Description
This comprehensive presentation by Dr. Oliver Mweemba of the University of Zambia's School of Public Health provides a foundational introduction to major ethical theories and the process of ethical reasoning. It begins with a compelling case study, the conjoined twins Mary and Jodie, to frame the discussion on moral decision-making. The material systematically covers key theoretical frameworks including Consequentialism (Utilitarianism), Deontological ethics (Kantian duty-based ethics), and Virtue Ethics, explaining their core principles like the greatest happiness principle, the categorical imperative, and the focus on character. It further introduces other important perspectives such as Natural Law, Feminist Ethics of Care, and Theories of Justice. The second part delves into the nature of ethical reasoning itself, distinguishing normative from empirical questions, outlining the traits of moral principles, and clarifying the crucial differences between ethics, law, majority opinion, and tradition. This resource is essential for university students and lecturers in public health, medicine, philosophy, and law who are engaged in tertiary-level study of bioethics, health policy, and professional ethics. It equips learners with the critical tools needed to analyze complex moral dilemmas in healthcare and research. Download this presentation to build a solid theoretical foundation for ethical analysis and decision-making.
What's inside
Ethical Theories Oliver Mweemba, MPhil. PhD. School of Public Health University of Zambia The Trolley Problem The trolley problem Case study In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south of Italy, discovered that she was carrying conjoined twins. Know- ing that the health-care facilities on Gozo were inadequate to deal with such a birth, she and her husband went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester, England. The infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at the lower abdomen. 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. No one knows how many sets of conjoined twins are born each year, but the number has been estimated at 200. Most die shortly after birth, but some do well. They grow to adulthood and marry and have children themselves. But the outlook for Mary and Jodie was grim. The doctors said that without inter- vention the girls would die within six months. The only hope was an operation to separate them. This would save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately. The parents, who were devout Catholics, refused permission for the operation on the grounds that it would hasten Mary’s death. “We believe that nature should take its course,” they said. “If it’s God’s will that both our children should not survive, then so be it.” The hospital, hoping to save Jodie, petitioned the courts for permission to perform the operation any- way. The courts agreed, and the operation was performed. As expected, Jodie lived and Mary died. In thinking about this case, we should distinguish the question of who should make the decision from the question of what the decision should be. We will focus on that question: Would it be right or wrong to separate the twins? Ethical theories Consequentialism Deontological ethics Virtue Ethics Natural law and human rights Feminist thought and the Ethics of Care Contractarianism Theories of Justice Consequentialist ethics (Utilitarianism) Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism (focuses on the consequences of action) An ethical act is the one that produces the greatest happiness/pleasure/preferences for greatest number of people Actions morally better or worse depending on whether they produce pleasure or pain or based on how they affect the human (or other species) wellbeing and happiness Utilitarianism focuses on the sum of individual pleasures and pains or happiness Believes that each of us (happiness/interest/preferences) counts equally The basis of the principle of utility or greatest happiness principle or Beneficence Duty-based ethics (Kantian Ethics) Focuses on things we ought to do regardless of consequences Focuses on duties, obligations and rights Emphases the ‘right’ over the ‘good’ Argued that consequences are NOT always in our control (but we have control on motives and actions) Duty-based ethics (Kantian Ethics) How do we know what is the right thing to do? Tells us what we out to do no matter what, under all conditions or categorically Duty-based ethics (Kantian Ethics) Two formulations First formulation Only do what you accept or will that everyone do “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a Universal law” In someway a basis for the principle of fairness or justice Duty-based ethics (Kantian Ethics) The second formulation It is not appropriate to use persons as though there mere things at our disposal without wills of their own “Always treat humanity whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.” The basis for the respect of persons or principle of autonomy Virtue Ethics Originates from Aristotle’s Nichomechian Ethics Rather than focusing on actions, and asking if they are right or wrong, one could start by asking the basic question What does it mean to be a good person? Explores qualities and virtues that make up a good life This approach appealed to feminist thinkers who considered traditional ethics to be influenced by male attributes (based on rights and duties) because it recognised the value of relationships and intimacy Seen as naturalistic - Moved away from simply obeying rules to appreciate one’s expression of owns fundamental nature and hence fulfil one’s potential …
An extract of the text. Open the file below to read the full document.