---
title: Applied Ethics
section-id: ethics
sort: 140
author: Prof. James Okafor
created: 2026-02-26 09:00
modified: 2026-04-03 10:00
language: en
description: How philosophical theories meet real-world ethical questions in medicine, environment, and technology.
---

# Applied Ethics

Applied ethics uses the tools of moral philosophy to address practical questions: abortion, euthanasia, animal welfare, global poverty, environmental responsibility, artificial intelligence, and more. It is not merely the application of a theory—it requires understanding the relevant empirical facts, the structure of the competing interests, and the moral significance of particular distinctions.

## The Structure of Applied Ethics

Applied ethics can be done top-down (derive conclusions from a theory) or bottom-up (start from particular cases and intuitions, and generalise). In practice, both approaches inform each other. Reflective equilibrium—moving back and forth between principles and particular judgements until they cohere—is the most common methodology.

One recurring challenge is the **asymmetry between theory and practice**. Consequentialism, for example, may give clear guidance on some questions (prioritise whichever policy saves more lives) and unclear guidance on others (how do we aggregate welfare across species? across generations?). Deontology may prohibit an action while leaving unclear what to do when the prohibition conflicts with other duties.

## Medical Ethics

The four principles of **bioethics** (Tom Beauchamp and James Childress) have become the dominant framework:

1. **Autonomy**: respect patients’ right to make informed decisions
2. **Beneficence**: act in the patient’s best interests
3. **Non-maleficence**: do no harm
4. **Justice**: distribute resources and burdens fairly

These principles do not automatically resolve conflicts. A patient’s autonomous choice (refusing treatment) may conflict with beneficence (the treatment would benefit them). Justice in resource allocation may require limiting treatments that would benefit individual patients. The principles provide a framework, not an algorithm.

### End-of-Life Ethics
The ethics of euthanasia and assisted dying involves tensions between autonomy (persons should be able to decide when and how to die), the sanctity of life (some hold that killing an innocent person is always wrong), beneficence (relieving intractable suffering), and the risk of abuse (vulnerable patients pressured into choosing death).

Arguments for physician-assisted dying emphasise autonomy and compassion. Arguments against emphasise the risks of error, the potential for pressure on vulnerable patients, and the effect on the doctor-patient relationship. The empirical record from jurisdictions where it is permitted is contested.

## Animal Ethics

Peter Singer applied utilitarian reasoning to argue that the interests of animals count equally with the like interests of humans. Since animals can suffer, their suffering counts in the utilitarian calculus. The practices of factory farming, animal experimentation, and trophy hunting produce enormous suffering with relatively limited benefits; they are, on utilitarian grounds, indefensible.

Tom Regan argued from a deontological standpoint that animals who are ‘subjects of a life’ (mammals roughly one year old and above) have inherent value that precludes treating them merely as means. Neither position makes a sharp distinction between humans and animals that would justify our current treatment of them.

## Global Poverty and Obligations to Distant Others

Peter Singer’s **drowning child argument**: if a child were drowning in front of you, you would be morally required to save it even at significant cost to yourself. But children are dying of preventable causes for lack of resources that wealthy individuals could provide at comparable cost. If distance is not morally relevant, we are morally required to give until we reach the point of marginal utility.

This argument has struck many as correct in principle but demanding in practice. Responses include:
- Partial obligations—we have stronger duties to those near us
- The value of projects and relationships that cannot be reduced to welfare
- Institutional rather than individual solutions—justice requires structural change, not just charity

## Technology Ethics

Artificial intelligence raises questions about responsibility (who is responsible when an autonomous system causes harm?), fairness (are algorithmic decisions systematically biased?), and the moral status of AI systems (could a sufficiently complex AI have morally relevant interests or rights?).

Surveillance capitalism raises questions about privacy, consent, and the power asymmetry between corporations and individuals. Climate change requires reasoning about obligations to future generations (who do not yet exist and cannot consent) and across nations with very different levels of historical responsibility.

## Summary

- Applied ethics uses philosophical tools to address practical moral questions
- Reflective equilibrium—moving between principles and intuitions—is the standard methodology
- Medical ethics uses the four principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice)
- Animal ethics: Singer’s utilitarian argument and Regan’s rights-based argument challenge current practices
- Global poverty: Singer’s drowning child argument and its responses
- Technology ethics: responsibility, fairness, moral status, and obligations to future generations
