PYTR Class

Learning objectives

1. Describe 3 approaches of tradition ethics
2. Outline the meaning of appeal to nature fallacy

Three Approaches to Traditional Ethics

Traditional ethical theory is generally divided into three major frameworks for ethical decision-making:

• Virtue ethics – focuses on moral character and personal virtue.
• Consequentialist ethics – focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions.
• Rights-based (deontological) ethics – focuses on duties, obligations, and inherent rights.

---

1. Virtue Ethics

• Focus: Concerned with the character of the moral agent rather than the specific action performed.
• Principle: Good people are inclined to perform good actions; the development of moral character leads to ethical conduct.
• Orientation: Person-centered rather than act-centered.
• Historical Origin:
  • Developed by Aristotle (384–322 BCE) in Nicomachean Ethics, where virtue (aretē) means excellence in fulfilling one’s function or purpose.
  • Modern philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre emphasized three guiding moral questions:
    • Who am I?
    • Who ought I to become?
    • How ought I to get there?
• Concept of Virtues:
  • Virtues are enduring traits, attitudes, or dispositions enabling individuals to act excellently and achieve their moral potential.
  • Examples include honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, prudence, and self-control.
• Ethical Application:
  • Promotes moral growth through habit and reflection.
  • Extends to environmental ethics through virtues such as respect, compassion, and responsibility toward the natural world.

---

2. Consequentialist Ethics

• Focus: Evaluates the morality of an action based solely on its consequences.
• Core Idea: Actions producing good outcomes are morally right; those producing harmful outcomes are wrong.
• Utilitarian Principle:
  • Often summarized as “the greatest good for the greatest number.”
  • The morality of an act depends on how it affects overall happiness or well-being.
• Moral Question: “How will my actions affect others?”
• Application in Practice:
  • Commonly used in cost–benefit analysis, especially in business and policy-making.
  • Every cost or benefit, including human life, is often assigned a monetary value.
• Examples:
  • Demolishing homes to construct infrastructure (e.g., motorways).
  • Clearing forests for airport development.
  • Redistributing wealth through taxation.
  • Each raises the question of whether the resulting “greater good” justifies individual or environmental harm.
• Limitations:
  • May prioritize majority benefit at the expense of minorities.
  • Representative democracies often reflect this utilitarian, majoritarian logic.

---

3. Rights-Based (Deontological) Ethics

• Focus: Concerned with duties, obligations, and the inherent rights of moral agents and affected entities.
• Etymology: Derived from deon (Greek for “duty”); deontology is the study of moral obligation.
• Core Principle:
  • The moral rightness of an action depends on adherence to duty, not on its outcomes.
  • The best ethical action is one that upholds and protects the rights of all affected parties.
• Philosophical Foundation:
  • Developed by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who emphasized human dignity and rational moral duty.
  • Argued that morality must be grounded in reason rather than uncertain predictions of consequences.
• Key Beliefs:
  • Every individual must be treated as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end.
  • Ethical duties are universal and cannot be overridden for utilitarian gain.
  • Consequences such as pleasure or pain are morally irrelevant.
• Ethical Implications:
  • Protects individuals and minority rights against the majority’s interests.
  • Raises questions about the moral scope of rights (e.g., whether animals or ecosystems possess rights).

The “Appeal to Nature” Fallacy

The appeal to nature is a logical fallacy that arises when something is deemed morally good or desirable solely because it is considered “natural,” or conversely, deemed bad or undesirable because it is viewed as “unnatural.” The term natural typically refers to that which exists or occurs in nature, independent of artificial human intervention. However, determining whether phenomena caused or influenced by humans are “natural” often depends on one’s interpretive framework and philosophical perspective.

A fallacy represents a flaw in reasoning or a belief founded upon unsound argumentation. The appeal to nature fallacy occurs when individuals assume that “natural” entities or processes inherently possess moral or practical superiority. Such reasoning is problematic as it overlooks the fact that not all natural phenomena are beneficial or desirable. For example, diseases, mosquitoes, and viruses are entirely natural, yet they can cause significant harm. Therefore, appealing to the concept of “nature” alone does not provide a reliable or coherent ethical guide.

Case Study

Eradication of the Smallpox Virus

Smallpox remains the only human disease to have been completely eradicated. The disease, caused by the variola virus, was highly contagious and often fatal. Infected individuals developed ulcers and characteristic skin blisters. Survivors were frequently left with disfiguring scars and, in many cases, blindness.

The mortality rate from smallpox averaged around 30%, and during the 20th century, it is estimated that between 300 and 500 million people died from the disease. Archaeological evidence suggests that smallpox existed as far back as 1500 BCE, with traces found in Egyptian mummies. Historically, the disease claimed the lives of many, including monarchs and notable figures such as Mozart and Abraham Lincoln. Smallpox spread globally, reaching Hispaniola and later Mexico in 1507 following European exploration. Indigenous populations of the Americas, having no prior exposure or immunity, suffered devastating mortality rates of up to 90%.

In 1796, Edward Jenner developed the first successful smallpox vaccine after observing that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. This discovery marked a turning point in medical science and laid the foundation for immunology.

The World Health Organization (WHO) initiated a global smallpox eradication program in 1959. Through coordinated international vaccination campaigns and extensive public health measures, smallpox was officially declared eradicated in 1980.

Despite eradication, research on smallpox continues to this day, primarily to prepare for potential bioterrorism threats. Samples of the variola virus are securely stored in high-containment laboratories for study. However, this raises ethical and security concerns about whether such samples could ever be misused or fall into the wrong hands.

Discussion Questions

1. Which ethical approach do you think applies to the decision to eradicate smallpox?
2. Do you agree that eradicating smallpox was the right course of action?
3. Do you believe that the smallpox virus itself possesses any moral standing?
4. Should all human diseases be eradicated if it is medically and technologically possible?
5. What could be the potential consequences if smallpox samples were ever released or misused?
6. Considering that wild animals such as bears and tigers kill humans each year, would it be ethical to advocate for their eradication as well?
7. How does the choice of language—using “eradicate” versus “exterminate”—influence ethical perspectives on eliminating a species or disease?

Extension Task

Research another example of a disease that scientists are currently trying to eradicate (e.g., polio, guinea worm, or malaria).
Explain:

• Why it is being targeted
• What challenges exist
• What ethical questions might arise