The Duel of Moral Philosophies
The contrast between ideal moral behavior versus real-world actions are persistent themes throughout life. Beyond the individual, the field of bioethics benefits from a nuanced understanding of both the ought and the is — this interplay between normative theories and empirical evidence allows us to bridge the gap between philosophical ideals and our practical realities. In this essay, I explore the tensions between two influential ethical frameworks: utilitarianism, a normative theory focused on maximizing overall good, and care ethics, an empirical approach that emphasizes relationships and compassion. Through these juxtaposed perspectives, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of moral decision-making.
Utilitarianism is a reason-based approach that often leads to cost-benefit analyses, where the potential benefits are weighed against the potential harms (Timmons, 111). While this approach can be useful in making life-or-death trade offs or policies to support the common good, it can also lead to a neglect of individual needs and narrowly focus on outcomes. Utilitarianism, with its commitment to impartiality, is often an enticing framework for societies seeking to establish just systems. This impartiality principle requires that the well-being of all individuals be considered equally. However, in practice, this can lead to decisions that prioritize the needs of the many over the needs of the few (Timmons, 166). For instance, a classic Trolleyology example may depict a utilitarian who argues for diverting a runaway trolley to kill one person in order to save five. In this thought experiment, individuals struggle with making tragic choices.
On the other hand, a care ethicist might approach this same Trolley Problem by prioritizing the lives of a specific individual based on circumstances and relationships, rather than simply maximizing the overall number of lives saved. This empirical approach, derived from moral psychology, focuses on abstract principles or universal rules. By strengthening and supporting personal attachments to others, one can avoid hurting, alienating or abandoning others (Jecker and Reich, 367). Care ethics highlights the particular needs and vulnerabilities of individuals, which I believe is an essential component to the development of moral creatures. Our decisions, both personal and societal, are influenced by the relational aspects of human experience. Care ethics, by acknowledging the importance of empathy and compassion, offers a valuable counterbalance to the more rational, utilitarian approach.
The tension between these two ethical frameworks highlights the complexity of moral approaches in bioethics. While utilitarianism provides a rational and systematic approach, it can sometimes overlook the empirical nuances of human experience. Care ethics, on the other hand, offers a more empathetic and relational perspective, but it can be challenging to apply this framework consistently.
To understand this normative-empirical dialogue, we can look to wearable cardiology monitoring devices, such as smartwatches. In theory, these devices can optimize patient outcomes through earlier detection of cardiac conditions and reduce healthcare costs on a population-wide scale. While this theory promises to maximize overall well-being, it fails to account for the care of individual persons. While these devices empower individuals to take control of their health, they may unintentionally weaken the doctor-patient relationship, as overreliance on technology can diminish the importance of human connection and empathy. Constant monitoring of heart health can inadvertently increase anxiety and fear, particularly for individuals with pre-existing cardiac conditions. It is crucial to ensure that these devices are used in a way that supports, rather than hinders, the emotional and psychological wellbeing of individuals.
In a research study, moral psychologist Carol Gilligan developed the ethics of care perspective, which emphasizes the importance of relationships and empathy. The moral agent is situated within a network of connections, responding to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of others (Jecker and Reich, 367). Rather than an abstract focus, care ethics prioritizes concrete actions and responses to particular situations (Timmons, 283). The promise of wearable devices lies in their potential to maximize benefits while fostering human connection. However, to truly realize this potential, we must adopt a care ethics perspective. By designing devices that facilitate empathetic check-ins and foster supportive networks, we can mitigate the isolation and anxiety that often accompany constant monitoring. This requires a delicate balance between technological innovation and human-centered design.
The empirical-normative conversation in bioethics can significantly expand the scope and focus of the field by highlighting the interplay between reason and value, particularly emotions, in moral decision-making. Traditionally, bioethics has prioritized black-or-white, rational reasoning. However, the empirical research demonstrates how emotions can offer color to our moral judgment. By acknowledging the role of emotions, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of how ethical decisions are being made.
References:
Jecker, N. S., and W. T. Reich. “Contemporary Ethics of Care.” Encyclopedia of Bioethics, edited by S. G. Post, Macmillan Reference USA, 2004.
Timmons, Mark. Moral Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed., Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.
