EXAM QUESTIONS BIOETHICS
Chapter 1 – Our approach to bioethics
Concepts: ethics, thought experiment, experimental philosophy, morality, egoistic prudence, ethical naturalism, ethical non-naturalism
Q1 – What is meant by an ‘ethico-onto-epistemology'?
Bioethics needs to think together with philosophers of science, metaethicists and political scientists. Questions about
how the world is (ontology) and how we know things (epistemology) are intimately entangled with ethical questions. The
way bioethics is approached in this course is hence inspired by the ideas of Karen Barad: ethico-onto-epistemology.
Ontology: How the world IS
Epistemology: How we KNOW things
Ethics: What we SHOULD do
⇨ all these aspects are deeply entangled
Ontology:
Ontology is about how we understand and describe reality, so what we believe exists and how we make sense of it.
Some things that seem simple in everyday life become more complex when we think deeply about them. For example,
take the idea of "curing a disease." What exactly do we mean by "disease"? Is it something with a clear biological cause,
like in the case of influenza? Or is it when a particular person significantly deviates from the statistical mean, such as
with high blood pressure? Does it depend on how people usually function? These questions also matter to researchers.
For instance, many scientists study genes to try to understand the causes of autism. But that raises more questions: Why
are they doing this research? Are they trying to cure or prevent autism? And should autism be seen as a disease, a
disorder, or simply a variant of normal human behavior? These kinds of questions are important in science because they
shape how we communicate and understand research. For example, if scientists find a link between a certain gene and a
behavior like intelligence, can we really say they’ve found "the gene for intelligence"? Maybe not, it's more complicated
than that.
Epistemology and philosophy of science:
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that asks: how do we know what we know? It's about understanding where
knowledge comes from, how it's justified, and what counts as true knowledge. The philosophy of science is a part of
epistemology that focuses specifically on how science works: how scientists create knowledge and what makes that
knowledge reliable or scientific.
Some key ideas from the text:
• What counts as science?
Sometimes, scientists talk about things we can’t directly observe, like string theory in physics. Even though we
might never see these "strings," the theory helps explain what we can see. This raises a question: if we can’t test or
observe something directly, is it still science, or is it just philosophy?
• How does science progress?
Many people think science just keeps building on itself step by step. But philosopher Thomas Kuhn said that’s not
always true. He believed science goes through big shifts — what he called paradigm shifts. A paradigm is the
shared way scientists see the world. When evidence doesn't fit anymore, the whole way of thinking can change
(like switching from believing the Earth is the center of the universe to knowing the Sun is).
• Science isn’t completely neutral.
Philosophers, especially feminist philosophers, point out that science is influenced by social and political values.
For example, for a long time, research focused more on men’s health than women’s. That wasn’t because
women’s health isn’t important, but because of cultural biases.
• Values affect decisions in science.
Even inside the lab, scientists make judgment calls. The acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis always involves the
risk of getting it wrong, so internal influences exist as well. Whether we accept or reject a hypothesis thus not only
depends on the data, but also on our weighing of the consequences of error. For instance, if you're testing cancer
treatments, you might want to be more cautious about accepting results than if you're just testing lightbulbs.
1
, • Who decides what gets studied?
Since values influence science, we have to ask: whose values matter? Who decides what questions are important,
what research we pursue and how we pursue it? Feminist philosophers say that including more diverse
perspectives can improve science. People from different backgrounds may notice problems others miss or bring
new insights. Diversity doesn’t just make science more fair, it can make it more accurate.
In short:
Epistemology helps us think critically about what we call knowledge. When it comes to science, it reminds us that even
scientific "facts" are shaped by theories, values, and the people doing the research. That’s why questioning how we
know things, and who gets to decide, is essential.
Ethics:
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that explores questions about right and wrong, good and evil, and how we should live.
The roots of ethical thinking go back to ancient philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle. Socrates believed that one of
the most important questions in philosophy is: "How should one live?" This question is at the heart of ethics, as it
involves thinking about moral values, justice, and what makes a good life or a fair society. Today, ethics is often
understood as moral philosophy: the study of the principles behind our norms and values. It can be divided into
different areas:
1. Non-normative ethics: These branches aim to describe or understand morality, not to judge it.
a. Descriptive ethics or moral sciences looks at how people actually behave and what moral beliefs they
hold, using tools from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. For example, psychologists
like Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan studied how children develop moral reasoning.
b. Metaethics goes deeper, asking what morality really is. Why do humans care about right and wrong?
Are our morals based on emotions like guilt, or do they require reason and reflection? Metaethics also
examines big ideas like "justice" and "goodness."
2. Normative ethics: These areas try to figure out how we should act.
a. General normative ethics focuses on creating rules or theories about what’s right and wrong.
Philosophers in this field try to define the basic principles we should live by.
b. Applied ethics takes those principles and applies them to real-life situations. For example:
i. In business ethics, we might ask what responsibilities a company has to its workers.
ii. In media ethics, we consider what journalists owe to their sources or audiences.
In summary, ethics is the study of morality, of how we live, why we care about right and wrong, and how we make
decisions in everyday life and in society. It helps us reflect not just on personal behavior, but also on the broader
systems and structures that affect our lives.
Q2 – What do Thomas Hobbes and Frans de Waal say about the origins of morality?
Thomas Hobbes and Frans De Waal offer very different views on the origins of morality:
Thomas Hobbes believed that morality comes from self-interest and the need for survival in human society (egoistic
prudence). He argued that as human populations grew and resources became scarce, people began to compete and
fight for survival. In response to this constant conflict, humans created a social contract, which is an agreement to
follow certain rules and moral norms for the sake of peace and mutual benefit. According to Hobbes, morality is not
natural but something humans invented to avoid chaos and protect themselves, and it is enforced through laws and the
state.
Frans De Waal, on the other hand, argues that morality is rooted in our animal nature. As a biologist, he has
observed altruistic and fair behavior in animals, suggesting that these building blocks of morality has its roots in our
animal nature. Unlike Hobbes, De Waal believes that morality did not arise solely from rational agreements or laws, but
has evolved naturally as part of how social animals, including humans, live together.
Altruism = selfless concern for the well-being of others
In short, Hobbes sees morality as a human invention based on self-interest and social order, while De Waal sees it as
something more biologically and evolutionarily grounded, shared with other animals.
2
, Chapter 2 – Moral Theories
Concepts: utilitarianism, deontology, theory of justice, virtue ethics, care ethics, experience machine, preference utilitarianism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, hedonism, supererogatory, speciesism, categorical imperative, hypothetical imperative, eudaimonia,
phronesis, thin morality, thick morality
Q1 – Explain utilitarianism. What are its strong and weak points?
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the consequences of actions. It argues that the morally right action is the
one that produces “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which
evaluates actions based on their outcomes. So, it is a question of doing a cost-benefit analysis: You weigh what it would
cost to do something and the consequences. A classic thought experiment to understand utilitarianism is the trolley
problem. Imagine you are standing beside tracks and a trolley approaches. Five people are tied to the tracks and if the
trolley continues its course, it will kill them. However, you can pull the lever making the trolley change its course to
another track that only has one person tied to it. A utilitarian would typically say yes, because saving five lives results in a
better outcome than saving one.
Jeremy Bentham was one of the first to systematize utilitarianism. He believed morality should be based on reason, not
belief. He introduced a hedonistic calculus where only pleasure matters: actions are good if they increase pleasure and
are immoral if they cause pain. However, critics like Robert Nozick challenged this by arguing that people care about
reality and meaning, not just pleasurable experiences. He describes the experience machine thought experiment.
Imagine there is a machine that can simulate any pleasurable experience you want. According to hedonism, plugging into
this machine should be as fulfilling as experiencing real-life pleasures. However, Nozick argues that people would
generally prefer to engage in activities that bring them pleasure rather than simply experiencing them artificially. This
suggests we wouldn’t want to live a life of fake pleasures, even if it felt good, the reality of our experiences matter too.
John Stuart Mill refined utilitarianism by arguing that some pleasures (like intellectual ones) are higher or more
valuable than others (like physical pleasures). In the twentieth century, preference utilitarianism emerged, suggesting
that instead of maximizing pleasure, we should focus on satisfying preferences, which may not always be about personal
happiness. Utilitarianism was further refined. Act utilitarianism evaluates each act seperatily and decides what brings
the most happiness in that moment. Rule utilitarianism focuses on what general rules would lead to the most happiness
over time, even if breaking the rule (like do not lie) might seem better in a single case (e.g. lying may help short-term but
harms trust overall).
Strengths of utilitarianism:
• Inclusive: It considers everyone’s happiness equally, including women, children and animals. Bentham referred to
animals when he stated: “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?”.
• Progressive: Philosophers like Peter Singer have used it to argue that making moral distinctions between human
and non-human animals is speciesism, which he equates to racism and sexism.
• Interesting for policy-making: It helps with though real-world decisions, such as setting priorities in public policy.
E.g. should limited health funds go to Botox or cancer treatment?
Weaknesses of utilitarianism:
• Measuring suffering is difficult: How do we compare the pain of a person, an animal, or even the environment?
Whose suffering counts most?
• Speculative: Utilitarianism is about deciding what is right or wrong based on results that are in the future, so it
remains kind of speculative. E.g. Supporting nuclear power might reduce emissions, but what if there is a disaster?
• Can harm minorities: It risks justifying action that benefit the majority at the cost of a few. Would it be right to
sacrifice one healthy person if their organs can save five sick patients? Or allow slavery if it benefits the majority? It
raises ethical concerns about sacrificing some for the greater good.
• Supererogation: Utilitarianism can demand more than what we feel is reasonable. It might ask too much of us.
Singer argues that if we can prevent suffering without giving up something equally important, we should do it. E.g.
Spending €100 on shoes instead of buying a net to prevent a child from drowning is, to him, morally wrong. Many
would agree that helping is good, but feel this demand is too extreme.
• Importance of personal relations
3
Chapter 1 – Our approach to bioethics
Concepts: ethics, thought experiment, experimental philosophy, morality, egoistic prudence, ethical naturalism, ethical non-naturalism
Q1 – What is meant by an ‘ethico-onto-epistemology'?
Bioethics needs to think together with philosophers of science, metaethicists and political scientists. Questions about
how the world is (ontology) and how we know things (epistemology) are intimately entangled with ethical questions. The
way bioethics is approached in this course is hence inspired by the ideas of Karen Barad: ethico-onto-epistemology.
Ontology: How the world IS
Epistemology: How we KNOW things
Ethics: What we SHOULD do
⇨ all these aspects are deeply entangled
Ontology:
Ontology is about how we understand and describe reality, so what we believe exists and how we make sense of it.
Some things that seem simple in everyday life become more complex when we think deeply about them. For example,
take the idea of "curing a disease." What exactly do we mean by "disease"? Is it something with a clear biological cause,
like in the case of influenza? Or is it when a particular person significantly deviates from the statistical mean, such as
with high blood pressure? Does it depend on how people usually function? These questions also matter to researchers.
For instance, many scientists study genes to try to understand the causes of autism. But that raises more questions: Why
are they doing this research? Are they trying to cure or prevent autism? And should autism be seen as a disease, a
disorder, or simply a variant of normal human behavior? These kinds of questions are important in science because they
shape how we communicate and understand research. For example, if scientists find a link between a certain gene and a
behavior like intelligence, can we really say they’ve found "the gene for intelligence"? Maybe not, it's more complicated
than that.
Epistemology and philosophy of science:
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that asks: how do we know what we know? It's about understanding where
knowledge comes from, how it's justified, and what counts as true knowledge. The philosophy of science is a part of
epistemology that focuses specifically on how science works: how scientists create knowledge and what makes that
knowledge reliable or scientific.
Some key ideas from the text:
• What counts as science?
Sometimes, scientists talk about things we can’t directly observe, like string theory in physics. Even though we
might never see these "strings," the theory helps explain what we can see. This raises a question: if we can’t test or
observe something directly, is it still science, or is it just philosophy?
• How does science progress?
Many people think science just keeps building on itself step by step. But philosopher Thomas Kuhn said that’s not
always true. He believed science goes through big shifts — what he called paradigm shifts. A paradigm is the
shared way scientists see the world. When evidence doesn't fit anymore, the whole way of thinking can change
(like switching from believing the Earth is the center of the universe to knowing the Sun is).
• Science isn’t completely neutral.
Philosophers, especially feminist philosophers, point out that science is influenced by social and political values.
For example, for a long time, research focused more on men’s health than women’s. That wasn’t because
women’s health isn’t important, but because of cultural biases.
• Values affect decisions in science.
Even inside the lab, scientists make judgment calls. The acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis always involves the
risk of getting it wrong, so internal influences exist as well. Whether we accept or reject a hypothesis thus not only
depends on the data, but also on our weighing of the consequences of error. For instance, if you're testing cancer
treatments, you might want to be more cautious about accepting results than if you're just testing lightbulbs.
1
, • Who decides what gets studied?
Since values influence science, we have to ask: whose values matter? Who decides what questions are important,
what research we pursue and how we pursue it? Feminist philosophers say that including more diverse
perspectives can improve science. People from different backgrounds may notice problems others miss or bring
new insights. Diversity doesn’t just make science more fair, it can make it more accurate.
In short:
Epistemology helps us think critically about what we call knowledge. When it comes to science, it reminds us that even
scientific "facts" are shaped by theories, values, and the people doing the research. That’s why questioning how we
know things, and who gets to decide, is essential.
Ethics:
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that explores questions about right and wrong, good and evil, and how we should live.
The roots of ethical thinking go back to ancient philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle. Socrates believed that one of
the most important questions in philosophy is: "How should one live?" This question is at the heart of ethics, as it
involves thinking about moral values, justice, and what makes a good life or a fair society. Today, ethics is often
understood as moral philosophy: the study of the principles behind our norms and values. It can be divided into
different areas:
1. Non-normative ethics: These branches aim to describe or understand morality, not to judge it.
a. Descriptive ethics or moral sciences looks at how people actually behave and what moral beliefs they
hold, using tools from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. For example, psychologists
like Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan studied how children develop moral reasoning.
b. Metaethics goes deeper, asking what morality really is. Why do humans care about right and wrong?
Are our morals based on emotions like guilt, or do they require reason and reflection? Metaethics also
examines big ideas like "justice" and "goodness."
2. Normative ethics: These areas try to figure out how we should act.
a. General normative ethics focuses on creating rules or theories about what’s right and wrong.
Philosophers in this field try to define the basic principles we should live by.
b. Applied ethics takes those principles and applies them to real-life situations. For example:
i. In business ethics, we might ask what responsibilities a company has to its workers.
ii. In media ethics, we consider what journalists owe to their sources or audiences.
In summary, ethics is the study of morality, of how we live, why we care about right and wrong, and how we make
decisions in everyday life and in society. It helps us reflect not just on personal behavior, but also on the broader
systems and structures that affect our lives.
Q2 – What do Thomas Hobbes and Frans de Waal say about the origins of morality?
Thomas Hobbes and Frans De Waal offer very different views on the origins of morality:
Thomas Hobbes believed that morality comes from self-interest and the need for survival in human society (egoistic
prudence). He argued that as human populations grew and resources became scarce, people began to compete and
fight for survival. In response to this constant conflict, humans created a social contract, which is an agreement to
follow certain rules and moral norms for the sake of peace and mutual benefit. According to Hobbes, morality is not
natural but something humans invented to avoid chaos and protect themselves, and it is enforced through laws and the
state.
Frans De Waal, on the other hand, argues that morality is rooted in our animal nature. As a biologist, he has
observed altruistic and fair behavior in animals, suggesting that these building blocks of morality has its roots in our
animal nature. Unlike Hobbes, De Waal believes that morality did not arise solely from rational agreements or laws, but
has evolved naturally as part of how social animals, including humans, live together.
Altruism = selfless concern for the well-being of others
In short, Hobbes sees morality as a human invention based on self-interest and social order, while De Waal sees it as
something more biologically and evolutionarily grounded, shared with other animals.
2
, Chapter 2 – Moral Theories
Concepts: utilitarianism, deontology, theory of justice, virtue ethics, care ethics, experience machine, preference utilitarianism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, hedonism, supererogatory, speciesism, categorical imperative, hypothetical imperative, eudaimonia,
phronesis, thin morality, thick morality
Q1 – Explain utilitarianism. What are its strong and weak points?
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the consequences of actions. It argues that the morally right action is the
one that produces “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which
evaluates actions based on their outcomes. So, it is a question of doing a cost-benefit analysis: You weigh what it would
cost to do something and the consequences. A classic thought experiment to understand utilitarianism is the trolley
problem. Imagine you are standing beside tracks and a trolley approaches. Five people are tied to the tracks and if the
trolley continues its course, it will kill them. However, you can pull the lever making the trolley change its course to
another track that only has one person tied to it. A utilitarian would typically say yes, because saving five lives results in a
better outcome than saving one.
Jeremy Bentham was one of the first to systematize utilitarianism. He believed morality should be based on reason, not
belief. He introduced a hedonistic calculus where only pleasure matters: actions are good if they increase pleasure and
are immoral if they cause pain. However, critics like Robert Nozick challenged this by arguing that people care about
reality and meaning, not just pleasurable experiences. He describes the experience machine thought experiment.
Imagine there is a machine that can simulate any pleasurable experience you want. According to hedonism, plugging into
this machine should be as fulfilling as experiencing real-life pleasures. However, Nozick argues that people would
generally prefer to engage in activities that bring them pleasure rather than simply experiencing them artificially. This
suggests we wouldn’t want to live a life of fake pleasures, even if it felt good, the reality of our experiences matter too.
John Stuart Mill refined utilitarianism by arguing that some pleasures (like intellectual ones) are higher or more
valuable than others (like physical pleasures). In the twentieth century, preference utilitarianism emerged, suggesting
that instead of maximizing pleasure, we should focus on satisfying preferences, which may not always be about personal
happiness. Utilitarianism was further refined. Act utilitarianism evaluates each act seperatily and decides what brings
the most happiness in that moment. Rule utilitarianism focuses on what general rules would lead to the most happiness
over time, even if breaking the rule (like do not lie) might seem better in a single case (e.g. lying may help short-term but
harms trust overall).
Strengths of utilitarianism:
• Inclusive: It considers everyone’s happiness equally, including women, children and animals. Bentham referred to
animals when he stated: “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?”.
• Progressive: Philosophers like Peter Singer have used it to argue that making moral distinctions between human
and non-human animals is speciesism, which he equates to racism and sexism.
• Interesting for policy-making: It helps with though real-world decisions, such as setting priorities in public policy.
E.g. should limited health funds go to Botox or cancer treatment?
Weaknesses of utilitarianism:
• Measuring suffering is difficult: How do we compare the pain of a person, an animal, or even the environment?
Whose suffering counts most?
• Speculative: Utilitarianism is about deciding what is right or wrong based on results that are in the future, so it
remains kind of speculative. E.g. Supporting nuclear power might reduce emissions, but what if there is a disaster?
• Can harm minorities: It risks justifying action that benefit the majority at the cost of a few. Would it be right to
sacrifice one healthy person if their organs can save five sick patients? Or allow slavery if it benefits the majority? It
raises ethical concerns about sacrificing some for the greater good.
• Supererogation: Utilitarianism can demand more than what we feel is reasonable. It might ask too much of us.
Singer argues that if we can prevent suffering without giving up something equally important, we should do it. E.g.
Spending €100 on shoes instead of buying a net to prevent a child from drowning is, to him, morally wrong. Many
would agree that helping is good, but feel this demand is too extreme.
• Importance of personal relations
3
