Case Studies in Bioethics Flashcards

Front

Theresa Case Utilitarian

Back

The utilitarian argument claims that ending Baby Theresa's life could maximize overall well-being because organ donation could save multiple other babies with full lives ahead of them. Theresa's lack of consciousness means she would not experience harm or pleasure, so ending her life would not harm her interests. The focus is on outcomes: more lives saved would outweigh the loss of Theresa, thus maximizing well-being.

Front

Killing vs Letting Die

Back

This distinction separates intentional killing from allowing death to occur naturally. Proponents argue a moral rule against killing may still apply even when outcomes are similar, while others contend the difference lies in intent and moral responsibility. In Theresa's case, ending life is framed as killing rather than permitting natural death.

Front

Jodie–Mary Separation

Back

Separating the conjoined twins could save Jodie while Mary would die as a foreseen consequence. Proponents argue it is morally permissible to save the one when no other viable option exists. The action emphasizes saving life where possible, even at another's death.

Front

Separation Objection

Back

The objection holds that separating twins involves actively causing Mary's death, which could be morally impermissible even to save another. It asserts that all human lives have equal worth and doctors should not decide whose life is more valuable. This challenges the permissibility of the act regardless of outcomes.

Front

Latimer Mercy Defense

Back

Latimer's defense claims the act was an act of mercy to relieve Tracy Latimer's extreme suffering. The justification emphasizes compassion and the belief that continuing life would prolong unbearable pain. The focus is on alleviating suffering rather than malice.

Front

Latimer Autonomy Objection

Back

The autonomy objection argues Latimer violated Tracy's right to life and autonomy since she could not consent. It warns that allowing parental decisions in such cases risks devaluing disabled lives. It frames the act as morally wrong despite compassionate intent.

Front

Ethics Overview (F&M)

Back

Ethics is the study of morality, including what actions are right or wrong and how people ought to live. It distinguishes among metaethics, normative ethics, and related concepts. It does not itself prescribe actions but analyzes the nature of moral claims and reasoning.

Front

Metaethics vs Normative Ethics

Back

Metaethics investigates the nature of moral claims, such as whether moral truths are objective or subjective. Normative ethics attempts to establish standards and principles that guide actions. Together, they form the foundation for moral reasoning and justification.

Front

Statement Types

Back

Evaluative statements make value judgments (good/bad). Normative statements prescribe what one ought to do. Descriptive statements describe how things are, and empirical statements can be tested by observation. Each type serves a different role in moral discourse.

Front

Evaluative vs Normative

Back

Evaluative claims assess the value of a person or action (good/bad). Normative claims prescribe duties or obligations (you ought to do something). Both relate to ethics but address different aspects of judgment.

Front

Descriptive vs Empirical

Back

Descriptive statements describe states of affairs. Empirical statements are testable through observation and evidence. The two overlap, but empirical claims emphasize verifiability and data.

Front

Right/Wrong vs Good/Bad

Back

Right and wrong apply to actions, while good and bad apply to people, traits, or outcomes. An action can be right even if its outcome is bad, and vice versa. This distinction helps analyze moral reasoning.

Front

Moral Ought

Back

Saying you ought to do something expresses a moral obligation or duty. It signals normative pressure and a standard of conduct that one should follow.

Front

Morally Permissible

Back

An action is morally permissible if it is allowed by morality; it is neither required nor forbidden. It may be acceptable under particular circumstances.

Front

Ad Hominem

Back

Ad Hominem is a fallacy that attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. It undermines rational evaluation of the claim.

Front

Straw Man

Back

Straw Man is a fallacy that misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. It creates a distorted position and misleads the discussion.

Front

Slippery Slope

Back

Slippery Slope is the fallacy of assuming that a small initial action will lead to extreme, inevitable consequences without sufficient evidence. It relies on chain-reaction reasoning.

Front

Moral Subjectivism

Back

Moral subjectivism claims that moral judgments depend on individual feelings or attitudes. What is right for one person may not be right for another.

Front

Moral Objectivism

Back

Moral objectivism holds that there are moral truths independent of personal opinions or beliefs. Moral facts exist whether or not people agree about them.

Front

Cultural Relativism

Back

Cultural relativism claims that morality depends on cultural norms, with no universal moral standard across cultures. Moral judgments are culturally bound.

Front

Ring of Gyges

Back

Glaucon's Ring of Gyges argument suggests that people are just only because they fear punishment. If they could act unjustly without consequences, they would do so.

Front

Rawls Original Position

Back

Rawls's Original Position is a thought experiment where people choose principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing their own status or talents.