Associates of the network are welcome to contribute to this program
at any time
We are currently exploring approaches to reducing the conflict
and uncertainty in ethical decision making. To this end, we are
examining the theories of
• William Frankena, Ethics, 2nd. ed., c.1965, who
developed the rules
1. One ought not inflict evil or harm (what is bad)
2. One ought to prevent evil or harm
3. One ought to remove evil or harm
4. One ought to do or promote good.
• Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principles of Biomedical
Ethics 2001, - who developed the principles Respect for Autonomy,
Nonmaleficence, Beneficence and Justice. They draw on several philosophers,
including J.S. Mill and Immanuel Kant. The principles of Beauchamp
and Childress are widely used in ethical decision making in the
medical and related professions, and would appear to have applicability
in other disciplines.
• WD Ross’s advocacy of prima facie duties in The
Right and the Good, 1930, and
• Alan Gewirth’s concept of freedom and well-being
as the basic human rights. Gewirth also takes the issue further
when he argues that when the two rights conflict, then the one needed
for action takes precedence. Stealing food, for instance, is preferable
to starving to death. This latter argument, however, will not overcome
all conflicts.
A preliminary paper outlining findings to date is available through
The Coordinator. It
argues that Beauchamp and Childress’s principles, which meld
Ross, Kant and Mill, can be applied across all sectors, and reduce
the incidence of ethical dilemmas.
|
