Simon T. Kirchin

Research ethics committees and paternalism

In this paper the authors argue that research ethics committees (RECs) should not be paternalistic by rejecting research that poses risk to people competent to decide for themselves. However it is important they help to ensure valid consent is sought from potential recruits and protect vulnerable people who cannot look after their own best interests. The authors first describe the tragic deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ellen Roche. They then discuss the following claims to support their case: (1) competent individuals are epistemologically and ethically in the best position to say which risks are reasonable for them, so RECs should be no more restrictive than the “normal” constraints on people taking risks with themselves; (2) RECs do not judge individual competence (that is for researchers and psychiatrists); (3) individual liberty is mostly limited by what serves the public interest, and RECs do not determine public interest; (4) RECs may have a paternalistic role in preventing exploitation of competent people vulnerable to the use of incentives, and in protecting the interests of incompetent people; however, (5) the moral and political authority of RECs has not been established in this respect.

Arguing About Metaethics

1. The Open Question Argument 2. Error Theory and Moral Realism 3. Moral Realism after Moore: Naturalism 4. Moral Realism after Moore: Non-naturalism 5. Expressivism 6. Expressivism and the Frege-Geach Problem 8. Expressivism and Minimalism about Truth 9. Expressivism and Non-natural Moral Realism 10. Thick Concepts 11. Judgement and Motivation 12. Humean Theory of Motivation

Ethical Phenomenology and Metaethics

In recent times, comments have been made and arguments advanced in support of metaethical positions based on the ‘phenomenology’ of ethical experience – in other words, the ‘feel’ that accompanies our ethical experiences. In this paper I cast doubt on whether ethical phenomenology supports metaethical positions to any great extent and try to tease out what is involved in giving a ‘phenomenological argument’. I consider three such positions: ‘independent’ moral realism (IMR), another type of moral realism – sensibility theory – and noncognitivism. Phenomenological arguments have been used in support of the first two positions, but my general claim is that ethical phenomenology supports no metaethical position over any other.I discuss two types of phenomenological argument that might be offered in support of different types of moral realism, although I couch my debate in terms of IMR. The first argument asserts that ethical properties are not experienced in the way that rivals to IMR say we experience them. Against this I claim that it is odd to think that one could experience ethical properties as any metaethical theory characterizes them. The second argument is more complicated: the general thought is that an adequate metaethical theory should not distort our ethical experience unduly. I consider one aspect of our ethical experience – that there is some ‘ethical authority’ to which our judgements answer – in order to illustrate this idea. I discuss why IMRealists might think that this phenomenon supports their position. Against them I claim that other metaethical positions might be able to accommodate the phenomenon of ethical authority. Even if they cannot, then, secondly, I argue that there are other aspects of our ethical experience that sit more naturally with other metaethical positions. Hence, one cannot argue that ethical phenomenology as a whole supports one theory over any others.

A Tension in the Moral Error Theory

I highlight a tension within the moral error theoretic stance. Although I do not show that it is fatal, I believe the tension is problematic. In stating the tension I outline a conception of the common moral background against which it arises. I also discuss aspects of the similar error theories developed by John Mackie and Richard Joyce in order to show the tension at work.

Rationing, randomising, and researching in health care provision

In this paper the need for valid evidence of the cost-effectiveness of treatments that have not been properly evaluated, yet are already available, albeit in short supply, are examined. Such treatments cannot be withdrawn, pending proper evaluation, nor can they be made more widely available until they have been shown to be cost-effective. As a solution to this impasse the argument put forward recently by Toroyan et al is discussed. They say that randomised controlled trials of such resources could be done but only if resources are randomly allocated independently of a research context. Relevant outcome data could then be collected for research, given this opportunity. (There are already a few investigators who have turned limited resources, mostly health service provision, to their advantage in this way.) We agree. We disagree with Toroyan et al on a number of points. First, they claim that no ethical issue relating to equipoise arises. We disagree and this disagreement depends on our showing that equipoise should be maintained in a relationship that they do not consider. Secondly, they say that consent to data collection is always needed. Again we disagree. Thirdly, they claim that the previous two issues are the only possible ethical issues that could arise. We argue, instead, that there is a further conflict of interests that has ethical import.

Moral Particularism: An Introduction

Moral particularism is a contentious position at present and seems likely to be so for the foreseeable future. In this Introduction, I outline and detail its essential claim, which I take to be, roughly, that what can be a reason that helps to make one action right need not be a reason that always helps to make actions right. This claim challenges a central assumption on which most, if not all, normative ethical theories are supposedly based. We owe this way of characterizing moral particularism to Jonathan Dancy, around whose writings much of the present debate revolves.

Particularism, Generalism and the Counting Argument

In a recent collection of papers –Moral Particularism (hereafter MP)1– some writers argue against a particularist explanation of thick ethical features, particularist in the sense developed by Jonathan Dancy. In this piece I argue that particularists can tackle what I regard as the most interesting argument put forward by these writers, an argument I call the Counting Argument. My aim is twofold. First, I wish to make clear exactly what the debate between particularists and their opponents about the thick rests on. Secondly, I do not wish to provide a ‘knock-down’ argument to show particularism as true, but merely to push the onus back onto particularisms opponents and show that far more needs to be said. One last introductory comment. After some necessary scene-setting in the first section, where I explain how the philosophical ground is carved up and introduce some terminology, I indicate why this debate is fundamental in ethical theory although I don’t pursue the idea here.

Particularism and Default Valency

In this paper, I concentrate on the notion of default valency, drawing on some of the distinctions made and thoughts given in my Introduction. I motivate why the notion is important for particularists to have up their sleeves by outlining a recent debate between particularists and generalists. I then move to the main aim of the piece which is to discuss how anyone, particularist and generalist alike, might seek to distinguish reason-generating features into different types. My main aim is not to argue for a specific way of dividing such features into types but to present various taxonomical options.

Moral Realism: Naturalism and Reductionism

This chapter has a number of aims. First, I explain a little about what naturalism is and why someone might wish to be a naturalist. I then discuss a hugely influential argument given against naturalism. We will see that it faces a number of problems, one of which sets the scene for modern naturalism. In doing that we will see that naturalism comes in a number of varieties: one important distinction is between reductionist and nonreductionist types. I offer arguments against both. At the end I return to the material in the previous chapter and show why we have two relationships in play: that between moral properties and humans, and that between moral properties and the natural world.

What Is Metaethics

There are plenty of things that happen in this world that people think are morally right and morally wrong, morally good and morally bad. As you sit, now, reading this book, we can imagine that somewhere in the world someone is sharing their sweets with someone else. Similarly, some adult is binding some child’s feet in very tight and uncomfortable ways, causing the child (muted) distress. Someone else is putting their elderly parent into a care home so they can go and live in a different country. Someone else is dumping chemicals poisonous to humans into the sea. Someone else has taken the day off work to go to read at their child’s school. Someone else is testing drugs on various animals in a laboratory to make sure they are safe for humans to use. Someone else is helping to decide whether a country should invade a neighbouring state. And so on.