/can’t do?
Ø Who are we to
tell people what is good for themselves? We tend to do this
with laws and restrictions
Ø Should we have
laws requiring us to do certain things and forbidding us from
doing certain things?
n There’s a kind of
paternalism within the law
n There are strong
and weak paternalisms
January 27 - Austin Rose
- The
main
concern of perspective in writing this essay is to be either the
psychiatrist yourself or someone who is neutral and impartial to
advise the psychiatrist how to guide their ethical decision
making.
- The
essay
is not meant to be looked at from a historical, legal, or
research position; the main objective is to evaluate your own
ethical decision making relevant to the facts given.
- It
is
recommended to use the various values and principals outlined in
the book referencing the definitions that have been gathered
from these sources as well as the various ethical codes ( in a
guiding sense not as a rationale to suit the interests of the
code rather than subjective justifiable ethical reasoning ).
- How
can
I do this? Chapter 1 of the text has a great outline of the
process of ethical reasoning outlining the RESPECT model that
can be used as well as the 3 step process that can be search up
online. The essay does not need to have every part of the
RESPECT model although it works as an effective template.
- The
purpose
of an ethical code discussed as: guiding professional action,
informing the public of basic ethical duty, self regulation ect.
- The
legality
of the case can be mentioned in a sense of penalty and such that
the decision may have on the individual but the main action is
to avoid stating this is what the law states so this is how I
must act, independent from personal reasoning and
justifications.
- Overall
the
main concept that should be demonstrated is “Beneficence” also known
as to do what is described as good. Where the essay is concerned
what is good and how can we define what is good to ourselves.
- Essay
format:
- Introduction
- Body
containing:
accurate description of views, avoiding verbal verbosity, 2)
analytical ability: to see the key points in the argument 3)
Critical ability to judge an argument in terms of method,
accuracy, consistency and applicability.
- conclusion
summing
up point of view in the essay and provided facts to leading to
the final conclusion.
Beneficence
In a nutshell described as “doing good” example
given about sad television ads with the intent to persuade
individuals to do good in some sense to aid these organizations
that overall aim to provide a better form of something to
society.
In healthcare beneficence can lead to moral
absolutes such as: to never cause intentional harm, death,
suffering, or act in an evil manner.
Absolutes are things that one can never justify
for their reasoning such as the example: Raping and
intentionally causing harm to a child.
A moral dilemma that is brought up in the class is
the question to you have an ethical obligation or duty to treat
soldiers from the enemy side during times of war? Or to provide
treatment to someone who is a known child abuser?
Some limits of beneficence described:
personal safety, social costs ( such as what types
of insurances should be provided to individuals with expensive
medical conditions), conscious ( Acting in a way that is
protective of my innate personal value and principal systems ).
Example given that you may have the legal right to
marry someone, that does not grant the obligation of that person
to uphold that legal right.
Paternalism
Defined as: benevolent action irrespective of or
even contrary to the wishes of the beneficiary. Meaning to do
good for the individual separate from their given consent for
the benefit of the individual.
Two types
Strong paternalism: Overriding a competent person’s wishes
separate from autonomy.
Weak paternalism: Overriding an incompetent person’s wishes.
Weak paternalism must contain these 4 aspects:
There is a risk of significant preventable harm, the action will
probably be successful in preventing harm, the benefit to the
person will outweigh the harm, the least autonomy restricting
method is used.
January 28th, 2016 - Melissa Mair
Dignity
- it is connected to respect
- look @ code of ethics for medicine &
nursing under dignity
- every person has “intrinsic worth/value” =
basic fundament value. Therefore dignity = fundament value in
human nature and is universal for everyone (e.g. ppl with MS,
psychiatric disorders, etc.)
Objective (what people actually have)
-
Intrinsic
-
Nature
Subjective (what people feel)
-
Self-worth and
doing what they wish
What if they don’t know they have self-worth
(e.g. people with Alzheimer’s), do they still have dignity?
Examples in class
Genetically engineering people to be happy doing
low income jobs
-
subject sense of
self-worth: they feel happy
-
objective sense
of self-work: it’s not right
People who feel inferior to others but are still
satisfied with life. Should we do something to change this?
Raising kids to be obedient
-
does it take away
their objective value?
Deontology & dignity: (Kant) everyone has
intrinsic value and is capable of making ethical decisions and
finding and following the moral law
Ethics of care: why do we care? Because people
have dignity and we should respect that (because it is
objective
Rights based theory: equal right = equal dignity
Page 116 in the textbook explains in detail what
dignity is (in an objective sense)
Who should get dignity?
-
Humans à what is a human:
mammals, have minds, bodies, fetuses are human, individuals
with Alzheimer’s = BIOLOGICAL
-
Person à are
self-conscious, can reason, have free will, intent, know
what’s “good” for themselves, plan = legal, religious,
philosophical
Are these the same?
Are fetuses human, yes. But according to Canadian
courts, human fetuses are not persons. This raises the
question à are all human
beings = persons
February 03 - Naomi Rutledge
Dignity:
- Foundational in politics (ex: declaration of
human rights), ethics, and healthcare. Found in many different
cultures around the world.
- Dignity can be looked at as subjective self
worth that comes and goes. But what about infants, Alzheimer’s
clients, or slaves, do they have a sense of self worth? Does
this mean that they don’t have dignity?
- What if we lose self worth/dignity? 1. Drop it
or 2. Explain it because you need to know what it is to apply
it (can we explain dignity/intrinsic worth?).
- Dignity focuses on absolute worth (intrinsic
worth) and it is independent of how you or others think about
yourself. It’s what you’re born with whether you know it or
not. Dignity is also objective, it is shared equally among
humans, it is not based on whether you feel it.
- In valuing someone’s dignity you should not
treat them as if they are a problem to be solved or like an
object. For example, clients should not be solely referred to
by their medical condition or be called something like a
“frequent flyer”.
-Who has dignity? Humans or persons?
·
Humansà body, mind, genetics (biological category).
·
Personà sentient, an individual, self-conscious,
rational, intelligent, free, have a concept of what is
important to them (legal/ religious/ philosophical category).
-Is this concept of a person complete? Not
sufficient: what about infants or mentally compromised persons
that don’t have some of the aspects of being a person? To be
an individual is to be a part of a larger community, so what
about the idea of relationships? Many would treat their
mother’s dead body with higher respect than their dead dog,
where both are not considered as people, being a human must
have some degree of dignity.
- If we focus on persons as distinct from humans,
than it creates a problem.Being a person is not just about the
certain qualities you have because they come and go, they are
too narrow. Example: intelligence and rational thinking come
and go.
- We should treat HUMAN PERSONS with dignity,
something that is shared equally and held collectively.
- Respect is a feeling or understanding that
someone or something is important, serious, etc. and should be
treated in an appropriate way. Respect is to have regard for
the interests of another and take them into account.
- What does it mean to respect another person...
·
Treat
them as beings of dignity?
·
Treat
as equals?
·
Treat
based on social status?
·
Carry
out wishes?
·
Let
them do what they wish?
February 4
2016 - Makayla Miller
Dignity
We must ask ourselves who has dignity. All
persons or all humans?
What is a
human? (a biological concept)
What is a person (legal, philosophical,
religious?) Sentiment (an individual) that is
self-conscious, rational, intelligent, free, has a concept
of the good.
Is this definition too narrow, too variable?
What is missing from this definition?
Should legal protection of persons extend to
beings who do not have these attributes? Such as beings who
are severely developmentally delayed. They are definitely
humans but are they persons
This definition is too restrictive, not all
persons fall under this definition (ie: not all persons are
intelligent) Also sometimes we lose these attributes (ie:
when we are sleeping or in a coma we are not self-conscious,
when we lose these attributes does it mean that we are no
longer a person?
Relationships
matter.
If
dignity is a concept of any use then we must use the objective
type of dignity not the subjective type. If it was subjective
then many people would have no dignity meaning that we can do
whatever we want with them. Which is not the case.
If
there was any way we could do it, is there anything wrong with
genetically engineering people so that they would be happy
doing mediocre low paying jobs. This is going against their
dignity, they would have no opprutunity to grow or flourish.
Justice
What
is justice? The Code of Ethics for RN says that Nurses
uphold principles of justice by safeguarding human rights,
equity, fairness, and by promoting the common good.
Justice
include respecting rights, distributing resources fairly,
preserving and promoting the common good of the community.
Justice is a value term, it is a foundational term, value, and
principle. We treat each other justly. Doing what is fair or
what is due to the person (equity).
In
a court of law you should be treated with justice, does not
matter your age, race, religion etc. Justice is blind, it is
not about comparing others. Justice is about merit, depending
on the circumstances of the case. Although just because you
are found not guilty does not mean you did not do the crime.
Commotative
Justice:
exchange. (ie: You go to the grocery store and you exchange
money for your groceries) This is a fair exchange, both
parties are happy
Distributive
Justice:
(more relevant to code of ethics) social distribution of
benefits and burdens.
There
are different principles of justice (pg. 121). How do we
decided which principle of justice to use ?
Feb 10, 2016 - Val
McIlquham
Two types of justice:
Formal and Procedural
Different principles of
justice are:
-
Everyone
to be treated the same without bias
-
Treated
according to his/her needs (who needs financial aid will get
it over those who don’t)
-
Treated
according to his/her effort (who works the hardest gets a
promotion)
-
Treated
according to his/her merit or virtue (those who achieve
excellence get higher grades)
-
Treated
according to rights
-
Determined
whether society wants it or not
However, you cannot choose
all of these principles of justice since they conflict with
each other. Also, it is argued that these principle of
material justice are missing some key pieces, including:
compassion, consequences, common good, flourishing or dignity.
Also these principles tend
to focus more of the individual than the group as a whole.
Four types in equality:
-
Everyone
to be treated the same
-
Same
result
-
Same
starting point (equality of opportunity)
-
Equal
concern/respect
Sometimes equality leads
to injustice, which is why equity seems to be more relevant.
Equity is to be treated fairly relative to the circumstance.
Or according to CNA equity is “fulfillment individual needs as
well as opportunity to reach their full potential as a human
being.
This leaves us with the
question – which principle of justice is to be used?
Feb. 10
February 24 -- Class postponed
February 25 -- M
There are 5 senses of
autonomy that range from “bare” autonomy to “complete”
autonomy. (Kant)
Bare – making a decision,
your free will (ex: deciding to cross the street)
Complete – ability to make
a decision after you thought about it, weighed the pros and
cons, took others opinions into account, have moral reflection
on what is right. (ex: deciding to go into nursing)
When it comes to what
value we should place on autonomy there is a lot on complete
but not really bare. Complete autonomy is more ethically
binding.
Autonomy isn’t mentioned
in the ethics guide – but competency is. Competency involves
having autonomy but also involves rational refection,
understanding consequences, knowledge, capable and willing to
take responsibilities for your decisions.
*Why value autonomy?
Should there be limits?
Meningitis case – patient
doesn’t want treatment and wants to die.. Should the Dr.
respect autonomy of patient? Legally yes people have the right
to choose. Practically the Dr. would try to convince or find
out why they’re refusing treatment and why they want to die..
Are they depressed? Not thinking straight because of the
illness? Dr. should not just do whatever patient wants right
away.
Limits? Autonomy isn’t
absolute, doesn’t always have to be respected. Ex: when
patient isn’t competent because of cognitive impairment, harm
to others (scent free hospital) or harm to self.
Withdrawl of care? Ex:
patient doesn’t want to do what the Dr asked such as quitting
smoking or patient does something that compromises their care
plan and wastes the Dr’s time.
Truth – if you’re making
decisions you need to know the facts. How is truth related to
truthfulness and honesty?
How much truth do you tell
someone? Does it mean we have to tell the whole truth?
Sometimes truthfulness can mean telling some truth, but not
lying.
Patient wants to know
if a certain amount of pills will kill them. You cannot lie
but you could avoid/deferral. Mental reservation can also be
used, which is telling some truth but not the whole truth (ex:
“no I haven’t cheated on an exam”, because you cheated on many
exams). Professional secrets – confidentiality prevents you
from telling the truth. Truthfulness can mean different things
in different situations.
-instrumental to other
values (trust)
- lying is harmful to
others (non-beneficence)
- reciprocity (right to be
told the truth and right to not be told the truth)
- justified by ethical
theories, which gives you principles of action
Case study – mother is
pregnant and asks nurse to not tell her if the baby is
mentally handicapped because she cannot handle it because of
depression. When the Dr. finds out the baby is handicapped –
should the mother be told the truth despite her request not to
be?
- You can defer telling
the truth until a certain point – should first deal with the
issue of depression. Nurse cannot lie to the mother, and
should tell her because of the health of the baby, but not
necessarily right away.
Wednesday March 2nd
2016 - Marielenne Mulera
Some of the
values we have talked about: autonomy, beneficence, dignity,
justice.
Why is
beneficence sometimes limited? In what way can beneficence be
limited?
-beneficence
might be limited by justice sometimes. E.g. One would not choose
to buy a very expensive drug for few people compared to many
people who are in need of the same money.
- Beneficence
would be limited when there is a potential harm to yourself or
others.
-When the
patient refuses the act (autonomy) autonomy may limit
beneficence as well.
Autonomy is
limited also by right of others. E.g. you have a right to
marry but you cannot marry someone who doesn’t want to marry
you because they have the right to refuse your marriage
proposal.
A woman and plastic
toilet case (defecating in public)
-she is acting autonomous
-why is her
action limited?
- is this a
reasonable limitation to autonomy?
From this case
we can see that they are many cases where autonomy is limited.
Let’s go back to the
licensing parenting
-meaning: what does parent
licensing mean? It means only people who meet certain
procedure or who pass certain procedure will be allowed to
have children.
Why: other risk
activities are regulated so as having children. Child abuse
cases are increasing
What ethical
theory do you think is behind parenting licensing?
Utilitarian. (greatest happiness of the greatest number)
Theoretical objections
(pg186)
1. People do
not need license to speak so people should not need license to
have children.
-This objection
is vague because we do restrict speech and religion sometimes.
2. Licensing
require too much intrusion into people’s life
-Yes it does
involve too much intrusion into people’s life but the steak is
worthy it.
3. Licensing
procedures are unreliable
- No other
licensing procedure is completely reliable but they help to
lead out the worst.
4 Denying
someone a license could inconvenient them and harm them
-Yes but they
could reapply after they have the requirement
5. Available
tests are not 100% accurate.
Practical objections to
license
-
Administrator
would intentionally misuse the test
-
Who
decides who makes a good parent?
Lafollette would say all these
objections aren’t good enough.
Parental licensing
What values are involved?
-Beneficence: doing good to the children
-Autonomy: potential parents should be able
have children if they wish too.
-Justice: rights should be respected. Or is
the state is distributing a benefit when they have the power.
What principles are involved?
-Utilitarianism: promote greatest wellbeing
for children although it would restrict the rights of a few.
General good to be achieved.
-Rights based theory: parental licensing is
stopping people’s basic rights.
-Natural law: harming people’s ability to
flourish?
What assumptions are being made?
-Do we own our children? What is our
relationship to our children?
Engrained belief that parents own their
children. Author believes this needs to be changed.
Belief that since they made the child, they
own them.
Normally parents have control over children
and raise them.
But children are not owned in a way in which
they can be sold or disposed of.
-Does the state own children?
If parents own them then why can someone tell
us what to do with them. If parents do not own them then who
does?
What is the riskiness in parenting?
-Have control over someone else and can
causes harm
-Some parents would be riskier than others
-Can harm children physically,
psychologically, sexually and more.
-What is meant by harm exactly? Could be any
number of things including physical harm, psychological harm,
feeding kids junk food, or letting them watch TV. Some harms are
worse than others.
-Should all harm be dealt with the same way?
-Is parenting itself risky or are the parents
themselves risky?
-Easy to understand the extreme cases but not
so much the normal cases.
How are human being presented in this
article?
-Relationship to our body? Things we use to
carry out our purposes or are we our bodies? Can we license our
activities because our body is just something we use, it is only
a tool? Do we own them?
How is the family presented?
-Assuming two parents and children
-But sometimes extended family is included.
There are clearly many assumptions being
made.
a. Does/should the state license most risky
activities?
-Ex. Drinking, smoking, speech, sexual
activity
-Restrictions to some of these actions
-They do not license them though. What
differentiates them from licensed acts?
-Self-regulating professions. State is not
even involved in these normally.
-You do not have a right to certain things,
for example, to become a doctor. But something’s we do have a
right too. Unless someone is being harmed, then the state can
step in.
-Social goods and natural activities
-Government doesn’t restrict all risky
activities but they can punish if used inappropriately.
b. Who regulates risky activities
professions?
-Role of government to restrict all risky
activity?
c. Is reproduction an appropriate activity to
license?
-Reproduction is a different kind of activity
than driving
-If we think of driving as a privilege, we
can prevent people from getting their license
-Author would respond and say it is a
privilege to have children or a profession therefore it can also
be licensed
-It is engaging in a social good similarly to
licensing driving or a profession.
-Relationship between mother and child is
special. Or is she just working for the state?
-If having a child is a right, we couldn’t
license this.
d. What would regulation look like?
-Contraceptive implants in all young women.
When the time comes for children, they go through a process. If
licensed, the implant is then removed.
-What is something occurred that made the
parent incompetent? Would they have to get recertified if their
license is removed?
-What exactly makes a good parent? Perhaps
not mentally ill, no anger issues etc.
What are the standards of being a good
parent?
-Easy to state what it means to be a bad
parent, but not as easy to state what makes a good parent?
As clear as the article is, what is the
author assuming or not mentioning?
-Violation of autonomy: control of a women
over her body.
-Violation of privacy: sex and production are
as fundamental as speech and belief.
Need to distinguish between privileges and
rights.
Privacy
and Confidentiality
- Values: these are both important values
- Absolute values: should these values take
priority over other values?
- Confidentiality is related to but should not
be confused with privacy
Privacy
- Privacy is the quality or state of being
apart from company or observation, freedom from unauthorized
intrusion
• keep our personal information to ourselves
• remain anonymous or unidentified with
respect to certain personal and public activities, if we
choose
• live our lives without being under
surveillance
• conduct private communications
• to be left alone, both as consumers and as
citizens
- Privacy implies a public/private distinction
• is it feasible to distinguish between your
public and your private life?
• privacy can be very different among
cultures, ex. not choosing who you marry in certain cultures
• is this concept absolute?
- personal communications?
- sexual relations? there are exceptions
depending on age, where it happens, marriage status
- Travel? you can’t just travel where you want, you need a
passport
- What one reads? government can regulate
this, ex. hate books
• there are legitimate limitations on our
privacy, to what extent is my life private?
- Why do we have the right to privacy?
• autonomy
• dignity: we should be respected as a person,
we shouldn’t have to share everything with others
• utility: promoting the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest amount of people, a lot of people
may be upset if all their personal information would be shared
- Privacy is about your personal life, not as
much your professional life
Confidentiality
- Confidentiality is the discretion in keeping
private info private or not disclosing/sharing info and/or
ensuring that only those individuals who need certain info can
access the info
- when is private info given/acquired
• must be true that when acquired in a context
where confidentiality has been promised, ex. in health care
• must be true if a person gives info to me,
on an understanding that I will not reveal
• may be true if I have a reason to believe
that a person does not wish it to be shared, ex. you go to an
STD clinic and see someone you know they may not want you tell
people about it
• may be true when I acquire private info
without any promise but an assumed obligation, ex. seeing
someones transcript on a desk
- How far should confidentiality be respected?
• part is cultural, ex. some cultures people
may share more info to their family compared to others
• second opinion? is it okay for physicians
lawyers, etc. to ask colleagues for a second opinion
• providing no third party is harmed/risk?
- disease carrier: can we oblige people to
release private info
- child assault: if you see signs of
assault/abuse you must report it
• can depend on a person’s consent
• if anonymized
- researchers: census data, scientific
researchers
- ideally the information would be anonymized,
can’t trace it down to the individual
• government? employers?
• there will always be exceptions to
confidentiality
Case
study
- Patient comes in with a gun shot wound and
doesn’t
want the physician to tell the police
- By law we have to report gun shot wounds and
stabbings ASAP- this is what we should do legally
- You have to decide what to do ethically- it
may or may not be the same answer as the legal answer
Confidentiality
Privacy is keeping
personal information to yourself. Confidentiality means it is
no longer private but it is assumed that no others (unless
requested) will know that information
Limits- in order to
carry out your wishes, I may need to go outside
confidentiality ie. Second opinion (think physician)
-
Risk or harm to 3rd
parties; for example, communicable diseases, need to be
reported. Trumped by the well being of others
-
Gunshots/stab wounds: no
risk to 3rd party necessarily. Legal requirements
can trump confidentiality
-
Competence of patient
(are they competent to receive/agree to something? – if no,
can go to next of kin)
-
“anomymity”:
researcher wants to know how many people in Antigonish County
had/has breast cancer. It would be anomymitized but that is
still your information
Professional Secrets
You are obliged (certain
cases) by your professional duty to maintain these secrets.
Can trump personal care. For example, unreleased clinical
trials, you know someone who would benefit from this, still
need to maintain these secrets
Consent
Implied versus explicit
Explicit- you have to
either sign a form or actually say I give consent. Less doubt
about whether consent was given or not
Implied- more difficult
to determine if someone comes to hospital unconscious, we
assume they want life
Criminal Code of Canada
– implied consent
Organ donations- have to
check off a box to say yes or no. If you didn’t check no, it
is assumed you want to donate
Freely given? Is consent
enough?
-
Power imbalance
Patients-
may feel vulnerable, fear and we are asking consent (likely to
say yes). But is it freely given?
Is
consent enough?
Why
is consent important?
-
Legal obligation
-
Autonomy (personal)
“Sovereign” – you determine what is good for you therefore we
own ourselves (for the most part)
Do
we own ourselves?
How
did we come to own yourself?
-
Gift
-
Exchange (money)
Used the pen as an example!
-
Discovery
-
Labour
-
Compensation
-
Stolen?
We did some labour in a
way, but didn’t make yourself
What if we don’t own
ourselves? Them who does?
-
Parents
-
Government
-
“spouse”
-
God
-
Society
-
No one?
If you don’t own
yourself, are you able to do with yourself what you want?
March 17th, 2016
- Molly Rankin
Next week—Euthanasia—“Happy death”
-What is the difference between killing and letting God?
Why consent?
-We are autonomous beings
-sovereign
How did you come to own yourself?
-you don’t?
-If you do not own yourself—who does?
-God, parent, family, spouse, government, society, no
one?
-Can I do with myself as I want?
-In some cases, you can harm others—“I can’t harm myself if it
harms others”
-If I don’t own myself—then no.
-If I don’t own myself, then I can’t.
-If I own something, I can do what I want
with it (ex. My pen—I can give it away, throw it out, sell it,
ect)
-We are not property
-It is not a property ownership
-To “own” something is to take responsibility for something
-Why does consent count?
-Dignity/respect
-Inherent value
-One can have dignity without owning self
-I can consent to many things, so far as I respect my own
dignity
-Dignity is a basis and a limit for consent
-“I should be able to consent to many things because I have
dignity”
-But can I consent to everything?
-Do I have the ethical right to do that?
-if it effects my dignity, then no.
-It is not to own, but to care, manage and steward for self…
within limits of dignity
-Consent is important because it reflects
dignity—I can consent to something’s but not everything.
-What is a parent’s relationship to children?
-Parents “make” their children
-This is not an ownership relationship
-You cannot do whatever you want with your child
-Parents should care, manage and steward for their
children
-Consent is value, can’t consent to everything, but can to many
things, with dignity setting the limits
What is integrity?
-Refers to wholeness
-Cannot be a person of integrity if you are divided
-Following consistent moral norms
-Moral norms may vary
-Doing what others tell you to do does not make you a
person of integrity
-It is not just following but also accepting and embracing moral
norms, taking them as “your values”
-Accountability
-I commit myself to this—these are my values
-If you are a person of integrity, you should be able to explain
your reasons for acting
-What is priority?
-Taking these values and accepting them or not
-Personal and professional values
-Is there any connect between these?
-If no, you may still be professional. However, wholeness
does not exist because of the divide.
-Psychological division
-Taking responsibility, having measure of
moral autonomy—because this is what your morals are, they are
not just a professional value, but also connect with your
personal values.
Personal—values you stand by (relationship to
self and others)
Professional—not legally required, but ethically ought to
-Ideally personal values and professional expectations mirror
each other.
-There may be conflict between your personal
and professional life
-What do you do when your personal values and
professional expectations conflict?
-Conscience
-Courage
-Consistency
-Character?
-Virtue?
-Can we really keep the difference between personal and
professional values distinct?
-What do you do if there is an inconsistency?
-One may need to be courageous when deciding
what to do—the choice may effect themselves and others
regardless
-Conscience is more than a feeling
-Sentiment of guilt
or rightness
-Also a choice—an ethical choice—therefore, you need information
and reasoning
-Feelings can change and vary
-Conscience has a rational portion
-It must reflect an informed conscious decision
-Must be able to explain it.
March.
17th [from another student] - Jenna
Maclellan
Last
Class: Issues of Consent.
Why
is it important to have
consent?
1.
we
are
autonomous beings
2.
we
are
soverign over ourselves
How
did we come to own ourselves?
-
we
don’t own
ourselves!
If
we don’t own ourselves then
who does?
-
god,
parent,
spouse, government, society, no one
Can
I do with myself as I want?
Harm others? Harm yourself?
-
not
unless
you own yourself
-
you
can’t
harm others
Can
I dispose of myself as I
choose?
-
if I
own
myself then I can consent to anything.
-
If I
don’t
own myself than I can’t do whatever I want.
We
are not property. Property
does not equal property ownership. “own” might mean taking
responsibility for
something.
Why
does consent count?
-
dignity/respect
- we have
inherent value therefor, I
can consent to many things so far as I respect my own
dignity.
- one can
have dignity without owning
themselves.
Dignity
is both a basis and a
limit for consent.
Own=
Care
|
I don’t own myself but,
Manage
| I
should care for myself
Steward
| within
limits.
Consent
is important because it
reflects dignity.
What’s
a parents relationship to
their children?
-
not a
property relationship even though parents work to create a
child.
Parents
should care for their
children, manage their lives, and look after them.
Consent
is valuable but doesn’t
mean you can consent to everything, it means you can
consent to many things.
Integrity:
Integrity
refers to wholeness,
you cant be a person with integrity if you are divided
in your values or
any other way.
-
integrity
is
more than just following moral norms, as they can change.
-
Is
more than
just doing what youre told.
Integrity
is not just following,
but accepting or embracing moral norms as your values.
You’re being
accountable.
If
you’re a person of integrity
you should be able to explain your actions, and take
responsibility for them.
If
integrity is wholeness, then
there is no integrity if there are boundaries between your
personal and
professional values.
Professional
integrity is not
just doing what is legally required.
-
but
doing
what you ought ethically to do.
Personal
values are the values
that you stand by and deals with how you treat others and
yourself.
What
do you do when your personal
values and professional expectations conflict?
-
conscience
-
courage
-
consistency
- character?,
virtue?
Can
you really keep your personal
and professional values distinct/separate?
*Nurse
Weber
case study*
Integrity
means having the
courage to take a stand.
The
idea of conscience comes up
in the ethics guide (page 44).
-
conscience
is
reflected in sentiments of guilt or rightness. But
it’s a choice. And
if it’s a choice, you need information and reasoning.
Conscience
must reflect an
informed, reflective choice.
March
23rd 2016 - Laura Matheson
Conscience = Moral judgment
·
In order to make a moral
judgment, you need two things: reasoning and information. You
need to be able to justify your moral judgment. Since you are
able to justify it people will pay attention. If it were just a
feeling, people wouldn’t care or pay attention.
·
An informed conscience
means you have information.
·
Conscience re-affirms
that you are still the person responsible for your actions. If
you are just following something blindly because that’s what
people are telling you to do – those aren’t your actions –
therefore that isn’t your conscience.
Is
following your conscience something that involves imposing
your values on others?
We have three options: (not legitimate,
legitimate, and not really imposing)
Not
legitimate when:
·
Forcing someone to
believe something (to ‘adapt’ to someone’s own values)
·
Forcing someone to act in
violation of their conscience (not just beliefs)
·
… Forcing includes:
1. Manipulating
2. Creating an environment
in which there is an undue, unjustifiable, influence to oblige
them to accept it
3. Otherwise preventing
someone from arriving at a decision about a matter of conscience
(or self-determination)
Legitimate when:
·
Indicating/informing
expected behavior in the workplace e.g. (usually) codes of
ethics/ professional conduct or practice.
·
Indicating expected
behavior (not beliefs) in society e.g. rising when judge enters
courtroom. E.g. expectations that I follow the values or the
standards of my profession.
·
… Providing that
these values are
1.Transparent
2. Rational (reasonable), or
publicly justified
3. That those affected have
an opportunity to discuss or influence these values / standards.
Not really imposing:
·
Having (believing)
certain values
·
Expressing my values e.g.
about politics, religion (provided that it doesn’t interfere
with my work/performance of a service)
·
Acting on my values
(within limits of the law and respect)
·
Avoiding unnecessary
contact with people who don’t share my values
·
Invitation to others to
share my values.
·
(Outside the workplace,
in the public media) lobbying for my values (including
advertisement, persuading)
·
(Outside the workplace,
in the public media) trying to influence others to adopt my
values – even attempting to influence by leaving out
alternatives (there may be another ethical problem here, but it
isn’t ‘imposing’ values.
Example
of Dr. who is a born again Christian, who doesn’t believe in
premarital sex… won’t prescribe birth control pill… also hands
out scripts from the bible.
Is he
imposing his views?
He is not saying that they have to act in
that certain way, however is denying them services that they may
otherwise get.
Does
this respect the values of the patient?
Is it
wrong to kill someone?
Yes
because….
·
It is against the law,
·
Self evident,
·
These people have
intrinsic value
·
It is causing harm to
them
·
Its not your life to take
·
You don’t have consent
·
Violates a right to life
·
Social consequences
·
God forbids it
·
Deprives them of a future
·
An offence against
society
No not
always because…
·
Self defense
·
Collateral damage
·
War
Medical
aid in dying:
·
Euthanasia
-Passive euthanasia =
letting die
-Active euthanasia = killing
·
Assisted suicide
Class announcements
·
No
class on March 31st,
instead will have a review class in April.
·
Exam
is April 15th @
7pm
Integrity: in one word,
integrity is
wholeness. In the code of ethics for registered nurses it says
to treat person
as whole, not just as a disease or injury. Also states to
treat yourself as
whole.
Integrate values into
practice, your
personal and professional values should work together. Do not
just follow
professional values because they are expected of you (then you
are just
treating yourself as a thing).
What happens when practice
seems
inconsistent with my aspirations for integrity? This is where
we talk about
conscience.
Conscience: is not just a
“feeling” (because
feelings come and go, are different from person to person) but
a kind of moral
judgement. In order to make a judgement you need reasoning and
information. We
should be able to justify what our conscience tells us. If it
is a judgement,
can expect people to pay attention to us. Conscience means
having reasoning
behind why you feel that something is wrong or right, not just
juxtaposition.
Conscience confirms I am the one responsible, I am not just
doing things
blindly (or because I was told).
In order to preserve my
integrity, I cannot
carry out a practice that goes against my conscience.
At what point should
someone accept that
you have an objection based on their conscience, and at what
point could you
say someone is imposing their values on others? If conscience
is just a
feeling, why should we worry about taking it seriously?
However if it is the
intuitions, the first stage of moral reasoning, and we reason
and make a
conclusion from it, it is not just feelings and has
importance.
When is it appropriate to
talk about
imposing values? When is it not really imposing values at all?
This is a real
problem, and has happened countess times over history. We have
an obligation to
pursue values, but are practicing values imposing them on
others? Forcing
someone to believe something is obviously a bad thing, or
forcing them to act
in a violation of their conscience. These are not justifiable.
Imposing values, 3
options; not legitimate,
legitimate, and not really “imposing”.
When not legitimate
·
Forcing
someone (manipulating)
someone to believe something (to adopt the speakers own
values).
·
Forcing
someone to act in a
violation of their conscience (not just beliefs). Forcing
includes
manipulation, preventing, creating an environment which there
is an undue,
unjustified influence to oblige them to accept.
Legitimate when
·
Indicating
/ informing expected
behaviour (not belief) in the workplace. (Example, not
abortions are performed
t St. Martha’s hospital. Not trying to impose beliefs, just
stating they do not
perform them at that facility unless medically necessary).
Usually codes of
ethics/professional conduct or practice.
·
Indicating
expected behaviour
in society (usually the law).
·
Often
social convention/etiquette
(example, rising when a judge enters the courtroom).
Example: There are
expectations that I
follow the values or the standards of my profession, provided
the values are
transparent, are rational (reasonable) or publicly justified,
and provided that
those effected have an opportunity to discuss/ influence these
values/
standards.
When are we not really
imposing values?
·
Believing
in certain things
(just believing it, not saying others need to believe it as
well)
·
Expressing
values (as long as
does not interfere with my work or my performance of a
service.
·
Acting
on my values (within the
limits of the law and respect)
·
Avoiding
unnecessary conduct
with people who do not share my values
·
Invitations
to others to share
my values (example, I think you should be more courageous).
·
Outside
workplace lobbying for
my values, trying to influence others (strikes?)
·
When
you are inviting, not
forcing.
Imposing values is NOT
respecting the
conscience of others. Telling people about your values in a
way that is not threatening,
forcing, or manipulating, is not imposing your values.
Question: is it wrong
to kill someone?
·
Yes in
a general sense it is
wrong
·
It is an offense
against society, humans have
intrinsic value.
·
Should
not be your choice to
end someone’s life (it is not your life) deprives them of a
future.
·
Self-evident
(it is against the
law, causes harm to an individual)
When is it not wrong to
kill someone?
·
Perhaps
in self defense if you
are in imminent danger in that moment with no other option
·
During
war? (what about as
collateral damage – unintended )
·
Intent-
Is it wrong to intend
to kill rather than kill by accident?
·
What
about letting one die, is
it the same as killing?
Physician assisted suicide
is medical aid
in dying, giving patient the means to do it themselves
Euthanasia – you are
actually doing it. Acute euthanasia (killing ) and passive
euthanasia ( letting
die)
March 23rd,
2016 - another student's notes for this day:
Katie MacNeil
Integrity
->
“Wholeness” – You are supposed to treat everyone with
this.
->
Not just following the values you’re expected to preform,
but committing to
them.
-> Personal values
and professional values should work together.
Conscience
->
“Moral Judgement”, is based on reasoning and based on
facts. They are not based
on
a feeling, which makes them justifiable.
->
Since it is an ethical/moral judgment we should expect
people to pay attention.
->
Doing something “blindly” is a bad thing. Conscience
reconfirms that we are
responsible
for our own actions.
-> “ In order to maintain my integrity, I cannot
carry out these actions”
§
But
isn’t that imposing your values/conscious on others?
Imposing Values
1.
Not
Legitimate
2.
Legitimate
3.
Not
Really Imposing
When “Not Legitimate”: Forcing someone to believe
something (manipulation, etc.) or forcing them to act in
violation of their
conscience, not just their beliefs.
By Forcing: Manipulation,
creating
an environment in which there is an undue,
unjustifiable
influence to
oblige them to accept it.
When “Legitimate”: Informing/indicating
expected
behaviors (Not belief) in the work place. (eg. Codes of
Ethics/conduct/practice) Indicating expected behaviors
(not belief) in society
(eg. The law). Often social convention/etiquette (eg. Rise
when a judge enters
a courtroom).
“Expectations
that
I follow the values or the standards of my profession.
Provided that these
values ae transparent, provided that these
values/standards are rational or
publically justifiable, provided that they have
opportunity to discuss or
influence these values/standards”
When “ Not really
Imposing”: Having or believing in
certain
values and expressing these values provided that it does
not interfere with my
work/performance of a service. Acting on
my values (Within Limits). Avoiding unnecessary contact
with people who do not
share my values. Invitations to others to share my values
or lobbying for my
values (Advertising).
Is it wrong to
kill someone??
YES BECAUSE: They have their own
intrinsic
value, it is not our life to take, self-evident, causes
harm, is against the
law and against many religions.
NO NOT ALWAYS: Self-defense, war, or
collateral
damage.
INTENT?/CONCENT?
Medical Aid in
Dying:
1.
Euthanasia
2.
Assisted
Suicide
If
we support medical aid in dying then we think it I ok to
kill someone.
Active/Passive
Euthanasia:
Active-> Killing
Passive-> Letting someone die
Letting someone die in
Rachels
article is just as bad as killing someone (Morally)
March 24th [additional notes] -- Melissa Mackley
Topic:
Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying
Is the
example of Jones and Smith killing/letting their 6 year old
cousin die a
serious example of killing vs. letting die?
Is
letting someone die killing them?
1.
No,
commonly those who allow death do not wish the person to die
a.
Most
are intending to relieve pain, not to kill them (principle
of double effect)
b.
There
is a distinction in motive
c.
Rachels
misses moral relevance of motive in the usual situation and
focuses on consequences
(utilitarianism) not intention
Distinguish: A duty not to kill vs. a
duty
to provide aid and save a life
2.
If
letting die and killing are the same, then we are all guilty
of killing,
through our inaction
3.
If
killing and letting die are the same, does this mean active
euthanasia is okay?
Or could it mean restricting passive euthanasia?
Euthanasia
Is it
ethically allowable?
1.
Relieving
suffering
a.
Relieve
constant and unnecessary suffering if you can
b.
Euthanasia
will stop the suffering
c.
Therefore
morally allowable to carry out euthanasia
i. But is euthanasia the only
thing
that can stop suffering? Palliative care can stop suffering,
should it be
obligatory?
2.
Respect
patient wishes/autonomy
a.
If
a patient wants euthanasia, then we have a duty to carry it
out
i. Conditions: terminal illness,
constant pain, competency, legality, age, consent
b.
Because
I have a basic right over myself (mind and body), I “own”
myself
c.
Euthanasia
will allow me to do what I want
d.
Therefore
I have a right to euthanasia
Conditions
are irrelevant in this case
3.
Healthcare
resources
a.
We
have an obligation to be stewards of healthcare resources
b.
Euthanasia
will save time, money, beds, care
c.
Therefore,
obligation (Or allowable?) Euthanasia to save resources
Suicide
Do we
have a right to suicide?
-
Law
against attempted suicide was taken out of the criminal code
in 1972
-
Law
doesn’t say that you have a “right”, but the law does not
forbid it (in a kind
of vacuum)
-
BUT,
does this mean suicide is ethically allowable?
-
And
if it was ethically allowable, would we currently be putting
so much effort in
to prevent it?
March 24th-Bailey
MacDonald-Frizzle
Last
Class:
Is it
wrong to kill someone?
Ø Intrinsic
value, not ‘my’
life, self-evident, harm
o
Yes it
is wrong to kill someone
Ø Self
defence, war,
collateral damage
o
Not
always.
What
does intent have to do with killing?
Medical
aid in dying: euthanasia, assisted suicide
There
is passive and active euthanasia i.e.
letting die, killing
Is letting die, killing?
Is intention ethically
irrelevant?
If letting die and
killing are the same,
then we are all guilty of killing, through our inaction we
have let people die.
If they are the same,
does this mean
‘active’ euthanasia is ok? Or could it mean restricting
‘passive’ euthanasia?
Euthanasia? Allowable?
Who? (Should be
ethically involved)
Integrity…. it isn’t
machines performing
euthanasia, it’s someone following orders
Why Euthanasia?
1.
Morally
obligatory to stop
suffering if you can
·
Euthanasia
will stop suffering,
therefore allowable to carry out euthanasia
2.
Respect
patients autonomy
(wishes)
·
If
patient wants euthanasia
then there is a duty to carry out euthanasia (conditions?)
Ø I have a basic right over myself (mind and
body)
Ø I own myself
Ø I have a right to euthanasia
3.
Obligation
to be stewards of
our healthcare resources
·
Will
save money, time, care
Ø Obligation=euthanasia
Ø …Allowable?
Right to suicide?
Ø The law against suicide was cut in 1972
Ø Law does not forbid suicide
Ø But…is suicide ethically allowable?
~Palliative care
~Reduce pain and
suffering
*It will be lawfully
allowable, but what
about ethically?
March 24th, 2016 [another student's notes] – Taylor
LeRoux
Rachel’s
Argument
is
killing the same as letting
die?
Ex.
The two cases of the men who
would inherit money if their cousin died. The first man
killed his cousin by
holding her head under the water. The second man watched his
cousin drown and
did not intervene to stop it. Both men had the same
intention to kill their
cousin with the same outcome of their cousin dying.
This
is not an example of letting
someone die
When
you are letting someone die,
your intention is not to kill them. The intention is to
provide aid.
These
people provide aid to the
individual and do not want the person to die
Ex.
Giving a medication for pain
to an individual but the medication depresses respiratory
rate
The
medication is not being given
to depress respiratory rate in attempts to kill the
individual
Letting
die and killing have
different motives
-
Rachel misses the moral
relevance of motive in the usual situation in which this
arises
-
Rachel’s
focuses on
consequences (utilitarianism) not intention
Example.
If you see Donald Trump
in the airport and (1) hit him with a book to kill him vs.
(2) if you see
Donald Trump in the airport eating and he chokes, you do not
help him and he
dies.
Am
I a bad person?
1).
I have an obligation not to
kill people and I kill him
2).
I am not killing him, I am not
providing aid to save a life
If
letting die and killing are the
same, then we are all guilty of killing since, though our
(in) actions we have
let people die. Ex. not intervening to save Donald Trump, we
are killing him.
If
motive is different then we
have a problem
Motive
in these situations causes
problems/they are different
Ex.
The two cases of the men who
would inherit money if their cousin died. The first man
killed his cousin by
holding her head under the water. The second man watched his
cousin drown and
did not intervene to stop it. Both men had the same
intention to kill their
cousin with the same outcome of their cousin dying.
-
The motives here are the same.
Killing has an intention. Usually letting die does not have
the same intention
as killing someone.
If
letting die and killing are the
same, then we are all guilty. As there are times where we
don’t intervene and
someone dies, we did not intend for them to die, we just
didn’t do anything to
stop this.
If
they are the same deaths mean
active euthanasia is ok. Or could it mean restricting
passive euthanasia.
Euthanasia-
should it be
allowable?
Who?
(if they are carrying it out —>
they are ethically involved)
Someone
cannot be just following
orders (cannot be machines)
We
need to ask is euthanasia
ethically allowable?
Arguments
for euthanasia:
a).
Morally allowable to stop
unnecessary suffering (if you can)
b).
Euthanasia will stop suffering
**
c).
Obligatory to carry out
euthanasia (this means that someone who doesn’t get to
decide—> they get
euthanasia even if they don’t want it)
If
you want to stop suffering of
everyone —> you need to make it mandatory
**Palliative
care can
stop suffering too
Argument
including values:
Respect-
patient wishes should be
respected
-
ties into autonomy
a).
If a patient wants euthanasia.
Then you have a duty to carry out euthanasia (are there
conditions associated
with euthanasia, does someone need to consent? Can anyone
decide they want
euthanasia? What happens if someone cannot consent? Does it
matter about your
age or condition)
I
have a basic right over myself
(my mind and body)
Do
I own myself? Do I have a right
over my body?
b).
Euthanasia will allow me to do
what I want
c).
I have a right to euthanasia
Am
I doing harm to myself? Harm
does not allow me to consent to this procedure
Argument
for euthanasia:
a).
Obligation to be stewards of
our health care resources
Who
has the obligation? everyone?
b).
Euthanasia will save money,
time, beds and care
c).
Obligation? or allowable
euthanasia?
are
we going to force people to
have euthanasia?
What
things should we not do to
save money, time, care and beds?
Who
is carrying out this action?
If
the above arguments are weak
then we do not need to worry about “who” is carrying out the
action.
Do
people have a right to suicide?
illegal
to attempt suicide, not
illegal to complete
Now-
not against the law —> the
law does not forbid suicide, but does this mean suicide is
ethically allowable?
If
we thought suicide was
ethically allowable would we try to limit suicide
Euthanasia
is legally allowable
(this can change and will change as public opinion changes).
Right now it is
not ethically allowable.
Ethically
and
legally allowable are not the same thing, something can be
legally allowable
and not ethically.
March 30,
2016 – Carolyn Rose
Guest Speaker –
Dr. Louis Groarke
Professionalism is the main
focus for today
We talked about
case regarding the nursing
student being expelled for posting a photo on Facebook of
herself posing with a
human placenta.
Values that
should be considered are:
confidentiality and respect.
The process of
birth should be treated with
seriousness.
Decorum:
behaving appropriately according to the circumstance.
Talked about
all 7 core principles in the
Nursing Code of Ethics – nursing student violated most of
these principles in
some form or another.
Justice is one
of the four cardinal
virtues. Justice
is defined as how you
treat other people proportional to your professional
relationships.
Accountability
includes understanding that if
you make a mistake; you may have to deal with consequences. There are
standards you have to respect, and
if you don’t, you might have consequences to deal with.
Yesterday,
there was a case in the New York
Times. A nurse
practicing in Syracuse
turned in her license and pleaded guilty to a number of
felonies after using
her smart phone to take pictures of the penis of an
unconscious male patient
and later posting it on social media.
She also used her smart phone to take a video of
another nurse cleaning
a gastrointestinal blood clot of a female patient.
Hippocratic
Oath
·
Form of a
deontological code
·
One of the
first, or the first, code
like this
·
Approximately
500 BC, ancient Greece
·
Provides a
model about what being a
professional is all about
·
Fiduciary
trust:
o
Professionals
are in a relationship with society
o
The
person makes decisions on account of someone else; someone
who acts in your
best interest
·
Original
Version – older, more
strict
·
Modern – more
“wishy washy”
Focus on the
older, original version of the
Hippocratic Oath
·
There are
different schools of
doctors, different ‘groups’
·
Professionalism
means being part of
a group, oath describes was being a professional entails
·
Apollo
Physician – Greek god of
medicine
·
Asclepius –
another Greek god of
medicine
·
Hygieia and
Panaceia – Greek
goddesses
·
The oath is a
covenant, like an
agreement or a promise to a number of responsibilities
·
The oath
includes a number of
responsibilities
o
To
respect those that taught you, educated you – they are
important people
o
Duty
to teach education and gratitude to the future generations
of the same
professional with the same responsibilities; you must pass
on your knowledge
o
Precepts
– strict recipe stating if this happens, then you must act
in this way
o
When
talking about not giving a deadly drug to anybody or give a
woman an abortive
remedy, the oath is suggesting that in health care, patients
are
vulnerable. These
patients trust the
health care workers to provide knowledge and practice with
good intent and act
in the best interest of the patients, as well as not taking
advantage of
patients.
o
In
health care, people are coming to you with embarrassing
issues, shameful
moments in which they do not wish to be shared with other
people. They
trust you with this information to be
non-judgemental and keep it private and confidential.
o
Professionals
will only do what they are competent to do.
People are putting their trust in professionals to
act in their best
interest.
·
At the end of
the oath, eudemonia is
spoken of – “may I be remembered after I die for doing well
or not remembered
if I haven’t done well”
What does it
mean to be a
professional?
·
There are
certain groups of
professionals
o
Example: physicians,
nurses, lawyers, veterinarians,
accountants, etc.
o
Each
must follow their own “oath” or Code of Ethics
o
To
become a professional, you must join a professional group. Society then
trusts you as a member of that
group to perform certain tasks. You will
then perform those tasks and educate yourself and others on
those tasks. It
polices itself. It
must also be taken in a solemn and serious
manner.