Applied ethics

Taking moral theories (virtue, duty, consequences) and using them to decide real, concrete cases.

Applying moral theories to medicine: euthanasia, abortion, genetic engineering, stem-cell research.

Duty (is the act right in itself?), consequences (least suffering overall?), virtue (what would a wise, kind person do?).

Duty often says no (taking a life), consequences often says yes (ends pointless pain), virtue says 'it depends' on mercy and situation.

Whether a being counts morally, and how much — is an embryo a full person, a potential one, or just cells?

Abortion, stem cells and genetic engineering all turn on whether the embryo/fetus has full moral status.

Duty judges the ACT, consequences judges the RESULTS, virtue judges the PERSON — so the theories can pull apart.

Showing how a real case pulls duty, consequences and virtue different ways, then judging which lens fits — not just a verdict.

Can a firm chase profit AND be good, or is 'business ethics' a contradiction? Profit vs responsibility.

A company's only social responsibility is to make a lawful profit for its owners; 'doing good' is for individuals and governments.

Managers spend the owners' money, so giving it to causes taxes the owners without asking — the job is lawful profit.

The people affected by what a company does — workers, customers, suppliers, communities.

A firm owes duties to everyone it affects, not just its owners — because 'legal' isn't the same as 'right'.

They were legal somewhere yet clearly wrong — showing obeying the law can't be the whole of business ethics.

Fair trade = paying producers fairly on purpose; espionage = secretly stealing a rival's confidential information.

Same clash in a suit: Friedman leans on duty/law; the stakeholder view leans on consequences (real harm) and virtue.

What do the well-off owe the distant poor — is helping charity (optional) or duty (obligatory)?

If you can prevent something very bad without giving up anything nearly as important, you ought to do it.

You'd save a drowning child even at the cost of ruined shoes; a donation has the same shape, so giving is a duty, not charity.

Singer's essay arguing that giving to prevent distant suffering is a duty we can't skip, not optional charity.

Taken strictly, Singer's duty never stops — it could demand you give until you're nearly as poor as those you help.

A donation is less certain than the pond, and we may owe more to those close to us than to distant strangers.

Grant his core point but argue for a LIMIT — a strong duty to give a lot, not an unlimited one; argue 'how much?', not 'whether'.

Charity = a kind extra you may skip; duty = something you're obliged to do. The whole debate turns on which giving is.

When virtue, duty and consequences conflict on a real case, how do we actually decide?

Turning a big theory into a verdict on one messy real case — where the theories rarely all agree.

Pick one theory strictly; balance duty, consequences and virtue; or start from the case and use theory as a guide — each has a weakness.

No single theory gives answers that feel right in every case, so applying just one can go badly wrong.

Weighs the theories against the actual case and gives reasons others can test — not a fixed recipe.

Biomedical, business and global poverty all set duty against consequences against virtue — only the case changes.

Biomedical ethics → business ethics → distribution of wealth → how we decide when theories conflict.

Arguing a claim, testing it against the strongest objection, weighing them, and reaching a reasoned conclusion — not describing.