Advertisement

Are there Absolute Moral Obligations Towards Finite Goods? A Critique of ‘Teleological Ethics’ and of the Destruction of Bioethics Through Consequentialism

On the Invertebratitis of Medical Ethics and Its Cure
  • Josef Seifert
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 82)

Abstract

Even if we recognize the crucial significance of moral values and resist any form of ethical relativism and nihilism, as well as any fideistic’ secular ethical agnosticism’—as we have done in the preceding chapters—there are still many forms of ethical systems that likewise reject relativism and skepticism but otherwise take completely opposite stances when it comes to the question which medical ethics physicians and hospitals should adopt today. In the present chapter, we will deal critically with a position in medical ethics that, while not denying objective moral values of human acts, reduces them in some way to the indirect values these actions possess in virtue of bringing about consequences different from the acts themselves. This position judges the moral quality of human acts simply by a calculus of consequences and—applying the principle of proportionalism—seeks to weigh these consequences, in order to determine the morally right or wrong (good or evil) character of human acts. If adopted, this position changes traditional medical ethics radically.

Keywords

External Action Moral Quality Moral Good Moral Imperative Moral Evil 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For a discussion of this question seeThomasine Kushner, “Doctor-Patient Relationships in General Practice—A Different Model,” J Med Ethics (Summer 1981), 9: 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. where the author argues that neither “the teleological (outcome) approach” nor “the clinical model” is an adequate theory to understand “this relationship,” a relation that should, much rather, be interpreted along the lines of a new and “more appropriate basis for the physician-patient relationship”: the “relational model.”.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The classical situation ethics with its mysticism of sin and several other more personalist dimensions was very different from consequentialism and utilitarianism, but the notion of situation ethics has also been understood in a purely utilitarian (consequentialist) sense, for example by Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1966).Google Scholar
  4. see also Joseph Fletcher & John Warwick Montgomery, Situation EthicsTrue or False (Minneapolis: Dimension Books, 1972).Google Scholar
  5. See for a critique both of Fletcher and of the different form of situation ethics Karl Rahner has first named so, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Morality and Situation Ethics.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    The notion of rule utilitarianism as well as the critique of its sufficiency as ethical theory in view of principles of justice and fairness was developed by John Rawls. See, for example, John Rawls, “Two Concepts of Rules,” Phil Rev (January 1955), 64: 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. See on this also Joseph Margolis, “Rule Utilitarianism,” Austl J Phil (August 1965), 43: 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Margolis tries to show in which cases Rawls’s restrictions on utilitarian considerations do not hold and why it is “inherently impossible to distinguish rule-utilitarianism from act-utilitarianism.” For a defense of rule utilitarianism see John C. Harsanyi, “Rule Utilitarianism, Rights, Obligations and the Theory of Rational behavior,” Theor Decis (JE 1980), 12: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. The author seeks to work out the difference between ‘act’ utilitarianism and ‘rule’ utilitarianism by use of game-theoretical concepts. Act utilitarianism is in his view a ‘noncooperative’ game. In contrast, for rule utilitarianism, he thinks, moral behavior is a ‘cooperative’ game; thereby he seeks to avoid that human rights and obligations be overridden by considerations of social expediency. In reality, as we will see, this is untenable. Other authors distinguish still further kinds of utilitarianism, for example Jonathan Harrison in his “Rule Utilitarianism and Cumulative-Effect Utilitarianism,” Can J Phil (SUPP 1979), 5: 21–45.Google Scholar
  10. where “the author distinguishes between rule utilitarianism, ideal-rule utilitarianism and cumulative-effect utilitarianism.”.Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    ’ see the phenomenological rethinking of the difference between analytic and synthetic a priori in Dietrich von Hildebrand, What Is Philosophy?; Fritz Wenisch, “Insight and Objective Necessity—A Demonstration of the Existence of Propositions Which Are Simultaneously Informative and Necessarily True?“; Josef Seifert, „Was ist Philosophie? Die Antwort der Realistischen Phänomenologie“, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 49 H 1 (1995): 92–103.Google Scholar
  12. the same author, Erkenntnis objektiver Wahrheit.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    See Erik C. W. Krabbe/ Douglas Walton, “It’s All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying ‘Ad Hominem’ Attacks,” Inform Log (Spring 1993), 15(2): 79–91.Google Scholar
  14. The authors identify there “situationally disqualifying, ad hominem’ attacks” as “an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary’s personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms.” They distinguish also other types of ‘ad hominem’ argumentation.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    For an interesting analysis of the effects of rule utilitarianism on problems of euthanasia and medical ethics see Gregory W. Trianosky, “Rule-Utilitarianism and the Slippery Slope,” J Phil (August 1978), 75: 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 18.
    Soeren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, transl, by David F. Swenson, completed, with an introduction and notes by Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), I, “Becoming Subjective.”.Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    See A. Laun,, “Teleologische Nonnenbegründung in der moraltheologischen Diskussion. Ein kritischer Bericht,” in Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift, 126 Jg. H 2 (1978), pp. 167 ff.Google Scholar
  18. 43.
    See Tadeusz Styczeî’s contribution to the volume, Mariano Crespo (ed.), Menschenwürde: Metaphysik und Ethik (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Seifert
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein (IAP) and Chile (IAP-PUC)SantiagoChile
  2. 2.Pontifícia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations