1. Our approach to Bioethics
1.A. What is meant by an ‘ethico-onto-epistemology'?
1. Traditional view of bioethics
Bioethics used to be viewed as a form of applied ethics that is influenced by life sciences, medicine and
biotechnology. People saw bioethics as an umbrella term for (1) theoretical philosophy; which thinks
about questions relating to humans (philosophical anthropology), science (philosophy of science) and
metaphysics (physics-related concepts and ideas like reality) and (2) practical philosophy which was an
application of ethics, political philosophy and social philosophy.
2. Modern view of bioethics
Now however, people view bioethics differently. Instead they see bioethics as an ethico-onto-
epistemology. These three cannot be considered separately from each other and forms the basis of
bioethics. This term can be dissected into three core ideas/views/visions.
• Ontology tries to answer questions about concepts, it tries to answer how the world is. It is about the
conceptual representation of reality. In the context of life sciences, this means, for example: what do
we consider 'a disease'?
• Epistemology tries to answer questions about how we know things and about when something is true
or not. It investigates how knowledge arises and under what conditions something counts as 'scientific'.
• Ethics tries to answer questions about what we should do and why we should do it. Ethics is the
philosophical reflection on good and evil. Ethics goes a step further than morality that refers to the
common ideas of good behaviour. Ethics is mainly about: Why do we think something is right or wrong?
There are various subdomains within ethics, such as metaethics (what is 'good' anyway?), normative
ethics (what should you do?) and applied ethics, such as bioethics.
1.B. What do Thomas Hobbes and Frans de Waal say about the origins of morality?
An important question within meta-ethics is why people are sensitive to morality, and whether this is
something typically human. Two influential thinkers offer different perspectives on this.
Thomas Hobbes is a 17th-century philosopher who argued that morality stems from selfish precaution.
He states that humans are egoistic by nature and prone to violence. In the beginning of human history,
there were enough resources for everyone, but as the population grew, competition arose. This led to a
'war of everything against all'. To escape this violent condition, people entered into a social contract. They
realized that it was in everyone's interest to stick to common rules. These rules were enshrined in laws and
enforced by a strong state. So morality is a contract people have between each other in order to keep the
peace and allow society to exist and function. So innately, humans only care about themselves and the
only reason we have morality at all is because we know that without it we would all fall into destruction
and chaos. Morality is thus a means by which humanity can achieve peace and cooperation.
Frans de Waal says the exact opposite; according to him the core of humanity is naturally present in
humans. His research shows that non-human animals, such as monkeys, also exhibit feelings of fairness
and altruism, traits that are considered fundamental to morality. Thus he argues that morality is innately
present in not only humans but also animals. He acknowledges that human morality often goes further
and contains elements such as religion and taboo, but he emphasizes that the 'basic conditions for
morality', such as empathy, care for others and a sense of justice, are already present in other animal
species.
So while Hobbes sees morality as a rational response to a chaotic society, de Waal sees morality as
something that is biologically embedded in social animals.
, 2. Moral theories
2.A. Explain utilitarianism. What are its strong and weak points?
1. What is utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that decides whether an act is good or bad based on the
consequences of that act. It tries to adhere by the following principle: “the greatest good for the greatest
number of people” or alternatively “the least bad for the less amount of people”. This does beg the
question of what is deemed good or bad. Since this is a subjective question, different people have tried to
answer it.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill both have a more hedonistic view of how and when utilitarianism
should be applied. According to them, what is good is anything that causes pleasure and/or happiness
and what is bad is anything that causes suffering and/or pain. Jeremy Bentham looked quantitatively at
good and bad; more/longer pleasure and/or happiness outweighs less/short pleasure and/or happiness
and less/short suffering and/or pain outweighs more/less suffering and/or pain. John Stuart Mill looked at
it qualitatively: he assessed pleasure and/or happiness or suffering and/or pain based on its type. One
pleasure and/or happiness could outweigh another based on what type of pleasure and/or happiness it
was (same applies to suffering/pain). For example: he thought that intellectual pleasure outweighs athletic
pleasure.
There was a lot of critique on hedonistic utilitarianism out of which many alternatives were created.
Preference utilitarianism doesn’t just look at pleasure and pain but also looks at people’s preferences and
the extent to which they will get satisfied to decide whether something is good or bad. Act utilitarianism
looks at the act itself (does the act itself cause pain or pleasure?) and judges, based on how many people
are positively or negatively affected, what is good and what is bad. Finally, rule utilitarianism looks at rules
rather than individual acts. This type of utilitarianism judges if something is good or bad based on general
(existing) rules and the consequences of those rules.
2. Prons and cons of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is progressive; it doesn’t discriminate between animals and humans or between man and
woman because it’s based on happiness and suffering (or also satisfaction of personal preferences) and
thus all of the above would be thought of when applying utilitarianism. It is based on common sense and
can thus come easy and natural to most people. It’s also interesting for policy making since it applies a
more scientific way of looking by using a balance scale to decide if something is good or bad (do the
consequences of this action benefit more people than they harm?).
Utilitarianism can sacrifice minorities since they wouldn’t be favoured in decision-making seeing as
they’re with fewer than the many. It is also speculative; it predicts the consequences of an act or multiple
acts but those predicted consequences are not guaranteed to happen. It can also go against core existing
principles like promises; if breaking a promise would benefit more people you’d have to do it according to
utilitarianism but promises are known for being something sacred and something to protect. It also
neglects the importance of personal relations. Finally, it can have supererogatory conclusions that can
exceed what an individual person might be okay sacrificing or might be able to do.
1.A. What is meant by an ‘ethico-onto-epistemology'?
1. Traditional view of bioethics
Bioethics used to be viewed as a form of applied ethics that is influenced by life sciences, medicine and
biotechnology. People saw bioethics as an umbrella term for (1) theoretical philosophy; which thinks
about questions relating to humans (philosophical anthropology), science (philosophy of science) and
metaphysics (physics-related concepts and ideas like reality) and (2) practical philosophy which was an
application of ethics, political philosophy and social philosophy.
2. Modern view of bioethics
Now however, people view bioethics differently. Instead they see bioethics as an ethico-onto-
epistemology. These three cannot be considered separately from each other and forms the basis of
bioethics. This term can be dissected into three core ideas/views/visions.
• Ontology tries to answer questions about concepts, it tries to answer how the world is. It is about the
conceptual representation of reality. In the context of life sciences, this means, for example: what do
we consider 'a disease'?
• Epistemology tries to answer questions about how we know things and about when something is true
or not. It investigates how knowledge arises and under what conditions something counts as 'scientific'.
• Ethics tries to answer questions about what we should do and why we should do it. Ethics is the
philosophical reflection on good and evil. Ethics goes a step further than morality that refers to the
common ideas of good behaviour. Ethics is mainly about: Why do we think something is right or wrong?
There are various subdomains within ethics, such as metaethics (what is 'good' anyway?), normative
ethics (what should you do?) and applied ethics, such as bioethics.
1.B. What do Thomas Hobbes and Frans de Waal say about the origins of morality?
An important question within meta-ethics is why people are sensitive to morality, and whether this is
something typically human. Two influential thinkers offer different perspectives on this.
Thomas Hobbes is a 17th-century philosopher who argued that morality stems from selfish precaution.
He states that humans are egoistic by nature and prone to violence. In the beginning of human history,
there were enough resources for everyone, but as the population grew, competition arose. This led to a
'war of everything against all'. To escape this violent condition, people entered into a social contract. They
realized that it was in everyone's interest to stick to common rules. These rules were enshrined in laws and
enforced by a strong state. So morality is a contract people have between each other in order to keep the
peace and allow society to exist and function. So innately, humans only care about themselves and the
only reason we have morality at all is because we know that without it we would all fall into destruction
and chaos. Morality is thus a means by which humanity can achieve peace and cooperation.
Frans de Waal says the exact opposite; according to him the core of humanity is naturally present in
humans. His research shows that non-human animals, such as monkeys, also exhibit feelings of fairness
and altruism, traits that are considered fundamental to morality. Thus he argues that morality is innately
present in not only humans but also animals. He acknowledges that human morality often goes further
and contains elements such as religion and taboo, but he emphasizes that the 'basic conditions for
morality', such as empathy, care for others and a sense of justice, are already present in other animal
species.
So while Hobbes sees morality as a rational response to a chaotic society, de Waal sees morality as
something that is biologically embedded in social animals.
, 2. Moral theories
2.A. Explain utilitarianism. What are its strong and weak points?
1. What is utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that decides whether an act is good or bad based on the
consequences of that act. It tries to adhere by the following principle: “the greatest good for the greatest
number of people” or alternatively “the least bad for the less amount of people”. This does beg the
question of what is deemed good or bad. Since this is a subjective question, different people have tried to
answer it.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill both have a more hedonistic view of how and when utilitarianism
should be applied. According to them, what is good is anything that causes pleasure and/or happiness
and what is bad is anything that causes suffering and/or pain. Jeremy Bentham looked quantitatively at
good and bad; more/longer pleasure and/or happiness outweighs less/short pleasure and/or happiness
and less/short suffering and/or pain outweighs more/less suffering and/or pain. John Stuart Mill looked at
it qualitatively: he assessed pleasure and/or happiness or suffering and/or pain based on its type. One
pleasure and/or happiness could outweigh another based on what type of pleasure and/or happiness it
was (same applies to suffering/pain). For example: he thought that intellectual pleasure outweighs athletic
pleasure.
There was a lot of critique on hedonistic utilitarianism out of which many alternatives were created.
Preference utilitarianism doesn’t just look at pleasure and pain but also looks at people’s preferences and
the extent to which they will get satisfied to decide whether something is good or bad. Act utilitarianism
looks at the act itself (does the act itself cause pain or pleasure?) and judges, based on how many people
are positively or negatively affected, what is good and what is bad. Finally, rule utilitarianism looks at rules
rather than individual acts. This type of utilitarianism judges if something is good or bad based on general
(existing) rules and the consequences of those rules.
2. Prons and cons of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is progressive; it doesn’t discriminate between animals and humans or between man and
woman because it’s based on happiness and suffering (or also satisfaction of personal preferences) and
thus all of the above would be thought of when applying utilitarianism. It is based on common sense and
can thus come easy and natural to most people. It’s also interesting for policy making since it applies a
more scientific way of looking by using a balance scale to decide if something is good or bad (do the
consequences of this action benefit more people than they harm?).
Utilitarianism can sacrifice minorities since they wouldn’t be favoured in decision-making seeing as
they’re with fewer than the many. It is also speculative; it predicts the consequences of an act or multiple
acts but those predicted consequences are not guaranteed to happen. It can also go against core existing
principles like promises; if breaking a promise would benefit more people you’d have to do it according to
utilitarianism but promises are known for being something sacred and something to protect. It also
neglects the importance of personal relations. Finally, it can have supererogatory conclusions that can
exceed what an individual person might be okay sacrificing or might be able to do.
