Module 3 Types of

Ethical Thoughts
 OBJECTIVES
After 3 hours of interactive learning session
the BSN 2 student nurses will be able to
acquire knowledge, beginning skills and
develop positive attitude on the concept,
types of ethical thoughts.
◦Specifically they will be able to:
 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. Discuss the Types of Ethical Thoughts
A. Deontological
B. Utilitarianism
C. Contractarian
D. Teleological
2. Identify the two versions of deontology, those of Immanuel Kant and W.
D. Ross.
A. Kantian Ethics
B. Ross Ethics
3. Differentiate the identified Actual/ prima-facie duty according to W.D.
Ross.
4. Discuss John Rawls’s theory of justice
5. Apply the types of ethical thoughts to bioethical issues.
Deontological Ethics
 Deontology
▪states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties
when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play.
▪means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another
individual or society because upholding one’s duty is what is
considered ethically correct.
▪For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a
friend and will follow the law. A person who adheres to
deontological theory will produce very consistent decisions since
they will be based on the individual’s set duties
 Deontology
❑It is this emphasis on duty that earns them the
name “deontological”, which is derived from the
Greek word “deon” for “duty” or “obligation”.
❑There are different versions of deontology. We
examine two of them, those of Immanuel Kant
and W. D. Ross.
1. Kantian Ethics
 KANTIAN ETHICS
➢Good Intentions come from Good Will
➢The use of Reason to inform Good will helps highlight your
Duty in any situation
➢Your duty can be role-based, but also based on categorical
imperatives.
➢You also need your reason to figure out if you are acting by
a universalisable maxim
2. ROSS ETHICS
 When is something our duty?
❑ Ross does not propose any general test of obligation like Kant’s
categorical imperative. Instead, Ross falls within the tradition of
“ethical intuitionism”. After a careful examination of the facts
surrounding a case, he believes that we then are able to intuit the
appropriate duty.
❑ Ross claims that our experience with such cases puts us in a
position to come to know our prima facie duties with the same
degree of certainty as when we grasp the mathematical truth that a
triangle has three angles.
❑Furthermore, according to Ross, our experience of many
individual cases puts us in a position to recognize the validity
of a general statement like “It is wrong to cause needless
pain.” We come to see such rules in much the same way that
we come to recognize the letter A after having seen it written or
printed in a variety of handwritings or typefaces.
 Application to Bioethics
In August 2000, conjoined twins, named Mary and Jodie
were born in a hospital in Manchester England. Their spines
were fused, and they had one heart and one pair of lungs
between them. Jodie, the stronger one, was providing blood
for her sister.
The prognosis was that without intervention, both girls would
die within six months. The only hope was an operation to
separate them. This would save Jodie, but Mary would die
immediately.
Thus, there were two options:
(a) Not intervene and see both babies die Or
(b) Intervene and save one life, Jodie.
❑What is the acceptable course of action?
 Application to Bioethics
❑In the example of Mary and Jodie, Ross would answer the
question of whether it is right or wrong to separate the twins by
first seeing which of the prima facie duties are applicable and,
in the event their is a conflict, examine the non-moral facts of
the case, and with these facts as background, weigh the duties
against one another.
❑In considering the case, the duties of non-malfeasance and
beneficence seems relevant and it is plausible to read them as
implying that their is an obligation to separate the twins.
 Deontology
▪Deontology contains many positive attributes, but it
also contains flaws. One flaw is that there is no
rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual’s
duties.
 Deontology
▪For instance, a businessperson may decide that it is
his/her duty to always be on time to meetings.
Although this appears to be something good, we do
not know why the person chose to make this his duty.
Question 1:

What do you think are the reasons for

this behavior?
 Deontology
❑Sometimes, a person’s duties are in conflict. For
instance, if the business person who must be on time
to meetings is running late, how is he/she supposed
to drive? Is speeding breaking his/her duty to society
to uphold the law, or is the businessperson supposed
to arrive at the meeting late, not fulfilling the duty to
be on time?
Question 2 & 3:
❑How would you rectify the conflicting obligations to
arrive at a clear ethically-correct resolution?
❑ Bring into play the consideration of the welfare of
others as a result of the business person’s decision.
Utilitarianism
 Utilitarianism
❑According to Utilitarianism, a person should perform
those action actions which conform to the Principle of
Utility.
❑The Principle of Utility says: a person should choose that
action which produce the greatest good for the greatest
number of people effected by the alternatives open to him.
❑ The rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by
the goodness or badness of the actions’ consequences,
not by the actions themselves.
 Utilitarianism
❑Because the morality of an action, according to
utilitarianism, rests on its consequences, utilitarianism is
called a “consequentialist theory of ethics.”
❑ There are different views as to wat make a
consequence good or bad.
❑According to the “classical” or “hedonistic” version, what
makes a consequence good or bad is its effect on
people’s happiness.
 Utilitarianism
❑Roughly, a consequence is bad if it reduces
happiness, good if it increases happiness.
❑Happiness, in turn, is understood to mean: an
increase in pleasure and/or decrease in pain
❑coz of the emphasis on happiness,
Utilitarianism is sometimes called “the greatest
happiness principal”.
 Application to Bioethics

❑Recalling the case of Mary and Jodie, according to

utilitarian, we need to decide which course of action will
produce the greatest good for the greatest number of
people effected by the action.
❑It is plausible to interpret utilitarianism as supporting
alternative (b). Surely it is better to save one life rather
than not.
Rawls’s theory of
justice
 Rawls’s theory of justice
❑The theory of justice formulated by the philosopher John Rawls can
be understood as attempting to combine the strengths of utilitarianism
and deontology while avoiding the weaknesses of each view.
❑For Rawls, the central task of government is to preserve and promote
the liberty and welfare of individuals. Thus, principals of justice are
needed to serve as standards for designing and evaluating social
institutions and practices.
❑Rawls’ position has direct relevance to such bioethical issues as who
should of access to health care, how donated organs should be
distributed, and who should pay for society’s medical costs.
 Principals of justice Rawls argues that there
are two fundamental principals of justice:
1. Each person is to has an equal right to the most
extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so
that they are both
◦a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged b)
◦b) attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
 Principles of justice
❑For Rawls, these two principles are taken to govern the distribution
of all social goods: liberty, property, wealth, and social privilege.
❑The first principal has priority. It guarantees a system of equal liberty
for all. The second principal governs the distribution of social goods
other than liberty.
❑Though Rawls’ overall position has relevance to individual medical
decisions, it’s most important application is to the social institutions
and practices of medical care and research.
Bioethical example:
Consent
❑According to Rawls’s principles it is wrong to exploit one
group of people or even one person for the benefit of others.
❑Thus, experiments in which people are forced to be subjects
or are tricked into participating are ruled out. • A person has a
right to decide what risks she is willing to take with her own
life and health. Thus, voluntary consent is required before
someone can legitimately become a research subject.
 Bioethical example
Health Care
❑The implication of Rawls position seems to be that everyone is
entitled to health care.
❑First, it could be argued that health is among the “primary
goods” that Rawls’s principals are designed to protect and
promote. (“Primary goods” are the rights, opportunities, powers,
wealth, and such that are both worth possessing in themselves
and are necessary to securing the more specific goods people
may want.)
❑Second, it could be argued that the inequalities of the health
care system can be justified only if those in most need can
benefit from them. Since this is not obviously the case with
the present system, Rawls’s principals seem to call for a
reform that would provide health care to those who are
unable to pay.
Teleological Ethics
References:
https://www.dsef.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/EthicalTheories.pdf
https://www.slideshare.net/lawrenceandre/c-immanuel-kant
https://www.slideshare.net/ericaearellano/bioethics-ppt-theoiries