Draft For HS30070 Spring 2017 Students Chap 1 CC Invitation To Ethics

Invitation to Ethics
@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1.
A. What is Ethics?
__________________________________
The question what is ethics should be first addressed by pointing out what ethics is NOT. For, a
common misconception, that frequently shows up in discussions and debates related to ethics, is
that (a) ethics is nothing but a collection of personal or subjective opinions, and that (b) what we
call ethics is actually a body of beliefs that changes from time to time, and from person to
person. Therefore, often ethics is defined also as a bunch of personal beliefs, which may or may
not have any bearing for anyone else at all. This misconception, and the incorrect definition of
ethics based on it, both need to be debunked and replaced by a more thorough understanding of
the subject. We shall start by first identifying Ethics as a special field of study. We shall further
argue that like all other specialized field of studies, one has to train in ethics in order to be able to
understand and to utilize the technical concepts and principles that it has to offer.
Let us start with a dictionary definition of ethics, which states that ethics is the discipline
dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong or with moral duty and obligation 1. The
italicized words in this definition are all words that are likely to provoke further questions, such
as what is good or bad, and who decides it, etc. These and other related questions will be
taken up later in this book. However, at this juncture it is important to note is that the definition
clearly identifies ethics first and foremost as an academic discipline. An academic discipline is
a systematically organized academic field, or an established branch of knowledge, which is
1
Merriam Websters Third New International Dictionary of English Language, 1968.

taught and researched in the academic institutions and in the academic community. For example,
Humanities includes the academic disciplines of Philosophy and Literature, whereas Physics and
Chemistry are disciplines that belong to the Natural Sciences. From the given definition, we must
first recognize that ethics is also an academic discipline in its own right. An academic
discipline is a branch of knowledge that is taught as part of higher education and is researched by
scholars at academic organizations.
As an academic discipline, ethics comes under the broad field of Philosophy. Ethics is also
known as moral philosophy. It is a branch of the philosophical field Axiology, which stands for a
philosophical investigation into the values. In Greek, Axios (plural: Axia) means value; and
from this Axiology has derived its name as a study of values. It explores value-related questions
such as: What is a value? Do values exist? If they do, in what sense can we say they exist? As
a branch of Axiology, ethics is also a philosophical study of value.
1.1 Values
At this point, you may ask what is meant by the term value. Note that the term value is used
to refer to at least two sharply contrasting ideas:
(i) Price or acquisition cost of material things: In this sense, the term value refers to the
measurable, quantifiable, monetary value of items such as houses, cars, gadgets. For example,
you may refer to the market price of a house to say that its present value is Rs 40 Lakhs. The
value or worth of the owner is also frequently judged on the basis of price or cost of the material
things possessed by the owner. This is one understanding of the term value.
However, the word is used in a completely different sense when we say, for example, The
values among Indians are degenerating, or that Honesty is a core value in every relationship.
In these usages, the term value stands for something striking different from any numerical
quantity or the cost price. It stands for:
(ii) Abstract, intangible but desirable goals that people in general want, prize, or appreciate: In
this second sense, the term value stands for, not price, but for what is valued by people and
societies in general. These are intangible, immeasurable goals that people appreciate and desire
for. Without these, people and a society cannot function properly. For instance: Peace, Goodness,
Well-being, Justice, Beauty, Honesty.
Axiology, and its branches such as ethics, are concerned with values in the sense (ii). As subject
of their study, value is to be understood as abstract but desired end-states, or desiderata, of
humans.
Often, the values studied by Axiology are referred to as human values. The reference to
human is to assert the universality of these desired end states. Human values are values that are
supposed to be prized by people in general as worth-pursuing goals in life. They are deemed as
goals that people in general want, and to have more of them.
We may understand the human values as cherished values at the personal and interpersonal
level. The values that one may desire to find in oneself are also cherished in others; e.g. honesty,
dignity, integrity. However, values may be also understood as social goals that a specific human
society as a collective may aspire for, e.g. Equality, Equity, Justice. The human value can also
stand for what any given society may aspire for, e.g. Peace and harmony. Thus, human value
can stand for a range of desired end-states, from very personal to universal. Rescher 2 puts it as
follows:
Sometimes "human value" is restricted to the area of personal values (of character
and personality). But we take it to include not only what the individual may prize
in himself and his associates, but also what he prizes in his society, his nation, his
culture, his fellowmen in general, and his environment. We thus view this idea
extended over a very broad domain - ranging from individual to social and
universal values.
2
Rescher, Nicholas. 1969. Introduction to Value Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.

We may now return to our discussion on what is ethics, and define ethics, as a sub-field under
Axiology, as a branch of philosophical study of value. However, though there are several human
values, ethics is primarily concerned with the human values of The Good, The Right.
Aesthetics, on the other hand, as an axiological study is focused on the value: Beauty. It tries to
understand the nature and the criteria of Beauty. Jurisprudence is yet another example of an
axiological study which is concerned with the value: Justice. These are all formal studies of
human values. We may now define ethics as that branch of Axiology which philosophically
investigates into the values The Good, The Right. As a formal study, ethics evaluates
behavior in terms of the criteria right or wrong, good and bad. It also systematizes,
justifies, and analyses the concepts of right and wrong, good, and bad. Sciences, for
example, do not simply gather observations and facts; they also arrange these to formulate a
system of knowledge. Similarly, ethics takes our common sense observations, moral intuitions
and judgments about value considerations, and arrange and systematize them to form a consistent
body of rational knowledge about what should be considered as good and right. With
philosophical arguments, it justifies its goals and its conclusions.
1.2. Ethos and Ethics
Etymologically, that is, if we go by the root of the term, the word ethics is linked to the Greek
word ethos. Ethos forms the root of the Greek word Etikos, from which the English word
Ethics has emerged via Latin word Ethicus. Ethos means the basic, distinctive character, or
the disposition, or the values of a person. For example, you may talk about the ethos of
Winston Churchill as expressed in his various speeches. However, ethos also stand for the
distinctive character or values of a society, or of a culture, or even of an era. When we speak of
national ethos, or of the renaissance ethos, we refer to the distinctive spirit and character of a
nation, or to that of a certain age.
It is to be noted that though ethics is derived from ethos, they are not synonyms. Ethos, as
explained above, refers to the basic character, attitudes and values of a specific person, or
culture, or society. Ethics, on the other hand, is a discourse on norms or standards against

which behavior is evaluated. Personal ethos may be an expression of personal ethics; but they
are not the same.
1.3. Normative ethics, Metaethics, Applied ethics
Ethics is commonly understood as normative ethics. The term normative refers to the use of
norms or rules, or standards. Thus, a normative study is a study with reference to certain
norms or benchmarks. It by nature is judgmental, as it evaluates what it studies with reference to
certain norms, and passes judgments. So, normative ethics is also a judgmental or evaluative
study by nature. What does normative ethics as a subject study? It studies actions, or decisions,
or behavior of an individual or individuals. As a normative study, normative ethics not only
studies, but also evaluates actions, or decisions, or behavior of an individual or individuals
with reference to the ethical norms of right, wrong, good, or bad. The values, as
explained above, The Good, The Right serve as the norms or the benchmarks. These norms,
or the rules derived from these norms, are used to pass judgments based on how far the behavior
in question conforms to or deviates from the benchmark.
1.4 Descriptive, and Normative
Perhaps this point about normative will be clearer if we bring in the descriptive as a contrast.
As mentioned above, normative ethics studies actions, or decisions, or behavior of an individual
or of a group. However, there are many other disciplines which study behavior of an individual
or groups, e.g. Psychology, Sociology. How is ethics different? Ethics stands apart from these
other studies by not being a descriptive study. Descriptive studies merely describe; they observe
and record, or report. Their job is similar to a camera. They try to capture what actually is
observed; they do not try to assess and pass a judgment about the matter described. Examples of
descriptive statements would be:
(a) Monday is the first working day in the week.

(b) New Delhi is the capital of India.

Note the verb is in these cases, which merely describes how things are. Psychology, for
example, describes how we behave.
Normative ethics, on the other hand, is not a descriptive study of behavior. Ethical
recommendations of normative ethics are prescriptive statements by nature. For, they prescribe
or stipulate what should be done or what should not be done, and evaluate the studied
behavior in the light of that prescription. As already mentioned, normative ethics is
judgmental by nature.
Normative or prescriptive: Related to some norm or standard. Judgmental. Evaluative.

Example of prescriptive statements:
(c) One should not steal
(d) Rina should take care of her ailing parents.
Note that the language of normative ethics typically uses the evaluative verbs such as should,
should not, ought to, ought not to. The normative language also uses expressions such as
unethical, ethically acceptable, and with. The descriptive language, on the other hand, uses
the verbs such as is, is not, are, are not as may be seen in (a) and (b). It is important to
learn the language of normative ethics and use it in the ethical deliberations.
Note that sometimes we may also use descriptive language to express value-laden normative
considerations. Consider for example:
(e) Torturing an innocent is bad.
The verb is in (e) appears to state a fact in a descriptive manner, but the presence of the word
bad expresses a value-laden judgment. The tone of the statement is ethical. When closely
examined, it actually may translate as:
(f) One should not torture an innocent.

Or,
(f) It is unethical to torture an innocent.

So, be aware that the language of normative ethics sometimes may be cloaked by seemingly
descriptive expressions.
To sum up, normative ethics may be understood as a systematic, normative or prescriptive study
of behavior of an individual or of groups. Ethics has a social dimension just as it has a personal
dimension. It not only provides action-guiding rules, but also systematizes, justifies and
analyzes the ethical values and considerations used as evaluative criteria for its assessment of
behavior. It uses a special normative language, and is a branch of Axiology..
1.5. Normative Ethics, Metaethics and Applied Ethics
As mentioned above, normative ethics utilizes the ethical norms of good, bad, right or
wrong to arrive at action-guiding rules. However, one may ask:
Where do these norms of good, bad, right or wrong come from?

What do they mean?
Who decides them?
Are they mere social inventions?
Are they all relative, depending upon the social context, the time or the culture?
Note that these are questions about norms that ethics as a whole relies upon, and about the
enterprise that ethics is engaged in. These are queries from a higher level looking below at the
entire study called ethics. These higher level questions are what we call meta level questions.
Meta means after or beyond. Consider for example the game of Cricket. We play the game
accepting the rules of the game. You can always ask: Who made these rules? Are they valid for
everyone? However, these questions about the origin or validity of the rules of the game are not
fair questions to ask while playing a particular game of Cricket. Those questions can be
discussed only at a meta level, outside the game and at a higher level of discussion about
Cricket in general. Similarly, the abovementioned questions about the ethical norms of
Normative ethics, about their nature, origin, and validity, the extent of their applicability, are
investigated and answered in Metaethics, another branch of ethics. Metaethics is a higher level
study about ethics, and it tries to interrogate and understand the presuppositions, the criteria, and
the concepts that ethics utilizes.
Applied Ethics, on the other hand, is another branch of Ethics which borrows the analysis and
justification of ethical rules and considerations from ethics, and applies them to investigate some
specific issue that has ethical significance. The issue may be personal, e.g. the ethical choice
made by a person to be a vegetarian to avoid further harm to the animals. Or, it could be a public
issue, such as the commitment to poverty alleviation, or towards right to health, or for fighting
corruption on ethical grounds. Applied ethics also appraises and recommends ethically proper
action vis--vis the specific issue.
Since the 1960s, applied ethics has gained a lot of support and public interest as its various
branches in specialized fields have opened up the scope of ethical debates on issues specific to
those fields. For example, environmental ethics investigates, among other things, the ethical
obligation of humans towards the environment and the choice of consumption patterns that one
may adopt to conserve environmental resources. Business ethics scrutinizes corporate behavior
and prescribes practical solutions to goad corporations towards being more socially and
environmentally responsible. Healthcare ethics, Public Health Ethics, on the other hand, apprise
us that health of an individual does not only depend upon the individual, but also on the ethical
commitment of a society to ensure it
1.6. What is the aim of ethics?
The aim of Ethics may be viewed from various angles. A study of ethics is supposed to help us to
discern better what is ethically good from what is ethically wrong. Alternatively, the aim of
ethics also might be to learn to conduct life in a certain way for oneself as well for others.
However, the aim of ethics is not to indoctrinate. That is, the aim of Ethics is not to impose ideas
and values onto an individual; but rather help him or her by providing knowledge about criteria
and concepts available to enable them to make their own decisions and informed opinions on
ethical matters.
One of the aims of ethics is to help a person in
(a) value identification and
(b) value clarification
1.7. Value identification
Value identification is to learn to identify the ethical values that they choose to live by. In a way,
value identification is about finding an answer to the following question:
Which values should we pursue, and cherish and uphold? Which values should we
live by and why?
Why is it important that we learn to identify the values to guide our lives? What happens when
people do not pause to take a good look at who they are, what they value, and where they are
going? The answer that some philosophers and ethicists would give is that a life without a
conscious choice of values is often a life of mindlessly following others. It is going with the
flow without realizing why, or without finding out what ones own choices and priorities are.
This poses the risk of us being utterly at loss, when suddenly a crisis in life looms large, and we
are completely clueless about what would be the right decisions to make to tackle the life-
altering problem on our own. It happens because we live life unthinkingly, and we do not prepare
ourselves for living. We do not try to sort out and identify what it is that we value in life most,
and to make the life decisions by these values. The result is often a life of continuous confusion,
or a life of mindlessly emulating others, which may lead to a devastating decline in life. This fall
could be avoided if earlier on we take the time out to ponder over and to identify the values for
ourselves. This is why value identification is important in life.
Robbins has described this undesirable fall in life as the Niagara Syndrome. He explains this
syndrome as follows:

I believe that life is like a river, and most people jump on the river of life without
ever really deciding where they want to end up. So, in a short period of time, they
get caught up in the current: current events, current fears, and current challenges.
When they come to forks in the river, they don't consciously decide where they
want to go, or which direction is right for them. They merely "go with the flow."
They become a part of the mass of people who are directed by the environment
instead of by their own values. As a result, they feel out of control. They remain
in this unconscious state until one day the sound of the raging water awakens
them and they discover that they are 5 feet from Niagara Falls in a boat with no
oars. At this point, all they can say is, "oh, shoot!" But by then it's too late. They
are going to take a fall. Sometimes it's an emotional fall. Sometimes it's a
physical fall. Sometimes it's a financial fall. It is likely that whatever challenges
you have in your life currently could have been avoided by some better decisions
upstream3.
The value identification that ethics is supposed to help us with is supposed to provide us with
some better decision-making skills for setting the goal of ones life ahead of time. It is important
to spend some time on thinking about what kind of person one wishes to become, and what
would be the personal priorities in life
Case 1
Consider the following scenario. Joyeeta and Swati are two friends who
have grown up together, sharing the fun and playful moments of
childhood, and the moments of excitement and secrets of adolescence with
each other. Luckily, they were not only together in school but also are now
batchmates in college. However, in their third year, Joyeeta has noticed
that Swati is falling behind her studies. During the semester examination,
Joyeeta came to know that Swati is also copying and cheating in the
exams. Is there anything that Joyeeta should do, and why?
The case pushes us towards taking a decision. In a way, it challenges us to find out what is the
right thing to do in this case. The situation obviously involves choices. Choice A may be to do
3
Anthony Robbins. 1991. Awaken the Giant Within: How to take Immediate Control of Your
Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial Destiny! Simon and Schuster.
nothing; just passively observe, notice what is happening to Swati but not ask Swati or interfere
in any way in Swatis life. For, though Swati was a bosom buddy for a long time, after all, Swati
is an adult now, and she can make her own decisions. Moreover, Swati did not ask for any advice
from anyone. No one else seems to be bothered by what happens to Swati, and they have not
done anything about the situation. Choice B for Joyeeta may be to approach Swati, as a fast
friend from childhood days, and to ask her what, if anything, is causing her to falter in studies
and to take recourse in objectionable activities such as copying and cheating in the exams. The
objective is to make Swati realize that she is on the wrong track and to bring Swati back to her
normal, earlier state. For, friendship does not just mean sharing the moments of joy, it also stands
for taking responsibility of the friend. The deeper the friendship is, the stronger the obligation
should be. This means to extend support if the friend falters, to offer help in case the friend is
troubled; and at least to show that one cares. Choice C for Joyeeta may be to approach somebody
senior in her college, e.g. a Professor, or a Faculty advisor, or a Student counselor, and apprise of
the situation with a request to approach Swati discretely, and to intervene, so that Swati may be
brought back to her normal state. There may be other choices also.
The choices are numerous, and remember Joyeeta is free to select any of them. It may seem that
Joyeetas choices are all about Swati and her decline. However, actually Joyeetas choice is
about herself. Note that no matter which one she chooses out of the alternative courses of action,
the selection will tell us what kind of person Joyeeta is, and what her priorities in life are, how
she values friendship and her friends. The choices are about values: Which values should we
live by and why? Choice A will show that Joyeeta values her personal life and goals more than
what happens to people she has bonded with earlier. She sees friendship as a relation without any
commitment. Choice B will show that Joyeeta values friendship as a priority in her life to not to
stay indifferent about what happens to Swati, and that she is willing to put in extra effort and
extra time to at least make Swati aware about her own decline. Choice C will show that Joyeeta
is a concerned but cautious person; she does feel for her friend, but does not wish get involved
personally when her friend is in trouble, and would like to delegate the responsibility to someone
more able. It is upto Joyeeta to decide what kind of person she wishes to become. However, it is
important that she spends some time on thinking about these choices and weighing the options in
terms of the values that they entail.
You might feel interested to know what would be the right choice here. In other words, you
may be eager to find out what Joyeetas ethical duty is in this case. However, that discussion will
have to wait for now. For, it is not enough to identify a choice as ethically right; a justification
is further necessary to explain why it is right. We shall see that when we are acquainted with
the ethical theories and the criteria that they offer, different kinds of justifications would be
available to us to help us to select our ethical duties. Until then, this discussion has to be halted.
Value identification is also a skill to identify the ethical value considerations that may be
sometimes hidden or implicitly embedded in a given situation. This is an important skill,
without which one may completely overlook the ethical dimension of a situation.
Case 2
Consider for example, the following news report:
McDonalds has said that its fries are free of all common allergen such as gluten,
milk, or wheat allergens, but under pressure admitted that the flavouring agent is
derivative of wheat and dairy products . 4
What are the ethical values that we can identify here? Before we set to answer that, let us look
into the news story and its context a little bit. Since the early 1990s, McDonaldss French Fries
have been at the center of public controversy raising consumer concerns. McDonalds used to
claim that its fries are vegetarian food. In fact, in a press release, McDonalds had claimed that its
fries would be cooked in 100% vegetable oil. However, in the early 1990s it came out that a
beef-flavoring was added to its fries at the production stage to enhance the flavor. Several
lawsuits were brought against the company on this issue of making false claims and misleading
the consumers; not to mention hurting the religious sentiments of those for whom eating beef is a
religious taboo. The lawsuits ended in 2002 when the company stated that it would issue a public
4
The Times of India, Kolkata Edition, Feb 15, 2006.

apology and pay the vegetarians and some religious groups $100 Million. It is not clearly known
whether the compensation eventually was paid in full or not.
However, from 2006, other ingredient-related issues stirred another set of controversy over the
same French fries. The abovementioned news report refers to one such international issue in
2006, when it became public that though McDonalds has claimed their fries are free of all
common allergy-causing agents, they are not really so. McDonalds had listed its French fries
among the gluten-free products on its website, but it was found that McDonalds has been lacing
its French fries with an undisclosed, potential allergy-causing gluten-based agent to flavor its
fries. Gluten is a protein composite found in wheat and other related grain types. Originally the
nutrition label on its French fries did not list that it has additives from wheat and dairy sources
among its ingredients. Under pressure, however, the company shared that the flavoring additive
is a derivative of wheat and dairy products. Derivatives from dairy products, and gluten are
likely to cause allergy, and severe reactions in those who are allergic to these products.
McDonalds faced a problem because it publicly claimed its fries to be gluten-free when it was
not; it claimed that it was free of all common allergen, when it was not.
The question for us to consider is:

(a) What, if any, are the ethical issues in this case?
(b) Is there any ethical value hidden in this news report? If so, what is it?
With a little attention to this report, we may find at least two ethical issues here. They are:
(i) Lack of proper disclosure about the ingredients in its product by the company
to its customers, and
(ii) Selling of unsafe food to the trusting customers.
You may find other issues too. But, let us focus on these issues at hand for the time being.
This company sells food products that are quite popular among all age groups. Its products are
bought and consumed by the unsuspecting customers. If the company does not give proper
information about the ingredients used in its food product (French fries in this case), or
suppresses part of the information that may be relevant for health and safety of some customers,
then by selling such products the company is knowingly imposing a health risk on its customers.
That is unethical from the point of view of business ethics. Note that a company always knows
more about its product than the customers do. But unless it shares information about potential
dangers that may arise from the use of its products, the customer or the society may not even be
aware about the risk. This is why it is held that it is centrally important for a business to disclose
any information that might put the customer at risk while using that product. While society gives
license to business to sell its product, at no time it gives the permission to business to sell unsafe
or hazardous products. In fact, the society does not tolerate such behavior for too long. The
repercussion of selling unsafe products can be quite detrimental for a business in the long run,
leading to fines, legal punishment, loss of reputation and goodwill, to the closure of a business.
This is why today, many businesses prefer to voluntarily recall their products from the market,
if they find the product has some defect or can cause a potential hazard for the user. This
ethical recall is considered as one of the best practices in business. You may have seen such
practices in India also. For example, General Motors India had recently recalled 4000 units of
Sail, a new car, to address a potential problem with its engine 5. Customer satisfaction or quality
concerns about a product cannot overlook basic safety of the customers.
Second, food safety is one of the core concerns which no business should be allowed to take
lightly. When the product on sale is foodstuff, which a consumer ingests trusting the seller, then
the ethical obligation lies on the seller or on the business to take due care on behalf of the
unsuspecting consumers in handling or preparation, or production of that food item . Though
there are laws in India against food adulteration and selling unsafe food, food safety awareness is
still pretty low among Indian consumers. However, in other countries the consumers are quite
aware to demand meticulous compliance to the standards set for handling, preparation, and
storage of foodstuff by food businesses to prevent food-borne illnesses. In many countries, the
5
Bhargava, Yuthika. General Motors India recalls 4000 units of Sail. The Hindu, New Delhi,
September 3, 2013. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/general-motors-
india-recalls-4000-units-of-sail/article5089729.ece
government and the consumers insist that every food item must carry the complete information
about the ingredients used, the additives used, about the nutrition value per serving and the fat
content. Since, the French fries are one of the McDonalds items that is very popular in all age
groups, the lack of proper disclosure about the information about the ingredients used in the
product, including the additives, was certainly seen as an unethical attitude towards the core
issue of food safety.
If these are the major ethical issues in this case, what can we identify as the underlying ethical
values? If we take the ethical issue of improper disclosure by a company, then a core value
implicit in this case may be trust. Social relations thrive on a certain level of trust. Relation
between a business and its consumers is also built upon this core value. A society needs certain
services and products; and it allows a business to operate with the social trust that through its
operations the business would fulfill the needs of the society. The society does not mind if the
business makes profit to remain solvent, while it fulfills the needs of the society. However, when
a business oversteps the limits and misleads or cheats or puts a consumer at risk, the trust relation
is breached. In this case, McDonalds has been portraying its French Fries falsely, by not being
forthright about all the ingredients and by suppressing sensitive information about the additives.
In a way, regarding the French fries case we can say that McDonalds has betrayed the trust of the
society.
If we take the issue of food safety or selling of unsafe food, then the core ethical value is health
or well-being.
1.8. Value Clarification

Personal ethical values are for internal assessment of what is good, and what is right. Value
clarification is about enabling people to have a clearer idea about the values that they choose to
live by. Ethics is not meant to be a kind of indoctrination, or an imposition of some values and
ideas. It is supposed to be an extension of reflective and critical thinking in moral matters. What
value clarification does is to enable the person to become more aware about their personally held
values, and their priorities in life, and to get an opportunity to know the values held up by the
others. The hope is that through this clarification the personal awareness about oneself increases,
and the poorly founded values and beliefs are identified and modified, and the more firmly
founded values are identified and reviewed.
There are number of ways in which value clarification may be attempted. Usually, however, it is
done in a group, where a student is asked to indicate their position clearly on a certain issue. The
responses are accepted without any judgment or evaluation. However, the student is asked to
provide reasons for holding that position on the issue. This is the clarification part, where
student gradually becomes aware of his or her own beliefs, and may discover certain hidden or
underlying personal values which may be expressed through the reasons chosen to defend the
position. Note that the value clarification is more about self-discovery; it is not being told which
values to follow.
For example, consider being asked to choose 3 values that are most important to you from a long
list of values. Then, you have to provide reasons why these 3 are the most important to you.
While doing this, you may realize that your answers may be similar to some people, and different
from the others. The important point in this exercise is not who is right, you or the others. What
is important is what you learnt from this exercise about yourself, about your priorities, and also
about those of the others, in the process.
1.9. How to identify an ethical issue? What are the factors that influence such a
decision?
May be even after all this discussion, it still may not be clear to you how to tell if a decision or a
situation ethical in nature. You may find it easier to spot if a decision is economic, or political in
nature, but it may not be apparent to you which considerations about a given decision or a
situation characterize it as ethical. Suppose Raghu is a vegetarian. His family is not vegetarian,
there is a no religious taboo to guide his food preferences; but he has chosen to be a vegetarian.
Is this a choice that can be considered as ethical? Perhaps, for you it is just a matter of his
preference that has a no obvious ethical dimension. But, for Raghu, it might be a very serious
matter. He may argue that he thinks that meat eating is essentially wrong, because it ultimately
encourages the meat sellers and the meat industry to treat the animals and birds purely as
commercial objects and sometimes with an inordinate amount of cruelty. He may cite evidences
to show how animals and birds are artificially fattened simply to weigh more, and how the
livestock is transported in abominable conditions, and how the livestock has to endure a lot of
suffering before they are butchered. And he may argue that we may entirely avoid this
unnecessary harm that we bring on to the animals and birds if we choose to gather our nutrition
from some alternative sources. So, how do we objectively determine whether Raghus decision
has an ethical dimension in it or not?
Some of the salient considerations that may help us to settle such a question are as follows:
(a) Whether the decision or the situation is likely to have significant impact on the others:
It is a very important aspect of ethics to consider the probable consequences of an action or a
decision on the others, and on the society. Ethics encourages us to look beyond oneself and to
take into consideration what happens to the others. Effect on social good, or the good of the
society, is thus an important feature in a decision or situation that adds an ethical dimension to it.
Environmentalists argue that when considering the impact on the others, we should not limit
ourselves to look only into the humans, but also should include the rest of the sentient beings in
the world, and even the earth itself and its natural elements to assess the impact of our actions.
Large scale use of harmful pesticides, for example, in agricultural products can not only affect
the human consumers in the long run, but also make the ground-soil and groundwater toxic, and
thus may have adverse impact on other species who are dependent on these natural elements.
Thus, one may argue that environmental pollution has a prominent ethical dimension.
The impact or effect that we are considering here may be positive (benefit), or it may be negative
(harm). Either way, the consideration about the impact on the welfare of others lends an issue an
ethical aspect. For example, the decision to make healthcare affordable for all is an ethical
decision. For, it aims to bring benefits to all in the society. Similarly, we may find Raghus
choice to be a vegetarian an ethical choice, because according to him the choice hinges on the
considerations about the significant adverse impact of non-vegetarianism on the other species.
Similarly, stealing from the others may be considered as a situation that has an ethical
dimension, because the loss of a property is an unfair outcome from the perspective of the
original owner.
(b) Whether the decision is likely to involve choices, with alternative courses of action being
open. Ethical action requires that one has a choice to act in a certain way. Radical examples of
ethical decisions may be seen in situations which are characterized by mutually exclusive
choices. This is what we find in ethical dilemmas. The decision makers realize that they are
confronted with ethical choices, and that they are free to choose the course of action. The
interlink between free will and ethics is discussed in Section 1.10.
(c) Whether the decision is likely to be perceived as having ethical content by one or more
groups. It matters if a decision or situation is perceived by others as ethically relevant, regardless
of the fact that the decision-maker sees it in the same way or not. Consider for example the fact
that Dow Chemicals company (which now owns The Union Carbide) offered sponsorship for
London Olympics. To the Olympic Committee, the decision to accept that sponsorship may seem
neutral, but it was seen as unethical by campaigners seeking justice for the victims of the
infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy, for which The Union Carbide was responsible.
1.10. Free Will and Ethics
Traditionally, ethics has been a normative study of human behavior: What humans should do and
should not do. The reason for this restriction to the human domain is probably the fact that
traditionally it has been believed that humans, and perhaps humans alone, have this unique
capacity to have a free will. Traditionally, ethics is said to presume free will or free choice. That
is, ethics and ethical theories typically rest on the assumption that the agents, about whose
behavior the ethical judgments are passed, have a free will to choose their behavior. Free will is a
philosophical term that means a certain capacity in the rational agents to freely choose from
various options. Many ancient religions upheld the belief that God has given the human species
the gift of free will as a privilege, which the mankind can use for good or for bad. From this
perspective, it is the responsibility of a person whether or not she uses her free will ethically to
avoid committing the sins, and to embrace the virtuous actions.
Free will is considered as the necessary precondition for moral responsibility. That is, we can
hold a person morally responsible for an action only if the person freely chose to do it. If the

person is not given a scope to engage in the process of deliberating and freely deciding an action,
we cannot hold the person morally accountable for the action. If, for instance, the person is
forced to behave in a certain way, or had no choice but to act in a certain way, we should not
hold the person morally accountable for the action. Consider for example the situation where a
terrorist might hold a person at gun point and instruct him to batter his friend with a club. The
action of beating, if carried out, would certainly hurt and injure the friend; but the person held at
gun point cannot really be held ethically responsible for that, as the action was done under
coercion and a threat to life, and not freely out of his own will.
Free will or free choice serves also as a ground for assigning credit or discredit for ethical
actions. In cases where the agent has no opportunity to exercise free choice or is unaware,
praising the person ethically for doing good or blaming the person for doing something bad
would not be considered as meaningful. If an action is done purely as an accident, and not done
intentionally or willing by the person, the person cannot be ethically held responsible for it.
Consider for example the difference between pre-meditated murder and accidentally caused
homicide. Pre-meditated murder shows that the murderer has thought about carrying out the
murder before committing it and still chose to commit the murder. This establishes his conscious
choice; hence, he should be ethically blamed for the murder. An accidentally caused homicide,
on the other hand, is certainly an unfortunate loss of life; but not an act of choice to commit a
murder. It is true that in the case of an accidentally caused homicide, a person is dead and that
another person has contributed to the death; however, the second person never intended to take
the life of the one who is dead. It was not what one might call a freely chosen course of action.
Death happened by an inadvertent series of events. In that case, the ethical judgment she should
not have committed the murder, or he should be blamed for the murder would not make much
sense.
Similarly, consider a case of accidentally caused good act. Suppose that you are sitting on a
bench and reading a newspaper. You are not even aware who is sitting next to you on the bench.
As you spread your arms to open a new page on the paper, before you realize your right elbow
touches something, and from your right side you hear someone saying Thank you. You did not
know but on your right a blind person was sitting next to you on the same bench. As you were
opening the new page of the newspaper, she was about to get up and was searching for her stick
with her left hand. Your right elbow, when it moved, helped to move the stick, which was lying
between her and you, towards her. She thought you have handed her the stick, seeing her
condition, and so she thanked you. Do you deserve this thank you? The answer, as you may
have already answered, is No. For, there was no conscious intention on your part to help her;
you did not choose to be kind to a visually challenged person.
Though the concept of free will in this way is quite significant for ethics, there are many
objections against it. The concept of free will or free choice is contested by many deterministic
theories. Determinism, in general, stands for the position that all events, even human actions, are
entirely determined to happen. The events happen only because of pre-existing conditions, and
are thus completely determined by these conditions. Determinism in general has no room for
freedom of will. There are various versions of deterministic theories. For example, those holding
the position of physical or causal determinism have argued that every event that occurs,
including human behavior, is physically or causally determined by a causal nexus of other
events. Similarly, those who believe in biological determinism have argued that pre-existing
biological factors control our actions, decisions, and even our desires. For examples, genes
determine what we like, what would be our tendencies. Many theologians have argued for a
theological determinism; namely, that only Gods will prevails and that every event that happens
is completely determined by it. Nothing can happen if it is not Gods will. Anyhow, even these
deterministic positions and their arguments have not been free of controversy. Many believers in
free will have tried to show that determinism of any kind is not a feasible or a defensible
position; or that certain versions of determinism are compatible to free will. The upshot is that
the philosophical concept of free will or free choice remains a debated issue.
However, for our purpose, we may presume that we have free choice and continue ahead in our
pursuit to know more about ethics. There is one point that the present author would like to add
here is that this capacity to choose freely and consciously becomes a rather important factor in
understanding ethics and ethical choices by people in a social or communitarian context. If one
lives in a cave all by himself as a recluse, it is difficult to determine the ethical worth of ones
decisions, actions, behavior. That is because we cannot know how the person would choose to
behave, had his choice been in conflict with the choices of the others. However, in a society or
community where there are many people with diverse, and often conflicting, choices of actions,
our conscious and free choices have an evident ethical dimension. For, there the individual
choices can affect others and their choices. The consideration for others and about adverse
impact of ones choices on others has an ethical quality. It is consideration that is guided by
value concerns for a community; namely, what is the right thing to do depends on what is right
for all concerned and does not depend on just one person. For example, think of travelling by a
crowded bus. There, in spite of the sudden brakes applied by the driver and the bumps and
potholes on the road, the passengers do have some choices about how to stand or how to sit; how
far to lean on a fellow passenger and how not to. There one may not be able to sit or stand
comfortably without causing discomfort to the other passengers. So, if one still decides to
exercise his own free choice to stand or sit comfortably taking up as much space as possible, that
would clash with other passengers rights to stand or sit in that bus. There, ones choice of an
action, e.g. to choose to sit comfortably by taking up some extra space, or by leaning on another
passenger sitting next, can affect others negatively. By doing so, the passenger is depriving the
rights of the other passengers to ride comfortably. This makes a difference. As already
mentioned earlier, the fact, that ones choice of an action can have an impact on others, brings an
ethical quality to the choice. If one is aware of the space constraint and the discomfort of fellow
passengers in a very crowded bus, and yet purely for his own comfort chooses to sit spreading
arms over another persons space or by leaning heavily onto another stranger, then we have to
judge that choice as ethically unacceptable. For, it infringes on another persons space and rights.
1.11 The Central Question of Ethics
What is the central question of ethics? Many would answer that the basic question that Ethics is
supposed to answer is:
What should I do?
Note that it is a very personal question and that it is asked from a first-person perspective. The
question is of a practical nature. It expects from Ethics some action guidance at a personal level
about what the right and the proper thing is to do. In general, all of us would like to do the
right thing; except there are times when it is not clear what that right thing is. Caught with
difficult personal choices, we expect ethics to tell us what the ethically right thing would be to do
under the circumstances.
Others might think that the central question of ethics is:
How should one behave to become a better person?
With all-around corruption, scams, and the ethical breaches that we frequently experience at the
individual, institutional, national and corporate levels, many expect that Ethics would teach us a
way to become better persons. For that, they look at ethics to provide them insights for a value-
guided character development process that may be followed for inculcating certain desirable
personal and professional traits in a person or in a citizen. Thus, many consider that the central
concern of Ethics is value based character education.
However, it is also expected of Ethics to guide us not only at a personal level but also at a social
level. The considerations and criteria of ethics are better comprehensible in a communitarian or
social context where an agents free choice is bounded by the free choices of other agents.
Some people consider that a central question that ethics should also be concerned with is:
What should be our mutual moral obligations to each other in a given society?
What ought we to do to one another, and for one another? How should we behave
towards the others, and wish others to behave towards me?
Habermas, a contemporary moral philosopher famous for his Discourse Ethics, thinks that
questions of these kind are embedded with the questions about our own identity: How should we
understand ourselves? What should our ethical choices show about ourselves who we are and
who do we want to be? 6 That is, the questions about which we seek guidance from Ethics in a
6
Jurgen Habermas. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge, UK, Polity: 3.
way are linked to ourselves; with what kind of a person we are and wish to become through our
interpersonal relations.
Traditionally, there are other questions that have been regarded as central questions for Ethics.
For example, the ancient Greek tradition thought that the core question for ethics is:
How should we live to have a good life or a life of excellence?
In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle espoused a theory of good life, or a life of flourishing,
for the humans. He considered it as the ultimate goal of all human actions and life.
The present author suggests that we take all these questions as basic questions for ethics as a
discipline. Investigation into the answers for these questions forms the content of the discipline.
1.12. Why do we see some issues as obviously ethical, while others are not so
obvious?
Moral intensity or relative importance of the ethical issue (Thomas Jones 1991) varies
according to 6 factors:
1. Magnitude of consequences: Expected sum of benefits or harm for those affected.
2.Degree of Social consensus towards the issue
3.Probablity of the effect happening actually
4. Temporal immediacy: How soon.
5. Feeling of (social, cultural, physical, psychological) proximity with the affected
6. Concentration of effect on the affected.

1.13 Need for a training in Ethics
Finally, we take the question whether there is any need for training in ethics. This question is
pertinent because many of us believe that there is no need to train ourselves in ethics, because
they believe that ethics is nothing but a collection of personal opinions about what is right and
what is good and proper. So, many of us tend to quickly come to pass a judgment, which they
think are ethical judgments, about persons, or on situations, based on their own personal views.
For example, some of us consider alcoholics and drug addicts are bad people. Similarly, some
of us may consider women who come home late are necessarily of bad character. On the other
hand, some of us may jump to the conclusion that people who worship and pray to God everyday
and practice all religious rituals meticulously are necessarily good people. These judgments are
actually hastily passed personal opinions, and often are not backed by sustained justification. In
contrast, the ethical judgments are the result of trained careful analysis and critical thinking, and
are supposed to be grounded in well-established theoretical positions.
So, first and foremost, it is completely wrong to believe that Ethics is just a bunch of flimsy
personal opinions. As has been explained above, Ethics is a formal discipline. And, like any
other formal discipline such as mathematics, formal logic, Ethics has its own basic principles and
technical concepts and criteria, which must be learnt properly first, before applying to an actual
situation and passing an ethical judgment about a person or a situation. Thus, training in Ethics is
absolutely needed before applying Ethics or ethical considerations to a case in hand.
Moreover, it is an important step in ethical decision to seek the facts of the matter first. On the
other hand, judgments, which do not care to know the whole details, yet try to tell us what is
right and what is proper based on conditioned and limited subjective views, are likely to be rash
and biased. That is not how ethical decisions are made. Ethical issues often are too important and
too complex to be judged so quickly at face-value. Consider for example the modern ethical
issues such as environmental actions to mitigate climate change, corruption, impact of
globalization on consumption patterns. Complex issues such as these deserve well-thought out
judgments based on conscientious investigation of the relevant facts, and weighing the diverse
standpoints on the same issue. Ethical judgments are supposed to be an outcome of reflection and
discernment, and not an outburst of frenzied impulse or blind prejudice.
1.14. Nature of ethical issues: More than one right answer
We are more used to problems that have exactly one right solution; or we are accustomed to
answers that are mutually exclusive. That is, our solutions are usually either this or that, but
not both.
This is why it is important to understand that the nature of ethical issues is such that ethical
questions in general may not always follow this familiar pattern. They may not always have only
one right solution. One of the reasons for this is the fact that ethical problems and questions are
complex. They are usually multi-layered and multi-dimensional. One should not expect only one
right answer to these. Unlike the case of what is 2+2?, ethical issues are not the kind of
problems where only one answer is possible. Rather, as is in the case of a design answer, there
may be more than one right answer, and some answers may be considered as better than the
other answers.
So, first get used to the idea that there are problems in life for which more than one answer could
be right. That is, instead of the usual right Vs wrong answers, you may have situations where
it is:
Right Vs. Right: Where 2 sets of values propose two answers. Both are important, and both are
right; yet, each leading to a different choice.
Such cases require
To resolve such cases:
1. See whether there are decisive overriding factors that help one value to clearly supersede
the other, and justify.
2. Try the best balance between the two: Some trade-off may be necessary.
3. Beyond the immediate conflict, try to see the implication of the decision taken for a better
future.

But, either way, the answer needs to be justified. The justifications may come from a bed of
values, and ethical concepts and principles.
Case 3
Consider a situation where your best friend is involved. You have been close friends since you
met during your college years. You share numerous similar interests and greatly enjoy each
other's company. Whenever you needed to talk about major issues in your life, e.g. career plans,
job opportunities, or romantic matters, this friend has always been there. This friend has also
provided assistance in large and small matters such as helping you move your belongings from
one room to another, and helping when your relatives from out of town has shown up and you
did not space in your room for them, or were busy elsewhere. This is not to say, however, that
the friendship has been one sided in any way. You also have been a good friend providing
similar kinds of support, encouragement, and assistance to your friend over the years. Though
you have been through thick and thin, monetary matters have never played a significant role in
the relationship as friends, either directly or indirectly. Neither of you has discussed personal
finances with the other. Neither of you has asked the other for a loan. That is, not until now .
Recently, your friend has asked you for a loan of Rs 40,000. You work as a project manager for
a large engineering firm, and can afford to loan the money to your friend. But what is not clear,
however, is exactly how your friend plans to repay the loan on the earnings as a freelance
journalist. You find it acutely uncomfortable to raise this issue with your friend on how the loan
is to repaid, what might be a reasonable repayment schedule, and so forth.
What should you do? And why?
Note that there is no single correct answer in this case.
Also, note that there may be more than one principles involved in a situation. It is entirely
possible that there may be conflict between the two principles. In such cases, what is needed is a
deeper analysis to see which principle overrides the other in this case, and why. The justification
has to clearly explain that. For example, in the Case 3 you might say that money is more

important than friendship. In that case, your choice would be not to loan the amount to your
friend. As an explanation, you might say that the value of hard-earned money overrides the value
of friendship. You may chose the ethical rule as:
Rule A: I should not loan the money
Reason: Hard earned Money is more important (overriding) than friendship.
Or, you might like to put friendship above concern for repayment of loan, and chose the ethical
rule as;
Rule B: I should give the loan to my friend, no questions asked.
Reason: Value of friendship is more important (overriding) than concern for money.
Or, you might be in the third category, who consider both the value of hard earned money and
the value of friendship as important. And you might decide to first open a conversation with your
friend on this matter, and eventually ask about the repayment issue, and then loan out the money.
Rule C: I should give the loan to my friend after having an open discussion with
my friend about repayment.
Reason: Value of Friendship and Value of Hard earned Money are both
important, I should try to optimize and safeguard both.
Note that you are trying to do the right thing here, but there is no clear, single answer to that.
But that does not mean that there is no answer to the problem at hand. In fact, there are more
than one answer available, but ultimately it is your choice to decide which suits your value
system and priorities and your life plan. Please also appreciate the fact that your choice will
decide your action in this case, and will send a message to the others about what kind of person
you wish to be known as.
1.15 Nature of Ethical Issues: Complex Issues

Let me take this opportunity to also illustrate the level of complexity that might be there in
identifying and addressing the ethical issues. It is important to realize that due to the complexity

embedded in certain ethical issues, it is not easy always to determine what is ethically required,
and how to address the should or should not. Therefore, it is not always easy to find an
ethical solution to a complex ethical problem.
Case 4: Human Organ Transplantation: Ethical Issues
Human organ transplantation, and the ethical issues that it raises, and the policies developed by
various nations would be a prime example to exemplify this point. A human organ
transplantation is a surgical operation by which a damaged or a dysfunctional organ, such as a
kidney, heart, liver, is removed from a body and is replaced with a new healthy organ from
another body. For end-stage organ failure in a patient, organ transplantation has become the
established medical procedure and the only hope for those patients. This is particularly true about
kidney failure. The first successful human organ transplants happened in the early 1960s, when it
became possible to use special tissue-matching techniques and immunosuppressive drugs that
reduced the chance that a transplanted organ would be rejected by the host body. Subsequently,
there have been further great advances in medical sciences to yield greater success in organ
transplants.
Organ transplantation has raised many ethical and societal issues. First and foremost issue is that
the demand for organs, such as a healthy kidney, eye, or a liver, far exceeds the supply of organs.
For various reasons, there is a worldwide scarcity of organs required for transplantation. Due to
the inadequate supply of organs, in many nations those who are considered medically suitable for
receiving transplanted organs are put on a long queue. It is an unfortunate fact that every year
many patients die while waiting for their turn for an organ.
Many ethical questions have been raised about the procurement method of the organs: What is
the ethically acceptable way of procuring a healthy organ? Considering the great need for organs,
is it ethical to harvest organs by any means?
In this context, we can cite the case of China, where for years the practice has been to procure
organs from the deceased bodies of the executed prisoners, even though the Chinese Government

has been in denial. Traditional Chinese customs require that a body be cremated or buried intact,
so that a person reincarnates also was a whole. Thus, there is a cultural injunction against
donation of organs after death. In order to bridge the gap between need and supply, a major part
of the organs, according to some two-thirds of total number of organs, in China were sourced
from the dead bodies of the executed prisoners. This is how China addressed the issue of organ
shortage in the country, and had tried to defend the practice in the name of benefit to the larger
society. It is alleged that sometimes the executions were expedited in case of urgent need for
organs. The Chinese Government has been in denial of this practice for years; however, the
matter gained public attention through a 2006 investigative report by two Canadians, David
Kilgour, a Member of Parliament, and David Matas, a Human Rights lawyer. They claimed that
selling organs harvested without consent from executed prisoners is a regular, wide-spread and a
very lucrative business in China.
Needless to say, the means by which they sought the solution raised major ethical debates all
around. The major ethical issue with the procurement of organs from an executed prisoner is
whether a prisoner to be executed can ever be considered as a volunteer donor of organs, who
can exercise free choice to donate his organs. The World Medical Association officially
denounces harvesting organs from the executed prisoners specifically because they find that the
ability for free and informed consent is completely absent in the case of a prisoner in a death
row. Moreover, there is the further issue whether organs from death-row prisoners are always
healthy, given the harsh living conditions in a prison. In addition, there is the fear that
executions may take place specifically to harvest the much-needed organs.
Though earlier China has always denied that it used organs obtained from deceased executed
prisoners, under international pressure China has recently admitted that it did so, and has pledged
to stop the practice 7; however, there are many who are skeptical about that promise, given the
7
Staff Reporter. BBC News. China announces end date for taking prisoners organs. BBC News,
August 16 2013. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23722796 [ Last
accessed on: Jan 4 2014].
wide practice of using organs obtained from deceased executed prisoners in the hospitals, and in
the medical system of China 8.
This indicates that in ethics the end does not always justify the means. Even if the goal is noble,
how one achieves that goal is equally important from an ethical point of view. This also indicates
that at least two key ethical concerns play a major role in deciding whether the procurement of
organ is ethically acceptable or not:
1. Volunteerism: A organ donor is supposed to donate an organ out of his or her free
choice.
2. Informed consent: Harvesting organs from a body requires informed consent from the
concerned people. The consent has to be obtained after providing clear and sufficient
information in a comprehensible manner.
Even if it is not common to adopt the macabre practice of harvesting organs from executed
prisoners, in many countries harvesting organs from recently deceased bodies is a long-held
practice. This is known as cadaver donation. Even this mode of procurement of organs met
some objections on the ground that mutilating a dead body is an act of disrespect, and thus
harvesting organs from a deceased body is an act of sacrilege. We may note that in different parts
of the world, there is restriction against procuring organs from a dead body among certain
communities. Certain Native American tribes, Roma Gypsies, Confucians, Shintoists and some
orthodox Jewish rabbis, for example, discourage harvesting organs from a deceased body as an
act of sacrilege. There also used to be religious injunction among certain Christian sects against
donation of organs by a person alive. Earlier, the catholic theologians used to believe that
mutilation of one living body created by God for the benefit of another is a violation of the
Principle of Totality. Hence, they had reservations against organ transplantation. However,
perhaps both of these lines of objections could be resisted on the ground that when mutilation of
one living body, as in removal of an organ, happens for the benefit of another person, it becomes
8
Jiayang Fan. The New Yorker. Can China Stop Organ Trafficking? Jan 10 2014. Available at :
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/can-china-stop-organ-
trafficking.html [Last accessed on: Jan 14, 2013].

a noble act of benevolence or charity, and that that altruism overrides the Principle of Totality.
Similarly, the allegation of disrespect to the dead could be thwarted by the similar appeal to the
overall beneficence to the society.
We may note from the above that the following considerations must be added to the list of
ethically important concerns about organ procurement:
3. The motive of Altruism: The act of organ donation should be driven by a concern for
the well-being of the others in the society. Beneficence is an associated concept which
stands for doing good to the others.
4. Respect to the donor: The organ procurement method must not in any way show
disrespect to the donor, dead or alive, as a person.
Even for a donation of an organ as an act of giving out of ones free choice, certain ethical
questions have been raised. Given that there will be a health risk, no matter how miniscule, is it
ethical to accept an organ from a live donor and impose that risk, even if the person volunteers to
donate an organ? What if the live donor is a minor, or a child, or a mentally incompetent person?
Can we assume that they have the capacity to give consent? Should one conceive a child just so
the organ and tissues can be harvested from the child to save an older sibling? 9 If we need
consent, what should be the ethical procedure for obtaining informed consent for removing an
organ? If we need consent, and the person is not in a position to give consent, who should be
approached for consent? There is a policy that organs may be harvested from patients declared to
be brain-dead, or from a patient in irreversible coma, provided the ascertainment of brain-death
is beyond doubt and is professionally done. In such cases, the matter is relatively easy to decide
if the patient already has left some instruction in the form of a living will to be an organ donor
should he be in such a critical situation. However, in case the patient does not have any such
9
Gina Kolata. More babies being born to be donors of tissue. The New York Times, June 4, 1991.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/04/health/more-babies-being-born-to-be-donors-
of-tissue.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. [Last accessed on: Jan 4 2014]. Julian Borger and
James Meek. Parents create baby to save sister. The Guardian, October 4 2000. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/oct/04/genetics.internationalnews [last acessed on:
Jan 4 2014].
clear instruction and is not in a position to give consent, the family and relatives are approached
for consent.
Ethical worries also abound about the methods of allocation of the organs procured. One might
ask what a fair distribution policy for organs should be, given the high demand and the short
supply? Who should get an organ to be transplanted first, and who should be asked to wait?
Whose life is more important to be saved, and how is that question to be settled? The shortage
arises mainly because people usually are interested in getting an organ when they need it, but
are not interested in donating one for the needs of others.
Considering this mismatch between the need and the supply and to ensure a fair allocation policy
for organs, some countries have passed regulations that those who have enlisted their names on
the national organ donor registry, will get higher priority if they need to be placed on a waiting
queue for organ transplantation. An example of this give one and get one policy would be
Israels policy, which was passed as a law in 2010, by which those with a donor card get priority
should they need an organ for transplantation. Moreover, the law allows a transplant candidate to
move up in the priority list if they have a first-degree relative, who has a donor card or has
donated organ after death. Advocates of this law argue that the law has successfully created an
increase in organ donation. However, critics argue that this law is unfairly biased towards those
with a large family and therefore with a larger probability of someone with a donor card. It is
reported that China very recently has started a computerized system for organ distribution which
ranks the organ recipients by several parameters, e.g. severity of the condition, waiting time, and
location.
The above discussion should now enable us to see why organ theft, or organ procurement
without consent, as in forced organ removal, or removal under anesthesia without the knowledge
of the person, are considered as unethical. They violate all the relevant ethical principles, such as
autonomy, informed consent of the donor, and volunteerism, and also respect for the
donor as a person. On the other hand, they treat a human being merely as a resource to be
exploited to harvest organs, without any care for what the impact of that would be on that person.
further is to be respected.
Controversies related to organ transplantation also rage about the practice of organ sale for
financial gains in some parts of the world. Kidney rackets are notorious in certain countries,
such as India, where kidneys are reported to be sold by agents in the blackmarket at a hefty price
to wealthy buyers. It helps the rich buyers to skip any waiting period for the needed organs, but
is unfair on the others. The prominent ethical debates that these rackets provoke are about a
market of body parts, the undue exploitation of the poor and their desperate situations for
procuring organs from them against a financial payment, and the benefit that goes
unquestionably to the wealthy. The supporters of organ sale argue that individuals should be free
to sell their bodily organs if they wish to do so, as long as they do so without being forced or
under coercion.
We should note that the commercial selling of organs, also called transplant commercialism, is
considered as illegal and unethical by most countries, except a few countries such as Iran.
According to many, treating an organ or a body part as a trading commodity must not be
allowed, as it exposes both the donors and the recipients to great danger. Financial incentive can
individuals make extremely risky choices for themselves; e.g. selling one kidney despite the
health risk. There are ample instances available that the economic incentive behind trading of
organs leads to selling organs by people in desperation or due to dire poverty10. Such desperation
in a person, and the undue exploitation of that desperation by another person, are both ethically
reprehensible.
So, legitimate and ethically acceptable procurement of organs for transplantation at present relies
on two sources:
1. Organ donation by live donors: Live donation
2. Organ harvesting from cadavers: Cadaveric donation
10
Staff reporter. The Bangladesh poor selling organs to pay debts. BBC News, October 28, 2013.
Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24128096 [Last accessed on: Jan 4 2014].

Cadaveric organs are organs removed from the bodies of recently deceased people. As
mentioned earlier, even this removal ethically should include the consent of the person. A person
can become a cadaveric organ donor by intimating through a will or a legal document that they
would like to donate their body organs after their death. In certain states of USA, it is legally
required that the desire to be a cadaveric organ donor should be indicated in the drivers licence;
so that in case of sudden death, precious time would not be lost in recovering healthy organs
from the deceased body of a person who desired to be an organ donor. In case a person dies and
has not indicated his or her preference in writing or through a legal document for organ donation
after death, the family may be approached by the doctors to seek consent for organ donation
from the deceased. This is a practice that is also followed in India 11. In such cases, it depends on
the consent of the family or of the present relatives whether the organs can be retrieved.
Under the circumstances, what would the ethically right thing to do? How should we behave to
thwart the abuses, such as black-market sale of organs, organ theft, and commercial organ scams,
and yet keep ethically acceptable avenues of organ donation available? To this, India has sought
a legal solution. In 1994 Indian parliament passed the Transplantation of Human Organ Act
(THOA). Its objective is to ban organ trading by punishing the offenders and to streamline the
organ transplantation procurement and donation activities. The act accepted brain death as the
definition of death. Determination of brain death is made in the Intensive Care Units (ICU)s. It
does not allow exchange of money between donor and recipient. The act initially allowed first
relatives (father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and husband, wife) to donate organs to an
ailing relative without Governments permission.
In 2008, the act was amended to make it more stringent for touts and doctors involved in
malpractice, and also to include more willing living donors category. The amended law now
includes among relatives the grandparents, grandchildren, uncle, aunts, and even those who
stay in the family for long time, provided there is no commercial dealing involved. In case the
11
See for example Staff Reporter. Organs harvested from a Brain-Dead Accident Victim. The
Hindu, October 18 2013 . Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-
tamilnadu/organs-harvested-from-braindead-accident-victim/article5246439.ece [Last accessed
on: Jan 2 2014]
donor is unrelated, the donor has to file an affidavit in court stating the act of donation as an act
out of affection. The act also allows for swapping organs between two families looking for
organs, if no match of tissues is found within a family. But, it strictly forbids selling of organs.
Some living donors also may be willing to donate organs for strangers. Some NGOs claim to
maintain a list of such living donors. To bring more transparency to the procurement of organs
and the occurrence of organ transplants, a national registry has been suggested to keep an audit
on the organ transplant cases, the demographics of those cases, and to also prepare a profile of
the donors. For example, India now has an Indian Transplantation Registry, an initiative by
Indian Society for Organ Transplantation.
Fortunately, in India, the land of many religions, no religion has imposed a ban towards organ
donation, either from a live donor or from the deceased. However, there is still a shortage of
donated organs in the country. For example, India has 1.5 crore blind persons, which is about 1/3
of the total 4.5 crore blind persons in the world 12. Among these, corneal blindness is preventable,
and treatable through transplants. The annual need of corneal transplantation is approximately
2.5 lakh in India, but annually only about 45,000 eye donations take place. And out of these only
50-60% of the donated cornea can be used for corneal transplantation 13.
Through the assistance of NGOs and some hospitals, slowly a deceased organ donation program
has supposedly grown in certain states of India 14. However, organ donation is still not at a
desirable level. Part of the reason is that the process of convincing and obtaining consent from an
individual or from the relatives about organ donation is not easy. For a deceased organ donation
program, the hospital staff requires a special training to properly counsel the relatives. There is
also the crucial challenge of timely intervention. In case of harvesting the organs from the brain-
dead patients, the determination of which is done at the Intensive Care Units (ICU)s, the ICU
staff have to be extra vigilant to approach the relatives at the right moment.
12
TNN. An eye for an eye! The Times of India, Nagpur. Aug 25 2013. Available at:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-25/nagpur/41445823_1_corneal-blindness-
eye-donation-organ-donation [Last accessed on: Jan 3 2014].
13
Ibid.
14
Shroff, Sunil. Legal and Ethical aspects of organ donation and transplantation. Indian J
Urol. 2009 Jul-Sep; 25(3): 348355.
In order to meet the need of organs and to circumvent the challenges in the path of obtaining
consent, many European countries practice a presumed consent program, by which the
medical professionals are presumed to have consent of a deceased individual and the surviving
family members to remove the needed organs from the deceased body, unless the concerned
individuals have earlier made their objections to organ removal known. This is known as the
opt-out system. Consent is presumed unless otherwise indicated. One has to opt-out if one
does not wish to be an organ donor. Currently, countries, in which presumed consent or opt-
out system is in force, are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Finland, France, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Luxemburg, Norway,
Turkey, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. In Asia, Singapore has
been practicing opt-out system as a law since 1987. All residents of Singapore, upon reaching
the age of maturity, receives a letter that informs them of this law, and makes them aware of their
choice to opt-out of organ donation if they wish. This shows how a persons autonomy and free
choice can be respected in a system that follows presumed consent in the matter of organ
donation.
Advocates of this program argue that this makes the process of organ procurement easier, and the
supply steady, and it removes the hospital and the staff from the responsibility of obtaining
consent. However, critics of this program argue that a presumed consent system is expensive to
maintain. For, it requires that a centralized dynamic registry is created which records and updates
individual persons decision about their own body. It is also objected on ethical ground that
organ donation is supposed to be an act of altruism; making it mandatory deprives the act of
giving its dignity and the ethical quality.
The THOA of India is primarily an attempt to deter illegal sales of organ and meet the demand of
organs. It promotes the harvesting of organs from brain-dead patients by following an opt-in
method; namely, one is encouraged to donate, but donation requires explicit consent either from
the donor while alive, or from family. Govt of India is mulling over a presumed consent model;
but at present India and UK require clear and explicit expression of intent.

It must be mentioned here, however, that Spain has found a workable and ethical solution to their
organ shortage problem. Spain has a presumed consent or opt-out system; but it also has a
strong deceased organ donation system. For the past two decades Spain has continued to lead the
world in organ donation from deceased donors per million people. When the average of deceased
donor per million people for European Union is 18.1, and for the US it is 26.3. for UK it is 14.7,
for Australia it is 12.1 donors per million, Spain sets the record at 34.3 per million people. This
shows the effectiveness of their donor system. Spain set this record despite a steady decrease in
traffic deaths, which is a major source for the country harvesting organs with a presumed
consent model.
What can be learnt from Spain? First note that Spain also had an acute organ shortage crisis.
When the organ donation rate in the country plummeted to a meager 14 persons per million
people, in 1989 the Spanish Government addressed the deceased donation issue by setting up a
national network of professional transplant coordinators comprising of doctors and nurses. The
national system runs with dedication and teamwork. The professional coordinators work mostly
in the ICUs in all hospitals and closely monitor the emergency wards to identify the potential
donors. When they learn of a death, they lose no time to try to persuade the relatives to allow the
persons organs to be harvested. Only about 15% of the families refuse consent nowadays, a
huge drop from the 40% before the system was set up. At a few hospitals the refusal rate is
nearly zero. Second, note that over time a positive attitudinal change has come to Spain. Organ
donation in Spain is now considered as an opportunity and as a matter of national pride. The
Spanish has accepted that organ and tissue donation is advantageous for all, as anyone can need
transplantation at any time. 15
15
Barbara Turnbull. What Spain can teach us about the gift of life. Health and Wellness. Sept 30
2013.
http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2013/09/30/what_spain_can_teach_us_about_the_gi
ft_of_life.html [last accessed on Jan 3 2014]. Also, Michael Cook. Spain continues to lead the
world in organ donation. Bioedge, Jan 15 2010. Available at:
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/spain_continues_to_lead_world_in
_organ_donation [Last accessed on: Jan 3 2014].

Draft For HS30070 Spring 2017 Students Chap 1 CC Invitation To Ethics

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Draft For HS30070 Spring 2017 Students Chap 1 CC Invitation To Ethics

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Invitation to Ethics

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

1.2. Ethos and Ethics

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

1.3. Normative ethics, Metaethics, Applied ethics

1.4 Descriptive, and Normative

(a) Monday is the first working day in the week.

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

Normative or prescriptive: Related to some norm or standard. Judgmental. Evaluative.

(e) Torturing an innocent is bad.

(f) One should not torture an innocent.

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

1.5. Normative Ethics, Metaethics and Applied Ethics

Where do these norms of good, bad, right or wrong come from?

1.6. What is the aim of ethics?

1.7. Value identification

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

derivative of wheat and dairy products . 4

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

The question for us to consider is:

1.8. Value Clarification

1.10. Free Will and Ethics

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

1.11 The Central Question of Ethics

Others might think that the central question of ethics is:

How should one behave to become a better person?

1. Magnitude of consequences: Expected sum of benefits or harm for those affected.

2.Degree of Social consensus towards the issue

3.Probablity of the effect happening actually

4. Temporal immediacy: How soon.

5. Feeling of (social, cultural, physical, psychological) proximity with the affected

6. Concentration of effect on the affected.

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

1.14. Nature of ethical issues: More than one right answer

To resolve such cases:

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

What should you do? And why?

Note that there is no single correct answer in this case.

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

Rule A: I should not loan the money

Reason: Hard earned Money is more important (overriding) than friendship.

1.15 Nature of Ethical Issues: Complex Issues

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

Case 4: Human Organ Transplantation: Ethical Issues

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

@Chhanda Chakraborti IIT Kharagpur

También podría gustarte