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!
Version 1: Skye Bennett
Ethics is not about opinions.
-
Try to make a defense you
can present to a judge
-
Provide reasons to do
what you did
-
It is not based on
ideology
-
Clearly state your
judgement and evidence
Ethics is a subfield of philosophy.
Example of an ethical dilemma:
Dr. Nancy Olivieri agreed to test a new drug
for a pharma company and she signed a confidentiality contract
(a legally binding document). She discovered the drug causes
liver toxicity in her patients who are just children. She wants
to tell the parents of her patients but the company says no. She will be in
violation of her contract and will face legal action against
her.
What should Dr. Olivieri do?
-
What is her legal duty?
Her ethical duty?
-
Consequences impact her
family, her career and professional reputation, her coworkers
and employers, and the well-being of her patients
-
Values: accountability,
beneficence, self-interest, respect for the law, loyalty
-
She must balance the
weight of these values
-
Principles: one must be
authoritative, sometimes the law is unethical and must be
changed
Some principles can take priority over the
law, so the law gets changed.
Dr. Oliveiri decided to choose ethics over
the law. If the law is not right, sometimes we challenge it.
Ethics deals with rules of conduct.
-
A field of discipline, a
study of judgements
-
Good and bad, virtues,
reason
-
Attempts to clearly
define concepts of right and wrong and to understand these
concepts
-
Make sure judgements are
reasonable and correct
-
Demonstrate and prove
Normative questions: what ought I to do? To
be?
-
Standards = self-interest
vs. altruism, respect and dignity
Metaethical issue: what does right and wrong
really mean? What is objective?
In the medical code of ethics/conduct, the
first responsibility is to consider the wellbeing of the
patient.
Code of Ethics for Nurses provides:
-
Norms for RNs across
Canada
-
Guidelines for nurses
-
Accountability and
self-regulation
-
Expectations for the
public
-
Professional standards
-
Usefulness, but it has
limitations
The code of ethics does not solve problems.
You need values and principles to solve ethical problems.
Version 2: Erin Alexander
Ethics:
à
Not an ideology, Religion
·
State
clearly what your judgment is and what your evidence is if you
can’t do that.. is it ethical?
·
Present
to
someone who is impartial (Anyone can do it)
à
The point of ethics is to make judgments reasons that you can
defend
Decision
Basis
for decision (code of ethics)
à
in class discussion regarding ethics case
à
Fundamental responsibility
·
Society
·
Profession
Value
·
Accountability à
ability to balance values (what is more important)
·
Do
good (beneficence)
prioritizing
·
Self
interest
·
Respect
for
the law
·
Loyalty
à Authoritative Principles à to help answer problems
I.E: Dignity might take priority over respect
for the law
·
The law could be wrong the law then could be
altered
What is Ethics?
à Define
·
Deals
with judgments
·
Approval
and
disapproval
·
“dealing
with
rules of conduct”
·
“The
practical normative study of the rightness or wrongness of
human conduct as known by natural reason”
Conduct
è what
you ought to do
è judgments
about your specific conduct
Ethics
the
understanding of conduct
è specific
things can and may be proven
judgments
need
to be reasonable or correct
·
used
and applied correctly
·
demonstrate
or
prove
Two categories in Ethics:
Normative Questions:
(ought to do)
1.
What
sort of career should I leave?
Standard à
self-interest, Altruism
2.
What
standards should I follow?
a.
Always
respect
people’s dignity
(Identifying
a
norm following a norm)
Meta- Ethical:
Code of Ethics:
·
Help
us to identify norms and standards of the profession
·
Things
that
are legal may not be professional
Ethical
Reasoning:
·
Facts
·
Values
·
Principles
Ending
class
question:
·
Difference
between
principles and values?
September 21, 2017
· Ethics is a study or a science- in relation to mortality (ethics can be moral). Often ethics and morality go hand and hand.
o Ethics focus- on social norms and procedures.
o Mortality- behaviours of said person (ex. What an individual or societies belief of what is ought to be right or wrong).
· Ethics can be applicable to professional and person life.
o Professional life- Code of Ethics (this is a general guideline of expectations as professionals, informs the general public of expectations of care/professionalism, and for guiding self-regulating professionals). The dilemma with this code of ethics is even when following these principles, one can still make unethical decisions (ex. signing a confidentiality agreement, then seeing an even bigger per say, ethical dilemma, such as evidence of harm on the community or individuals health).
o The code of ethics does not apply to every profession- some jobs have set standards how an individual is ought to act (ex. honest, open, respect for dignity). Ethical dilemmas in a professional setting will get less complex with experience in the health care field- though, that being said, you should always strive to advance this skill.
o Personal life- Making ethical decisions every day, like when consulting about ethical issues. Also, it is applied when giving facts to others, when trying to persuade them (ex. When an individual states “she is a good person” or “was wrong to do an action”).
Making ethical decisions
· People focus on different thigs when making ethical judgements:
o What exactly are we looking for?
o What do we need to know?
Model of ethical decision making: RESPECT
R- Recognize moral dimensions of the problem
E- Establish guidelines and evaluate principles
S- Specify facts
P- Plot action alternatives
E- Evaluate alternatives in light of principle
C- Consult stakeholders as appropriate
T- Tell reason for decision
The relation of practise to ethical principles & theories
· Ethical principle- many things involved- values, personal values, professional values, and what it means to do well (ex. Never treat others as a stepping stone to your goals).
Principles- Objective- norms, laws, rules (something you can use to defend in front of a judge).
Values- Subjective- dignity, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and accountability.
Ethics is not just analyzing facts and values but prioritizing them.
People may change values & principles depending on how they carry out in practise.
· Ex: Comparing different institutions on their statement of values:
Ottawa Hospital: Core values
Compassion
A commitment to quality
Work together
St. Martha’s: Core values
Respecting people in all life stages (not preforming therapeutic abortions, euthanasia)
Welcoming a diversity of people
Caring for all without discrimination
· Principle & values- Which are most important...have to assess relative weight between ethics and scientific reasoning (ex. Climate change).
Have to ask questions like:
§ What does this relate to the future? (often like the past unless something has changed)
§ Why does it occur?
§ Trends?
Cause à effect
Characteristics of an ethical theory
· It allows us to make judgement- about human behaviour, conduct and results of those acts.
· It is the basis of certain rules & principles (even when they are complex).
· Universal- applicable to all people- not just opinions of a set group.
· Supremely authoritative (overriding) - (ex. Ethics does not always win, challenging social norms and laws).
· Punishments- for not following principles or rules.
· Reduce conflict- that is the goal.
Relativism
· Relativism defined- not one moral standard that is applied to all people at once.
o Two different approaches to ethics:
1. Personal relativism- differs person to person (individuals own belief).
2. Conventional- Basis of one’s cultural or society (a right in one country is not always right in others) (ex. Slavery).
Both approaches have no objective standard.
Version 2: Delia Boulton
Morality vs. Ethics
- Not the same thing but they both deal with human behaviour
Morality: individual behaviour (society, upbringing). Our relationship to our own principles.
Advocacy: something you ought not or to do, where ethics comes out in personal life
Professional life: follows a code of ethics
- Even when you’re not on the job, you have an obligation to help in a time of need. What happens when personal convictions and professional obligations conflict?
Solving an ethical problem involves:
- Being able to identify the ethical issue of a situation
- Looking at all of the values:
- open, honest (transparent)
- self-interest
- care, compassion
- being just
- well-being of your patient
Values (subjective) vs. Principles (objective rational assessment)
- The law is important because it’s a summary of socially accepted values.
- Principle: a rule for assessing values
- Scientific reasoning: data of past, trends, current evidence, why does it occur?
- Prediction for the future based on principles. Unless something changes, the trend will remain.
- Principle: causes have effects, the past gives us a guide to future.
Ethical Reasoning: aims at what is reasonable even if it isn’t what you’d like.
What happens when values come into conflict?
- Framework for ethical decision making
The Respect Model: a set of guidelines
- recognize the moral dimension of the task or problem
- enumerate the guiding and evaluative principles
- use judgement with these
Characteristics of an ethical theory:
- what makes something an ethical principle?
- some opinions aren’t helpful in solving ethical problems
- ethics allows us to make reasonable decisions
Laws are almost universal
“these rules are supremely authoritative or overriding as a guide to actions”
- Ethics is more than what is socially acceptable
Principles that don’t work: relativism
- Ethical standards are relative to the society in which you live. No absolute objective standard.
- Conventionalism: depends on social convention
- Ethics varies according to the person
- Subjectivism: differing from person to person
September 28th, 2017 - Siobhan Carr
How can I make an ethical judgement?
-
an example of an ethical judgment is putting your
cat down when it is sick or allowing your mother to be
euthanized.
Ethics trumps the law and what is ethical might
not be legal. Ethics are supremely overriding. For example, in
Canada euthanasia was not legal, however there was still
people doing it.
-
what you legally ought to do
-
what you ought to do for your own self-intrest
-
what you ought to do for others sake
… is not necessarily what you ethically ought to
do.
So, how do you make an ethical judgement??
-
facts
-
values; honesty, dignity, accountability,
non-maleficence, justice and loyalty
-
principles; determine what values you choose to
follow, and you should be able to justify your principles.
*when values conflict (they are subjective), use
principles.
*people will disagree with what principle you
choose to follow.
What kind of principles do you use??
-
are genuinly ethical
-
help make decisions
-
principles may fail
-
and principles may conflict
-
you must decide which principle is best for your
current situation
Relativism
•
Moral subjectivism; focuses on others, it is a
matter of personal choice. Maybe we all have different ethical
principles, and who is to say who is right and who is wrong.
What does believing in subjectivism mean?
-
it says that both people are telling the truth
-
there is no way of choosing who is right
-
no right answer
-
not open to proving or justifying your view
-
if there are no universal principles, it might
just be subjective
-
if you cannot believe in objectivism
-
in pluralistic societies, it allows people to
believe in what they want to believe
-
there seems to be no proof on ethical issues
-
** a psychological report is not an ethical
issue**
-
in some cases we stop thinking about what is
right and we are then thinking about how people feel, then two
people are not disagreeing
In other words.. moral subjectivism means there
is no moral disagreement, and no morality at all, moral
subjectivism avoids ethics and it is not helpful in solving
problems. If ethics were about feelings you could never make a
decision.
•
Conventionalism; this focuses on the idea that
ethical standards vary from culture to culture, place to place
or time period to time period. This is another kind of
relativism.
-
The very same action which is right in one
country or time period, may be wrong in another.
-
Is there a reason to believe that some cultures
are more intelligent or more ethical than others?
-
Culture is how we acquire moral values
-
There seems to be no other sources
-
We share many of our moral values with members of
our culture, but do not with members of other cultures;
nothing is universally believed to be right
-
Values can be rooted into culture
-
Different cultures, different values
“If my culture says that X is wrong, than X is
wrong”
“If my culture says that X is right, than X is
right”
-
If conventionalism is true, than there is no
moral reform, but of course we want moral reform, so logically
conventionalism cannot be true.
-
Just because some cultures think something is
true, does not mean it is true.
Example of conventionalism;
The ethical issue of female genital mutilation (FGM)
challenges conventionalism. If it happens in 29 countries
worldwide, but not in currently in Canada. In those countries
they are not asking you to participate in FGM, however that is
how they choose to do things and it is a part of their
culture. In a healthcare setting you might come across someone
who has been mutilated.
If you are not a subjectivist or conventionalist,
you are an objectivist. There are many kinds of objectivist
principles.
-
Objectivism holds the view that there are facts
in ethics, that there are statements that are true and there
are statements that are false.
-
Ethical matters are cognitive and it is not what
people think, feel or believe.
-
If you are a rational, well-educated person, you
should be able to come to the same conclusions as another
rational, well-educated person.
October 5, 2017 - Laura Currie
-
For ethical reasoning you need 3 things
-
Facts
-
Values
-
Principles
-
Everything we do requires an ethical choice
-
“Should” = ethical component
Ex. Should I go home for thanks giving?
“Yes”: Value family (duty, self-interest)
“No”: Value academics (self-interest)
*Review from last class*
-
Subjectivism: Morals are entirely based on individual attitude, opinion, sentiment, belief, or feelings, with no standard beyond ones own beliefs
-
Support
-
No absolute universal moral principles or actions
-
There is a lot of disagreement among many intellectually mature, informed individuals and reasonable people
-
Values and principles vary from person to person- no universal moral code
-
Suits a pluralistic society [Canada]
-
No solid proof as to “who’s opinion is 100% right”
-
Contradictions
-
Feelings ≠ ethics
-
Leaves no room for ethical debate- no conclusions can be made
-
Can lead to contradiction- two people could have opposing views on X [right/ wrong, good/bad] but subjectivism says that they would both be right
-
Conventionalism: An act/ view which is deemed moral in on country/time period/culture could be deemed immoral in another country/time period/culture
-
Support
-
Who’s to say which culture is “right” and which is “wrong”
Ex. Cultural practice of ridding a community of the elderly who consume resources and can no longer contribute to the community.
-
No proof that there are standards or rules which are always right/ wrong
-
People around the world engage in a wide variety of practices- no universal moral values
-
Our culture/ society is where/ how we develop our moral beliefs, standards, and values and so we share many if not all our moral standards with our community
-
Contradictions
-
Just because a culture/ society believe something is right, does not make it right
Ex. “The world is flat”, “Caucasian people are superior”, “Men are superior to women”
-
Can be contradictory- by saying “what my culture believes to be right is in fact wrong” is interpreted to mean “what my culture believes to be right is in fact what my culture believes to be wrong” which doesn’t make any sense
-
Confuses moral principal and moral practice- practices may differ but that doesn’t mean that the underlying principles differ
-
Female genital mutilation (FGM)
-
Is it legal?
Not in Canada but yes in some other countries
-
Is it ethical?
Debate. Cultural norm in some societies- expected behaviour in some cultures. Causes harm to the females’ body.
-
Limit to consent
-
Age
-
Mental status
-
Laws
Ex. Cannot donate live saving organs if you yourself will be severely injured or die
-
Values can be cross-culture, but each culture could have different practices defending these values
-
Harm
-
Not all harm is bad, only unnecessary harms are bad
Ex “good” harms could be piercings/ tattoos, hating practicing but becoming more proficient at a skill.
-
“good” if the harm is justified by a greater good
-
Legalism: emphasises following rules over other considerations
-
What is legal is what you ought to do
-
People adopt this because they are afraid of the consequences of acting on personal morals/ taking responsibility
-
“I don’t know the answer….. Follow the law”
How can I make up an ethical judgement? - facts, values (subjective), principles
- "ethics trumps law" - certain cases require further investigation in the sense that ethical decisions are not always lawful (ex. clinician offering abortions before they were legal)
- ethical judgements involve moral obligations ("what ought to be done")
- when values conflict regarding an ethical judgement, one uses their principles as a basis to prioritize their values and make the decision
- principles act as a set of rules; they need to be justified and reasonable to oneself and others (ex. V=d/t) - some principles do not provide ethical judgements (they are unreasonable/unjustifiable)
relativism:
- moral subjectivism: moral & ethical matters are a product of personal opinion ("both are right, impossible to decide which is more right.. = dead end)
conventionalism:
- moral & ethical matters are a product of ethnicity, race, culture, etc.
- rules/principles are not universal and individuals outside of a certain culture have no place to intervene (ex. female genital mutilation)
objectivism:
- true/false ; there are facts in ethics and ethical matters are cognitive and driven by reason & logic
- all people who think, feel, and believe the same should some up with the same judgement ("the right judgement")
- not concerned with opinions or feelings
reasons for adopting moral subjectivism:
- objectivism seems to go too far
- intelligent people disagree
- values are based on needs/ interests, and these vary
- there seems to be no proof on ethical values
-- when a disagreement/argument goes down the path of thoughts, feelings, opinion; it is no longer concerned with a matter of morality (ethics), but a matter of psychology, history, subjectivism, etc.
--subjectivism allows for difference in emotion & opinion at the cost of reaching an ethical conclusion because the argument has now changed to a discussion of subjective opinion/emotion (I THINK abortion is wrong vs abortion IS wrong)
--conventionalism (cultural relativism) asserts that the same action which is right in one country/period may be wrong in another --> nothing is universally believed to be right (most anthropologists) ; includes no moral reform
October 5th, 2017
Chloe Corkum
There are three (3) things for ethical
reasoning:
1)
Facts
2)
Values
3)
Principles
-
Without all of these, you can’t engage in ethical
reasoning.
-
Almost everything we do requires ethical choice.
Ethical reasoning: pertains to the right or wrong of human
conduct; need to know if it’s right or wrong without
concerning our feelings
Dead end questions or theories: they do not help us much ethically
Should I go home for
thanksgiving?
-
“Should” has an ethical component
-
If I have an obligation to my family (value)
-
Does my mother/father expect me to be there? Do I
have a duty to be there? (stronger value)
-
I would like to do this/I would feel lonely if I
didn’t/isolated (self-interest)
-
Con: I have an academic reason for staying - if I
go home, will I be working on midterm preparation?
•
There has to be a way to figure out how to draw a
conclusion how pros and cons have been lined up.
These may not be life changing but they are
examples of ethical choices:
-
Should I take the weekend off?
-
Should I go to the movie?
-
Should I have a few drinks with friends after
class on Friday?
Should I (prof) give bonus points for people
showing up to class?
-
Should I punish those who don’t come?
-
What if someone has a good reason for not being
here? (e.g. family emergency)
-
There are risks associated with this
Euthanasia
-
If you think it’s wrong for you, end of story.
-
If you think it’s right for you, end of story.
•
But WHY?
-
Our ethical discussion is going no where. We’re
no longer talking about euthanasia, we’re talking about our
feelings towards euthanasia and you can’t be wrong about your
feelings.
You can’t have an objective answer to “what is
the best kind of ice cream?”
-
How do we come up with a right or wrong regarding
ethics and the best flavour of ice cream?
-
One of the problems about subjectivism is that
it’s based on our personal feelings & you can’t be wrong
about your own feelings.
-
Subjectivism is helping us towards ethical
judgement.
-
Subjectivism doesn't help us answer whether a
question is right or wrong.
We all lie, probably everyday - should it be
against the law to lie?
-
What should the limits of lying be?
-
Other things that are more extreme than lying
should be legislated, however, it is too difficult to enforce
actual laws against lying and disproportionate
Moral Conventionalism (Cultural Relativism)
-
“The very same action which is right in one
country/period, may be wrong in another.”
WHY MORAL CONVENTIONALISM?
a)
This is how we acquire moral
values
b)
There seems to be no other
choice
c)
We share many of our moral
views with members of our culture (e.g. attitudes toward human
life), but do not with members of other cultures; nothing is
universal believed to be right
A problem with conventionalism
-
What a culture believes doesn’t necessarily mean
that it’s true.
-
The “flat earth” example: some cultures think
that the earth is flat. Just because we believe something,
doesn't mean it’s right/true. The earth is scientifically
proven to not be flat.
Do we have the right to tell someone their view
is wrong?
-
If someone believes something false - should they
be challenged?
-
You do not have the right to criticize/challenge
someone else’s view
-
Tolerate diversity
-
People don't want to be culturally insensitive
Criticism
1)
Moral Reform
-
“is right” =
what the cultures believes to be right
-
“is wrong” = what the culture believes to be
wrong
-
If we substitute “what my cultures believes to be
right” for “is right” or “what my cultures believes to be
wrong” for “is wrong”…
-
Cultural relativism becomes: “the very same
action which my culture believes to be right in one
country/period may be wrong in another” OR “the very same
action which my culture believes to be wrong in one
country/period may be wrong in another”
Should I have to give consent to donate a kidney?
Yes.
What about two kidneys? This is not allowed -
there has to be a limit to some things.
-
If a physician were to do a heart transplant with
the consent of an alive man, the physician would be prosecuted
for murder regardless of the consent.
-
Objectivism seems to go too far
-
Intelligent people disagree (if someone disagrees
with you and they are an intelligent person - hear them out)
-
There seems to be no proof on ethical issues
-
Values are based on needs/interests, these vary
(two cultures can have the same values but different
practices)
-
The importance of toleration in pluralistic
societies
Case Study: Female Genital Mutilation
1)
Is it legal?
2)
Duty to report?
3)
Is it ethical?
4)
Does it cause harm? (Harm is
hurting someone physically, emotionally, any trauma, etc.)
Harms are sometimes good, they help you become
better. But unnecessary harm is bad. So maybe, FGM is harmful.
Is it a necessary harm or unnecessary harm?
•
When a person/culture thinks it is okay or not
okay - we’re back to the subjectivism with feelings.
Is it a matter of consent? Does consent matter?
-
When you’re a minor, your parents or the
government have the ability to consent for you. Therefore,
your parents must known what’s best/right for you.
Case Study: In some jobs, people are legally entitle to take
a “sick day” and no MD note is required to verify any illness
Imagine:
a)
One does it in order to take
care of personal business (e.g. take car to the shop)
b)
One does it to visit a sick
friend
c)
One does it become she is ill
•
Is there any moral difference? No one is
monitoring this.
-
If you call in sick and you are not sick… you are
1) lying and 2) abusing the system
-
Some people say ethical issues are so difficult…
They say, “I’ll just do what the law says, I’ll do whatever is
legal.” This is legalism.
Legalism
-
What is legal IS what you (morally) ought to do
-
“You ought to do X, provided it is within the
limits of the law”
WHY?
-
People are afraid of the consequences - if I go
against what I ought to do (legally or whatever), maybe there
will be repercussions/consequences
-
People don’t want to take personal responsibility
- they do not want to be challenged
-
Some people want others to choose for them
because they do not want to deal with the consequences. If
someone were to tell me what to do, I might still feel guilty
for following through but not as much because “you told me to
do it!”
MIDTERM (possibly)
-
Definitions (ex. subjectivism, legalism, etc.)
-
Why would someone believe that theory?
-
What are some problems with these theories?
-
Do you support this view or not?
-
Will provide use with a case study and
potentially ask something along the lines of: “how do you
think a subjectivist or conventionalist would view this?”
October 12th - Linden
Dale
The
Big Ethical Questions:
-Ought
-Should
Legalism:
Why
choose this? Why is following the laws the right thing to do?
-A
group of highly skilled individuals set these laws in place so
there must be a reason for this; a societal consensus
-laws
protect you from harm/punishment
-laws
give clarity on decision making
Example:
To
participate in medical aid and dying some criteria must be
met:
-must
be over the age of 18
-patient
must give consent and have the capacity to make decisions
-patient
must have a diagnosis of a grievous condition of suffering
that will end in death
*The
question is should I follow the law, or should I do as the
patient wishes
Ways
to help make these decisions are principles
Values
can provide some guidance but they often conflict with another
individual’s values
Example
2:
Should
the Canadian gov. impose controls and restrictions on off
shore mining by Canadian companies.?
-one
view is that they should because people in the area need help,
it is bad for companies to cause harm, if it is causing harm
something should be done to stop it
-a
legalist point of view would say that no nothing should be
done because the laws allow it, morality is determined by what
the law says
-Laws
do not consider every ethical decision that may be addressed,
therefore legalism cannot always be the answer to decisions.
Eg. Lying is not ethical but there are no laws against it so a
legalist would deem lying okay
Practical
problems:
1. The law is not always clear;
it must be interpreted
-or the law can be complex,
permitting something in one situation but not another
2. They
can be (apparently) inconsistent or contradictory
3. Legalism
puts potentially unjustified trust in law makers
4. Different
countries have different laws
Ethical
problems:
1.
The
law may be wrong/immoral
2.
It
implies that might(law) makes right (ethics)
-the
right moral action is what the law says you should do
Overall
legalism doesn’t give a principle about what you should
ethically do
Theories
about ethics: eg.
Relativism, subjectivism, objectivism etc.
They
don’t work because they don’t meet certain standards of
ethical decision making
Amoralism
(no morality):
-they
believe morality is nonsense
-people
are merely “stuff”
-there
are no values and one thing doesn’t have greater value than
something else
eg. A
coffee cup has the same value as a human being
-Ethical
problems are imaginary
Amoral
Persons:
-either
do not possess ethical notions at all or they do not subscribe
to any moral code
2 Kinds:
-Radical:
complete rejection of the existence of the moral good
-Moderate:
“I know what is right, but why should I care?”
Reasons:
1. Metaphysical: No human nature
or purpose, and so no goal, no final good, no destiny for
humanity(Nihilism)
2. Epistemological: Not possible
to know objective truth or can’t explain or justify moral
behavior
Ethical
Egoism
-regardless
of what I am naturally inclined to do, I ought to be motivated
to maximize own self interest
Why
believe this?
1. In order to survive, I need to
look after myself
2. Only I can best look after
myself
3. There is no reason to be
concerned about others
Psychological
Egoism
-the
only thing anyone is capable of desiring or pursuing
ultimately is his/her own happiness/desire
-not an
ethical theory!
October 12th,
2017 - Gavin Druhan
· Should/
Ought = Ethical question/ ethical theory
· Ex:
Should I provide medical aid in dying as a physician?
1.
Needs/ Principles ex: Persistence
2.
Values
3.
Facts/ arguments
^ All things you need to solve or start to solve an
ethical dilemma.
Theories
ABOUT Ethics: Relativism, Legalism, Subjectivism….
Don’t work in real life ethics because they do not meet at
least one characteristic of an ethical theory.
Characteristics of an ethical theory:
1.
Enables us to make judgements and prescriptions about
human behaviour/ conduct/ acts or the results of those acts.
2.
These judgements are based on certain rules or
principles.
3.
These rules or principles are universal.
4.
These rules or principles are supremely authoritative
or overriding as a guide to action.
Legalism=
The
law is the guiding value/ principle, everything in the law is
ethically correct.
The
downside is the law is not always ethically correct in all
situations.
Legalism practical problems:
1.
Law not always clear, must be interpreted, or law
could be complex.
2.
The law can be apparently inconsistent or
contradictory.
3.
Puts potentially unjustified trust in law makers.
4.
Different countries have different laws.
SHOULD
not be ethical by region, S
HOULD be viewed as ethical
everywhere.
Everyone
has
their own theory, Subjectivism, conventionalism, legalism,
etc. but these do not actually solve the ethical problem since
they don’t have all the ethical characteristics.
Amoralism=
We
live in a materialistic world, and no values exist.
No
ethical notions at all.
And
if there is: do not subscribe to any moral code.
Two
types of Amoralism:
1.
Radical= Complete rejection of the existence of moral
good.
2.
Moderate= I know what is right, but why should I
care?
Arguments
for
Amoralism:
1)
Metaphysical: No human nature or purpose; and so no
good, no final good, no destiny for humanity (Nihilism)
2)
Epistemological: Not possible to know objective
truth, can’t explain or justify moral behaviour.
Ethical
Egoism=
Regardless of what I am naturally inclined to do, I ought to
be motivated to maximise own self- interest.
To
survive I need to look after myself.
There
is no reason to look after others
People
are beings of desire, we want our own good.
Psychological
egoism=
The only thing that people can desire, or pursue ultimately is
their own happiness/ desire.
The difference between theories
about ethics (ch.2) and ethical theories (ch.3):
-
Theories
about ethics aspire to be ethical theories because they claim
to give us a way to meet ethical principles but will fail to
meet the criteria
-
Ethical
theories therefore meet the criteria, but not all will succeed
as some are more
plausible then others
Finishing Chapter 2:
-
Ethical
Egoism: says you ought to act or behave in a way that
promotes your best self-interest/happiness
-
Psychological
egoism: says that it is natural behavior to act in a
way that promotes your best self-interest/happiness
Reasons to believe/follow
ethical egoism:
-
An
ethical egoist may say that “only I can best look after myself
better than anyone else”
-
An
ethical egoist may also say that “If I want to survive then I
ought to act in a way that best promotes my own self-interest”
Reasons to believe/follow
psychological egoism:
-
The
‘desire for pleasure’ argument
An ethical egoist would argue
that if we are ‘built’ this way, or naturally behave in a way
that promotes our own self-interest, then we ought to act this
way as well to ensure our natural intentions are being
followed through. Therefore, if psychological egoism is true
than ethical egoism is true as well.
Reasons for arguing egoism:
-
Actions
are not always done as a result to feel pleasure – may be done
out of love, care for others, or out of duty.
-
We
cannot predict that the future pleasure we are looking for
will actually happen
-
Egoism
cannot be universalized because a true ethical egoist would
run into conflict of limitations if everyone were an ethical
egoist, therefore they would rather everyone were not
ethical egoists instead to better their self-interest.
What makes an argument a good
argument?
-
Should
be consistent
-
Requires
sufficient/relevant evidence, facts, reasoning that have to be
true
Ethical Theories (Ch.3 –
not on midterm):
Ethical Theories:
-
Provides
us with standards that are universalized, and are objective
and are supremely authoritative or overriding
-
Provide
evidence/proof
We will be looking at about 7
different theories, not all theories will be successful and
are plausible.
Intro to the Religion ethical
theory:
-
Provides
a standard, and a strong set of rules that are objective
-
Do
not confuse with conventionalism
Arguments towards religious
based ethics:
-
The
difficulty with religious based ethics is if you have already
accepted the authority of your religion – no natural reason
and public experience by definition
Midterm:
-
Content:
from chapters 1 and 2
-
Format:
3 parts (Part 1+2 worth 25% each and are choiced questions,
Part 3 worth 50% and is mandatory)
-
Part
1: will contain definitions to define
Ex: “Define ethical egoism” “How is moral subjectivism
different from conventionalism?”
-
Part
2: will contain small and simple scenarios that are shorter
and more clearer than part 3
-
Part
3: A case study question - Should spend roughly 30 minutes on
this question
-
Ex:
“How would a legalist solve this case” with reasoning why this
theory could be applied to this case
-
Will
be asked how we would solve the case using our own views by
forming a good argument
Difference between ethical theories and
theories about ethics:
·
Theories About Ethics:
claim to give us ways to arrive at an ethical principal. They
aspire to be ethical principles but fail due to not meeting the
requirements (as outlined in chapter one of text)
·
Ethical Theory: These
are the theories that succeed at meeting the requirements.
However, not all ethical theories can be true, some have to be
stronger and more plausible than others.
Ethical Egoism
·
Is a theory that promotes
self interest and about what you ought to do – you ought to act
in a way that promotes self interest; what makes this theory
ethical is the part about what you ought to do
Psychological Egoism
·
Matter of psychological
fact on how people behave; people will always behave in a way to
try and maximize self interest. This fact does not tell you how
you ought to behave, however, t is giving you evidence for
ethical egoism
Conducting a good agreement
·
An argument is a series
of statements to make you believe other statements – it has an
ending, it is you trying to get others to believe what you want
them to believe
·
To go about proving
things you need to get good evidence to support your argument
·
There are 2 things you
need to make a good argument
Ø 1)
Your reasons have to be true (evidence and facts); if they are
not true it will not be a good argument
Ø 2)
Good reasoning – reasons that provide you with sufficient
evidence that are relevant to the subject. With sufficient
evidence there are low and high degrees of it, you want to be on
the high side of it when making an agreement.
Ø Ex)
All swans are white because I saw swans at the zoo and they were
all white à
This is true and relevant but does not have sufficient evidence.
Saying that you have seen 1000 swans and they were all white is
better, saying there is no documented sightings of swans of any
other color is even better
·
When making a good
argument this is also true about ethical theories ; do these
statements overcome doubt, do they have enough evidence.
Why believe Ethical Egoism
·
Statement 1) “Only I can
look out for myself because I want to survive”
Ø What
if you are a child or an older adult, then you would want others
looking out for you for your survival
·
Statement 2) “And if I want to survive
and if the only way
to survive is to pursue self interest then you ought to do it,
therefore you act in this way”
Ø If
we do no know if this is true then these reasons are weak
·
If both statements are
true then egoism is probably true, only if they are true;
egoism could be true but not because of these statements –
sometimes you think you have a good argument until you spell it
out
·
Even if these reasons are
true for yourself,
the reasons need to be universal in order to be true
·
Reasons you might adopt
this:
Ø You
don’t really have a choice
Ø If
psychological egoist – they say this is a fact, you are wired
this way, therefore you don’t get a choice
Ø Have
to ask if these reasons are plausible
Ø Ex:
Lincoln and the Pigs; Lincoln saved the pigs in order to feel
peace of mind ( did it out of self interest)
·
When is comes down to
action, what gives you the motive?
·
If psychological egoism
is true then that means that ethical egoism is true- to have
pleasure or to avoid pain?
·
Do you always get
pleasure when you do what you want?
Ø Sometimes
you differ pleasure to get greater pleasure ; you may not get a
lot of pleasure while studying but you do if you get good grades
·
“I only wanted pleasure
when I acted”
Ø you
can have other motives for your choice of action such as love,
duty, going on a whim, so this statement is false.
Ø Action
is NOT always for means of pleasure, yes sometimes we do but
this but it is not always the case
Ø Even
though you are not experiencing pleasure in every action, you
think you’ll have greater pleasure down the road, however, we
cannot guarantee this is going to happen because we cannot
predict the future, so we do not always act in a way of self
interest but hope it
will be
Ethical Principles
·
These are true
everywhere- they are universal
·
Ethical theories provide
ethical principles which should be true for most people
everywhere and sometimes ethics should take priority over the
law (law in general describe what people must do most of the
time).
·
When looking at ethical
theories they have to be universal and sometimes challenge the
law
Is Ethical Egoism Universal?
·
What would happen if your
self interest conflicts with someone else? If you encourage
other people to pursue self interest will that conflict with
you?
·
As a good egoist and you
believing it is a good theory then you go and tell everyone else
to become one. What would happen if you both want the same
thing? Who would give in? would you wat competitors or people to
go for their self interest even if it conflicts yours?
·
Could you universalize
Ethical Egoism?- if everyone in the world was one then there
would most likely be conflict but you do not want conflict, you
want to get the most possible, therefore not everyone
should be an ethical egoist
·
You cannot universalize
it because then it would go against your own interest
·
Ethical theories have to
be universal and if they are not then they cannot be ethical
theories, therefore Ethical Egoism is not an ethical theory, it
is a theory about ethics.
Ethical
Theories
·
Providing us standers of
acting rightly
·
They are universal and
tells you what you ought to do even if it is against what
society wants you to do
·
If universal – they are not
subjective and conventionalist, they are objective ;
just like laws of since are objective
·
If offer universal
principles then they have to be objective
Religion
·
is an ethical theory
because it is a standard.
·
It says here is a
standard and a strong sense it is for everyone.
·
Has a sense of you don’t
have to believe it but you’re wrong ; the groups knows people
might not follow them but tell you that you should.
·
Buddha – what he said
does not just apply to the people from thousands of years ago,
it still is applying to people of today
·
There are truths that are
objective even if people don’t believe of follow, religion tells
you things that are true and if you do not believe them the are
still true – it was always true and then you have special
profits that come and pass the information along. These are
truths even before no one knew it and would still be true even
if no one was living on earth
Religion Based Ethics
·
They apply to people who
are already members of the group and to everyone else, however they may not
know so you have to tell them
·
The difficult part:
unless you already except something about this religion you
probably will not believe these truths
·
Has authority over people
who belong to the group but generally open to other people
joining; but if not already part of it, the question is why
should I join?
·
Philosophical Ethics-
says if you have a reason and experience then you can know it is
true; Religion Based Ethics does not say this.
Ø Religion
based has special people who receive the information and then
pass it along to the rest of the people. Not everyone already
knows this information naturally
Ø Ex:
Buddha had insight on nature of reality but did not get their on
own. Philosophical Ethics says if you think long and hard enough
you can get the information on your own
·
Religion Advantage: has
objective in strong sense
·
Religion Disadvantage:
hard to get people to believe if they do not already belong
Midterm
·
The midterm will consist
of 3 parts ; Part 3 will be worth 50% of your mark, part 1 and 2
will be worth about ¼
·
The midterm will only be
on chapter 1 and 2
·
Will have 1 hour and 30
minutes to write
·
If you answer the reading
questions in the chapters you’ll have fewer problems with the
questions than if you cannot
·
Part 3 : will deal with a
case we have not seen yet. First you have to figure out what the
ethical dilemma is. It will give you 2 or 3 theories of ethics –
you will say what these theories are and then describe how they
would solve the case. You have to assume these theories are
intelligent and think of their “good” reasons as to as to why
you would believe them. You then will describe how you yourself
would solve this case ( not using any theories), what you come
up with will probably be philosophical and about what every
other person could follow. For both theories and your own way
you have to come up with reasons why you would do it this way
and you have to solve the case. Should take about 30 minutes to
answer question
·
Part 1: will have choice
from several questions. These questions are more focused on
understanding concepts, example define ethical egoist or moral
subjectivism, or how does moral subjectivism differ from
conventionalism? ;
explain what concepts mean and comparing them
·
Part 2: you will be given
a scenario, ex; you are walking by park and you see someone who
needs help but you are own way to important meeting what would a
theory say (will be given the theory) and why- looking for
reasons and logical thinking to getting there.
October
26, 2017 Olivia
Harris
·
Ethics is not based on
philosophical reason/arguments, but on religion (practices,
texts). It is not a part of human reason and what we believe to
be right and wrong, but instead is based on information we're
given in scriptures, text, and culture.
·
example: "do unto others
as you would have them do unto you"
·
Why should you do certain
things?
·
punishment , if you
disobey
·
rewards, if you obey
·
The rules which we follow
come from scripture, which is from a person of faith, and
ultimately comes from God.
·
God commands what we do
·
"Thou shalt not kill" -
similar to the "divine command theory" (monotheism)
1.
the standard of
right/wrong is what God commands/wills
·
could God command
anything?
2.
Since God is unchanging,
this standard never changes
3.
If we follow this
standard, we will be happy/happier
·
There's a kind of order
in the universe - if there isn't any order, how can we do
anything?
·
We assume order when the
earth revolves around the sun.
·
Creates order,
consistency
·
God as a principle of
order & organization
·
Reasons for :
·
this is how morality in
fact began
·
we need God to preserve
universality and an authority of morality
·
It is believed that
everyone should always tell the truth. However, we often make
exceptions for ourselves, but feel that everyone else should
follow morality. If everyone makes exception though, then we
really have no truth.
·
If we were to take away
the power of the law, how would people behave? We have seen some
instances of this lately with natural disasters, such as the
flooding of Hurricane Harvey. People begin looting, and since
there is no one to uphold the law, not everyone follows it.
·
Religion says that in
order to enforce this, we need an external force
·
Communities where
religion isn't as strong, tend to have more problems, because
people do whatever they want.
·
We need stability, order.
·
Assumptions:
·
God (gods) is the source
of moral "goodness"
·
God (gods) is/are good
·
God wills only good
things OR whatever god wills is good (makes it good)
·
God commands love - why -
because whatever he commands is good - why - because he commands
it
·
There are strong and weak
versions of this theory
·
Strong: these religion
based ethics apply to everyone whether they believe in God or
not. It's like the law of gravity - it applies to you whether
you believe in gravity or not, and whether you like it or not.
·
Problems:
· has
no relevance for those who do not believe god exists
· religious
texts/scriptures itself are inconsistent - they can contradict
themselves, leading the person to not know whether something is
okay or not
· new
testament - Jesus set new moral standards which surpassed those
of old testament (eg. divorce)
·
Weak: It applies only to
the people who embrace that religion.
·
Problems:
· it
offers no definitive position or moral issues
· no
reason believers should ever change their opinion
· a
kind of legalism
· a
kind of relativism
·
there is no room for
conscience - you have to accept it whether you want to or not.
·
there's no definitive
answer on why things are right or wrong, all they can say is "in
our tradition it's right/wrong"
·
When living in a
pluralistic country or community, you can't accommodate all
religions, since there would ultimately be contradictions. Some
religions say to do no harm, where as others allow female
genital mutilation.
·
This theory may be
possible or more practical in a non-pluralistic community, where
there wouldn't be conflicts with other religions.
-
in this
sense ethics is not a matter of human reason but rather it is
given - acquired by one’s culture, family, and community
-
the
standard of right/wrong is what God commands/wills
-
why
follow the rules? God commands it
-
reasons
to support:
-
morality
began because of religion
-
we need
God to preserve universality and authority of morality
•
we tend to make exceptions for
ourselves in terms of right/wrong, however God serves as an
external authority to keep people in line and serve as an
all-seeing omnipotent force
•
this provides stability
-
assumptions
being made:
-
God is
good and is the source of moral goodness
-
God
wills only good things
-
Whatever
God wills is good
•
this can end up in a circular
argument:
-
God
commands love
-
Why?
Because love is good
-
Why is
love good? Because God commands it
-
strong
religion based ethics: applies to everyone whether they like
it or not / know it or not
-
weak
religion based ethics: applies only to those who believe
-
problems:
becomes a kind of relativism or legalism where it offers no
finite position on moral issues and no reason for believers to
ever change their opinion
•
ex. “In our tradition X
is right/wrong, but you may believe what you like”
-
has no
relevance for those who don’t believe God exists
-
there
are inconsistencies throughout the scriptures, for example the
New Testament offers new rules and moral standards
-
living
in a pluralistic society it is not always allowable to
accommodate everyone’s religious beliefs in a neutral public
space or where they contradict the laws of a society (ex. FGM)
-
rights based theory: one ought to act in a way that follows
and supports human rights
November 2 - Bethany Ettinger
Ethics is
designed to give you relevant information in order to
understand and apply principles and standards. It is a science
- Evaluating Ethical
Principles:
· You need to be clear about
what is being said
· Is it true?
· Is there sufficient
evidence?
Rights
Based Ethical Theories
- Rights are fundamental.
1) What is a right?
2) Where do they originate?
3) What are their limits?
*Other people
don’t become obstacles. An obligation not to interfere
· Right to freedom of thought
(Even racist ones?)
· Right to an education
(Access? Public only? Primary, Secondary? University? Free?)
· Right of mobility (Free
means of travel?)
· Right to free speech
· Right to security
· Right to vote (Citizen, age
limit?)
· Right to freedom of
discrimination
· Right to one’s self
· Right to life
· Right to health care
(Access?)
- Not all of these rights are
extremely clear. There are limits.
What is a
Right? What kinds are there?
· Human Rights; Simply
because we are human
· Legal Rights (positive)
What makes a
legal right? Where do they come from?
· The government (parliament
passing laws)
· The government can give it,
and they can take it away (The power, or right?)
Are we born
with human rights? Are they given by parents? A virtue of
experience?
Are there ANY
human rights?
- A Right is a power, or a
claim to power to act, and an obligation for others not to
interfere
*An obligation for others to
provide it??
Special care
for children;
· Do they have equal rights?
· Or more rights?
· Or fewer rights?
Conflicts
of Rights
- Babies with disabilities,
do they have a right to life? (Infanticide)
- An unborn fetus, do they
have a right to life? Security? VS a mother’s right to her
body (Abortion)
In health care,
there are limited resources. Who gets what?
A right to if? Conditions must be
met.
WHO
Case Study
Is property a
legal or a natural right?
- How did you acquire it?
- Did you buy it?
- Was it a gift?
The law is
involved (legal restrictions) and outs limits on property.
It can be a
natural right, but limited by the law
A natural
rights theorist believes it is their property and they can do
with it what they want.
*A conflict of
interest with property vs. life
- Do you own your talents?
(Can people can force you to use them? Maybe to help others?)
If evidence is weak, principles
must be sought out elsewhere.
It is not clear hoe to deal
with conflicts of rights.
Consequentialism
- Look at the consequences.
Are they valid?
(Do our actions create positive
consequences? It determines the value of the action.)
- What makes a good act good?
Look at the consequences. What would produce the greatest
amount of happiness for the largest number of people. (Theory
of Utility)
- What should I do that can
produce the most happiness?
But what IS happiness? Pleasure
and absence of pain
Conflicts of
definition/requirements of happiness.
November 2, 2017 - Cerdia Duvalier
Continuation of
Chapter 3 Notes…..
The
study of Ethics is not designed to make you ethical, but to
provide you with
information relative to ethics.
How
do we evaluate Ethical principles?
Criteria
that needs to be met:
1)
The
principle needs to be clear.
2)
The
principle needs to be true.
3)
There
needs to be good and sufficient evidence supporting the
principle.
What
are Rights-based Ethical theories?
Ethical
theories that say presumably that rights are fundamental.
Right
to Freedom of:
-Thought
-Speech
-Health
Care (Right to access health care without any interference)
-Voting
(Necessary to meet criteria: Canadian citizen, resident of
Canada, 18 y/o)
-Discrimination
(Based on sexual orientation, race, gender, religion etc)
-Life
-One’s
own body
-Education
(Right to access primary education free of charge)
-Security
of oneself (Right to be free from injury)
What
is a Right?
A
right is a right that all human beings have simply because
we are human beings.
Rights
are categorized as either Natural/Human rights or Legal
(positive) rights.
Example
of Natural Rights:
-Right
to Freedom of Life
Example
of Legal Rights:
-Right
to Freedom of Voting
Example
of Both Natural and Legal Right:
-Right
to Freedom of Discrimination
Legal
Rights come from Parliament; The law. The law gives you
these rights, and also
has the ability to take them away from you.
You
are born with human rights.
Power
= A right.
Therefore,
a right may be power to act on an obligation for others not
to interfere.
The
conflict of rights:
The
question on whether or not right are Conditional
or Absolute.
Example:
Is property a Legal right or Natural right?
It
is a legal right because property is acquired.
It
is also a natural right because, even when property is
acquired, it is limited
by the law.
Case
Study:
According
to the most recent estimates from the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the
Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, approximately 35
million people
around the world have HIV….
The
Chemists discover that they can produce only a limited
supply of the drug on
their own and decide that they will provide it to family
members and friends.
When some critics object the researchers replied that the
drug is their
property; that they have a right to it and so they can sell,
license or
distribute it – or not – however they wish.
What
is the ethical issue here?
A
limited supply of an antiviral drug has been created by this
group of Chemists
that can treat HIV. However, instead of giving it to the
general public the
Chemists decides to keep the supply for themselves, their
family and friends.
So, more deaths of HIV/AIDS will occur because these
patients won’t be able to
receive the antiviral created to treat the disease.
Ethically,
what are the rights in this case?
-Right
to Freedom of Life: to not be hindered in living; to be
given what one needs to
live.
What
is the conflict of rights in this case?
Legally,
the antiviral drug is the property of
the Chemists; meaning they are free to do as they please
with the drug. However,
those infected with HIV still have
the natural right to life and acquiring this antiviral drug
would ensure that
their lives are sustained.
Consequentialism:
If
an act (right) is good then its consequences would produce
more happiness that
the other consequences.
If
this act produces more happiness, then this act is what one
should/ought to do.
OR
If
this act produces the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest number of
people, then this act is what on should/ought to do.
The
conflict here is then what exactly is Happiness?
Especially when it is considered that the idea of happiness
varies from person
to person.
Happiness is the
pleasure and/or absence of pain. Can also be referred to as
Hedonism.
What
makes a right right, or an act good is its utility to the
greatest number of
people.
Utility meaning
the right/act effects are positive. This principle of
Utility is what is used
to solve conflicts about whether a right/act is good or not.
November
9 - class cancelled due to illness
November 16 - Leah Jones
Consequentialism
· Standard for right and right?
o
Look at consequences/results
o
Standard for right action is greatest happiness
for greatest number
§ Whose happiness? Self/others/all affected by
actions
· Principle of utility: based on human nature/what
motivates humans (pleasure and freedom from pain
· Utilitarianism: greatest amount of pleasure for
the greatest amount of happiness
· What is happiness?
o
Pleasure Ex. serving others
§ Human nature (all sentient beings) is to seek pleasure short and
long term
§ For direct purpose or consequence
o
Absence of pain
o
Sentient brings all have these factors of
happiness in common
o
Any distinction seems arbitrary or unjustified
·
Theory applies to humans but all sentient beings
involved in outcome
·
What is pleasure?
o
A feeling
o
Differ in quantity
(home much)
§ Ex. relationship vs. smell of coffee
o
Differ in quality
§ Ex. helping people/ relationships
vary in quality
§ May be more important that
quantity
o
Determines quality or quantity of practice
o
Humans and animals experience different pleasures
o
Problem with quantity/quality
§ Subjective
·
Experience
o
Pleasure rooted in experience
§ Through self or ask others who have experienced
§ Basis for accepting Consequentialism
·
Contentment
o
What
makes you content?
o
Less
satisfaction than happiness
o
Mill:
better to be a pig satisfied and Socrates dissatisfied
·
Greatest
happiness for greatest number
o
How
much should an individual be accounted for? EQUAL to all
§ Underlying equality in utilitarianism
o
Utilitarianism
requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested
and benevolent spectator
o
In the
with “the golden rule”
o
Quality
of input may determine how much accounted for
o
What
promotes greatest happiness?
§ Equality
§ Difference (in distribution of “points”)
o
**Case
of utilitarian dilemma on page 65
·
Challenges
o
Will
people be disposed to adapt this theory
o
Is
there any evidence of argument for the truth
Nov 16th -Tiffanie Blouin
Consequentialism:
Its an ethical theory or a set of theories-
that state the morality or normative ethical force of an action
is determined by its consequences.
-So, what is the standard for determining
right or wrong?
-Do I have the right to do something? How do
we know if the action is right or wrong?
-We have to look at the possible consequences
for our actions
-Right space theory- this do I have the right
to do this?
-What make’s right acts right? The greatest
happiness principle (principle of utility)
-The principle states that “actions are right
in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, they are wrong
when they promote unhappiness”
-Pleasure in the absence of pain
-Consequentialism deals with happiness, will
the action about to be preformed make that person happy.
-Does it increase happiness overall, or
decrease it overall
-What will produce the greatest happiness in
the greatest number, the happiness is promoted by not just the
happiness of one person but of a cumulative happiness of
everyone
-So what is happiness? pleasure is at the
root of all happiness. Its human nature to seek our own
happiness and to be absent from pain.
-The common motivator for all animals is
pleasure and avoidance from pain (all human naturally seek this)
-So why should human happiness and pleasure
be more important then animals pleasure? (we have to take animal
suffering into account as well-happiness in the greatest numbers
must include everything and not just humans) Any distinction
between humans and non-human beings is arbitrary
-What is pleasure? IS it a feeling, some
pleasures differ in quantity. Having a nice expensive meal may
be more pleasurable then eating at McDonalds. Drinking coffee
rather then smelling it gives us more pleasure
-Quantity-
How much happiness will be produce by the act?
-Quality-
ex. Helping others. Is it a better kind of happiness/pleasure.
Is being in a relationship better then just having a fling?
-Distinction-
look at both the quality and quantity of an act.
-Experience
- It’s a theory based on experience. It’s a
good basis for accepting a theory. When you are in doubt you ask
those who have previous experience on the matter.
-Contentment-
-What people want to do is to be content, but
in order to be content you have to be happy.
-Pigs and cows and other animals can be
content, so is only being content a means to happiness
-Its better to be human and experience both
happiness and sadness then it is to be an animal who can’t
experience these emotions.
-Consequentialism would say that contentment
is not the same as pleasure
Looking
at #’s
-When looking at the greatest happiness in
the greatest numbers. How much does each individual account for?
-Consequentialist would say that everyone
should account for the same amount because everyone is equal;
not one opinion is more important then another. Not everybody
will get what they want but the majority vote should win.
Equality and difference
-Consequentialism- would say that there has
to be a distribution when it comes to happiness.
-When you have a patient who needs a large
dose of a medication in order to survive should that dose be
given to that 1 patient who came first. Or should it be given to
the 5 patients who came in later but that 1 dose can save all of
them?
-Should we be allowed to harvest peoples
organ’s without their consent (when they are alive and healthy)
in order to save the lives of many? Should we look at the
greatest amount of happiness it will provide? Does this make it
right?
-What are the implications or this theory? If
the go against human rights and dignity then this theory has to
change. These implications don’t fit in with the morals
CHAPTER
FOUR
è What are values
è Bound code of ethics of
values (for
professionals)
è RN code of ethics – 7 values
-
Values are
not principles
-
Personal
values…. Family, honestly, loyalty, health, self-control,
privacy
Qualities of values
= what are desired values in themselves or means to
someone
-
If it has
specific qualities it is a value to you
Values
= always valuable in themselves… they don’t need
certain qualities
-
Values are things we desire
and view as
important often a mean for getting something else …
instrumental value
Example: Privacy as a value
-
Transcripts
are kept confidential in the systems. What if they were all
published?
SO, why is privacy important?
… it’s valuable because it’s a part of something else
--- respect, stigma,
outlooks
if it were public, people may treat you differently.
Privacy is a means
to preserve dignity and respect.
Privacy = not public
Confidential = not private
In
some cultures, the
ideas of privacy is very different.
Information may need to go through the husband to get
to the wife… that
may be a value to them.
Values
in themselves
-
Life =
(not valuable because it’s a mean for something else)
-
Health =
(sometimes a mean for something else)
(sometimes
just a value in itself)
INTRINISTIC VALUE IS NOT LIMITED
INSTRUMENTAL VALUE IS LIMITED
Dilemma
– conflict of
values (limited) ;;; instrumental
Example: health
Beneficence
--- lies @
bases for both types of values
----
primary value in
health care
·
Not intrinsic
·
Not absolute
b/c it
can be over ridden
PATERNALISM
Like
a “father”
----
interfering with
a person’s activities for their own good like a parent
figure
examples...
laws for
seatbelts, laws for drinking
Absolute
Paternalism =
no exceptions (strong)
Strong
vs weak
examples
STRONG
·
Dignity
·
“above life”
·
protect dignity
·
not putting a price on
things
WEAK
·
unsure around consent, so
you can make the
final decision
ex.
Unconscious… assumption (their own good)
Example:
Dignity
Intrinsic
–
nature/absolute… all beings have dignity, objective
…. Even if they don’t have dignity
sense of worth à losing dignity
… women in abusive relationships may lose sense of
self-worth but still
have dignity (objective)
-
Dignity is
not literal in the body, so how is it known?
Dignity
1.
A moral worth
which all human being perhaps uniquely among other beings on
this planet
2.
This
worth/value/ dignity is held in common
3.
Rooted in
their nature – part than it is a human person
Intrinsic
/ inherent
·
Can’t be gained and or lost
(ca be degraded)
·
Is not (just) given to
another
·
Objective characteristic
(ant be withheld)
·
Inherent value of the person
as person *does
not depend on how/what one feels
·
Distinguishes us from things
*must
not be degraded
·
Dignity is not something we
give
·
We can show someone dignity
or reinforce
dignity
è Showing respect for
someone’s dignity does not
always mean doing what they want. They may undermine their
own dignity
è Dignity does not vary on
capabilities
Self-worth
vs dignity
= not compatible but can go together and can be inconsistent
January 11th - Rachael Wood
Values
Somethings we value are
not, by definition, values. However they are valuable in
themselves. An example
is a Canadian twenty dollar bill we value it because it is
twenty dollars’
worth of goods in Canada, but to someone in the US it is
not.
Personal values vs
instrumental values
Personal values:
no limits
Instrumental values:
limits. Limiting values within other values
Values are subject to
change.
Dilemmas arise with
values such as conflict of values ie: a patient is refusing
to eat. What are
you to do? Beneficence vs autonomy
With conflicting values the
ideal way to solve the dilemma is to create a win, win
situation.
Beneficence: caring about the best interest of
others
Not and absolute value
because it can be overridden. An example is when a person
has a right to live
at risk or when you know what is in a person’s best interest
but they do not
want to do that.
Justice conflicts with
beneficence as well as respecting a person’s dignity.
Paternalism not being treated as an independent
person but having
someone look after you, or telling you what to do for your
own good,
interfereing with person’s activity for own good, assumes
people know what is
in their best interest,
Absolute vs weak
Absolute strong,
no exceptions violates dignity.
Weak limiting
circumstances, you don’t know if they have given consent, so
you do what is
best for them, even if they haven’t said.
Dignity
Dignity is something all
human beings have and it must be respected, even when they
are’t aware they
have dignity.
Dignity is considered to
be objective because it is something everyone always has
even if they question
its existence.
A sense of self-worth –
losing dignity in the subjective sense based on feelings.
This can come and go.
People have a problem
with this definition, so they suggest we get rid of dignity
all together,
however we cannot do this because it is impossible to remove
someone’s dignity,
not something we can find in the body.
Descriptors of dignity
-
Recognition of
value, and recognizing value is so great a price cannot be
put on it.
-
Based on what all
humans have in common
-
Cannot give
dignity
-
Cannot have more
dignity than someone else
-
Basis for human
rights.
-
Respect other’s
decisions even if you don’t agree with them
Recognizing Dignity:
·
Dignity is an
absolute worth that all human beings have simply because
they are human.
·
Dignity seems to
be understood as a subjective sense of self-worth. Some
believe that the term
dignity can be replaced by the word autonomy. It is the
latter sense of dignity
that people may speak of death with dignity. The former
refers to the quality
or worth which is possessed by all people including those
who are vulnerable
and unable to exercise autonomy. The latter expresses rather
a subjective sense
of individual independence that may come and go.
·
Kant argued that
each human being is self legislator giving moral law to
herself. Moral autonomy
is the basis of the dignity of human nature and of every
rational nature. This
makes each person worthy of respect. Gewirth has argued that
being a free agent
is the basis of morality, and whatever is the basis of
morality has dignity. It
is dignity that distinguishes human beings from things.
·
Dignity is the
basis for human rights.
·
People cannot
then
lose their dignity although they are sometimes treated by
others or even by
themselves as if they do not have it. No one can ethically
use another person
as a mere means to an end. People must treat one another as
ends in themselves.
·
Being a person is
often associated with the possession of certain functional
capacities or
characteristics such as intelligence, free will, having a
concept of the good
and being able to work towards the good, possessing the
ability to engage in
abstract reasoning, being aware of one’s self as a being who
exists over time
and possessing language and conscience.
·
If person is
defined in the preceding way then it would be allowable to
treat those who lack
some or all of these characteristics as beings that could be
treated as
commodities and mere means.
·
Many have argued
that no single characteristic is necessary to be a person. A
being that possess
dignity should be given respect.
·
Respect requires
at the very least having regard for the other person’s
interests before we act.
Even if that person has engaged in criminal actions we
cannot treat them how we
want. We may require that we treat that person in a positive
way but it does
not require you to agree with that person.
·
Self respect
restricts how we treat ourselves. Some have argued that we
also respect the
dead or non- human beings such as animals or the environment
etc.
·
In summary,
dignity is more than a subjective sense of self worth. It is
a quality of human
beings that is intrinsic, distinguishes human beings from
objects, limits how
one is to be treated, should be recognized by all human
beings including the
person concerned.
Being Just:
·
Justice is
defined
as “doing what is fair or giving what is due.” It is divided
into two kinds:
commutative and distributive justice.
·
Commutative
justice focuses on exchanges between two persons- for
example in making and keeping
contracts, borrowing, and the like. Here, the concern is
that there be fairness
or equality in the goods that the parties exchange, or
respect that one shows
for another.
·
Distributive
justice focuses on the distribution of goods and services,
but also of harms,
usually carried out by an authority or by the community. The
concern is that
such a distribution be fair, although there may be some
debate at what fair
means.
·
Social Justice is
best understood as a kind of distributive justice; it
concerns the distribution
of social benefits and burdens, in order to create or
promote equity or
equality, and to eliminate economic and social disparities.
·
There are two
ways
of approaching justice; having a fair process (called formal
or procedural
justice), and arriving at a fair outcome (called material or
substantive
justice).
·
A procedural
principle of justice holds that a result is just if and only
if it is the
product of a specific procedure. An example of this would be
considering a
hiring process, assuming the process is fair, the person
selected is the ‘best’
applicant by definition.
·
For a process to
be fair it should have the following characteristics or
values: the procedure
has to be explicit or transparent; people should know the
process and criteria
involved, those using the process need to be accountable;
take responsibility
for the decision or judgement arrived at, the procedure
should be free from
tampering or bias, and those participating in the procedure
have the right to
participate in determining the procedure in some way.
·
Material/substantive
justice:
each should be treated alike without discrimination or bias,
each
according to his or her need, each according to his or her
effort, each
according to personal merit or virtue, each according to his
or her rights, and
each according to whether society wants it (principle of
supply and demand).
January
25, 2018 - Dylan Shepherd
Essay
-
Ensure you
use the proper editions
-
6 paged
double spaced typed no more than that 1000-1500 words (no
more)
-
don’t
critique the author
-
find the
key points
-
What is he
looking for?
o
Ethics is
about providing reasons for decisions (i.e. giving
arguments)
o
The reason
must be clear/clearly stated, true and relevant (once we
know what they are
saying we can provide proof)
o
The reason
must also provide sufficient evidence (we then have to
decide if it relevant to
the argument
-
The
standard of reasonability e.g. a lawyer in a court
o
A lawyer
has to show that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is
guilty
o
When
deciding which essay, you pick look at if by the end of the
essay has the
author convinced a natural person of their conclusions
-
The Essay
should include the follow:
o
Identify
§ Thesis: we ought to oppose
the legalization of
cannabis to people under the age of 21
o
Explain
§ Define your terms
·
What exactly do you mean by
legalization?
·
What do you mean cannabis?
·
By legalization: not just
decriminalized but
controlled and regulated quality control, licensing of sales
o
Give
reasons
§ It is bad for you in all
kinds of ways
§ Bad for health (heart, lung,
brain development)
§ Risky (in operating
equipment)
§ It’s addictive (harder to
quit for younger
people)
o
Point out
connections
§ Logical
Connection/Assumptions
·
Hazardous materials should
not be available to
vulnerable populations
·
If something is addictive it
should be regulated
·
Young people lack good
judgement
-
The
structure of the Essay
o
Title Page
§ Name and student number
o
Beginning
§ Thesis: what the purpose of
the essay is
§ How you going to do it
§ Should be 1 page or
paragraph
o
Body
§ Key points
§ Key arguments
§ Be accurate
o
Conclusion
§ Cover the same material as
in intro
-
The MLA
style guide is on moodle
-
Grading
rubric on moodle
Justice
-
Issue of
Justice
o
How to
allocate medical resources
o
Medical
care needs more funding
-
Justice
means to give what is due (appropriate and due), this
however, doesn’t really
tell us what to do
-
Patterns
of Justice
o
Each
should be treated equally
o
Each
should be treated according to his/her needs
o
Each
should be treated according to his/her efforts
o
Each
should be treated according to personal merit or virtue
o
Each
should be treated according to his/her rights
o
Each
should be treated according to whether society wants it
-
These
patterns do not tell us what to do, in order to figure out
what we must do we
have to adapt a model
-
Justice
isn’t a matter of process it’s a matter of results
Autonomy
-
Not the
most important value because cannot always get what we want
-
Autonomy
doesn’t equal capacity
-
Capacity
means do they have the ability to carry out their lives, do
they have the
ability to manage their lives
-
There are
4-5 different views on what the term autonomy means, thus
autonomy is an
ambiguous term
-
To respect
my autonomy might mean to challenge my views
-
Just
because someone is autonomies doesn’t mean health care
professionals have to do
what they want
Jan. 25, 2018. Doug Simpson
Upcoming essay details are in Moodle. They include: instructions, guidelines, and how it will be graded.
The essay is to find the author’s argument and give clear reasons for that argument, including sufficient evidence about what the author is saying. For this essay do not provide a critical analysis, and do not give personal opinions or beliefs.
You must show the evidence is relevant to the topic and provides sufficient proof. If must convince you (as a neutral person) that the author has proven her thesis and conclusion. Pretend you are a lawyer and cross-examine the evidence, and ask yourself: are you convinced? What does the author want you to believe, and does she make you believe it?
Explain the author’s thesis, show the reasons given, and then explain the conclusion.
For this essay, just focus on the author’s key arguments, without the details. Make sure the In-Text citations have page numbers.
Lecture Notes for January 25, 2018
We continued our discussion on Justice in Healthcare.
Healthcare resources are limited, and there is not enough money, resources or staff. So how do we distribute the resources? Questions like these are issues of justice.
How we allocate resources can be based on such things as:
* quality of life
* health of the patient
* giving what is due
* what is deserved
There are lots of questions and solutions, but it is not easy. Governments have only so much money and other departments want their share. In healthcare, there are differences in hospitals, and regions vary in population. Healthcare workers must be aware of these challenges and be able to participate in the discussion.
Definitions of justice vary, so we need a decision-making process that is shown to be just. The process needs to be transparent and unbiased, and be just in itself. To aid the process we need to look at the results. For example, if treatment is quick, reliable and fair, and the results are good, then maybe it is just, but if the results and consequences are bad, then we may have to change the process.
Results are matters of substance and have to be assessed. If the results are skewed, then the process must be re-examined to see if it is working properly.
There are several principles or standards of material justice. The patterns that reflect these standards are:
-
Each should be treated alike or receive equal share
-
Each according to his or her need
-
Each according to his or her effort
-
Each according to personal merit or virtue
-
Each according to his or her rights
-
Each according to whether society wants it
To figure out if there is justice, we must decide what pattern or model to use, and which is appropriate. In addition, the process and consequences must be considered, and then we must weigh the benefits and burdens. Finally, we must decide which is most important, and why. In the end, we must be conscious that there may not be a solution.
The question must be asked: “Is there concrete justice in tough situations?” The answer is not clear - each case is different. The proper approach is to know the theories, get the facts, understand the circumstances, and decide the best you can. You must look at the process and the results. The model of justice depends on which theory you adopt, and not all theories fit each problem perfectly. Theories underlie the values, but values by themselves do not justify themselves.
Autonomy
Autonomy is more difficult to understand than we think, and it may not be the most important value. In ethics and in life, autonomy may not be a priority. Basically: “We can’t always get what we want”!
Autonomy is not easy to define, and it is not just managing your life. There are 4 or 5 definitions, and they are ambiguous.
Being autonomous does not guarantee that you will, or can, make good decisions. You should be challenged and be educated, as to the consequences of your autonomous actions, but this still does not guarantee that you will get what you want.
We must ask what is autonomy? Why is it important? Should I respect it, and why?
February 1st,
2018
Autonomy
What is a human person?
-A
person is a legal/religious/philosophical concept
(Sentient),
an individual, self conscious, rational, intelligent, free,
has the concept of the good, can plan to achieve that good.
A human
person has relationships and are social – friends, family,
society
Legal
capacity/ moral capacity
Legal
capacity is the ability to understand
Why is autonomy important?
Valuable?
-You
may want to have control
-It may
be safer. You may get a good result if there is control
(Consenquentialist). People tend to want control over
themselves.
-There
is a social contract where you may want to respect a person’s
autonomy.
-We are
human beings- it is an intrinsic value (dignity, deontolgist).
People have the right to the power to develop their autonomy.
-It is
the “Law”- the need to respect a persons autonomy because it
is the law. The law deserved respect and since autonomy is
respected and protected by the law means there may be an
ethical justification for it.
Autonomy
reflects the notion of the “atomistic self”
meaning that the person as an individual entirely distinct
from and independent of his or her relations or relationships
to others, and independent of any social or common good that
reflects human nature. However, if we understand human beings
as more social beings and connected to society as a whole,
there may be obligations and duties to others that limit what
one can rightly do.
There
are legal and ethical
limits
-Ethical
in regards to causing harm (physical or psychological) if not
respecting a persons autonomy
-It may
also be offensive: does not mean causing harm but offensive
things may make a person feel uneasy even if there is no
obvious harm
Feb 15 - Kayla Clark (version 1)
Autonomy
– different kinds.
·
Not all morally equivalent
·
The author of your own moral
life
Enhancing
Autonomy
·
Ways: emotional support &
counselling
·
Information & truthfulness
Providing
Information
·
Limits: responsible?
o
Age, harms to self/others, a
right to the information? (not a want)
Being
Truthful
·
A contested history
·
A prima facie obligation
(based on the first impression; accepted as correct until
proved otherwise).
·
But what is the dominant
value? (consequentialism, deontology, rights)
o
Don’t lie
o
Not the whole truth (mental
reservation)
o
Professional secrecy
o
Is it one’s place to tell the
truth?
Privacy & Confidentiality
·
Values, but not absolute
·
Confidentiality is related to,
but not the same as privacy.
Privacy
·
Freedom from unauthorized
intrusion
·
Keeping personal information
to ourselves
·
Remain anonymous
·
To be “left alone”
·
is privacy ethically
justifiable?
What
justifies the right to privacy?
·
Autonomy
·
Dignity
·
Utility
·
“right to security of the
person” is in Canada’s charter of rights and freedoms. Not
“right to privacy.”
Implies
a public/private distinction
· is this feasible?
Understood
differently in different cultures
·
individualism – most important
value is “me.” Privacy is limited only when it can be
demonstrated that there is a greater public need.
·
individual rights
Absolute?
· Personal communications,
sexual relationships, traveling… etc are not all private.
Communitarianism
·
Community unit = the most
important value
·
Only have rights if it
benefits the community
·
Community > individual
rights
Confidentiality
·
Discretion in keeping private
information private
·
Not disclosing or sharing
information
·
Ensuring that only those
people who need certain information to complete a transaction,
resolve questions, or for other professional reasons, can
access the information.
·
Need consent (implicit or
explicit)
o
Clear obligation – must be
true: promised or understood
o
Prima facie – may be true:
assumed or implicit (shared)
Arguments
for Confidentiality
·
Pros:
o
Hippocratic oath
o
Essential to trust
o
Part of our sense of dignity
and well-being
o
Basic right
o
Duty of professionals
o
Protect us from harm
o
Assessments of harm are
potentially unreliable
·
Cons:
o
Practically impossible
o
“degrees” of confidentiality
o
cultural differences
o
obligation to innocent third
parties – to prevent harm
How to
Decide? * judgement *not always
practical or desirable
Autonomy – different kinds
Not all morally equivalent
= the author of one’s own moral life
Some levels of autonomy
are more significant than others
Ex/ we have no problem
diminishing the autonomy of children à if child does not want to go to school, we still
make them go
Enhancing autonomy
Ways: emotional support, counseling
Information
Truthfulness
Providing information
Limits: responsible? [do they understand and are
willing to accept the consequences]
: age? [mental capacity and ability]
: harm to others/self
: a right to the information? (not want)
Being truthful
-
A
contested history
-
A
prima facie obligation [not an absolute duty] [prima facie-
“at first glance”]
-
BUT
what is the dominant value? (consequentialism, deontology,
right?)
Don’t lie
Not the whole truth (mental reservation)
Professional secrecy/ forensic investigation
Is it one’s place to tell the truth?
Privacy and
Confidentiality
-
Values
-
Absolute
values?
-confidentiality related
to- but should not be confused with- privacy
Privacy
1a: the quality or state
of being apart from company or observation;
b: freedom from authorized
intrusion
# keep our personal
information to ourselves
# remain anonymous or
unidentified with respect to personal and public activities,
if we choose (eg., exercise of public rights like freedom of
assembly, or private choices like our spending habits)
# live our lives without
being under surveillance (or watched) by other people
# conduct private
communications
# to be left alone, but as
consumers and as citizens
à we may want this, but is it ethically
justifiable?
What justifies privacy/
right to privacy?
-
Autonomy?
-
Dignity?
-
Utility?
In Canada no explicit
right to privacy
-
“a
right to security of the person”
Privacy:
-
implies
a public/ private distinction
o
is
this feasible?
-
Understood
differently in different cultures
-
Absolute?
o
Personal
communications?
o
Sexual
relationship?
o
Travel?
o
What
one reads?
Individualism (unique and
distinctive) - the most important value is me= rights
What justifies privacy/
right to privacy
-
Autonomy?
Confidentiality
1)
Discretion
in keeping private information (ie/ information about the
person him/herself) private
Or
Not
disclosing/ sharing information
And/or
2)
Ensuring
that only those individuals who need certain information to
complete a transaction, resolve questions, or for other
professional reasons, can access the information
3)
Under
conditions of consent- explicit or implicit
Clear obligation
-Must be true
that-acquired in a context where confidentiality has been
promised
-Must be true that-if a
person gives information to me, it is on the understanding
that I will not reveal it
vs Prima Facie Obligation
-May be true where I have
reason to believe that a person does not wish it to be shared
(implicit)
-May be true where I
acquire private information without any promise, but… (an
assumed obligation?)
Confidentiality varies in
degree
Arguments for
confidentiality
Pro:
-essential to trust/ a
fiduciary relation
-part of our (sense of)
dignity and personal well being
- a basic right
- it is an absolute duty
of certain professionals
- protect us from
harm (from people who might misuse the information)
- assessments of harm are
potentially unreliable
Con:
-practically impossible,
we have to be realistic
-there are ‘degrees’ of
respect and therefore degrees of confidentiality
-privacy is a cultural
construct (cultures differ), and so is confidentiality
-an obligation to innocent
third parties- to prevent harm to them
-an obligation to society
in general?
How do you decide?
-
Judgment
(practical wisdom)
Confidentiality
-obligation
- aspirational
-not always practical or
desirable
February 15, 2018 -- Krista
Maddison (version 3)
Autonomy (5
different senses) of the word autonomy
Ø Not all
morally equivalent
Ø The
author of one’s own moral life
1)
‘Not
being physically limited or psychologically constrained in
doing what one wishes.’
2)
‘Being
able to deliberate effectively about a situation.’
3)
‘Acting
authentically’
4)
‘Acting
in a morally reflective way, and objectively.’
5)
‘One
recognizes that the values that one has are the most rational
or objectively true.’
Enhancing
autonomy
Ø Emotional
support,
counseling, providing information, truthfulness
Ø Nurses
Code of Ethics does not talk a lot about truthfulness; only
mentioned once. Not mentioned at all in the Canadian Medical
Association Code of Ethics.
Providing
information
Ø Limits:
Responsible? Age? Harm to self/others? A right to information?
Being
Truthful
Ø A
contested history (I.e. history of health care- tends to not
tell the whole truth so that people do not get upset)
Ø Prima
Facie- at first glance; not an absolute duty (we’re under
assumption that their obligations are truthful)
What
is a dominant value?
Ø Don’t
lie
Ø Not the
whole truth (mental reservation)
Ø Professional
secrecy/
forensic investigation
Ø Is it
one’s place to tell the truth?
Based on the dominant value, it will tell
you how far to be truthful
Privacy
& Confidentiality
Case
Study: Confidentiality
Do physicians have a responsibility to
report violent crime that supersedes their obligations to
safeguard a patient’s privacy?
Ø Risk to
others
Ø Law to
report someone?
Ø Should
you give the name and chart to the police?
To what extent do we have to respect
patient consent and confidentiality?
Privacy and Confidentiality
Ø Basic
values, part of the Code of Ethics
Ø Not
absolute values
Ø Confidentiality
related
to- but should not be confused with privacy
Privacy-
restricting people from unauthorized intrusion (private space)
Ø The
quality or state of being apart from company or observation
Ø Keep
personal information to ourselves
Ø Remain
anonymous or unidentified with respect to certain personal and
public activities, if we choose
Ø Live our
lives without being under surveillance by other people
Ø Conduct
private communication
Ø To be
left alone, both as consumers and as citizens
We may want this privacy, but is it
ethically justifiable?
Ø Should
you share your sexual history? What about if you have HIV?
How can I justify privacy/right to privacy?
Ø To
maintain dignity? Autonomy? Utility?
Canadian Charter- does not declare a right
to privacy but “a right to security of the person.” The
government can therefore find out anything.
Privacy
Ø Implies
a public/privacy distinction- Is this feasible to talk about a
distinction between what is public and private?
Ø Understood
differently
in different cultures- individualism
Ø Individualism-
unique
and distinctive, the
most important value is the individual
My value is limited only when it can be
demonstrated that there is a greater public need.
Asian cultures- communitarianism; rights
that benefit society
Ø In
healthcare this is talked about as ‘the head of the family’
Ø The
person who speaks on behalf of the family makes the decisions
Ø Autonomy
is not the most important factor
Confidentiality-
Ethical obligation
Ø Discretion
in
keeping private information (i.e. information about the person
him/herself) private
Ø Not
disclosing/ sharing information
Ø Ensuring
that only those individuals who need certain information to
complete a transaction, resolve questions, or for other
professional reasons, can access the information
Ø Under
conditions of consent- explicit vs. implicit
Clear
obligations
Ø Must be
true that- acquired in a context where confidentiality has
been promised
Ø Must be
true that- if a person gives info to me, it is on the
understanding that I will not reveal it
Prima
facie Obligations
Ø May be
true where I have reason to believe that a person does not
wish it to be shared (implicit)
Ø May be
true where I acquire private information without any promise,
but… (an assumed obligation)
Ø I.e. if
working in the hospital and you see someone you know in the
waiting room, you have an assumed obligation to not tell that
information
Arguments
for Confidentiality
Values:
Ø Basic
right
Ø Protect
us from harm (people who might misuse information)
Ø Essential
for
trust between the nurse and patient- fiduciary relation
Ø Part of
our (sense of) dignity and personal well-being
Ø Assessments
of
harm are potentially unreliable
Is confidentiality practical?
Ø Violation
of
confidentiality to talk about a case even without a name being
given because it is such a small town and hospital that it is
easy to figure out who the person is
Cons
of Confidentiality
Ø Practically
impossible,
we have to be realistic
Ø There
are ‘degrees’ of respect and therefore degrees of
confidentiality
Ø Privacy
is a cultural construct (cultures differ)
Ø An
obligation to innocent third parties
Ø An
obligation to society
How do you decide?
Ø Judgement
(practical
wisdom)
Ø Obligation
Ø Aspirational
Ø Not
always protected or desirable
Ensure
dignity and autonomy of patients.
Integrity:
•
Introduction:
◦
Is both a value and a
virtue:
▪
Professional Value = How
one treats others and oneself in their profession.
▪
Virtue = One's own
character.
•
Definitions:
1. A
patient's wholeness in receiving care.
2. Following
the accepted moral norms as a professional:
◦
In this sense, it is
important to state that following accepted norms should not
involve blindly obeying orders and policies.
◦
What about the
professional's wholeness? (This is not explicitly addressed in
the CNA Code of Ethics).
•
Integrity is Closely
Related to:
◦
Autonomy –
Integrity enhances one's ability to be the author of their own
moral life.
▪
Deep autonomy involves
both the embracing of one's professional code of ethics and
their ability to take responsibility for their actions.
▪
One must be able to
recognize that their actions are either the “right” or “wrong”
thing to do.
▪
This should be practiced
with consistency and without ambiguity.
◦
Accountability –
Integrity is a fundamental element of being accountable.
▪
This involves standing up
for one's beliefs even when under pressure.
◦
Courage – One must
be prepared either to act or disagree to act if values are
imposed upon.
▪
It takes courage to
disagree with one's “duty” as this may involve a personal cost.
▪
This also has a close
relationship to “conscience” (see below).
•
Types of Integrity:
◦
Professional Integrity
= The commitment to the standards of one's profession:
▪
This involves more than
simply legality.
▪
One must consciously
adapt code into all aspects of life and subsequently take
responsibility for their actions.
◦
Personal Integrity
= Involves the wholeness of one's own character:
▪
Professional and personal
integrity cannot be separated because the nature of integrity
itself deals with the consistency of both types.
▪
There may be conflict
between both types, but ultimately there must be consistency.
▪
True integrity
presupposes the wholeness of
one's relationships with other both inside and outside of the
workplace.
•
When Personal Values
Conflict with Professional Obligations:
◦
Promises include personal
principles and values, as well as public and professional
obligations.
◦
There must be an openness
to change or at least the ability to engage differences in a
constructive manner.
◦
Some situations do not
have absolute ethical codes that can be determined in advance.
◦
Lonergan's Stance on
Integrity:
▪
One must be attentive
to the emotions and actions of oneself and others.
▪
One must display intelligence
in responding to differences by recognizing all possible
options.
▪
One must be reasonable
upon assessment and judgment of all situations/opinions:
•
This includes the
potential revision and/or flexibility of one's own values.
•
This goes deeper than
simply compromising or avoiding conflict.
▪
One must be responsible
for understanding and accepting their decisions and actions:
•
This includes being able
to order (prioritize) multiple obligations.
•
In order to prioritize
obligations, one must be able to identify their primary values.
•
Conscience:
◦
Acting in accordance to
conscience requires as much information as possible and careful
deliberation before coming to a conclusion.
◦
Personal integrity
provides that we act/refuse to act according to a compromise of
our values and principles:
▪
Conscientious
Objection = Refusal to act based on moral, ethical, or
religious beliefs.
•
This refusal cannot be
based simply on personal preferences.
•
Decisions are deeper than
strong feelings, and must be supported by relevance, as well as
a rational and sound argument.
•
Living Out Values VS.
Imposing Values:
◦
Integrity involves one
living out their values.
◦
Promoting value does not
necessarily mean imposing them upon others, however, doing this
may still have some ethical implications.
Integrity
·
Until
now we have discussed focus on how these values effect others
(responsibilities to others).
·
Integrity
however, focuses on your character or virtue.
·
Integrity
is understood in 2 aspects:
1.
Person’s
receiving care: wholeness and helping them become whole.
2.
Health
care professionals: consistency following accepted moral
norms. They cannot just follow orders; they must really
believe the values.
Integrity requires:
1.
Being
the author of one’s moral conduct (deep anatomy).
·
Choosing
what one is doing (not just following) after careful
deliberation
·
To be
principled and take responsibility for one’s conduct.
2.
Showing
that one acts on one’s “promises”/ obligations/commitments
·
In
relation to one's personal principles and values
·
In
relation to one’s public obligations
·
In
relation to one’s professional obligations
·
In a
way that is consistent.
3.
An
openness to engage differences constructively
·
Recognize
that in many situations the ethical thing is not always
obviously determined.
·
Showing
intelligence in responding to difference.
·
Showing
responsibility in assessment and judgment
·
Being
open to revision but NOT just compromising to avoid conflict
4.
This
allows us to ‘order’ multiple obligations to clients,
colleagues etc.
·
Sometimes
one obligation will take responsibility over another.
Summary:
Integrity means:
1.
To be
attentive (to self and others and the consequences of actions)
2.
To be
intelligent (considering all of the possibilities)
3.
To be
reasonable (don’t commit to a value just because – sometimes
there are exceptions).
4.
To be
responsible (not just following orders, taking responsibility
for your actions)
2 kinds of Integrity
1.
Professional
integrity: to stand up for
the ideals and standards of the profession. Not just following
orders, but consciously adapting and taking responsibility
2.
Personal
integrity: showing
responsibility and wholeness in all of ones relations to
others. Strictly speaking, there cannot be an inconsistency
from ones professional and personal integrity, there needs to
be a wholeness, and be consistent with each other
Violations of integrity:
·
Take
the patch of least resistance and do nothing
·
Say
they are just following policy/orders.
·
Respond
to pressure by not standing up for their beliefs and values.
·
Show
behaviour that is contrary to core professional and personal
values. (hypocrite).
Conscience
·
Professionals
have a right to conscientious objection which is based
off moral, ethical, or religious beliefs but not off personal
preferences.
·
Can’t
do such action and still be the type of person you are…
violates your conscience.
Imposing values/expressing
values:
3 options:
1.
Imposing
values
2.
Not
imposing values
3.
Not
“really” imposing values
March
8th 2018 - Tessa Smith
Conscience
-Is not considered a feeling in itself.
-A kind of ethical reason or principle that
gives the information I have found that is relevant to a
rational procedure. Therefore, I can in act in good
conscience… or not act in good conscience…
-Code of Ethics does not clearly define
conscience.
Integrity
-Involves:
· Being “true”.
· Being consistent to your beliefs.
· Treating others and self with
“wholeness” in both personal and professional life. Personal
integrity refers to the behavior and how we interact with
others. It is important to try to get your personal and
professional values to interact or fit to make a person
“whole”.
· Accountability-refers to a person’s
ability to take responsibility for their actions.
-Acting on what you believe
in is considered to be acting with integrity.
-Values mentioned in the
Code of Ethics as being part of having or possessing integrity
include:
· Soundness
· Consistency
· Trustworthiness
-It is important that your conscience fits
with your practice.
-The values a person has should be
consistent which makes a person more trustworthy.
“Imposing” or Having Values
-Three options which include: not
legitimate, legitimate, and not really imposing.
1.
When NOT Legitimate:
-Forcing someone to believe something (ex:
to adopt the speakers own values).
-Forcing someone to act in violation of
your conscience.
By forcing I include:
-Manipulating.
-Creating an environment in which there is
an undue unjustified influence to oblige them to accept it.
-Otherwise preventing someone from arriving
at a decision about a matter of conscience (or
self-determination).
2.
Legitimate When:
-Indicating/informing expected behavior
(not belief) in the workplace.
· Ex: (usually) Code of Ethics/professional
conduct or practice.
-Indicating expected behavior (not belief)
in society.
· Ex: law (usually).
-(Often) social convention/etiquette.
· Ex: rising when a judge enters the court
room.
-Ex: Expectations that I follow the values
or the standards of my profession.
-Provided that these values are
transparent.
-Provided that these values/standards are
rational (reasonable) or publicly justified.
-Provided that those affected have an
opportunity to discuss/influence these values/standards.
-Providing factual values challenges.
3.
NOT Really Imposing Values
-Having [believe in] certain values.
-Expressing my values (ex: about politics,
religion that it does not interfere with my work performance/
my work/ my performance of a service).
-Acting on my own values (within the limits
of the law and respect).
-Avoiding unnecessary contact with people
who don’t have or share my values.
-Invitations to others who share my values.
-[Outside the workplace, in the public
media], lobbying for my own values (including adverting and
persuading).
-[Outside in the workplace, in the public
media], trying to influence others to adopt my values.
-Even attempting influence by leaving out
alternatives [there may be another ethical problem here, but
it isn’t ‘imposing values’].
Ethical Distress and Ethical Failure
1.
Ethical problems are “not” necessarily
ethical dilemmas.
-Ethical
Dilemmas-where there are two or more equally
reasonable courses of action open to us, but no immediately
obvious way of determining what should be done.
-Ethical
Distress- when a person knows what she should do,
but lacks the personal or institutional resources to act or to
act effectively.
· Ex: Nursing staff on PCU at St. Martha’s
are constantly busy working on the unit.
Mental Illness and Disease
-Ethical failure due to a serious mental or
psychological disorder.
· Ex: the individual may not know who he is,
what he is doing, what or whom he is acting on, and sometimes
also what (what instrument) he is doing it with, and to what
end (ex: he may think his act will conduce to some one’s
safety) and so on.
-Mens Rea-the intention or knowledge
of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to
the action or conduct of the accused.
2.
Ethical Failure
a)
Moral Weakness- where one is competent, knows the right
thing to do, and does do it.
-Contrast with:
· “Self-controlled”.
· Morally strong.
· Self-Indulgent- when a person does not
worry about what is right and wrong, but does it anyway.
b)
Moral Cowardice- refusing what to do what is right out of
fear.
-Afraid it could inflict on you so a person
is afraid to do the right thing.
c)
Moral Blindness- a person does not “see” that a moral issue
is involved in a situation or does not “see” that what
he/she is doing is morally wrong.
· Ex: If one says ethical decisions are not
part or are medical decisions. All ethical decisions are
medical decisions.
d)
Factual Blindness and Ignorance- an inability or refusal to look at the
facts.
· Ex: People with eating disorders do not
understand that they are not overweight and continue to engage
in eating disorder behaviors.
e)
“Exceptionalism” and Selfishness
(“Practical Egoism)- acknowledges that there is a moral rule
about certain kinds of acts or behaviors, but makes an
exception about his or herself.
· Ex: A person may try to write the final
exam earlier than April 21st, so a student may say
“I already bought my plane ticket and it would cost more to
get a ticket later than the date of the exam”, to try to get
out of writing the exam on that date.
f)
Moral Indifference- lack of concern about the effects of
consequences their actions or the actions of others on a third
party.
· Ex: Taking the easiest route to make a
decision.
Licensing Parents
Arguments:
1.
Parenting is an activity that is risk
(presents a risk of harm to others).
2.
The government should restrict/license
activities that are risky.
3.
Therefore, the government should restrict
license parenting.
March 8,2018 - Brooke Noseworthy
Essay due April 16th,2018
Conscience
·
Conscience is combination of feelings of a person
and principle/ethical reasoning to back up their choices.
·
Conscience: reason + given information that is
relevant principle.
·
Conscience
cannot just be a feeling; the person has to explain with a
principle/value why they feel this way.
o
Eg. If I say that I don’t like being around a
certain patient. This is only considered a feeling, but there
is no reasoning/principle to why the person is objecting.
·
Conscience leads to integrity.
Integrity
·
Means being true to your values and principles
·
Being consistent with what you believe in
·
Wholeness: Personal life and Professional life
·
Integrity is the following of moral principles
(eg. Nursing code of ethics)
·
Integrity= trustworthiness + consistency +
wholeness
·
Includes being accountable.
Imposing Values
·
3 options: not legitimate, legitimate, not really
“imposing”
·
When not legitimate:
o
Forcing someone to believe in something (eg. To
adopt the speakers, own values)
o
Forcing someone to act in violation of their
conscience. (not just beliefs)
o
Forcing includes:
§ manipulating,
§ creating and environment in which there is an
undue, unjustified influences if oblique to accept.
§ Otherwise preventing someone from arriving at a
decision about a matter of conscience.
·
Legitimate when:
o
Indicating/ informing expected behavior in the
workplace (eg. Code of ethics/professional conduct)
o
Indicating expected behavior in society (eg. the
law)
o
Eg. Expectations/ standards of profession.
§ Provided that these values are transparent
§ Provided that these standards/values are rational
or publicly justified.
§ Provided that those affected have an opportunity
to discuss/influence these values/standard.
·
Not really imposing values
o
Having (believing in) certain values.
o
Expressing values (provided that it doesn’t
interfere with my world/ my performance at a service
o
Acting on my own values (within limits of law and
respect)
o
Avoiding unnecessary contact with people who
don’t share your values.
o
Invitations to others to share your value.
o
(outside the workplace, in public media) Lobbying
for your values.
o
(outside the workplace, in the public media)
Trying to influence others to adopt your values.
Ethical Distress and Ethical Failure
·
ethical dilemma – special kind of ethical
problem. Usually offers 2 options/choices.
·
Ethical problems are “not” necessarily an ethical
dilemma.
·
Ethical dilemma = where there seen to be two or
more equally reasonable courses of actions open to us, but no
immediately obvious way of determining what should be done.
·
Ethical distress: When a person knows what they
should do, but lacks the personal or institutional resources
to act or to act effectively.
·
Mental Illness and disease
o
Ethical failure due too serious mental or
psychological disorder. Eg. Period of psychosis.
·
Mens Rea: the intention or knowledge of
wrongdoing that constitutes the crime, as opposed to the
action or conduct of the accused.
·
Ethical Failure:
o
A) moral weakness: where one is competent, knows
what is the moral thing to do, and does not do it.
§ Contrast with: self-controlled, morally strong,
self-indulgent.
§ Self-indulgent: do not care if its right or
wrong. Not interested.
o
B) Moral Cowardice: people don’t do right things,
out of fear. People are afraid of consequences for doing the
right thing.
o
C) Moral Blindness: a person does not see that a
moral issue is involved in a situation, or does not see that
what they’re doing is morally wrong.
§ They don’t see what they’re doing is being wrong.
o
D) Factual blindness and ignorance: an inability
or refusal to look at the facts.
o
E) Exceptionalism and selfishness (practical
egoism): Acknowledges that there is a moral rule about certain
kinds of acts or behaviors, but makes an exception for our
self
o
F) Moral Indifference: lack of concern about the
effects or consequences of their actions or of the actions of
others in a third party.
What is expected of the essay due April 16th,2018
-
Present authors main arguments
-
Evaluate if it is considered a good argument.
-
Is author stating his argument clearly?
-
Is the evidence sufficient?
March 8th
2018 - Stephanie Robertson (version 2)
Contemporary arguments (Not new, but
present)
Licencing parents to have children –
procedure to filter whether people may/should be allowed to
have children.
-
Present the argument
-
Evaluate – determine a good argument.
Is author clear in points?
Evidence – sufficient, relevant?
Focus on key arguments, most important ones
(Pitfall in essays, some people wrote or spoke too much,
didn’t sum up most key arguments)
Finishing up what was talked about last
week:
Conscience – Conflict
ex/ abortion
medical aid in dying
What is conscience? Not defined in Code of
Ethics.
Conscience is not just a feeling, though
feelings may be relevant to it; ex/ “Feeling uneasy”
However to feel uneasy is not a matter of conscience.
Conscience = reason or principle + given
the info that is relevant
Therefore “I can” or “I cannot”.
Code doesn’t define conscience, though can
object based on conscience.
Fits w/ integrity; being true to values and
principles – being consistent to what you believe. A
“Wholeness”.
Code – respecting integrity of patients
(and self)
Soundness, consistency, trustworthiness
Accountability, willing to take
responsibility for actions.
Wholeness – personal and professional life;
an attempt to combine personal and professional values. Some
kind of consistency.
Disagreeing by conscience is not
reprimanded.
If ignore conscience, perhaps professional
standards, not integrity.
Perhaps one of the most important values.
Ideally consistent.
Imposing values
Not legitimate:
-
Forcing someone to believe something or act
in violation of beliefs and conscience.
Ex/ - manipulate
-
Create environment where undue influence
-
Otherwise preventing someone from arriving
at decision of matter of conscience (self determination)
Legitimate:
-
Indicating/informing expected behaviour in
workplace
Ex/ - codes of ethics/professional
conduct/practice
-
Indicating expected behaviour in society
(ex/ Law)
-
Often social convention/etiquette (ex/
rising when a judge enters a courtroom)
-
Expected behaviour, fairly legitimate (ex/
expect follow values or standards of the profession, provided
values are transparent)
-
Provided values/standards are rational
(reasonable) or publicly just
-
Provided feedback – those affected have an
opportunity to discuss/influence standards
Not really imposing:
-
Having/believing in certain values
-
Expressing my values, provided it doesn’t
interfere with the workplace or performance of a service
-
Acting on my values (within law limits and
respect)
-
Avoiding unnecessary contact with people
who do not share my values
-
Invitations to others to share values
-
(outside the workplace, in the public
media) lobbying for values (Including advertising,
influencing)
-
(Outside the workplace, in public media)
trying to influence others to adopt (my) values
If one has values but never acts on
them, do they really have those values?
“acting on integrity doesn’t mean
everything will be great”
Ethical Distress and Ethical Failure
Dilemma – 2 options, cannot do both.
Ex/ case of plagiarism – report to Dean (0
tolerance) or investigate personally?
Not obvious what should be done.
Ethical problems (Not necessarily dilemma)
Dilemma – where two or more equally
reasonable courses of action, no immediate obvious way of
determining what should be done
Distress – when a person knows what she
should do but lacks the personal or institutional resources to
act effectively
Mental illness or disease; ethical failure
due to mental or psychological disorder
Mens rea – know and intend actions (vs. not
criminally responsible)
Reasons for Ethical Failure
a)
Morally weak – where one is competent,
knows what is the moral thing to do, and does not do it.
In contrast with: Self controlled, morally
strong
People in many cases fail in ethics from
moral weakness
b)
Moral cowardice – refusing to do what is
right, out of fear
c)
Moral blindness – a person does not see
that a moral issue is involved in a situation or does not see
that what they are doing is a bad thing.
ex/ difference between ethical issue vs
medical issue (use equipment on a patient or not) However
medical decisions are also supposed to be ethical. Every
medical decision is also an ethical decision.
d)
Factual blindness and ignorance – inability
to look at/refusal to look at facts
ex/ those with an eating disorder not believing they have one,
or not believing fact of how they actually look.
e)
“exceptionalism” and selfishness
(“practical egoism”) – acknowledges that there is a moral rule
about certain kinds of acts or behaviours, but makes an
exception for themselves.
f)
Moral indifference – lack of concern about
the effects or consequences of their actions or their actions
on a third party
(a kind of legalism?)
Ethical failures – reasons why people don’t
do what they ought to.
Argument – looking again at papers
What is the general form of the argument?
1.
Parenting is an activity that is risky. Ex/
presents risk of harm to others
2.
Government should restrict/license
activities that are risky
3.
Therefore the government should
restrict/license parenting
March 22
Essay Pointers:
-Do you agree/disagree
with the author’s statements. Identify underlying values of
the author
-What ethical principles
are involved? Ex. Consequentialism, deontology, etc.
-Do you or do you not
accept these values. Critique. Does the author give good/valid
reasoning?
Parental Licensing
Conclusion
-Parents (or potential
parents) ought to be licensed by the government
-Because government
regulates potentially harmful/risky activities
-Parenting is a
potentially harmful activity
Anticipated Theoretical
Objections
1.
People
do not need a license to speak or worship freely
2.
It
would require too much intrusion into the lives of sincere
applicants
3.
Licensing
processes are unreliable. Can we predict reasonably and
accurately whether people would maltreat their own children?
How can we predict this maltreatment if its never happened
before?
4.
Denying
a license to someone can severely inconvenience them and even
harm that person
5.
Available
competency tests are not 100% accurate
-Author wants licensing to
protect from harm
-He says intrusion into
people’s lives would not be substantial and that all of the
objections fail.
Practical Objections
1.
There
may not be, or we may not be able to discover, adequate
criteria of “a good parent.” He says we don’t need to distinct
what a good parent is, but rather find the BAD ones
2.
There
is no reliable way to predict who will maltreat their children
3.
Administrators
would unintentionally misuse that test
4.
Any
testing procedure will be intentionally abused
5.
We
could never adequately, reasonably, and fairly enforce such a
program
Authors driving
values/assumptions on what is important:
-Beneficence
-Autonomy (what can I/can
I not do?)
-Justice (just thing to
do, limitations on how people should be treated)
-To him, it’s more
important to reduce harm than autonomy
Principles related:
-Consequentialism
-Rights based ethics
-Deontology (how should
parents/children be treated?)
Violation of autonomy:
-Of the control of a woman
over her body
-Finds out who’s breaking
the rules by seeing who is pregnant
Violation of
privacy/family rights
-Reproduction is as
fundamental as speech and belief
-Distinction between
privileges and rights with privileges. We can restrict before
with rights. We don’t punish before, we punish when abused
Arguments:
1.
The
risk of harm in raising children is great. Not everyone has
competence. Abuse/neglect
2.
We
(already) regulate potentially harmful activities )ex.
Psychiatry, medicine, etc.)
Therefore, we (government)
should regulate having children