---
title: Applied Ethics
sort: 140
section-id: ethics
description: Ethical theory in practice — bioethics, AI ethics, environmental ethics, and the methodology of applying philosophical principles to real-world problems.
language: en
---

# Applied Ethics

Applied ethics brings philosophical theory to bear on concrete moral problems — questions arising in medicine, technology, environmental policy, business, and law. The movement gained momentum in the 1960s and 1970s, driven partly by rapid advances in medicine and biotechnology that created novel moral dilemmas for which traditional frameworks offered insufficient guidance.

## The Methodology of Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is not mere application of theory to cases, as if ethical systems were algorithms waiting to be run. Several methodological approaches exist:

**Top-down application**: Begin with an ethical theory (utilitarian, Kantian), derive principles, apply to cases. The limitation is that theories are contested; disagreement about foundations propagates into applied questions.

**Case-based reasoning (casuistry)**: Begin with clear, paradigm cases where moral judgement is confident, then reason analogically to harder cases. Associated with clinical ethics consultation. The limitation is that paradigm cases must eventually be justified by something more than intuition.

**Reflective equilibrium**: Move iteratively between principles and case judgements, revising both until achieving coherence. The approach most widely used in practice.

**Specification**: Take general principles (do not harm, respect autonomy) and progressively specify them to handle particular cases without derivation from a complete theory.

## Bioethics

Bioethics addresses moral questions arising in medicine and biological research. The *Georgetown mantra* — four principles identified by Beauchamp and Childress — has become the dominant framework in clinical practice:^[Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J. (2019). *Principles of Biomedical Ethics*, 8th ed. Oxford University Press.]

1. **Autonomy** — Respect for the patient's self-determination. Informed consent is the operational expression of this principle. Patients with decision-making capacity may refuse treatment, even life-saving treatment.
2. **Beneficence** — Act in the patient's best interests. Not merely "do no harm" but actively promote welfare.
3. **Non-maleficence** — *Primum non nocere* (first, do no harm). Avoid imposing risks disproportionate to benefits.
4. **Justice** — Fair distribution of benefits, risks, and burdens. Includes both procedural fairness and distributive justice in healthcare resource allocation.

### End-of-Life Ethics

The moral permissibility of assisted dying — physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and voluntary euthanasia — is among the most contested issues in bioethics. Arguments in favour appeal to autonomy: competent patients should determine the manner and timing of their deaths. Arguments against cite concerns about palliative care, the potential for coercion, and the symbolic significance of medical killing for the doctor-patient relationship.

Peter Singer and James Rachels defend active euthanasia, arguing that the distinction between killing and letting die is morally irrelevant when intentions and outcomes are the same.^[Rachels, J. (1975). "Active and Passive Euthanasia." *New England Journal of Medicine*, 292(2).] Opponents invoke the doctrine of double effect and the integrity of the medical profession.

### Research Ethics

The Nuremberg Code (1947) and the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) emerged from scandals of medical experimentation on non-consenting subjects. Core requirements: voluntary informed consent, scientific validity, favourable risk-benefit ratio, and independent ethical review. The Belmont Report (1979) added justice as a requirement — the burdens and benefits of research must be distributed fairly.

## AI and Technology Ethics

The rapid development of artificial intelligence creates a new domain for applied ethics. Key issues include:

**Algorithmic bias**: Machine learning systems trained on historical data can encode and amplify existing discriminatory patterns. A loan approval algorithm trained on historical lending data may perpetuate racial discrimination without any discriminatory intent. Fairness criteria (demographic parity, equalised odds, calibration) are mathematically incompatible in general — we cannot satisfy all simultaneously.^[Chouldechova, A. (2017). "Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact." *Big Data*, 5(2).]

**Autonomous systems**: When an autonomous vehicle must choose between killing one pedestrian or five, how should it be programmed? Trolley-problem style dilemmas in algorithmic form raise questions about whether utilitarian calculus should be codified into machines, and who bears moral responsibility for automated decisions.

**AI consciousness and moral status**: If future AI systems develop something like sentience or interests, do they merit moral consideration? The philosophical difficulty of consciousness (see the chapter on philosophy of mind) makes this question genuinely hard.

**Privacy and surveillance**: The collection of vast personal data by states and corporations raises questions about informational privacy as an aspect of autonomy and dignity. Nissenbaum's concept of *contextual integrity* — information flows respect privacy when they match the norms of the context in which they were generated — provides a useful framework.

## Environmental Ethics

Traditional ethics is anthropocentric — it recognises moral obligations only to persons. Environmental ethics asks: do non-human animals, species, ecosystems, or nature as a whole have intrinsic moral value?

**Animal ethics**: Peter Singer's utilitarian case for animal liberation grounds obligations in the capacity for suffering: if pain is bad for humans, it is bad for pigs, who suffer equally.^[Singer, P. (1975). *Animal Liberation*. New York Review Books.] Tom Regan's rights-based account argues that animals who are "subjects of a life" — with beliefs, desires, and a welfare — have inherent value that may not be traded off against aggregate utility.^[Regan, T. (1983). *The Case for Animal Rights*. University of California Press.]

**Biocentric ethics** (Paul Taylor): Every living organism has a good of its own that commands moral respect. We have prima facie duties not to harm living things, override-able only for weighty reasons.^[Taylor, P. (1986). *Respect for Nature*. Princeton University Press.]

**Ecocentric ethics**: Aldo Leopold's *land ethic* — "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community" — extends moral consideration to ecosystems and species, not just individuals.^[Leopold, A. (1949). *A Sand County Almanac*. Oxford University Press.]

**Climate ethics** raises questions about intergenerational justice (obligations to future persons), international justice (who bears the costs of mitigation), and the ethics of geoengineering.

## Further Reading

- Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. (2019). *The Elements of Moral Philosophy*, 9th ed. McGraw-Hill.
- Jamieson, D. (2014). *Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed*. Oxford University Press.
- Floridi, L. (ed.) (2015). *The Onlife Manifesto*. Springer.
