1
APPLIED ETHICS
Applied ethics is a branch of philosophy that focuses on the practical application of moral
principles and theories to specific real-world problems. Unlike metaethics, which investigates the
nature of morality itself, and normative ethics, which develops general moral principles, applied
ethics takes a concrete approach to address moral dilemmas in areas like business, medicine,
technology, law, and the environment (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).
Applied ethics is driven by the need to bridge the gap between abstract ethical theories and the
practical challenges of daily life. It involves taking normative ethical theories, such as deontology,
utilitarianism, and virtue ethics, and using them to analyze and resolve specific ethical dilemmas.
For example, utilitarianism might be used to evaluate whether the consequences of an action
maximize overall happiness, while deontology would examine whether the action adheres to
universal moral rules.
A hallmark of applied ethics is its emphasis on contextual specificity. Ethical issues in healthcare,
such as the allocation of scarce resources, differ significantly from those in environmental ethics,
where the focus might be on sustainability and intergenerational justice. By considering the
unique circumstances and stakeholders of each situation, applied ethics provides actionable
moral guidance.
Prominent areas of applied ethics include the following:
1. Medical Ethics
Medical ethics is one of the most established branches of applied ethics, focusing on moral
principles in healthcare. Core principles include:
Autonomy: Respecting the patient's right to make their own
decisions.
Beneficence: Acting in the best interest of the patient.
Non-maleficence: Avoiding harm.
Justice: Ensuring fairness in the distribution of healthcare
resources.
Example Dilemma:
• Euthanasia: Should a terminally ill patient have the right to assisted suicide? Advocates
argue that respecting autonomy and relieving suffering support euthanasia, while
opponents cite the principle of non-maleficence and concerns about the sanctity of life
(Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).
2
2. Business Ethics
Business ethics examines the ethical responsibilities of organizations and individuals in
commerce. Key principles include:
Integrity: Upholding honesty and moral conduct.
Accountability: Taking responsibility for actions.
Fairness: Ensuring equal treatment of employees and
stakeholders.
Example Dilemma:
• Whistleblowing: Should an employee disclose unethical
practices in a company? Whistleblowers may protect the public
interest and ensure accountability but face retaliation and
potential breaches of loyalty to the organization (Shaw, 2020).
3. Environmental Ethics
Environmental ethics addresses moral responsibilities toward the natural world and future
generations. Fundamental principles include:
Sustainability: Ensuring resources are conserved for future
generations.
Interconnectedness: Recognizing the intrinsic value of all living
beings.
Precautionary Principle: Avoiding actions with uncertain but
potentially catastrophic outcomes.
Example Dilemma:
• Climate Change: Should industrialized nations bear more
responsibility for reducing emissions than developing nations?
Industrialized countries have historically contributed more to global
emissions, but developing nations argue for equitable
opportunities to grow their economies (Gardiner, 2011).
4. Technology Ethics
With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, and data collection, technology
ethics explores the moral implications of innovation. Principles include:
Transparency: Ensuring users understand how technologies function.
Privacy: Safeguarding personal data.
3
Accountability: Holding developers and companies responsible for
unintended consequences.
Example Dilemma:
• AI in Hiring: Should companies use AI algorithms for recruitment?
While AI can streamline hiring and reduce bias, it may unintentionally
reinforce systemic discrimination if algorithms are trained on biased
datasets (Bostrom, 2014).
Applied ethics uses foundational moral principles to tackle dilemmas in real-world contexts,
requiring a balance between theoretical frameworks and situational complexities. Each area—be
it medicine, business, the environment, or technology—presents unique challenges that demand
nuanced ethical reasoning to ensure decisions align with overarching values like justice, fairness,
and respect for human and non-human life.
ACTIVITY: EXPLORING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
Objective: To apply ethical theories and principles to real-world scenarios and evaluate the moral
reasoning behind decisions.
Instructions:
1. Choose one of the following applied ethics areas discussed in the module:
▪ Medical Ethics
▪ Business Ethics
▪ Environmental Ethics
▪ Technology Ethics
2. Research a current ethical dilemma in your chosen area (e.g., AI in hiring, climate change
responsibility, whistleblowing).
3. Write a 300-word reflection discussing how normative ethical theories (e.g., utilitarianism,
deontology, virtue ethics) can be used to address this dilemma.
4. Conclude by stating your own ethical stance and the reasoning behind your decision.
The Doctrine of Double Effect as a Framework in Approaching Ethical
Issues and Dilemma
Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory forms the foundation of the Doctrine of Double Effect
(DDE), a principle in moral philosophy and theology that seeks to address ethical dilemmas
involving actions with both good and bad consequences. Aquinas posits that morality is rooted in
the rational discernment of human purpose and the pursuit of good as defined by divine law.
4
This framework emphasizes the inherent morality of actions and the importance of intention.
Building on these ideas, the Doctrine of Double Effect, often associated with Aquinas, asserts that
an action producing both a good and a harmful effect may be morally permissible if certain
conditions are met.
These conditions are as follows:
1. The Nature of the Act: The action itself must be morally good or at least
morally neutral.
2. The Intention Principle: The agent must intend only the good effect, not
the bad effect, even if the bad effect is foreseen.
3. The Means-End Principle: The bad effect must not be the means to
achieving the good effect.
4. Proportionality: There must be a proportionately grave reason for
permitting the bad effect.
These conditions are chronological and must be evaluated in sequence. If any one of these
conditions is not satisfied, the action must not proceed.
1. The Nature of the Act is the foundational requirement. An action that is inherently
immoral cannot be justified, no matter how favorable the intended or actual
consequences may seem.
2. Once the action passes this first condition, the Intention Principle ensures that the agent's
motivation is focused solely on achieving the good effect, with the bad effect being an
unintended but foreseen consequence. If the agent intentionally seeks the bad effect, the
action is impermissible.
3. The Means-End Principle guards against the bad effect being used as a means to achieve
the good effect. The good effect must result directly from the action itself, not from the
harmful consequence.
4. Lastly, even when the previous conditions are met, Proportionality requires that the good
effect must outweigh the bad effect in moral gravity. Without a sufficiently grave reason,
the action remains unjustifiable.
5
This structured framework has been widely applied in various contexts. For example, in medical
ethics, high doses of painkillers may be administered to alleviate suffering, even if they
unintentionally hasten death. Similarly, in wartime ethics, civilian casualties might occur as
unintended side effects of targeting military objectives.
Despite its utility, the DDE has faced criticism, particularly regarding its reliance on the distinction
between intended and foreseen consequences, which some argue can be ambiguous in practice.
Nevertheless, the Doctrine of Double Effect continues to be a significant tool in ethical reasoning,
bridging Aquinas' natural law principles with the complexities of real-world moral challenges.
The Trolley Dilemma and the Application of the Doctrine of Double
Effect
The Trolley Dilemma is a philosophical thought experiment that explores the ethics of decision-
making when faced with moral dilemmas involving harm and consequences. It has several
versions, the most prominent being the Standard Case and the Fat Man Case (Foot, 1967;
Kaufman, 2015).
In the Standard Case, a trolley is headed toward five people tied to a track. You are standing near
a lever that can divert the trolley onto a side track, where one person is tied up. Pulling the lever
will save five lives but result in the death of the one individual on the side track. Most people find
this action morally permissible because the harm (the death of the one) is not intended but a
foreseen and regrettable side effect of the act of saving five lives (Kaufman, 2015).
In the Fat Man Case, the trolley is again on course to kill five people, but there is no side track or
lever. Instead, you are on a bridge with a very large man whose body could stop the trolley if you
push him onto the track. While this action would save five lives, it would directly cause the death
of the man. Unlike the Standard Case, most people find this action morally impermissible. The
distinction lies in the means of achieving the good outcome: in this case, the death of the man is
intentional, as it is directly used to save the others, making the action morally problematic
(Thomson, 1985; Kaufman, 2015).
These scenarios are further complicated by variations like the Loop Case, where a diverted trolley
loops back onto the main track. On the side track is one person whose body would stop the trolley
from returning to the five. The design of this case blurs the line between intended and foreseen
harm, challenging ethical intuitions and the frameworks used to justify actions (Kaufman, 2015;
Thomson, 1985).
REFLECTION: THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT (DDE) IN REAL-LIFE SCENARIOS
Objective: To understand and critically assess the application of the Doctrine of Double Effect in
addressing ethical dilemmas.
6
Instructions:
1. Reflect on a real-life situation where an action resulted in both positive and negative
consequences (e.g., vaccination mandates, military interventions, or medical decisions).
2. Analyze the scenario using the four conditions of the Doctrine of Double Effect:
▪ Was the action morally neutral or good?
▪ Was the good effect the intended outcome?
▪ Was the bad effect merely a foreseen consequence?
▪ Was the good effect proportionate to the bad effect?
3. Write a short essay (200–300 words) explaining whether the action was morally permissible
according to the DDE.
Application of the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) to the Trolley
Dilemma
In the Standard Case, the DDE supports the permissibility of diverting the trolley. The act of pulling
the lever is morally neutral, and the intention is to save five lives. The death of the one person on
the side track is foreseen but not intended, and the good effect (saving five lives) is proportionate
to the bad effect (the death of one person).
In the Fat Man Case, the DDE rules the action impermissible. Here, the death of the man is not
merely foreseen but actively intended, as his body is used as the means to stop the trolley. This
violates the second condition of the DDE, making the action morally wrong despite the positive
outcome.
The Loop Case introduces ambiguity. Critics argue that the death of the one person on the side
track appears to be an intentional means to save the five because, without their death, the trolley
cannot be stopped. Proponents of the DDE, however, maintain that the intention is still to save
the five, and the person’s death is an unfortunate side effect. This case highlights the limits of the
DDE in clearly resolving all moral dilemmas, as the distinction between intended and foreseen
harm becomes less clear.
By applying the DDE, one gains a structured way to analyze these dilemmas, focusing on the moral
weight of intentions versus consequences. While the DDE aligns well with the Standard Case, it
faces challenges in addressing the complexities of the Fat Man and Loop Cases, underscoring its
strengths and limitations in ethical reasoning.
ACTIVITY: THE TROLLEY DILEMMA AND THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT
Objective: To critically engage with the Trolley Dilemma and understand the application of the
Doctrine of Double Effect.
Instructions:
1. Read the Standard Case and Fat Man Case of the Trolley Dilemma provided in the module.
7
2. Form small groups and debate the permissibility of the actions in both cases using the DDE
as your framework.
3. Individually, write a reflection (250–300 words) addressing:
▪ How the DDE clarifies or complicates the resolution of the Standard and Fat Man cases.
▪ Your personal stance on the moral permissibility of the actions in both scenarios.
4. If possible, explore a real-world analogy of the Trolley Dilemma (e.g., autonomous vehicles
deciding between two harmful outcomes) and discuss whether the DDE offers a satisfactory
ethical resolution.
REFERENCES
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–
15.
Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford
University Press.
Kaufman, W. R. P. (2015). The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Trolley Problem. Journal of Value
Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-014-9479-0
Shaw, W. H. (2020). Business ethics: A textbook with cases (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415.
