Teleological and Deontological ethic theories Ethical theories are often divided into two groups:

teleological and deontological theories. One standard way of drawing the teleological/deontological distinction is in terms of how moral theories specify the relation between the two central concepts of ethics: the good and the right.

The concept of the right is, roughly, the concept of

duty, the concept of which actions we ought to perform, which it would be wrong not to perform. The concept of the good (the target of the theory of value, or axiolology (Greek: axios = worthy; logos = study of)) is concerned with the morally good properties of human beings, as well as states such as pleasure, and the experience of beauty, both of which are thought to be intrinsically good things.

DEFINITION the study of evidences of design in nature a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in

nature a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature

It stresses the end result , goal or consequence of an

act as the determining factor of its rightness and wrongness. It is also called as consequential ethics the term teleology was invented in the eighteenth century to designate the search for evidence of god in purposes, goals, intelligence, and design manifest in nature.

HISTORY Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint

Anselm around 1000 AD, and later by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.

Plato - was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Plato's dialogues have been used to teach a range of

subjects, including philosophy, logic, ethics, rhetoric, and mathematics.

Aristotle - The key term of Aristotles teleology is the cause for the sake of which.

Aristotle is commonly considered the inventor of teleology, although the precise term originated in the eighteenth century. Aristotle discusses in several key texts (Physics, On the Soul, Metaphysics, Eudemian Ethics) the fact

that this has two different senses: aim and beneficiary.

Aristotle uses this distinction to show how natural things have both aims and are beneficiaries of their functions. A survey of other terms of Aristotles teleology, such as nature does nothing in vain, the terms

complete or perfect, as well as end and entelechy further show the specific orientation of Aristotles teleology, as do his use of axiological terms such as better and fine.

He considers nature itself as an internal principle of

change and as an end, and his teleological explanations focus on what is intrinsically good for natural substances themselves.

NATURE Teleology informs the study of ethics. Teleology provides a moral basis for the professional

ethics of medicine, as doctors are generally concerned with outcomes and must therefore know the telos of a given treatment paradigm

References: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199285306.001.0001/

acprof-9780199285303-chapter-2 Historical Background to the Interpretation of Aristotle's Teleology DOI:10.1093/0199285306.003.0002 Timbreza ( Reference Book )

Submitted by:Dave Eric P. Erosa Brendell John T. Roa

From the Greek words deon obligation/duty andlogos study of

THE STUDY OF DUTY or OBLIGATION

DEONTOLOGY Refers to the a general category of ethical or moral

theories that define right action in terms of duties and moral rules. Deontologists focus on the rightness of an act and not

on what results from the act.

Deontological ethics is opposed

to consequentialism, which defines the moral rightness of an action in terms of the consequences it brings about. Ex. an act of killing an innocent man is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent man, rather than because it deprives someone of future happiness and causes grief to a family.

Deontology maintains that the wrongness of actions is intrinsic, or resides in the kind of action that it is, rather than the consequences it brings about.

The two Classes of Duties(1) general obligations

this

includes lying, cheating, promise breaking, murdering, and torturing. (2) special obligations those obligations which derive from ones having made a promise, signed a contract, or as a result of occupying a social role such as being a teacher or doctor or a parent

There are three central questions that any deontological theory of ethics must answer.First, what is the content of duty? Which rules direct

us to morally right action?Second, why must we follow exactly those duties and

rules, and not others? That is, what grounds them or validates them as moral requirements?Third, what is the logic of these duties or rules? Can

their claims on us be delayed or defeated? Can they make conflicting claims on us?

Right action may end up being pleasant or

unpleasant for the agent, may meet with approval or condemnation from others, and may produce pleasure, riches, pain, or even go unnoticed.

Immanuel KantBORN: April 22,1724 DIED: February12,1804

a German philosopher Researched on Philosophy and Anthropology

The two forms of Categorical Imperative

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

A maxim in Kants theory is a plan of action, so here he gives us an ethical test for our intended actions, presumably to be used before we commit them.

The point of the test is that we ought to be able to endorse the universal acceptability of the plans or intentions behind our actions. We should not be partial to our plans simply because they are ours; they must be acceptable from any point of view. Maxims that cannot be universalized will produce logical contradiction or disharmony when they are run through the test of the categorical imperative.

The two forms of Categorical Imperative

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity [yours or another person's] never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end-in-itself.

This intrinsic value implies that humans ought

never to be valued as less significant than things that have merely instrumental value. Things of instrumental value are mere tools, and though they can be traded off with one another, they can never be more important than intrinsically valuable things. Significantly, all technology is in some sense a mere tool; no matter how many resources our society pours into technologies, the moral status of humans is supposed to trump the value of mere tools.

Sir William David RossBORN: April 15, 1877 DIED: May 5, 1971 A Scottish Philosopher best known for developing a pluralist, deontological f orm of intuitionist ethics

our moral duties are not universal and unconditional

constraints of universal practical reason. they are conditional or prima facie obligations to act

which arise out of the various relations in which we stand to others: neighbor, friend, parent, debtor, fellow citizen, and the like. It is through moral reflection that we apprehend these duties as being grounded in the nature of our situated relations.

Hans JonasBORN: May 10, 1903 DIED: February 5, 1993

A German Philosopher The Imperative of Responsibility

The Imperative of responsibility H.J was more concern over consequences in ways that

influence the content of duties. Since we can now radically change nature through technology, we must change our ethics to constrain that power.

Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life or so that they are not destructive of the future possibility of such life. There is no logical contradiction in preferring the well-being of the present generation to that of

future generations, or in allowing the extinction of the human species by despoiling the biosphere.

The imperative of responsibility, as a deontological ethic, differs from the ethics of Kant and Ross because it claims that we owe something to others who are not now alive. For Jonas, our rational nature or our particular, situated relations do not exhaustively define our duties. Indeed, we will never be in situated relationships with people in far-off generations, but our remoteness in time does not absolve us of responsibilities to them.

Sam Hendrick C. Amatong BSPharm-3A

OBJECTIVES: To define ethical relativism To comprehend various ethical decisions among

cultures and societies To note the proponents of the theory To determine the advantages and disadvantages of ethical relativism To emphasize the criticisms and contradictions of the theory To relate the theory in medical decision making.

WHAT IS ETHICAL RELATIVISM Also known as moral relativism, this ethical doctrine

claims that there are no universal or absolute moral principles accepted to all societies. Hence, standards of right and wrong are always relative to a particular culture, religion or society.

ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT ETHICAL RELATIVISM The Cultural Differences Argument The Argument from Respect The Psychological Argument

The Conformity Argument The Provability Argument

EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL RELATIVISMReligion -Polygamy marriage is morally accepted in Islam while Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations are strongly against such and strictly follow the monogamous relationship. -Seventh-day Adventist members prohibit the eating of pork (swine meat), while other Christian denominations found no violation on doing such.

EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL RELATIVISMRace -For Eskimos, abandoning their old folks and die in snow by starvation is morally good. The Filipinos, who are known to be a family-oriented group of people, cannot allow their old ones to die and in fact, willing to spend money for their survival. -African cultures have been considering from a long time that killing twins is a morally legitimate act, whereas it is considered violable and even punishable in our country.

EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL RELATIVISMNation/Society -Singapore, one of the most disciplined nations in Asia, already followed artificial reproductive health control, including the legalization of abortion. Filipinos, a nation of Christianized people, equate abortion as committing murder. -Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been known in implementing capital punishments, such as beheading a guilty suspect and buries the dead before the sun sets down. Philippine government already abolished the implementation of capital punishment (by Lethal Injection) and only follows reclusion perpetua (lifetime imprisonment)

In short, most acts exercised by various religions, races

and nations are actually conflicting/contradicting with each other. To the moral relativist, one would be considered too ambitious, if not arrogant, in claiming that one knows absolute and objective ethical principles that are true, valid and binding on all peoples.

HISTORY AND PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINEAncient We can detect an increasing awareness of diversity in cultural beliefs and habits foreshadowing relativism in Greek thought from fifth century BCE onwards. Herodotus (c 485430 BCE)-provides accounts of the variability of customs and habits in Persia and India and argues that if people were asked to name the best laws and customs, they would name their own for as Pindar had said, custom is the king of all

HISTORY AND PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINEEuripides (c. 485c. 406) - shocked his audiences when one 3of 28 of his characters, discussing incest with his sister, announces that no behavior is shameful if it did not appear so to those who practice it.

Protagoras of Abdera (c. 490420 BC) - is considered the first official voice of relativism when he proclaims: man is the measure (metron) of all things (chremata): of the things which are that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not.

HISTORY AND PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINEEuripides (c. 485c. 406) - shocked his audiences when one 3of 28 of his characters, discussing incest with his sister, announces that no behavior is shameful if it did not appear so to those who practice it.

Protagoras of Abdera (c. 490420 BC) - is considered the first official voice of relativism when he proclaims: man is the measure (metron) of all things (chremata): of the things which are that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not.

HISTORY AND PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINEModern Philosophies Michel de Montaigne (15331592) - whose work is the most significant link between the relativism and skepticism of the ancients and the various relativistic doctrines developed by modern philosophers. - he points out that that with changes in our bodily and emotional conditions one and the same judgment may appear true to us on one occasion and false on another; therefore no absolute truths on such matters exist.

HISTORY AND PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINEModern Philosophies Michel de Montaigne (15331592) - whose work is the most significant link between the relativism and skepticism of the ancients and the various relativistic doctrines developed by modern philosophers. - he points out that that with changes in our bodily and emotional conditions one and the same judgment may appear true to us on one occasion and false on another; therefore no absolute truths on such matters exist.

HISTORY AND PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINEModern Philosophies Wilhelm von Humboldt (17671835) - sees language as the medium through which the collective spirit of a people manifests itself. Language is, as it were, the outer appearance of the spirit of a people, the language is their spirit and the spirit their language; we can never think if them sufficiently as identical.

ADVANTAGES OF THE THEORY Ethical relativism is a doctrine that clearly imposes

protection and respect on the uniqueness of the practices of every culture or society. It provides a vast space for philosophical inquiry that the mind could unlock. From that vast space of inquiry, it enriches the persons mind to comprehend and understand the very diverse traditions and beliefs.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE THEORY Convicted in respecting and protecting various

traditions and acts among cultures, one cannot simply insist that his/her own way of life must be set as an example to everyone. And in decision-making, one cannot decide firmly based on his/her own reason or intellect of the will, but he/she must consider the cultural implications await due to the decisions made.

EXPEMPTIONS or CONTRADICTIONS TO THE THEORYThere are some acts of men in history in which explicitly verifies that relativism is not applicable at all times. The inhuman acts of Nazi Germany by Adolf Hitler all nations agreed that killing almost 6 million Jews is a heinous crime. Assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr. how can you defend that he deserves to die that way?

ETHICAL RELATIVISM in BIOETHICSPertaining to the disadvantages stated, a health care provider should be knowledgeable that: Assuming generally the patients cultural background is morally wrong. Asking the patient or the relatives around is the best way. Despite of the best therapeutic outcome, you cannot simply insist of your own medical treatment, one of the postulates in morality says, you can always have a choice find the best alternative. If you cant beat them, join them!

THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING!

HISTORY Charles Peirce (1839-1914) and William Attributed toJames (1842-1910). WILLIAM JAMES- earned a medical degree from Cambridge and taught anatomy and physiology at Harvard in 1873. - better known as a psychologist and a philosopher. CHARLES PEIRCE- was a philosopher, physicist, mathematician. - Founder and inventor of the term Pragmatism.

Charles Peirce

William James

Pragmatism has been Americas most distinctive and

major contribution to the world of Philosophy. Pragmatism is more of a theory of knowledge, truth,

and meaning than of morality.

As an epistemological view, pragmatism holds that the true and valid form of knowledge is one which is practical, workable, beneficial, and useful. PRACTICAL- It is one that we can practice, and it

produces practical results. WORKABLE- It is one that we can put to work, it can be worked out. BENEFICIAL- It benefits people. USEFUL- It is one that can be used to attain good results.

The workability, practicability, or usefulness of an idea

is the criterion of true knowledge for the pragmatism. It is TRUE if the idea works or brings forth good results. It is inconsequential if an idea is devoid of results. Hence, MEANINGLESS.

Elucidating his point on the subject, James explains: Truth happens to an idea; it becomes true and is

made true by events. Its verity is, in fact, an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation.

TRUTHEXPERIENCE PROVIDE WORKABLE GUIDES

TO PRACTICAL BEHAVIOR

In the process of pragmatisms development and application not only as a theory of knowledge but as a methodology as well, it has assumed several forms. PRAGMATISM a.k.a Experimentalism That the truth must always be verified and tested by EXPERIMENT.

The latter determines the truth or falsity of an idea.

Pragmatism becomes an experimental method, a

process of verifying and validating the verity of truth. Also known as INSTRUMENTALISM Since ideas are also instruments of action and tools for solving problems (John Dewey)

If ideas prove to be effective instruments, they are

TRUE. Otherwise, they are false. Thinking is an instrument- we think and judge for a purpose.

Deweys Theory is referred to as

RECONSTRUCTIONISM insofar as ideas are instruments in reconstructing experiences. Deweys interpretation of pragmatism also assumes the name of progressivism, precisely insofar as ideas are true if and when they help an individual progress, grow, and develop intellectually, as well as morally through his own experience and self-activity.

APPLICATION IN MEDICAL CONTEXT VIEW: Truth happens to ideas and is not a quality or

property of ideas. Truth is made true by events or happenings. QUESTION: How can we know, for instance, whether

or not the idea that Sprite tastes good is true?

This way of viewing truth bears a startling significance

on therapeutic and nontherapeutic research, e.g DRUG TESTING. To test the effectiveness or toxicity of a particular drug, testing it on consenting patients must be done.

To be able to determine which contraceptive method is the most effective and reliable one, family planning personnel and couples themselves may gauge it from the consequences or results of each method. A survey may conducted among contraceptive pill users as well as those who use other techniques. Family planning centers and clinics have been engaging in these procedures and activities.

The pragmatists consideration of the practicality,

usefulness, workability, and beneficiality of the true and valid nature of knowledge can render a desperately needed service to bioethics by providing a means for settling moral disputes. With regard to the use of placebos in drug testing, for example, or the practice of using humans in medical experimentation.

One may notice that pragmatism, though, primarily a

theory of truth or knowledge, may prove to be an effective method of justifying ones moral decisions. Moreover, in the light of the pragmatic theory of truth we can also argue whether a particular act or moral judgements is right or wrong, legitimate or not, by considering its practical usefulness and beneficiality to the patient.

On Divorce: Is it more workable and beneficial for both husband

and wife to dissolve their marriage for the sake of their own children, who have been greatly psychologically affected by their horrendous and violent quarrels? For most Americans, it is most pragmatic and realistic thing to do under given circumstances.

On Abortion: Would it rather be more humane and beneficial for a

grossly deformed fetus to be aborted now than to let it see the light of day only to suffer and live a life of unbearable misery?

Let us analyze how it would appear if we say for

instance: GOOD HAPPENS TO AN ACT, IT BECOMES GOOD AND IS MADE GOOD BY EVENTS. The act may be either a moral decision or a judgement. The happening or event that it renders to a patient, for example, or that the latter feels experiences as a result of the decision or act undertaken, attests to its being good or bad, as the case may be.

Suppose a doctor says:The injection of this chemical compound is good for one who is having an insulin attack.The inoculation of cowpox virus will immunize a person from smallpox.

QUESTION: Does the act of injection make a

difference to the patients? If it does , then the statement is true and the moral decision made is validated. If it does not, the statement is false and that renders the decision is bad.

It is clear that the pronouncements as such are

morally indifferent or neutral, neither good or bad, right or wrong depends upon the HAPPENING, the difference it makes to the patient.

Fernandez, Benjamin Francis III P.

JOSEPH FLETCHER Strong advocate of Situation Ethics An American Protestant, medical doctor and author

of Situation Ethics: The New Morality (1966) Mentioned three approaches to morality- Legalism, antinomianism and situationism.

3 APPROACHES TO MORALITY:1. LEGALISM: refers to the general moral

prescription and norms which to judge the rightness of human decisions. However, he considered it as too restrictive and

inadequate for the complexity of situations in which one finds oneself.

2. ANTINOMIANISM: frees the Christian from the obligations of moral law in which case were no absolute moral laws to guide in making decisions.*He called antinomianism as too liberal and unconventional which may lead to anarchy and moral chaos.

3. SITUATIONISM: is Fletchers preferred approach to the problem of morality. This ethical concept states that moral norm depends upon a given situation. But whatever the situation may be , one must

always act in the name of Christian love. A situation in this context refers to human conditions that demands a moral judgment or action. One must decide on any of the situation in the

name of Christian love.

CHRISTIAN LOVE Fletcher cites three types of love, namely: Eros, Philia

and Agape. Eros: erotic love which means sexual love primarily in heterosexual relationships. 2. Philia: filial love refers to the affection that binds a parent to his child or brother to his sister.1.

3. Agape: refers to ones care and concern and kindness toward others. In Fletchers view, Christian love best represents agape. A kind of love which is characterized by charity, respect and responsibility towards others. A kind of love which an individual should act, should settle and determine what is right and wrong, just and unjust in any complicated situation.

Why not Eros or philia? These two are biased and partial. They have

preferences, favorites and inclinations. These two kinds of love are ambivalent. Motivated by self- interest and ulterior or mysterious motives. Christian love is unconditional and unselfish

SIX PROPOSITIONSby John Fletcher

PROPOSITION 1: Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love:

nothing else. LOVE alone is good per se, only thing that is by

its very nature good. Love is never selfish or selfconceited, neither biased nor unfair. It always geared towards the good of the others because it cares, respects and protects the dignity of others.

PROPOSITION 2 The ultimate norm of Christian decisions is

love: nothing else. Christians should base all of

their moral judgments on agapelove. This ultimate standard (agape) is no respecter of persons, seeking the good of the other completely. Christian love goes beyond racism and religionism.

PROPOSITION same, for justice is love 3 Love and justice are thedistributed To love means to be just to the other we love.

Such in agape, as we love an individual ,we also care for that person and respect/ protect his/ her dignity as we expect same to be done for us. It follows that when we love someone, we are at the same time being just and responsible with and for the one we love. To be just and responsible means that we are ready to face and accept consequences of our

PROPOSITION 4 Love wills the neighbors good whether we

like him or not. An

individual may be liked or not depending upon the good qualities expect that person to have. Ones likability or dislikability is therefore due to good or bad characteristics.

We can still love another as a fellow being , not

because that person is respectful or rude. This seems Fletcher means when he propose that love wishes the others good whether one is likeable or not. Therefore, loving and liking are not identical. In Christian love, it is literally a matter of loving the unlovable, unresponsive, unlikeable and uncongenial. Thus, agape is not a feeling instead it is a human

attitude.

PROPOSITION 5 Only the end justifies the means. In Christian ethics, it teaches us that the

end does not justify the means No matter how good the end may be, one may not employ evil means to achieve it. The end is good but the means by which it is achieved is evil.

On the contrary, Fletcher claims that an evil

means does not nullify a good end, it all depends upon the situation. An act which is right in some situation may be wrong in other- that is, we may do what would be evil in some situations. From those situations, according to Fletcher, if the end does not justify the means , then an action is meaningless and pointless.

PROPOSITION 6 Decisions ought to be made situationally,

not prescriptively. A prefab code of ethics offers a ready made moral norm , a ready made answer to moral problems. In situation ethics, there is no general prescription by which an individual can decide on moral problems.

For

Christian conscience, the total context of decision, is always the circumstance under the concept of agapeic love.

SIX PROPOSITIONS In general, for Fletcher, the following six

propositions are the fundamental of Christian conscience:First one points to the nature of love. The second reduces all values to love. The third equates love and justice. And the fourth frees love from sentimentality. The fifth states the relation between means and ends. Lastly, the sixth validates every judgment within its own context.

In medical context Situation ethics combines love and justice in

treating ill patients. Health care professionals should not only be fair to patients but also show loving care and concern for them. Medical assistance is not motivated by

favoritism, friendship, utang na loob or pakikisama and etc. MONEY should not dictate medical procedures and necessities.

So, those people who need immediate

medical service should be given their due within the context of justice and love. In addition, situation ethics makes moral decisions flexible and adaptable to varying situations.

Found in the writings of two English philosophers,

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) The doctrine states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by the goodness or badness of their consequences Claims that there is only one principle, the principle or utility, formulated by Mill: Actions are good insofar as the tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to produce unhappiness (Pahl: 20-21; Mill 1961)

Bearing the principle in mind, we should consider the

possible effects of each action or moral decision Therefore, we must choose the action that produces the most benefits at the least cost of pain or unhappiness. ex.) a doctor having a choice between two equally effective methods of medical Tx, Px benefits should be maximized and the costs and risks minimized

Another case: A comatose woman in a metropolitan hospitalwhose medical diagnosis only shows a minimal brain function and a life support machine is required to keep her breathing. It will only be a matter of time before she is dead. And, another patient who has just been brought into the E.R. of the

hospital has severely damaged kidney from a vehicularaccident. The 2nd patient needs an immediate kidney transplant and has a good tissue match with the 1st patients kidneys. Is it morally right to hasten the womans death by extracting

her kidneys?

The given circumstances are such that the principle of utility would seem to consider the removal of the respirator morally justified. The vehicular victim has a good chance of surviving, while the woman is virtually dead. We cannot save both lives, and doing nothing means that both will die Why lose both lives if we can save at least one?

Bentham and Mill gave an alternative formulation of

the utilitarian utility principle, known as the principle of the greatest happiness. An action is good insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; bad insofar as it produces more harm than benefit for the greatest number of individuals (Pahl 21-23; Albert and others 1984:219-238)

Everyones good or well-being must be considered, for

each individual is to count just as much as the next. Hence, the more people who profit from a decision, the better Happiness, for both Bentham and Mill, is an intrinsic good, or something good per se, good for its own sake By happiness is meant intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, the privation of pleasure

Bentham suggested a calculus of pleasure and pain which

would help us gauge the consequences of our actions, Mill argued that it is impossible to calculate pleasure and pain. Benthams pleasure-pain calculus consists of: Intensity Duration Certainty Propinquity Fecundity Purity Extent

In Benthams view, the proper ethical attitude is to

calculate carefully the amount of pleasure and pain any act will bring; then the pain from the pleasure is subtracted and the balance determined In Mills view, what is paramount is that, it is not ones own happiness but the happiness of all that should be considered in making a moral decision. He points out that living in an imperfect and unjust society requires self-sacrifice, in such a way that the sacrifice of ones own happiness for the happiness of others is the highest utilitarian virtue

In this regard, Mill has made this most brilliant

utilitarian percept: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied The difference, it seems, defines the huge disparity between rationality and irrationality, sanity and insanity, or between a person of virtue and a person of vice, as the Chinese philosophers would put it

Act and Rule Utilitarianism How should the principle of utility, or its alternative

formulation be applied in making moral decisions? Should it be applied to particular acts in particular circumstances in determining which act is right, or should it rather be applied to rules of conduct in judging the acts that are right or wrong?

This issue has given rise to two factions of

utilitarianism, act and rule The former (act) holds that the utilitarian principle should be applied to particular acts in particular situations or circumstances, on a case to case basis The latter (rule), on the contrary, maintains that the principle at issue should be used to test moral rules, and then the rules can be utilized to decide on which moral judgment is right or wrong under the circumstances

Act Utilitarianism Takes into account all the possible results of each

particular act. It is considered as situationalistic What possible good or evil consequences will result from this moral decision or action in this particular circumstance? ex.) In truth telling, the Px has a weak character, and so telling the truth about the nature of his/her illness will result in a nervous breakdown and aggravate his/her condition, whereas telling a lie for his/her own good is morally justified.

Rule Utilitarianism

Considers the possible results in the light of a rule. It is

somewhat absolutistic for once a rule or policy has been formulated, it must be followed, given the same set of circumstances But it is also relativistic, in the sense that, once a certain policy or rule becomes irrelevant to the demands of a new set of circumstances, it will have to be revised, modified or altered The rule utilitarian asserts that once a rule has been formulated, Patients must be told about the nature of their ailment, then health care professionals ought to tell the truth, especially if asked to do so

In the medical context The

Utilitarian system provides a system of formulating, testing and evaluating hospital policies and/or regulations. By means or the utilitarian principle, we can legitimize a policy that promotes the greatest benefits for the greatest number of beneficiaries in medical research and practice

1. It seems that the justifies Difficulties utilitarian principle of utility few for the the imposition of discomfort or suffering on a

sake of the many, making it imply that some individuals are more important that others. Ex.) A neuropathologist who wants to acquire a better understanding of the nervous system and/or brain functions. The principle of utility legitimizes this experiment because although 1 or 2 human subject may suffer or die because of the study, many millions who will be benefited would far outweigh their suffering or death

2.

3.

It is somewhat impractical to attempt to determine all the possible legitimate results that must be taken into account before a moral decision can be judged as right or wrong It ignores the motives from which some moral decisions are made. This inevitably means that a society in which everybody acts from evil motives but nonetheless produce desirable results is a good society

Immanuel Kant (17241804) A brilliant German philosopher Laid the foundations for his ethics in Groundwork of

the Metaphysic of Morals His ethical view is sometimes called deontologism for its emphasis on duty or obligation Others regard it as intuitionism precisely because of its claim that morality is exclusively within the human personality

Kant maintains that one acts morally if and only if one

does whatever one is obliged to do (sense of duty or obligation) Duty, in this context, is that which an individual ought to do, despite the inclination to do otherwise

Act done in accord with duty vs. act done from a sense of duty Act done in accord with duty a doctor who performs

his medical functions merely out of the desire to do so/fear of being accused of negligence Act done from a sense of duty doctors who act because they realize their special obligation to their patients Difference: motive

What is the categorical imperative? It mandates an action without any conditions

whatsoever, and without regard to the consequences that such an action may yield It is a way of evaluating motivations for action

Categorical imperative vs. hypothetical imperative Hypothetical imperatives are commands with a

corresponding condition or limitation. It entails sound judgment in practical matters which one may or may not do Categorical imperative entails an oughtness/obligation that must be performed irrespective of the results at all times and places

Formulations of the categorical imperative1.

Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law

2. Always act so as to treat humanity, either yourself or

others, as an end and never as only a means

Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law The maxim must be binding on everyone at all times and in

all places Ex. To steal or not to steal if the former is moral, this would mean that everybody should steal Since you cant will the said maxim then stealing is immoral Hence, the moral dictate of the categorical imperative forbids lying, killing, stealing breaking promises, etc.

Always act so as to treat humanity, either yourself or others, as an end and never as only a means Every individual must be counted as being of equal

value; no one should be discriminated against because every human has value and dignity Seduction, exploitation, oppression, kidnapping with ransom others are used as a means for selfish ends Prostitution treating oneself as a means

2 types of duties Perfect duty one that we must always observe,

irrespective of time and place or circumstance Imperfect duty one which we must only observe on

some occasions

Autonomous, self-regulating will ones Means governing, restraining oneself, includingchoices or courses of action, in accord with moral principles which are ones own and which are binding on everyone For Kant, we should respect the autonomy of others because it gives every person their worth and dignity

Kants ethics in the medical contextFor Kant, it is always wrong to lie, no matter what the consequences may be. (ex. Medical investigators/researchers should not lie to their patients) 2. We must always treat people as ends and not only as means. (ex. In medical experimentation, a patient must be informed of the procedure and must voluntarily consent to become a subject)1.

3. An action is right and legitimate insofar as it satisfies the categorical imperative4. Kants distinction between perfect and imperfect duties suggests that some rights should be recognized (ex. A doctor has an imperfect duty to accept a patient, and if a patient is accepted, it is the doctors perfect duty to ensure the patients well-being)

Difficulties Kants principles have no clear way of resolving cases

of conflicting duties (ex. Keeping a secret vs. telling a lie) The categorical imperative fails to establish duties in cases involving maxims that cant be willed to become a universal law for subjective reasons

A third problem in connection with the notion that we

have a duty to treat others as rational beings or persons Presents difficulty in dealing with fetus(abortion), mentally-retarded, people with deformities, insane people, others that do not have autonomous, selfregulating will