This Is Bioethics. Udo Schüklenk

This Is Bioethics

death, refused to part with his wealth²⁵. Buffett isn’t alone in his quest. To give you just one further example, Charles Feeney²⁶ gave his interest in a major chain of duty free stores to a charitable organization that he founded. His objective was, as he put it, to use his wealth to ‘help people.’ Since then the charity has disbursed several billion US dollars in a variety of countries. Feeney is proud not to own a house or a car. He travels mostly in economy class and makes a point of wearing a watch not worth more than about 15 US $.

1.41 Well, be these anecdotal cases as they may, it seems true at least for those who can’t find meaning in material wealth alone that living a more ethical life is one possible answer to that all too human yearning for a meaningful life. You might be surprised to learn that many a developed country medical school’s professors leave their comfortable resource rich environments behind to volunteer time in resource poor parts of the world. They volunteer their time and expertise under difficult conditions to help others. Peter Singer observes quite sensibly, ‘If we are looking for a purpose broader than our own interests, something that will allow us to see our lives as possessing significance beyond the narrow confines of our wealth or even our own pleasurable states of consciousness, one obvious solution is to take up the ethical point of view’ (Singer 2011, 293). A good life might only be truly possible for us if we behave morally. Helping strangers could be part of that package.

1.42 Another reason to be ethical appeals ironically to our enlightened self‐interest, so perhaps the economists mentioned earlier were not that far off. It has been suggested that we all would be better off if everyone behaved ethically. There is some truth in this, but it also seems to be the case that this claim can only be correct if many or most people behave ethically, otherwise it is quite likely that in an unjust society those behaving ethically would lose out to the unethical people around them. Perhaps that is one explanation for the enduring popularity of contractualist models in ethics. As we shall see in the next chapter, these are models that rely on us voluntarily agreeing to behave in particular, hopefully ethical ways in our interactions with each other. Contractualism with its appeal to our enlightened self‐interest relies on reciprocity and on our living up to the promises we make to each other. Much more could – and has been – said by way of answering the question why be ethical. If you want to read up on this surprisingly difficult question, you might try Singer (2011, Chapter 12).

1.43 Let us turn now to influential ethical theories that exert significant influence in bioethics. Many books and articles have been published about each of these theories. There is not enough space in this volume to discuss each of these theories at great length. The objective of the subsequent expositions is to flag the main features of these theories as far as they affect reasoning in bioethics; space will also be given to the main criticisms leveled against them. Ideally what you should be able to take away from these expositions is a rough‐and‐tumble idea of what kinds of issues matter with regard to particular ethical theories. You should be able to make use of these features when you aim to analyze particular ethical issues. Be under no misapprehension: you won’t have gained an in‐depth understanding of ethical theory at the end of this book. Pay particular attention to the kinds of issues that are relevant for the purposes of these different approaches. You will find that, looking at the same problem, often but not always different features of the same problem matter to those who advance one or another of these theories. Do keep in mind the two primary objectives of ethics: action guidance and action justification. Ask yourself to what extent the following ethical approaches meet those objectives.