Applied ethics Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Applied Ethics – The study of moral issues arising from real‑world actions (e.g., medicine, environment, business). Principlism (Four‑Principle Approach) – A framework using Autonomy, Non‑maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice to evaluate health‑care dilemmas. Normative Ethics – Theories that tell us what is right or wrong (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics). Meta‑Ethics – The inquiry into the nature of ethical language and properties; not a tool for concrete decisions. Consequentialism – Moral rightness depends only on outcomes. Utilitarianism: maximize overall psychological well‑being; distinguished into act vs rule utilitarianism. Prioritarianism: gives extra weight to improving the worst‑off. Deontology – Actions have inherent rightness/wrongness independent of results. Categorical Imperative: act only on maxims that could be universal laws (Kant). Natural Law: duties grounded in objective human nature (Aquinas). Virtue Ethics – Right action flows from a virtuous character (Aristotle, Confucius). Macroethics vs. Microethics – Society‑level vs. individual‑level moral analysis. Precautionary Principle – Take preventive action when scientific uncertainty threatens safety. --- 📌 Must Remember Four Principles: Autonomy = respect decisions; Non‑maleficence = “do no harm”; Beneficence = promote good; Justice = fair distribution. Consequentialist Test: Evaluate outcomes; utilitarianism → greatest net well‑being; prioritarianism → prioritize worst‑off. Deontological Test: Ask if the action follows a universalizable maxim (Kant) or aligns with natural law. Virtue Question: Would a fully virtuous person perform this action? Key Scholars: Beauchamp & Childress → principlism; Peter Singer → practical/applied ethics. Scope: Applied ethics spans bioethics, environmental ethics, business ethics, research ethics, economic ethics, etc. --- 🔄 Key Processes Applying Principlism to a Clinical Case Identify the relevant facts. Examine each principle (Autonomy, Non‑maleficence, Beneficence, Justice). Weigh conflicts (e.g., autonomy vs. beneficence). Propose a decision that best balances the four. Consequentialist Decision‑Making List all plausible outcomes. Estimate their impact on overall well‑being. Apply the utilitarian or prioritarian weighting rule. Choose the action with the highest weighted sum. Deontological Evaluation (Kantian) Formulate the maxim underlying the proposed action. Test universalizability: “Can everyone act on this maxim?” If it leads to contradiction or irrational world, reject. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Autonomy vs. Paternalism – Autonomy respects self‑decision; paternalism overrides choice “for the person’s own good.” Act Utilitarianism vs. Rule Utilitarianism – Act: evaluate each specific action’s outcome; Rule: follow rules that generally maximize well‑being. Deontology vs. Consequentialism – Deontology focuses on duties/rights regardless of results; Consequentialism judges by results alone. Natural Law vs. Categorical Imperative – Natural law grounds duties in human nature; categorical imperative grounds them in logical consistency of maxims. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Principlism = only for medicine.” – It is a general decision‑making tool, though most used in health‑care. “Utilitarianism = “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” is always about numbers.” – It is about overall psychological well‑being, not merely head counts. “Deontologists ignore consequences.” – They consider consequences only after a duty‑based rule is verified. “Virtue ethics tells you exactly what to do.” – It guides by cultivating character; specific actions still need contextual judgment. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Four‑Corner Check” – When faced with a dilemma, mentally place the case in the four principle quadrants; any missing corner signals a blind spot. “Weight‑Lift” – For consequentialism, picture outcomes as weights on a scale; prioritarianism adds a “lever” that magnifies the weight of the worst‑off. “Universal Law Test” – Imagine a world where everyone acted the same way; if absurd, the action fails Kant’s test. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Resource‑Scarcity – Justice may override autonomy when limited resources force allocation decisions (e.g., ventilators). Emergency Situations – Non‑maleficence can be temporarily set aside to preserve life (e.g., emergency surgery without full consent). Cultural Relativism – While not covered in the outline, applying universal principles may clash with local customs; principlism encourages dialogue, not blind imposition. --- 📍 When to Use Which Principlism → Health‑care, bioethics, any situation with clear stakeholder rights and resource distribution. Utilitarianism → Public‑policy choices where aggregate welfare can be quantified (e.g., vaccination programs). Prioritarianism → Policies aimed at reducing extreme poverty or addressing the worst‑off. Kantian Deontology → Rights‑heavy issues (e.g., truth‑telling, promise‑keeping). Natural Law → Discussions rooted in religious or human‑nature arguments. Virtue Ethics → Personal‑development or leadership dilemmas where character formation is central. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Benefit‑Risk Trade‑off” – Whenever Beneficence and Non‑maleficence appear together, look for a quantitative or qualitative risk assessment. “Justice‑Distribution Cue” – Words like “allocation,” “fair share,” or “equitable” signal a Justice analysis. “Consent Language” – Presence of “informed,” “voluntary,” or “decision” points to Autonomy. “Worst‑off Language” – Phrases such as “most vulnerable,” “least advantaged” cue Prioritarian reasoning. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Principlism only applies to doctors.” – Wrong; it’s a general framework used across applied ethics. Distractor: “Deontology always leads to the same answer regardless of context.” – Incorrect; the universalizability test can yield different outcomes based on maxims. Distractor: “Utilitarianism ignores minorities.” – Misleading; act utilitarianism can protect minorities if their welfare improves overall, and prioritarianism explicitly favors them. Distractor: “Virtue ethics provides a checklist of virtues.” – Wrong; it focuses on character development, not a rigid list. Distractor: “The precautionary principle means we must prove safety before any innovation.” – Over‑statement; it advocates preventive action when uncertainty threatens significant harm, not absolute proof.