Home / Courses / Intro to Philosophy / Unit 8

Intro to Philosophy Unit 8: Applied Ethics

Applied ethics uses moral theories and careful arguments to address real controversies. This unit presents the leading arguments on abortion, euthanasia, animals, global poverty and punishment, as their defenders and critics argue them.

Covers: Abortion and moral status, Euthanasia and killing versus letting die, Animal ethics, Global poverty and the duty to aid, Punishment and the death penalty, Bioethics principles

Study guide

Debates over abortion often turn on the moral status of the fetus. Mary Anne Warren argues that what matters is personhood, not genetic humanity, and lists traits such as consciousness, reasoning and self-awareness that an early fetus lacks; critics note her view seems to exclude newborns too. Don Marquis argues that abortion is seriously wrong in most cases because, like killing an adult, it deprives a being of a valuable 'future like ours.' Judith Jarvis Thomson takes another path: she grants that the fetus is a person and argues that a right to life does not include a right to use another person's body, using the case of a violinist who needs your kidneys for nine months. Critics ask whether her analogy fits pregnancies resulting from voluntary sex.

Euthanasia debates distinguish active euthanasia, which directly causes death, from passive euthanasia, which lets a patient die by withholding or withdrawing treatment, and voluntary from non-voluntary and involuntary cases. Defenders appeal to autonomy and relief of suffering. James Rachels argued that the bare difference between killing and letting die is not morally significant, using the case of Smith, who drowns his cousin, and Jones, who lets him drown. Opponents appeal to the sanctity of life, the distinction between intending and foreseeing death, and slippery slope worries that safeguards will weaken. Bioethics often frames such questions with four principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.

In animal ethics, Peter Singer argues that the capacity to suffer, not species membership, determines whose interests count. Giving less weight to animal suffering simply because of species is speciesism, comparable to racism or sexism. As a utilitarian, he condemns factory farming because it causes vast suffering for modest human benefits. Tom Regan argues instead that many animals are subjects-of-a-life with inherent value and rights that cannot be traded off for greater total good. Kant, by contrast, held that we have only indirect duties concerning animals, since cruelty to them damages our character toward humans. Defenders of conventional practices point to differences in rationality, moral agency or social relationships.

Singer's 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' argues that if we can prevent something very bad without sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought to. Just as you must save a drowning child at the cost of your clothes, he says, the affluent must give to prevent deaths from poverty, regardless of distance. Critics call this too demanding or argue that duties of justice differ from duties of charity. Debates about punishment contrast retributivism, which justifies punishment by what offenders deserve, with forward-looking views such as deterrence and rehabilitation. Pure deterrence faces the objection that it could permit punishing the innocent, while the death penalty raises further questions about irreversible mistakes and disputed evidence on deterrence.

Key ideas

• Warren grounds the abortion question in personhood, Marquis in the loss of a valuable future, and Thomson in bodily rights.
• Active and passive euthanasia differ in whether death is caused or allowed; Rachels denies this difference matters in itself.
• Arguments about euthanasia weigh autonomy and suffering against the sanctity of life and slippery slope concerns.
• Singer opposes speciesism on utilitarian grounds, while Regan defends animal rights.
• Singer's drowning child argument claims a strong duty to aid distant people in need.
• Retributivism looks back to desert; deterrence and rehabilitation look forward to consequences.
• Applied ethics often shows how different theories can reach similar verdicts for different reasons, or conflict in hard cases.

Formulas and rules

Common mistakes

• Assuming Thomson denies the fetus is a person; she grants it for the sake of argument.
• Treating Singer and Regan as holding the same theory, when one is utilitarian and the other rights-based.
• Confusing passive euthanasia with physician-assisted suicide.
• Calling every slippery slope argument fallacious, even when it is backed by evidence.
• Describing Marquis's argument as a religious or personhood argument, when it rests on the value of a future.

Before the test, make sure you can

• Explain and compare the abortion arguments of Warren, Marquis and Thomson, with an objection to each.
• Distinguish active, passive, voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.
• Explain Rachels' argument about killing and letting die and how defenders of the distinction reply.
• Explain Singer's case against speciesism and contrast it with Regan's rights view.
• Reconstruct Singer's drowning child argument and the demandingness objection.
• Compare retributive and forward-looking justifications of punishment.
• Apply bioethics principles to a case of medical decision making.

Words to know

Moral status

The standing of a being whose interests or rights matter morally for its own sake.

Personhood

The status of being a person in the moral sense, often tied to traits like self-awareness and reasoning.

Violinist argument

Thomson's analogy arguing that a right to life does not include a right to use another's body.

Future like ours

Marquis's argument that killing is wrong because it deprives a being of a valuable future.

Active euthanasia

Directly causing a patient's death, such as by lethal injection, to end suffering.

Passive euthanasia

Allowing a patient to die by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

Voluntary euthanasia

Euthanasia carried out at a competent patient's request.

Non-voluntary euthanasia

Euthanasia for a patient who is unable to give or refuse consent.

Killing versus letting die

The distinction between causing a death and allowing one to happen, which Rachels argued is not morally significant in itself.

Sanctity of life

The view that innocent human life has intrinsic value and must not be intentionally ended.

Speciesism

Singer's term for giving less moral weight to interests because of species membership.

Equal consideration of interests

Singer's principle that like interests deserve equal weight, whoever has them.

Subject-of-a-life

Regan's term for a being with beliefs, desires and a welfare, which has inherent value and rights.

Drowning child argument

Singer's case arguing that the affluent are obligated to help those in extreme poverty.

Retributivism

The view that punishment is justified because offenders deserve it in proportion to their crime.

Deterrence

The forward-looking justification of punishment as a way to prevent future crimes.

Principle of autonomy

The bioethics principle that competent patients may make informed decisions about their own care.

Sample practice questions

30 more questions like these, from level 1 to 5, are in the practice set.