高清福利片

Unit outline_

BETH5101: Moral Theory

Semester 1, 2023 [Normal day] - Remote

Participants in this Unit of 高清福利片 (UoS) will develop the foundational knowledge of moral theory necessary to engage in advanced analyses of issues in health ethics. This unit begins with foundational concepts of 'good' and 'right', then covers three core moral theories, and then moves on to mid-level approaches. We will read a combination of classic texts and recent articles that provide an introduction to virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. We will also become familiar with critical and contemporary approaches to ethical thinking, such as egalitarianism, feminist ethics, care ethics, and principle-based ethics. In addition to gaining an understanding of these theories and approaches, students in this UoS will consider a variety of topics pertinent to current ethical debates, including moral relativism, universalism in ethics, particularism, and the role of intuition in our moral judgments.

Unit details and rules

Academic unit Public Health
Credit points 6
Prerequisites
? 
None
Corequisites
? 
None
Prohibitions
? 
None
Assumed knowledge
? 

None

Available to study abroad and exchange students

Yes

Teaching staff

Coordinator Kathryn MacKay, kathryn.mackay@sydney.edu.au
Type Description Weight Due Length
Oral exam
? 
Oral exam
20-minute one-on-one oral exam
50% Formal exam period 20 minutes (oral)
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4
Participation Discussion Participation
Participation in online discussion posts.
10% Ongoing 250 words
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO2 LO3
Assignment Minor Essay
Minor essay assignment
40% Week 07
Due date: 05 Apr 2023 at 23:59
2000 words
Outcomes assessed: LO1 LO3 LO4

Assessment summary

Assessment criteria

The University awards common result grades, set out in the (Schedule 1).

As a general guide, a high distinction indicates work of an exceptional standard, a distinction a very high standard, a credit a good standard, and a pass an acceptable standard.

Result name

Mark range

Description

High distinction

85 - 100

Meets all learning objectives to exceptional standard, excellent understanding of material.

Distinction

75 - 84

Meets all learning objectives, very good understanding of material.

Credit

65 - 74

Meets learning objectives well, good understanding of material.

Pass

50 - 64

Meets some learning objectives, but obvious understanding of material.

Fail

0 - 49

Does not meet learning objectives of the unit to a satisfactory standard.

For more information see guide to grades.

Late submission

In accordance with University policy, these penalties apply when written work is submitted after 11:59pm on the due date:

  • Deduction of 5% of the maximum mark for each calendar day after the due date.
  • After ten calendar days late, a mark of zero will be awarded.

Academic integrity

The Current Student website provides information on academic integrity and the resources available to all students. The University expects students and staff to act ethically and honestly and will treat all allegations of academic integrity breaches seriously.

We use similarity detection software to detect potential instances of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breach. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breaches, your teacher is required to report your work for further investigation.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and automated writing tools

You may only use generative AI and automated writing tools in assessment tasks if you are permitted to by your unit coordinator. If you do use these tools, you must acknowledge this in your work, either in a footnote or an acknowledgement section. The assessment instructions or unit outline will give guidance of the types of tools that are permitted and how the tools should be used.

Your final submitted work must be your own, original work. You must acknowledge any use of generative AI tools that have been used in the assessment, and any material that forms part of your submission must be appropriately referenced. For guidance on how to acknowledge the use of AI, please refer to the .

The unapproved use of these tools or unacknowledged use will be considered a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy and penalties may apply.

Studiosity is permitted unless otherwise indicated by the unit coordinator. The use of this service must be acknowledged in your submission as detailed on the .

Outside assessment tasks, generative AI tools may be used to support your learning. The contains a number of productive ways that students are using AI to improve their learning.

Simple extensions

If you encounter a problem submitting your work on time, you may be able to apply for an extension of five calendar days through a听simple extension.鈥 The application process will be different depending on the type of assessment and extensions cannot be granted for some assessment types like exams.

Special consideration

If exceptional circumstances mean you can鈥檛 complete an assessment, you need consideration for a longer period of time, or if you have essential commitments which impact your performance in an assessment, you may be eligible for听special consideration or special arrangements.

Special consideration applications will not be affected by a simple extension application.

Using AI responsibly

Co-created with students,听听includes lots of helpful examples of how students use generative AI tools to support their learning. It explains how generative AI works, the different tools available and how to use them responsibly and productively.

WK Topic Learning activity Learning outcomes

Attendance and class requirements

Seminar attendance is required if studying synchronously, and very highly recommended if studying asynchronously.

Students enrolled听online听are encouraged to attend seminars,听if and when they are able. Philosophy and ethics are difficult to learn without dialogue;听students鈥 learning will be greatly improved if they participate in real-time and online discussion, debate, and questioning with their peers and instructor.

高清福利片 commitment

Typically, there is a minimum expectation of 1.5-2 hours of student effort per week per credit point for units of study offered over a full semester. For a 6 credit point unit, this equates to roughly 120-150 hours of student effort in total.

Required readings

INTRODUCTION

Week 1: What is Moral Theory?

Driver, Julia, "Moral Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman听(eds.),

Recommended:

This is an excellent introductory resource that you may want to refer to over the next few weeks:听 Deigh, J. (2010). Cambridge University Press. - Full access available through the library

Mcmillan, J. (2018b). What Is an Ethical Argument? In The Methods of Bioethics.

Mcmillan, J. (2018a). Speculative Argument and Bioethics. In The Methods of Bioethics.

PART 1 - METAETHICS

听Week 2: The Good

Schroeder, Mark, "Value Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Hussain, Waheed, "The Common Good", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta听(ed.),

Week 3: The Right

Alvarez, Maria, "Reasons for Action: Justification, Motivation, Explanation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta听(ed.),

Part 2 - THEORIES

Week 4: Virtue Theory

Aristotle. (2000) Nicomachean ethics. Book 2. Raleigh, N.C.: Net Library.

Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and Vices: and other essays in moral philosophy. Chapter 1: Virtues & Vices.

Hursthouse, R. (1991). Virtue Theory and Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(3), 223鈥246.

Recommended:

Swanton, C. (2001). . Ethics 112(1), 1032 鈥 1052.

Week 5: Utilitarianism

Mill, J. S. (2001). Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is. In Utilitarianism. London: Electric Book Co.

Foot, Philippa. (2002). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy ([New] ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. Chapter 2: The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect.

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229鈥243.

Week 6: Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism

Dorsey, D. (2010). Three Arguments for Perfectionism. 狈辞没蝉, 44(1), 59鈥79.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019, June 3). Consequentialism (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved 16 January 2020, from SEP:

Rachels, J. (1979). Killing and Starving to Death. Philosophy, 54(208), 159鈥171.

Recommended:

Rachels, J. (1981) Reasoning about killing and letting die. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 19(4), 465鈥473.

Kuhse, H. (1998). Critical Notice: Why Killing Is Not Always Worse and Is Sometimes Better Than Letting Die. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7(4), 371鈥374.

Week 7: Deontology

Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals鈥: with, On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns (3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. - First Section: pp 7-17 (SS 393-405)

O鈥橬eill, O. (2007). Kantian approaches to some famine problems. In R. Schafer-Landau (Ed.), Ethical Theory: an anthology (pp. 546鈥551). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Recommended:

Nell, O. (1975). Lifeboat earth. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4(3), 273鈥292.

PART 2 鈥 MID-LEVEL THEORIES

Week 8: Narrative Ethics

Nelson H.L. (2004) Four Narrative Approaches to Bioethics. In: Khushf G. (eds) Handbook of Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Dordrecht.

Kotalik, J., & Martin, G. (2016). Aboriginal Health Care and Bioethics: A Reflection on the Teaching of the Seven Grandfathers. American Journal of Bioethics, 16(5), 38鈥43.

Mehl-Madrona, L. (2007). The nature of narrative medicine. Permanente Journal, 11(3), 83鈥86.

Recommended:

Garvey, G., Towney, P., Mcphee, J. R., Little, M., & Kerridge, I. H. (2004). Is there an Aboriginal bioethic? Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(6), 570鈥575.

Dickson, M. (2020). Learning ethics from an echidna: Embedding Indigenous knowledges at the core of ethical research practice. Methodological Innovations, 13(3).

Week 9: Egalitarianism

Rawls, J. (1991). Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical. In J. A. Corlett (Ed.), Equality and Liberty (pp. 145鈥173). Palgrave Macmillan.

Wolff, J. (1998). Fairness, respect, and the egalitarian ethos. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27(2), 97鈥122.

Kittay, E. F. (1997). Human Dependency and Rawlsian Equality. In D. T. Meyers (Ed.), Feminists Rethink the Self (pp. 219鈥266). Westview Press. Chapter 10: Human Dependency and Rawlsian Equality

听听听听听听听听听听听 Recommended:

Raphael, D. Daiches. 鈥淓quality and Equity.鈥 Philosophy (London) 21, no. 79 (1946): 118鈥132.

Smits, K. (2011). Justifying multiculturalism: social justice, diversity and national identity in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 87鈥103.

Week 10: Feminist Ethics

Held, V. (1993).听 In V. Held, Feminist Morality (pp. 22-42). University of Chicago Press.

MacKay, K. (2019). Feminism and Feminist Ethics. In G. MATTHEWS & C. HENDRICKS (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics. Rebus Community.

Ang, I. (1995). I鈥檓 a feminist but... 鈥極ther鈥 women and postnational feminism. In B. Caine & R. Pringle (Eds.), Transitions: New Australian Feminisms (pp. 57鈥73). St. Martin鈥檚.

Recommended:听

Dillon. (2018). Feminist Approaches to Virtue Ethics. In Snow (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Virtue. Oxford University Press.

Jaggar, A. (2001). Feminism and the Objects of Justice. In J. P. Sterba (Ed.), Social and Political Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 132鈥141). Taylor & Francis.

Week 11: Care Ethics

Held, V., & author. (2018). Justice And Care鈥: Essential Readings In Feminist Ethics (First edition.). Boca Raton, FL: Routledge.

  • Chapter 1: Nel Noddings, Caring [1984]
  • Chapter 10: Alison Jaggar, Caring as a Feminist Practice of Moral Reason [1995]

Hoagland, S. L. (1990). Some Concerns About Nel Noddings鈥 Caring. Hypatia (Vol. 5, pp. 109鈥114).

Recommended:

Groenhout R. (1998). Care Theory and the Ideal of Neutrality in Public Moral Discourse. The Journal of medicine and philosophy 23(2): 170-189. doi:10.1076/jmep.23.2.170.8920听

Week 12: Principlism

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Chapter 1: Moral Norms. In Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed., pp. 1鈥29). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dove ES, Kelly SE, Lucivero F, Machirori M, Dheensa S, Prainsack B. (2017) Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research? Clin Ethics. Sep; 12(3): 150-165.

Campbell, L. 鈥淜ant, Autonomy and Bioethics.鈥 Ethics, medicine, and public health 3, no. 3 (2017): 381鈥392.

Recommended

Stoljar, Natalie, "", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta听(ed.)

Ray, KS (2021) It鈥檚 Time for a Black Bioethics, The American Journal of Bioethics, 21:2, 38-40, DOI:

PART 3 鈥 WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Week 13: Strengths and Weaknesses of High Moral Theory

Arras, J. (2016, January 1). Theory and Bioethics (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved 28 February 2020, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website:

Wolf, S. (2015). The Role of Rules. In The Variety of Values.

Recommended:

Carpenter M. and C. Jordens, (2022). When Bioethics Fails: Intersex, Epistemic Injustice and Advocacy. In , 107-124.

Hoffmaster, B. (2018)听From applied ethics to empirical ethics to contextual ethics. Bioethics32: 119鈥125.

H盲m盲l盲inen, N. (2021) Contextuality, Bioethics, and the Nature of Philosophy: Reflections on Murdoch, Diamond, Walker, and the Groningen Approach.听International journal of feminist approaches to bioethics听14(1),听103 - 111.

FURTHER READING

Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge鈥; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and Vices: and other essays in moral philosophy.

Foucault, M. (2003). The birth of the clinic: an archaeology of medical perception.

Frank, A. (1991) At the will of the body: Reflections on illness. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kukla, R. (2005). Mass hysteria鈥: medicine, culture, and mothers鈥 bodies. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Murdoch, Iris. (2014). The sovereignty of good. New York: Routledge.

Nietzsche, F. W. (1918). The Genealogy of Morals. New York, NY: Boni and Liveright.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development鈥: the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parfit, Derek. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.

Powers, Madison. (2006). Social justice the moral foundations of public health and health policy. Oxford鈥; New York: Oxford University Press.

Smart, J. J. C. (1973). Utilitarianism for and against. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press.

Tronto, J. (1993). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (1st ed.). Routledge.

Learning outcomes are what students know, understand and are able to do on completion of a unit of study. They are aligned with the University's graduate qualities and are assessed as part of the curriculum.

At the completion of this unit, you should be able to:

  • LO1. identify an ethical argument and its premises
  • LO2. distinguish between the main ethical frameworks and understand key criticisms of each
  • LO3. justify positions in accordance with the theories learned
  • LO4. formulate and write a sound ethical argument on a particular issue.

Graduate qualities

The graduate qualities are the qualities and skills that all University of Sydney graduates must demonstrate on successful completion of an award course. As a future Sydney graduate, the set of qualities have been designed to equip you for the contemporary world.

GQ1 Depth of disciplinary expertise

Deep disciplinary expertise is the ability to integrate and rigorously apply knowledge, understanding and skills of a recognised discipline defined by scholarly activity, as well as familiarity with evolving practice of the discipline.

GQ2 Critical thinking and problem solving

Critical thinking and problem solving are the questioning of ideas, evidence and assumptions in order to propose and evaluate hypotheses or alternative arguments before formulating a conclusion or a solution to an identified problem.

GQ3 Oral and written communication

Effective communication, in both oral and written form, is the clear exchange of meaning in a manner that is appropriate to audience and context.

GQ4 Information and digital literacy

Information and digital literacy is the ability to locate, interpret, evaluate, manage, adapt, integrate, create and convey information using appropriate resources, tools and strategies.

GQ5 Inventiveness

Generating novel ideas and solutions.

GQ6 Cultural competence

Cultural Competence is the ability to actively, ethically, respectfully, and successfully engage across and between cultures. In the Australian context, this includes and celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, knowledge systems, and a mature understanding of contemporary issues.

GQ7 Interdisciplinary effectiveness

Interdisciplinary effectiveness is the integration and synthesis of multiple viewpoints and practices, working effectively across disciplinary boundaries.

GQ8 Integrated professional, ethical, and personal identity

An integrated professional, ethical and personal identity is understanding the interaction between one鈥檚 personal and professional selves in an ethical context.

GQ9 Influence

Engaging others in a process, idea or vision.

Outcome map

Learning outcomes Graduate qualities
GQ1 GQ2 GQ3 GQ4 GQ5 GQ6 GQ7 GQ8 GQ9

This section outlines changes made to this unit following staff and student reviews.

Based on student feedback, discussion prompts will be provided in advance of each week's seminar.

Disclaimer

Important: the University of Sydney regularly reviews units of study and reserves the right to change the units of study available annually. To stay up to date on available study options, including unit of study details and availability, refer to the relevant handbook.

To help you understand common terms that we use at the University, we offer an .