LESSON 1: INTRODUCTION TO BIO-ETHICS
SHORT QUESTIONS (3-4 lines)
Explain: theoretical philosophy, practical philosophy, ethics, thought experiment, experimental
philosophy, morality, egoistic prudence, ethical naturalism, ethical non-naturalism
Theoretical philosophy
Usually, philosophy is split up in two disciplines: practical philosophy and theoretical philosophy.
Examples of theoretical philosophy are metaphysics, philosophical anthropology and philosophy
of science. In these disciplines, people ask themselves what are human beings?, what is the
world?, what is the universe?,… Since modernity, much of this domain is taken over by the exact
sciences. Still, theoretical philosophy is important. Philosophers reflect critically about many
questions that arise in science, and try to clarify these. Think for example about the question of
scientific knowledge. When is something scientific? Is something scientific if we have sufficient
empirical proof? If we are thinking about the question ‘what is reality made of?’, for example, we
often stumble upon concepts that we may never be able to prove empirically. Think about string
theory. We may use strings to explain certain observable phenomena in reality, but we will
probably never be able to observe the strings themselves empirically. Is string theory really
science or is this the place where the distinction between philosophy and exact science blurs?
Philosophers of science and physicists can think together about scientific practice, and about
what counts as scientific fact in the light of these new theories.
Practical philosophy
With practical philosophy we mean disciplines such as ethics, political philosophy and social
philosophy. In political philosophy people think about questions of politics and power. Structures
and ideologies such as capitalism, democracy, colonisation, communism, patriarchy etc. are
analysed. In social philosophy, philosophers think about the origins of and the essence of a
society, and the relation between individual and social structure.
Ethics
In his work Ethica Nicomachea Aristotle (384-323 VC) refers to Socrates (469-399 BC), who states
that in philosophy a central question should be: ‘How should one live?’. This question is linked to
the basis of good and evil, of moral norms and values, of the good life and of the organisation of
a just society. Today, ‘ethics’ does not as often refer to the search for the highest good or the
good life, but is about the study and search for the principles that are the foundation of norms
and values. Ethics becomes synonymous to moral philosophy. The ethical reflection – thinking
about morals and morality – has many dimensions, from strictly rational and normative to
emotive and empathic. These dimensions (feeling and reason, rules and sensibility to values) can
be associated with types of moral reflection and moral theories.
Morality (also partially discussed under ‘Ethics’)
For this course, you can use the terms morality and ethics interchangeably. However, many
people consider them to have different meanings. With morality people usually mean a social
institution with a history of its own, and a code of rules and principles, based on a fundamental
notion of good and bad, and which is acquired through education, habit and culture and by
which people’s acts and judgements are guided. Hence, morality refers to a notion of good and
evil, and is a collective given.
,Thought experiment
Rather than generating scientific data themselves by doing experiments, philosophers develop
philosophical theories based on data from their area of interest. They often use thought
experiments. Thought experiments are fictional cases with which one tries to test or bring to the
fore certain philosophical intuitions. Some thought experiments may seem to be far-fetched, but
they help us solve dilemmas that are closer to home. The use of thought experiments is not only
reserved for philosophers, by the way. Also modern physics has started from thought
experiments. During the last twenty years there has been some critique within philosophy on the
use of thought experiments ‘from the armchair’. Thought experiments are often used to draw
certain conclusions or to state philosophical (and universal) truths. But is this really possible from
‘the armchair’? How do we know that our intuitions are the right intuitions, and are they not
relative to the culture we have grown up in? Therefore it is also interesting for philosophers to
relate to empirical data, either by doing the research themselves or by being informed by
empirical studies.
Experimental philosophy
Experimental philosophy is often about questioning the function of thought experiments and the
philosophical intuitions they are thought to invoke. Experimental philosophers demonstrate, for
example, that philosophical intuitions can differ between cultures. A study by Weinberg, Nichols
and Stich has suggested that people from East-Asia have a different intuition regarding such
Gettier cases compared to Americans: in some scenarios they would consider that Smith ‘really
knows’ this. Other studies found no difference. (Nichols, Stich, and Weinberg 2003). Experimental
philosophy has been criticized by some people. They say it is not real philosophy but rather
psychology. The research would use bad methodology (poor sample size, data analysis…). But it is
true that it is also interesting for philosophers to relate to empirical data, either by doing the
research themselves or by being informed by empirical studies. Moreover, experimental
philosophy demonstrates that the values and thoughts that have formed the gist of Western
philosophy may be less universal as previously thought.
Egoistic prudence
As scientists you are maybe specifically interested in one question from metaethics: why are
people sensitive to morality, and is this specific to human beings? One explanation stresses the
struggle to survive, and states that ethics is mostly applicable to humans in a community.
Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) situates the origins of morality in
egoistic prudence. He states that in the beginning of human history, there were only a few people
and lots of food and other resources. However, as the population grew, people had to compete
with one another for those resources. Individuals were entangled in a bitter struggle to survive.
Only the strongest made it. In this harsh climate the social contract emerged: people realised that
it was in everyone’s advantage to keep to a set of moral rules and norms. These rules and norms
were institutionalized in laws and enforced by the state.
Ethical naturalism
When trying to solve ethical dilemmas with regard to new technologies, people often feel that it is
sufficient to list benefits and disadvantages or risks of these technologies. What is morally good
can, so to say, be discovered by looking at the scientific data, and be logically deduced from the
facts. The underlying idea then is that moral facts can be reduced to non-moral facts. Moral facts
thus have no separate ontological status in reality. This is called ethical (or moral) naturalism. An
example of an ethical naturalist is Peter Railton (°1950). According to Railton, an act is morally
good only if the act is done by a fully rational and informed subject (a subject that has ‘looked at
the data’), but also takes the social point of view, and includes all interests of all involved. Hence,
it is necessary to look at empirical data in order to understand the concept of moral goodness.
,Ethical non-naturalism
Ethical (or moral) non-naturalists believe that the good cannot be reduced to other non-moral
facts. The most important name associated with ethical non-naturalism is G.E. Moore (1873-
1958). He states that if moral goodness would really coincide with a natural characteristic (for
example, what is good is what is pleasurable), then the question whether a certain act that would
increase pleasure is good is a senseless question, because the answer would be per definition
positive. Hence, the question would make as little sense as the question whether bachelors are
unmarried. For Moore however, the question about the goodness of acts does make sense, it is
important to ask the question. Hence, goodness is a real, separate characteristic that cannot be
directly deduced from natural facts. From this it follows that the properties of goodness cannot
be defined, but can only be shown and grasped. Goodness is what our moral intuitions point to,
not what we can imply from empirical data.
ESSAY QUESTIONS (1-2 pages)
- Situate bioethics within the wider field of philosophy, and in relation to other disciplines.
But what is bioethics actually? How is it situated with regard to other branches in ethics, and with
regard to philosophy in general? Bioethics is a form of applied ethics, which in its turn is a form of
ethics. Ethics is generally considered to be a branch of philosophy, although some people
consider philosophy and ethics as separate trades. But like other forms of applied ethics
bioethics is also an interdisciplinary field. One cannot think about practical dilemmas of the life
sciences without engaging with these life sciences. Bioethicists are often philosophers, but also
often people with a background in the exact sciences who have turned to ethics. Hence, Oxford
philosopher Onora O’ Neill (°1941), who will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of
Antwerp on the 3rd of April, has called bioethics a meeting ground for a number of disciplines,
discourses and organisations concerning ethical, legal and social questions raised by advances in
medicine, science and biotechnology.
What is philosophy? Usually, philosophy is split up in two disciplines: practical philosophy and
theoretical philosophy. Examples of theoretical philosophy are metaphysics, philosophical
anthropology and philosophy of science. In these disciplines, people ask themselves what are
human beings?, what is the world?, what is the universe?,… Since modernity, much of this domain
is taken over by the exact sciences. Still, theoretical philosophy is important. Philosophers reflect
critically about many questions that arise in science, and try to clarify these. Think for example
about the question of scientific knowledge. When is something scientific? Is something scientific if
we have sufficient empirical proof? If we are thinking about the question ‘what is reality made
of?’, for example, we often stumble upon concepts that we may never be able to prove
empirically. Think about string theory. We may use strings to explain certain observable
phenomena in reality, but we will probably never be able to observe the strings themselves
empirically. Is string theory really science or is this the place where the distinction between
philosophy and exact science blurs? Philosophers of science and physicists can think together
about scientific practice, and about what counts as scientific fact in the light of these new
theories.
With practical philosophy we mean disciplines such as ethics, political philosophy and social
philosophy. In political philosophy people think about questions of politics and power. Structures
and ideologies such as capitalism, democracy, colonisation, communism, patriarchy etc. are
, analysed. In social philosophy, philosophers think about the origins of and the essence of a
society, and the relation between individual and social structure.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with morality on different levels. There are two non-
normative branches. In descriptive ethics or moral sciences morality is approached from the
viewpoint of social sciences, psychology and cultural anthropology.
Ethics also has two normative branches. In general normative ethics, philosophers think about
which kind of behavior is good or bad. Ethicists try to lay down the basic principles of morality in
rational terms, and look for an encompassing moral theory. In applied ethics these questions are
asked in specific contexts. Specific moral dilemmas from specific subdomains of human action
are analysed and specified. Bioethics is also a form of applied ethics.
- Which method(s) do philosophers use to come to certain conclusions?
Often people think that philosophy is purely a reflection on one’s own values. However,
philosophy is a discipline in which one tries to think in a clear and thorough way about certain
things. In this way, philosophy differs from other forms of thinking, in at least three ways:
1. Philosophers think about the meaning of concepts
Certain concepts that we take for granted in everyday life are not so straightforward upon closer
consideration. Think for example about the idea of ‘curing a disease’. What do we actually mean
when we call something a disease? Do we mean that there is a specific biological cause, such as
in the case of influenza? Do we mean that a certain person deviates from the statistical mean in a
significant way, such as with high blood pressure? Does this have to do with the way people
typically function? This type of question is also relevant for researchers. For example, a lot of
research money is spent on the search for genes that explain the cause of autism, but why are
people doing this kind of research? Do we eventually want to ‘cure’ or ‘solve’ or ‘prevent’ autism?
Should we really consider autism to be a disease or a disorder or is it just a variant of normal
human behavior? Thinking about how concepts are used in scientific disciplines is also important
for how people communicate about science. If scientists find a statistical association between a
certain gene and a certain behavior or characteristic, such as intelligence, can we really say that
‘the gene for…’ is found?
2. Philosophy questions commonly held assumptions
For example, it is often assumed that scientific knowledge progresses in a linear and cumulative
way. Philosophers of science have investigated this idea and have tried to think about whether
and how scientific progress is possible. They have argued that in science, it is not only about
gaining more and better knowledge, but that scientists are also (subconsciously) led by other
influences. What is considered to be scientific is also dependent on current scientific paradigms
or on what we currently find acceptable as a society.
3. Philosophers use thought experiments
Rather than generating scientific data themselves by doing experiments, philosophers develop
philosophical theories based on data from their area of interest. They often use thought
experiments. Thought experiments are fictional cases with which one tries to test or bring to the
fore certain philosophical intuitions. We will discuss one later in the course when we talk about
the theory of justice by John Rawls. Some of these thought experiments are even funny. For
example, philosopher Derek Parfit (1942-2017), who wrote extensively about the concept of
personal identity, uses the example of a ‘teletransporter’ in his book Reasons and Persons (1984)
