Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, and euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, sexual ethics, and social ethics. Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an "applied ethical issue." First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical issue, since virtually everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of g un control would be an applied ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and against gun control.

The second requirement for in issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military, invol untary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic vs. socialistic business practices, public vs. private health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an important impact on society, they are n ot all moral issues. Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more univers ally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of is sues are often distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is immoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere social policy: it must be morally relevant as well.

In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion pr oduces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism it would be morally acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite c onclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of an issue. The solution to this stalemate is to consult several representative normative pri nciples on a given issue and see where the weight of the evidence lies.

NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES USED IN APPLIED ETHICAL DISCUSSIONS. Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism which mi ght focus only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on both side of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles which appeal to our duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:

o Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.

o Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.

o Principle of benevolence: help those in need.

o Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.

o Principle of harm: do not harm others.

o Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.

o Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.

o Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.

o Principle ofjustice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.

o Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.

The above principles represent the spectrum of traditional normative principles and are derived from specific consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories. The first two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist sin ce they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining principles are non-consequentialist and derive from duty-based and rights-based theories. The principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness derive from non-consequentialist duties we have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights derive from non-consequentialist moral rights.

An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical discussion. In 1982 a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a severely retarded baby. The infant, known as Baby Doe, also had its stomach disconnected fro m its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely retarded child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents' decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery derive from the infant's right to life and the principle of paternalism which s tipulates that we should pursue the best interests of others when they are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective surgery derive from the personal and social disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If Baby Doe survived, it s quality of life would have been poor and in any case it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent's perspective, Baby Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional and financial burden.

When examining both sides of the iss ue, the parents and the courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant given the poor quality of life it would endure. Second, t he status of Baby Doe's right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant's mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here involve s what is often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many applied ethical discussions.

Pregnancy And Childbirth

Pregnancy And Childbirth

If Pregnancy Is Something That Frightens You, It's Time To Convert Your Fear Into Joy. Ready To Give Birth To A Child? Is The New Status Hitting Your State Of Mind? Are You Still Scared To Undergo All The Pain That Your Best Friend Underwent Just A Few Days Back? Not Convinced With The Answers Given By The Experts?

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment