Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
unpleasant for the agent, may meet with approval or condemnation from others, and may produce pleasure, riches, pain, or even go unnoticed.
Immanuel Kant
BORN: April 22,1724 DIED: February12,1804
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.
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.
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.
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 Jonas
BORN: May 10, 1903 DIED: February 5, 1993
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charles Peirce
William James
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.
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.
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.
TRUTH
EXPERIENCE 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.
TRUE. Otherwise, they are false. Thinking is an instrument- we think and judge for a purpose.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
morally indifferent or neutral, neither good or bad, right or wrong depends upon the HAPPENING, the difference it makes to the patient.
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
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
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.
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 PROPOSITIONS
by 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
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 the
distributed
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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
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?
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)
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
whatsoever, and without regard to the consequences that such an action may yield It is a way of evaluating motivations for action
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
Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law
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,
some occasions
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
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