Introduction stem cells
There are very different kinds of stem cells.
Pluripotent = cell types that are present in the embryonic stage /very early stage in embryo. They can
differentiate into any type of cell type.
Reprogrammed cells = different types of differentiated cells can be pushed back to an
undifferentiated stage.
Subjectivism in ethics
Ethical subjectivism = the idea that moral opinions are based on our feeling and nothing more. On
this view, there is no such thing as ‘objective’ right and wrong.
Ethics is based on subjective opinions -> no bad or good arguments
Arguments: Agree because you can’t objectivity right or wrong
How do we decide what we do then? If every opinion is valid?
-Consensus -> difficult -> the fact that people agree in majority has never turned out in the
best possible way.
-Data -> How many people die? -> difficult -> what about rare-diseases?
-Feasibility (haalbaarheid)
-Economic factors
-Enhancement -> bijv. glasses are an enhancement
But what if you want to see infra-red light? Norms of what it means to be healthy are shifting:
• NORMATIVITY: how to think about what is normal? → science/data can’t answer this
Ethical models help us rearrange or arguments, to compare our discussion
What are Ethical Theories?
Explain what makes an action right or wrong.
Ethical theories vs. particular ethical judgments.
Analogy with scientific theories and observations.
Ethics ≠ Morals! → moral are your personal opinion and ethics are a justification of the moral state
Ethics ≠ Law! → breaking the law is not necessarily not ethical (civil disobedience)
Mother steals bread to feed her children → stealing is against the law but there are a lot of ethical
arguments that even if it is against the law, it is not un ethical
Saying that is aganst the law! → laws are used in a way that is not really right all the time
,Some kinds of Ethical Theory
• Consequentialism
• Deontology
• Virtue ethics
• Contractarianism
• Natural Law
• Relativism
Consequentialism
The rightness/wrongness of an action is determined by its consequences
Action → result
Not looking for a consensus
Example: genetic modification for preventing diseases (so the consequence is a plus, when the
consequence is negative, we should not do it). It is interesting when you say it is a negative
consequence because you should not interfere evolution.
-You wey pro's and con's and decide the answer on your ethical questions
Utilitarianism (usefullness): The right action is the one that promotes the greatest happiness of the
greatest number (maximizes social utility)
What is happiness? When is it the greatest? What type of happiness? -> need to specify
Example corona:
Want to find a cure for a pandemic? The greatest number is the whole world in this case. Now
discussion that countries with enough money have had their shots -> should we give a 3th shot?
Happiness for these countries would be the 3th shot but not for the rest of the world -> did not even
get their 1st shot.
Example: utilitarianism = the right action is the one that promotes the greatest happiness of the
greatest number (maximizes social utility). When is an action useful? Not as vague as it sounds. →
stakeholder. Who is going to be affected? Is the consequence only for this number of patients.
Another example: ethical egoism = the right action is the one that promotes the greatest happiness
of the agent (maximizes the agent’s utility). Not like: if I am good, everthing is allright. If every
individual is happy, the happiness will go up in the world, so maximizing the happiness of a group.
-> right action is the one that makes ME the happiness (only think about myself)
-> If everyone is individually happy -> everybody is happy (consequentialism focusses on the whole)
Are there possible negative things in an argument based on consequentialism?
You don't know what the outcome would be, because you don't know what all the possible factors in
the play are.
If you miss something important -> it all goes another way
,Not as objective that it seems to be → the trolly problem
Consequentialist would switch the switch -> 1 man dies and 5 live (in an active manner)
BUT we don't know because we don’t have enough information because we don’t know every
outcome!
Responsibility is also an important detail
• Passive contribution -> you are not responsible
Two Ethical Egoists
Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939)
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Try to maximize happiness for as many as people as possible
Deontology
Opposite of consequentalism
The rightness/wrongness of an action is determined by inherent features of the action itself, or by an
inherently valid rule.
Rule → action, so BEFORE the fact
Does not matter what the consequences are → consequences has no ethical influence.
If an action is of the wrong kind, it is forbidden, no matter how good its consequences are → Rejects
both Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism.
‘The end doesn’t justify the means’.
Historical example: De 10 geboden (you shall not kill etc.) → how nice it would be
-> About the autority of the rule
‘Dit gaat te ver voor mij’ -> ‘Waarom’? -> ‘Daarom’ -> it doesn't matter, this is your rule where you
life by
Deontology
Example: Kantianism = right actions must be universalizable and must treat rational agents as ends,
not mere means (trade-offs forbidden).
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Kant’s Deontology
Universalizability: must be possible to will the principle of your action for everybody without
inconsistency. Lying violates universalizability because lying presupposes and exploits a general
practice of telling the truth
Ends, not mere means: don’t treat rational agents (others or yourself) as mere objects to be used or
exploited. Personhood is the basis of ethical value and can’t be subordinated to other values.
Mustn’t sacrifice the few even to benefit the many.
If the is not always positive, it is wrong. He said lying is always wrong. When you lie for someone best
will, you can see it is morally positive, but Kant said no, you cannot lie.
, Divine Command Ethics
What makes an action right is the fact that God commands it (as opposed to the view that God
commands things because they are right already).
Social Darwinism
If nature works through mutations/natural selection -> should apply to human society and let people
die
It is morally bad to cure sick people
Why should we go against something that is good for us as a species? -> Money to healthcare bijv.
Virtue Ethics
The rightness/wrongness of an action is determines by the character traits it expresses.
Character → action
Emphasize what kind of person you should be.
‘The most fundamental question is not what oath to be done, but what person should I be?’
Virtue-ethicists tend to side with deontologists against consequentialists – though not always
Possible criticism
• Relativism?
• Who decides what constitutes a virtue?
• ‘Moral luck’
• Too situational
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper nikki6. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
