Foundations in Bioethics

The common pattern test

If A, then B (premise 1) A (premise 2) Therefore, B (Conclusion) pattern is known as modus ponens=logical pattern of reasoning A and B represent statements logically reliable patterns reasoning should always be treated as deductive such as hypothetical syllogism, categorical syllogism, argument by elimination, argument by mathematics, argument by definition

Relevance

In conveying information to others, the information should be relevant to the question being posed, the task at hand, or the argument being presented. If information is irrelevant or unrelated, it becomes distracting and leads to illogical (weak) arguments. Thus, arguments or answers are unpersuasive.

Common Patterns of INDUCTIVE reasoning

Inductive generalization Predictive argument Argument from authority Casual argument Statistical argument Argument from analogy

Ad hominem

Is the fallacy of personal attack. Instead of presenting a logical counterargument, one "attacks" the arguer. For example: Fracking can damage the environment. The CEO of Sun Energy is a ruthless, self-indulgent business man that does not care about the environment.

Objections

It is not immediately obvious in determining which option is best in upholding rights Rights respects values of individuals, but it cannot determine with certainty what rights individuals have. Rights are compatible with Western society's political theory (and values) although it sacrifices the larger good of the community for sake of individual rights

What is a good argument

Premises are true Premises provide good reasons to accept conclusion Deductively valid or Inductively strong deductively sound or inductively cogent Satisfies the key critical thinking standards do claims come from credible sources (ex: peer-reviewed journals, published books, and not wikipedia or webMD)

Principlism

Principles are: -guidelines that cannot be applied automatically -express standards to be consulted in attempting to arrive at a justified decision -provide basis for evaluating actions or policies as well as for making moral decisions -guarantee decisions are not in accordance with prejudices or biases

Principlism and absolutism

Principles may be viewed as type of absolutism: where principles are considered "absolute" -we cannot treat principles as absolute as they can conflict with each other depending on situation absolutism fails because: it does not provide clear meanings of principles themselves -how principles are applied in particular situations are not understood -assumes unquestioning acceptance of principles that it recognizes

Ethics is Not Religion

Religious insights should be subject to criticism--people come from a wide variety of religious backgrounds and hold different religious beliefs Ethics guides individual on a more universal level secular ethics (philosophy) are horizontal, lack a vertical or transcendental dimension; grounded in reason and common human experience religion teaches what god's will is and how to accomplish it, and not what is right and how to do it religion does not make ethics dispensable Religious ethics have vertical dimension-->grounded in revelation or divine authority

Virtue Theory

Right actions are made by virtuous or good people A virtue is a good character trait or disposition-focusing on promoting human good Virtues made include justice, benevolence, loyalty, friendliness, and courage virtue theorists are not tied to any particular outcome in a case a person who acts virtuously acts for sake of virtue or in a way a person of virtue would act

Valid does not mean true

Valid does not mean true - validity means that the argument is well-reasoned, that the pattern of reasoning is a logically reliable pattern of reasoning, that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Not every valid argument is a good argument. Arguments that are both valid and have true premises are sound arguments, and those that are invalid or have at least one false premise are unsound.

Person-Centered Theories

Virtue Ethics Care Ethics Narrative Ethics focus on who the acting person is or wants to be

Strength of Virtue theory

Virtues are person centered and not rule centered Virtues are flexible, since they can recognize differences among persons and circumstances

Weaknesses of Virtue theory

Virtues cannot explain how to move from a virtue to a right action virtuous people may not know what to do in complex situations, especially when a number of virtues are competing Virtues cannot be universally applied since definitions of virtue vary from person to person and culture to culture

Original position

a group of people with a variety of backgrounds is placed behind a "veil of ignorance where each person of the group is made ignorant of his or her sex, race, etc. People of the group are capable of cooperating and making rational decisions-justice is understood every member of the group desires "primary goods" or what Rawls means to be rights, opportunities, powers and so forth justice is fairness

Rights-based theory

a right is a morally or legally justified claim on someone else. One of the most important aspects in any situation is rights of persons present in the situation An act is right only if it upholds rights

Hypothetical Syllogism

a syllogism (3 line argument) that contains at least one hypothetical or conditional premise, such as modus ponies reliable patterns -chain arguments (If A then B. If B, then C. Therefore, if A, then C) -Modus tollens (If A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A) Faulty Pattern -Denying the antecedent (If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.) -Denying the Consequent (If A, then B. B. therefore, A)

Rawls theory of Justice

accepts Kantian notion of mutually respecitng autonomous wills main theory rests on principles of justice uses the original position to formulate principle of justice

Ethics

activities that studies how choices were made or should be made, considers and reflects on how we judge, justify, and defend our moral choices

Morality

activity of making choices of deciding, judging, justifying, and defending actions or behaviors (personal level)

Kantian Deontology

consequences of an action are morally irrelevant action is right when it is in accordance with a rule based on the "categorical imperative" morality of actions is based on a rule or guideline, but Kantian Deontology argues persons act from duty

Narrative Theory/Approach

consider what a person's goals, history, views -essentially the person's story of what the person is like

hippocratic oath

contains principles of beneficence, maleficence, ethic of care, respect for persons, utility, autonomy, utility and justice

report

conveys information about a topic or subject; reporting another's argument is NOT an argument; you must put forward your own statements and conclusions in order for you to present an argument

Precision

critical thought aims to cut through confusions or uncertainties and asks the critical thinker to provide precise answers to precise questions

completeness

critical thought should challenge the thinker to discuss issues with depth (as opposed to superficial or incomplete discussions). Depth or completeness can also add to the persuasiveness of arguments. Depth is an indication that critical thought has integrity; without depth one is susceptible to snap judgments and hasty deliberations that could be potentially harmful (e.g., biases and prejudices may perpetuate)

Indicator word test

deduction indicator words: certainly,definitely, absolutely, it logically follows that, this entails that Induction indicator words: probably, likely, it is reasonable to assume, odds (or chances) are that Limitations: 1.many arguments don't contain indicator words 2. Arguers use indicator words loosely or improperly, so use these words with caution to detect type of arguument

Invalid argument

deductive argument in which it is possible for premises to be true and conclusion false

sound argument

deductive argument that is both valid and has all true premises the eiffel tower is in paris, Paris is in France Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France

Critical thinking

disciplined thinking that is centrally concerned with identification, evaluation, and presentation of reasons Critical thinking is guided by intellectual standards including: Clarity, Precision, Accuracy, Relevance, Consistency, Logical Correctness, Completeness, Fairness

Distributive Justice

fair and equal distribution there are multiple principles under this: -the principle of Equality -the principle of Need -the principle of contribution -principle of effort we should be treated justly when interacting with others, including institutions -people ought to receive that to which they are entitled to, and that their rights are recognized and protected

Duty-based theory

-A duty theorist can take action or do nothing, he/she is not bound to a particular conclusion the rightness and wrongness of an action does not depend on whether it produces good or bad consequences ex: Kantian deontology

A good argument does not mean...

-agrees with my views -persuasive argument because not all arguments are meant to be persuade and bad arguments can be persuasive -well-written or Well-spoken -literary merit is not required

Ethical theories

-attempt to articulate and justify principles -they act as action guides for making moral decisions -act as standards for evaluation of actions and policies

Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Appeal to Authority Appeal to Ignorance False Alternatives Loaded Question Questionable Cause -Post hoc fallacy -Mere correlation fallacy -oversimplified cause hasty generalization -slippery slope -weak analogy -inconsistency

Additional arguments

Argument by elimination-rule out possibilities until only a single one remains ex: john goes to work or stays home, he didn't go to work. Therefore, john stayed home Argument Based on Mathematics-has conclusion that depends on mathematical calculations argument from definition-has a conclusion that is presented as being "true by definition" ex: matthew is a psychiatrist. therefore, Matthew is a doctor.

Arguments

Central to critical thought is the presentation of reasons defending a claim. This is known as the argument. -composed of one or more premises -premises are statements that offer evidence or reasons why we should accept conclusion -statements are sentences that can be viewed as either true or false Conclusion is statement in an argument that the premises intend to prove or support

Goal-based theory

Consequentialism=view that rightness and wrongs of an action depends on its consequences -make decisions based on assessment of possible outcomes/options -aims at realizing the best consequences;it is future oriented

Consistency

Critical thinking helps us identify inconsistencies. There are two types of inconsistencies: logical inconsistency which involves saying or believing inconsistent things and practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another.

Accuracy

Critical thought should present accurate details and facts, and thus prompts the thinker to substantiate claims and arguments with evidence. In order to convey the truth or inform others, critical thought should be accurate.

Key Differences

Deductive -if premises are true, then conclusion must be true -conclusion follows necessarily from premises -premises provide conclusive evidence for truth of conclusion -it is impossible for all premises to be true and the conclusion false Inductive -if premises are true, the conclusion is probably true -conclusion follows PROBABLY from premise -premises provide good but NOT conclusive evidence for truth of conclusion -It is Unlikely for premises to be true and conclusion to be false

Types of Arguments

Deductive- prove their conclusions; conclusions follow from the premises ex: all infectious diseases are harmful, HIV is an infectious disease; therefore, HIV is harmful Inductive-show the conclusions are likely or probably given the premises ex: poll shows 80 percent of parents favor gym classes; Jane is a parent, therefore, jane PROBABLY favors gym classes in public schools

Categorical Imperative

-evaluates motives for actions (3 formulations) -prescribes what we ought to do without reference to any consequences 1. Act according to maxim whereby will becomes universal law -perfect duties: required duty based on pure reason and morally binding (honesty, promise-keeping) -imperfect duties: duty based on reason but not morally binding as these duties may conflict with themselves or other duties (help others) 2. rational creatures possess an autonomous, self-legislating will; they are able to consider consequences of actions, make rules for themselves, and direct actions by self imposed rules -persons have dignity or are ends in themselves -we must treat people as ends, not means

beneficence

-to do good -act in ways that promote welfare of other people when we are able to do so -focuses on balancing of risks and benefits healthcare professionals are expected to help patients when they are able to and make reasonable sacrifices for sake of patients -does not mean professional should always act selfless -limitations are social duties, laws, etc

Principle of Charity Test

-when interpreting an unclear argument or passage. always give the speaker/writer the benefit of the doubt Principle of Charity Test fosters goodwill and mutual understanding, and promotes the discovery of truth Principle should only be used when there is genuine uncertainty about how an argument should be interpreted (deductive or inductive) The other tests should be utilized first before this final test

What do moral theories do

1. Give insight into moral thinking of ourselves and others 2.are distinguished not by what they do but by how they decide what to do (the process in a how a decision is made) 3. Explain our relationships to values 4.Resolve value conflicts 5. contribute to development of arguments and ranking of values 6. Contribute to resolution of conflicts 7.Provide different models for dealing with situations

6 claims of virtue theory

1. an action is right if and only if it is what an agent with a virtuous character would do in the circumstances 2. goodness is prior to rightness 3. virtues are irreducibly plural intrinsic goods 4. virtues are objectively good 5. some intrinsic goods are agent-relative 6. acting rightly does not require that we maximize the good

Weak Argument

An inductive argument in which it is unlikely that if its premises are true, its conclusion is also true; the conclusion does not follow from the premises

Categorical Syllogism

3 line argument in which each statement begin with the word: All, Some, No All labradors are dogs. All dogs are mammals. So, all labradors are mammals.

Cogent Argument

An inductive argument that both is strong and has all true premises

Uncogent argument

An inductive argument that either is weak or has at least one false premise, or both

unsound argument

A deductive argument that either is invalid or has at least one false premise, or both all labradors are dogs, Snoopy is a labrador therefore, snoopy is a dog

Moral Theories

A moral theory is a perspective on moral situations---> how values are acted out in the world they interpret our underlying values. Values include responsibility, compassion, beneficence, nonmaleficence, responsibility etc

logically irrelevant

A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it counts neither for nor against that statement. For example, the earth revolves around the sun. Therefore, marijuana should be legalized.

negatively relevant

A statement is negatively relevant when it counts against other statements. For example: John is 3 years old, so he is probably a microbiologist. The premise, if true, provides some reason for thinking the conclusion is false.

positively relevant

A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it counts in favor of that statement. That is, the premise does provide some evidence for the conclusion, and hence is positively relevant to it. (some reason for thinking the conclusion is true)(e.g., Chris is a woman. Therefore, Chris enjoys knitting). Keep in mind this is not about agreeing with the statement - we are just focusing on the structure of arguments and the relevance of premises and conclusions.

validity

A valid (deductive) argument is logically reliable argument in which the following conditions apply: 1. If the premises are true, the conclusions must be true. 2. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. 3. The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion 4 the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion 5 It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as true and deny the conclusion

Fallacies of Relevance

Ad Hominem Attacking the Motive Tu Quoque Two wrongs Scare Tactics Appeal to Pity Bandwago Argument Straw Man Red Herring Equivocation Begging the Question

Care Ethics

An ethic of care is a way of understanding one's moral role, of looking at moral issues and coming to an accommodation in moral situations As a care theorist, your main objective is to find the best way to care for others there is moral significance in elements of relationships moral action is one that allows an individual to express care for and be in a supporting relationship with others

Four natural duties

Duty of Justice Duty of Helping others in need Duty not to harm or injure another Duty to keep promises

Principles of Justice

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged

What is not ethics

Law, Religion, etiquette -these don't aim at the philosophical study of moral behavior -these just regulate behavior 1. they do so not for the purpose of doing what is morally right, but the purpose of satisfying others 2. They put forward their rules not by requiring person to use their own capacities, but by appealing to authority of others

Relevance

Logical Fallacies To say that one statement is relevant to another is to say that it counts either for or against that other statement 3 ways that a statement can be relevant or irrelevant to another: Positively, Negatively, or Logically Irrelevant

Weak Argument

Most US presidents have been married. Therefore, probably the next US president will be a man. Inductive arguments can be strong but still be bad arguments! Inductive strength is a lot like validity but deductive arguments are either 100% valid or 100% invalid, while strength and weakness often comes in degrees • According to the Weather Channel, there is a 90% chance of rain. Therefore, it will probably rain today. • According to the Weather Channel, there is a 60% chance of rain. Therefore, it will probably rain today. • According to the Weather Channel, there is a 40% chance of rain. Therefore, it will probably rain today.

Weaknesses of narrative ethics

Narrative theory cannot be universally applied-every short story is different It is not clear as to how a narrative can be used as an actual moral theory or whether it can set a moral standard or an ethical framework, as other ethical theories and concepts can be integrated

Narrative ethics

Narrative theory insists that morality is about unfolding of a life within a culture, and not about character or caring It is contextual and attentive to individual histories and social traditions aim of the narrative is to enable individuals to make choices with a particular context of who they are, what they care about, and so forth

two types of duties

Perfect duty is one that we must always observe and an imperfect duty is one that we must observe only on some occasions Perfect and imperfect duties give a basis for claims that certain rights should be recognized

Strengths and Weaknesses of Care Theory

Strengths- Care theory is person centered and not rule centered Care theory emphasizes the communal and emotional nature of human lives Weaknesses Care theory does not explain how to move to a right action it cannot be universally applied, since definitions of care vary from person to person and from culture to culture

consequentialism

an act is only right if it tends to produce more good consequences than bad consequences for everyone concerned one type of consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism

Strict Necessity Test

an argument's conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not if it does follow with strict logical necessity, the argument should always be treated as deductive if the conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity the argument should normally be treated as inductive ex: bob is father, therefore bob is male= deductive mary is 2, therefore she can't be an astronaut=inductive -premise is true but conclusion is false

Strong Argument

an inductive argument in which the conclusion follows probably from the premises. That is, an inductive argument in which it is unlikely that its conclusion is false if its premises are true

illustrations

are examples of claims and are not designed to prove claims, e.g., Many persons were displaced from their homes after Katrina. For example, families from New Orleans were temporarily living in Ohio.

unsupported assertions

are statements about what a speaker/writer happens to believe, e.g., "I believe the CDC should not support mandatory vaccinations for healthcare professionals" - statements can be true/false or rational/irrational. This is a VERY COMMON MISTAKE among persons to assume such assertions are arguments.

explanations

are used to show why something is the case and not to prove that it is the case, e.g., TB is affecting thousands of people in states bordering Mexico because immigrants do not have access to vaccines.

Argument from authority

asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing some presumed authority or witness who said the claim is true. Mortality rates associated with malaria have dropped 42% globally since 2000. My infectious disease specialist told me this. This is an inductive argument because we cannot be totally sure that the expert is correct.

Utility

benefits outweighing risks -we should act in such a way as to bring about greatest benefit and least harm -derived from there of utilitarianism, but it is not unique to this theory utility is useful when talking about distribution and management of healthcare resources and level and type of care we ought to give to individuals and groups (ex: should certain resources be limited to smokers?)

rights

claims or entitlements possessed by individuals which require that others not interfere with their exercise of them or that they provide right holder with something he or she wants or needs a person has a right to something within a particular framework if and only if it includes rules or principles specifying that right

Argument from analogy

compares two or more things that are claimed to be alike. John is a dedicated student in the MPH program. Jane is also in the MPH program, so she too is dedicated

utilitarianism

focus on consequences of actions rather than some feature of actions -utility of action depends on amount of happiness produced -an action is right if it leads to a greater surplus of happiness over misery than any possible alternative and wrong if it does not no action is in itself right or wrong objections: principle of utility justices the imposition of great suffering on a few people for benefit of many ex:human experimentation -Concept of justice is missing

Ethics is Not Etiquette

goal of etiquette is to maintain social standards deemed necessary for pleasant or harmonious social interaction Etiquette is about manners-customs of particular social class, group, country etc not aimed at doing what is morally right aimed at doing what is socially appropriate

Ethics is not law

independent of law in sense that its legality or illegality cannot settle rightness or wrongness of an act -do we have an ethical obligation to obey law, and if so, how much weight should be given to it Ex: slavery laws are subjective to evaluation from ethical perspective Laws can be based on same moral goods as morality, but can also be unjust and violate moral goods a person making a moral choice is told what to do by the law, and the reason offered is "because its the law" In law, a person looks outside of himself in order to justify an action

Four tests to determine type of argument

indicator word test strict necessity test common pattern test principle of charity test

Autonomy

individuals should be permitted to be self-determining persosns have inherent worth, or are "ends in themselves" and should be respected by others violating this principle means treating indivdual as something less than a person autonomy is condition for moral responsibility; through autonomous actions, individuals can shape their lives freely without coercion

Predictive argument

is a prediction (what may or will happen in the future) defended with reasons. For example, the incident rate of TB increases during the summer months each year. Therefore, the incident rate of TB will increase this July.

inductive generalization

is a statement that attributes some characteristic to all or most members of a given class. For example, most public health officials have a terminal degree.

Conditional Statements

is an "if-then" statement such as "If it snows, then we will have no school today." These types of statements are not arguments because there is no claim that any statement follows from any part of a conditional statement. They can be parts of arguments, however

Casual Argument

is an argument that asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else. "I cannot get a hold of my professor. He must be teaching a class." "The town's lights are off, there must be a power outage." Statistical Arguments rests on statistical evidence. "Only 40% of Americans regularly see their physicians for preventive care." Statistical evidence can be both in inductive and deductive arguments-it depends on probability vs. certainty

Tu QuoQue or "Look Who's Talking"

is committed when an arguer rejects another's claim/argument because the person fails to act on what was said. My physician told me to get a flu vaccine, but my physician refuses to get vaccinated. 1. X fails to follow his/her own advice. 2. Therefore, X's claim or argument should be rejected.

Attacking the Motive

is the error of criticizing a person's motivation for offering a particular argument or claim. For example: Of course the football team is in favor of hiring Jim Tressel as the college's new president. As a former football coach for a Big 10 team, he would be selected as a leader. 1. X is biased or has questionable motives. 2. Therefore, X's argument or claim should be rejected.

Non-arguments

keep in mind that arguments involve a group of two or more statements with one statement (conclusion) being supported by others Reports, unsupported assertions, conditional statements, illustrations, and explanations are not arguments

Clarity

language and thoughts should be presented clearly so as to avoid miscommunication or ineffective communication

objections to Kant

led to several rules like its always wrong to tell a lie; but where do these rules come from? Conflict of duties can arise. Keeping promises is a perfect duty for Kant which may conflict with helping others, an imperfect duty

Ethics

philosphical study of moral behavior, of moral decision making, or of how to lead a good life requires a person to reflect on what is right or wrong (actions) and good or bad ( motives, persons, intentions, goals)

premise indicators

since for because given that as seeing that as indicated by inasmuch as

fallacy of relevance

the conclusions despite the fact that some of these arguments appear to be relevant or logical.

Strengths of narrative ethics

the narrative approach stresses consistency and wholeness of a person's life person centered and not rule centered

conclusion indicators

therefore thus consequently so it follows that as a result implies that hence

fairness

thinking should be open-minded and fair; the critical thinking should remove existing biases or unfounded (unsupported) beliefs from critical thought and work with a "clean slate"

nonmaleficience

to avoid harm -we ought to act in ways that do not cause needless harm or injury to others; we have a duty to avoid maleficience carelessness, avoidable ignorance, malice, etc. are not excuses

logical correctness

to think critically, accurate and well-supported beliefs are essential, as well as the ability to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow from them.