Abstract
Our brief and admittedly incomplete discussion will be limited to four ethical theories: utilitarian ethics, deontological (or Kantian) ethics, virtue ethics, and principlism. As the oldest of the three, utilitarian ethics is based on the ethical principle of beneficence: with the available resources, do as much good as you can. This advice may be reasonable in a massive disaster or in preventive medicine, but the application of pure utilitarian ethics to regular physicians’ activities with patients might lead to very problematic decisions, such as the legalization of euthanasia and denial of the right to decent palliative care. Deontological, or Kantian, ethics is based on respect of autonomy and sacredness of every human being. Once we agree on an ethical rule, it should be applied regardless of the consequences. Nevertheless, it is hard to argue that consequences, specific circumstances, or personal relations are irrelevant for a physician’s decision. As the third ethical theory, virtue ethics focuses on virtues (or vices) of the moral agent and is associated with a good, happy, flourishing life (eudaimonia). Since excess wealth does not contribute to happiness, the most esteemed virtues are those that serve others. Blind virtues not supported by experience may be harmful, and practical wisdom (phronesis) has been proposed as a link between virtues and the consequences of every human activity. Finally, we will present principlism, as based on four ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice and as a framework for the ethical analysis of complex situations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Reference
Suggested Reading
Gillon R. Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:111–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102282.
Gómez-Lobo A, John Keown J. Bioethics and the human goods: an introduction to natural law bioethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2015. ISBN-13: 978-1626161634.
Heubel F, Biller-Andorno N. The contribution of Kantian moral theory to contemporary medical ethics: a critical analysis. Med Health Care Philos. 2005;8:5–18.
Hursthouse R, Pettigrove G. In: Zalta EN, editor. Virtue ethics, the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Winter 2016 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-virtue/
Mandal J, Ponnambath DK, Parija SC. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Trop Parasitol. 2016;6:5–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.175024.
Stapleton G, Schröder-Bäck P, Laaser U, Meershoek A, Popa D. Global health ethics: an introduction to prominent theories and relevant topics. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:23569. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.23569.
Sumner LW, Boyle J, editors. Philosophical perspectives on bioethics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1996. ISBN-13: 978-0802071392.
Svenaeus F. Phenomenological bioethics: medical technologies, human suffering, and the meaning of being alive. Abingdon: Routledge; 2018. ISBN-13: 978-1138629967.
van Zyl L. Virtue ethics: a contemporary introduction. Oxford and New York: Routledge; 2018. ISBN: 978-0415836166.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zwitter, M. (2019). Ethical Theories. In: Medical Ethics in Clinical Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00719-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00719-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00718-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00719-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)