Common Arguments in Bioethics PDF

## Basics of Bioethics ### 3. Common Arguments in Bioethics * **Knock-down arguments** are decisive and should bring about agreement, were everyone to understand them, while lacking 'defeaters' for thinking they understand. ### 3.5 Common Arguments in Bioethics * Some arguments are treated as if t...

## Basics of Bioethics ### 3. Common Arguments in Bioethics * **Knock-down arguments** are decisive and should bring about agreement, were everyone to understand them, while lacking 'defeaters' for thinking they understand. ### 3.5 Common Arguments in Bioethics * Some arguments are treated as if they were 'knock-down' arguments. * A 'knock-down' argument is considered decisive, but it may not be valid. ### 3.6 Playing God * The argument against "playing God" is commonly expressed in situations where one person or group of people is making decisions about the lives of others (such as whether they should live or die), or using new technologies that go beyond what humans have been able to do before. * The argument is based on the idea that it is wrong for someone to consider themselves to be sufficiently superior to another to take a decision about the worthwhileness of another's life. * It is also used to warn about the possible adverse consequences of 'going too far' by suggesting that it is wrong to interfere with nature, creating unforeseen risks. ### 3.7 Unnatural and Abnormal * Arguments against new technologies often claim that the use of certain technologies is "unnatural" or "abnormal," which they claim makes their use morally wrong. * The argument stems from the idea that homosexuality is morally objectionable because it is seen as unnatural and/or abnormal. * However, homosexuality is a natural thing that occurs both in humans and non-human animals. * The argument commits a naturalistic fallacy, by claiming that a moral ought or should can be deduced from a description of something that merely is. * If we accept that these technologies are unnatural, it does not necessarily follow that their use is unethical. ### 3.8 Dignity * The phrase "human dignity" is used in bioethics, but there is no consensus on its moral basis or on its precise meaning. * Some argue that human dignity is a logical primitive, a fundamental axiom in our individualistic ethical system. * Others have shown that current foundations for the concept of human dignity all fail. * In secular bioethics, "human dignity" is often used as a synonym for respect for personal autonomy. * Critics argue that the phrase "human dignity" is frequently used in bioethical arguments to restrict innovation or prohibit certain actions, and that it is often used to cloak controversial moral considerations. ### 3.9 Nazi Arguments in Bioethics * Nazi arguments are not arguments that Nazis necessarily have defended or put forward. * Nazi arguments are used to end a particular debate or argument by equating a position or course of action to something the Nazis did or propagated. * The argument from analogy is used to claim that a particular view is analogous to something the Nazis did or propagated. * The slippery slope argument is used to claim that a particular course of action would lead us down a slippery slope toward something akin to the crimes the Nazis committed. * These arguments often fail to properly establish the analogy, as the comparison is not usually accurate. ### 3.10 Slippery-Slope Arguments * Slippery slope arguments are typically claims that something terrible would happen if we did a certain arguably desirable thing. * Slippery-slope arguments that are conceptual in nature claim that the criteria that are proposed to govern legislation or a new policy are sufficiently imprecise as to open the door to abusive practices. * Causal slippery slope arguments claim that if a given policy were introduced, this would invariably trigger a chain of events leading to actions or outcomes that are unacceptable. * Conceptual slippery-slope arguments are difficult to evaluate as a matter of principle. * Causal slippery-slope arguments fail because correlation is no proof of causation. ### 3.11 Treating Someone as a Means * It is not uncommon for bioethics arguments to reference Kant in claiming that it is wrong to treat someone as only a means. * Kant's Categorical Imperative states that humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, should never be treated as a means only, but always at the same time as an end in itself. * However, this is often misinterpreted because we inevitably treat others as means to an end (e.g. when we take public transport). * Treating another human being as an end involves respecting them as an autonomous being with goals of their own, whom it would be wrong to use in a way merely to satisfy our own ends. * The argument might be used to condemn the concept of a savior sibling or argue that the use of a person's body for profit is morally wrong. * To avoid misuse of the argument against "treating someone as a means," it is important to consider what is involved when treating someone as a "mere" means. ### Website Links * A list of website links is provided for greater detail on the topics covered in the chapter.