Outline

Overview

Participants in this Unit of Study (UoS) will develop the foundational knowledge of moral theory necessary to engage in advanced analyses of issues in health ethics. This course is arranged around three types of moral thinking: consequentialist, non-consequentialist, and theory-neutral positions. We will explore each of these. In so doing, we will read a combination of classic texts and recent articles that provide an introduction to theoretical frameworks such as virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. We will also become familiar with critical and contemporary approaches to ethical thinking, such as egalitarianism, the capabilities approach, feminist 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 cultural relativism, universalism in ethics, difference, power, and oppression.

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
Assignment	Major essay Written assessment	55%	Formal exam period Due date: 10 Jun 2022 at 23:59	4000 words
Outcomes assessed:
Participation	Seminar participation Participation in online discussion posts.	10%	Ongoing	n/a
Outcomes assessed:
Assignment	Essay Written assessment	35%	Week 07 Due date: 08 Apr 2022 at 23:59	2000 words
Outcomes assessed:

Assessment summary

Detailed information for each assessment can be found on Canvas.

Assessment criteria

The University awards common result grades, set out in the Coursework Policy 2014 (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
Distinction	75 - 84
Credit	65 - 74
Pass	50 - 64
Fail	0 - 49	When you don’t meet the learning outcomes 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 AI in Education Canvas site.

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 Learning Hub’s Canvas page.

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

Learning support

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 simple extension.  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’t 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 special consideration or special arrangements.

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

Using AI responsibly

Co-created with students, AI in Education 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.

Weekly schedule

WK	Topic	Learning activity	Learning outcomes
Weekly	Topic changes weekly - see Canvas for details.	Seminar (2 hr)

Attendance and class requirements

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

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

Study 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

Week 1: Ethics and Arguments

Mcmillan, J. (2018b). What Is an Ethical Argument? In The Methods of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199603756.003.0007

Mcmillan, J. (2018a). Speculative Argument and Bioethics. In The Methods of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199603756.003.0008

Thomson, J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.

Week 2: Virtue Theory

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

Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and Vices: and other essays in moral philosophy. Chapter 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252866.001.0001

Hursthouse, R. (1991). Virtue Theory and Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(3), 223–246. https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/61USYD_INST/2rsddf/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80352894

Week 3: Utilitarianism

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

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

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

Week 4: Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism

Crisp, R. (2017, September 6). Well-Being (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved 16 January 2020, from Well-Being website: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/well-being

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019, June 3). Consequentialism (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved 16 January 2020, from Consequentialism website: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

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

Recommended:

Rachels, J. (1981) Reasoning about killing and letting die. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 19(4), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1981.tb01450.x

Kuhse, H. (1998). Critical Notice: Why Killing Is Not Always Worseand Is Sometimes BetterThan Letting Die. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7(4), 371–374.

Week 5: Deontology

Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals : 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’Neill, O. (2007). Kantian approaches to some famine problems. In R. Schafer-Landau (Ed.), Ethical Theory: an anthology (pp. 546–551). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Recommended:

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

Week 6: 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), 38–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1159749

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), 570–575.

Week 7: Care Ethics

Held, V., & author. (2018). Justice And Care : 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’ Caring. Hypatia (Vol. 5, pp. 109–114). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1990.tb00394.x

Week 8: Egalitarianism

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

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

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

Recommended:

Smits, K. (2011). Justifying multiculturalism: social justice, diversity and national identity in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2011.546051

Week 9: Feminism

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

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

Ang, I. (1995). I’m a feminist but... ‘Other’ women and postnational feminism. In B. Caine & R. Pringle (Eds.), Transitions: New Australian Feminisms (pp. 57–73). St. Martin’s.

Week 10: Principlism

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

Dawson, A., & Garrard, E. (2006). In defence of moral imperialism: four equal and universal prima facie principles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.012591

Recommended

Gillon, R. (2003). Ethics needs principles--four can encompass the rest--and respect for autonomy should be ‘first among equals’. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(5), 307–312.

Karlsen, J. R., & Solbakk, J. H. (2011). A waste of time: the problem of common morality in Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100106

Week 11: Human Rights

Ashcroft, R. E. (2010). Could Human Rights Supersede Bioethics? Human Rights Law Review, 10(4), 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngq037

Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00017.x

Wilson, J.G.S. (2007) Chapter 31: Rights. In Principles of health care ethics. (2nd ed. / edited by Richard E. Ashcroft [and others].). Chichester, West Sussex, England ; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Recommended:

Parens, E., & Asch, A. (2003). Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.10056

Week 12: 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: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theory-bioethics/

Wolf, S. (2015). The Role of Rules. In The Variety of Values. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195332803.003.0017

Williams, B. (1993). Morality : an introduction to ethics (Canto edition.). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. - Section 7: Moral standards and the distinguishing mark of a man; Section 9: What is Morality About?

Week 13: Forward: Theory and Practice

Hoffmaster, B. (1994). The forms and limits of medical ethics. Social Science, 39(9), 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90348-4

Recommended: review reading by Arras (2010), Theory and Bioethics, especially section 4 on anti-theory positions

Long-Read List:

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

Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and Vices: and other essays in moral philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252866.001.0001

Foucault, M. (2003). The birth of the clinic : an archaeology of medical perception. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203715109

Kukla, R. (2005). Mass hysteria : medicine, culture, and mothers’ 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 : 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 ; New York: Oxford University Press.

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

Tolstoy, L. (1989). The death of Ivan Ilyich; The Cossacks; Happy ever after. The death of Ivan Ilyich. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Learning outcomes

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.

Outcomes
Graduate qualities

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’s personal and professional selves in an ethical context.
GQ9	Influence Engaging others in a process, idea or vision.

Outcome map

Learning outcomes	Graduate qualities
Learning outcomes

Responding to student feedback

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

The University reserves the right to amend units of study or no longer offer certain units, including where there are low enrolment numbers.

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

Current students

BETH5101: Moral Theory

Semester 1, 2022 [Normal evening] - Camperdown/Darlington, Sydney

Overview

Overview

Unit details and rules

Teaching staff

Assessment

Assessment

Assessment summary

Assessment criteria

Late submission

Academic integrity

Learning support

Learning support

Simple extensions

Special consideration

Using AI responsibly

Weekly schedule

Weekly schedule

Attendance and class requirements

Study commitment

Required readings

Week 1: Ethics and Arguments

Week 2: Virtue Theory

Week 3: Utilitarianism

Week 4: Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism

Week 5: Deontology

Week 6: Narrative Ethics

Week 7: Care Ethics

Week 8: Egalitarianism

Week 9: Feminism

Week 10: Principlism

Week 11: Human Rights

Week 12: Strengths and Weaknesses of High Moral Theory

Week 13: Forward: Theory and Practice

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes

Graduate qualities

Outcome map

Responding to student feedback

Responding to student feedback

Disclaimer

On this page

Useful links

Media

Student links

About us

Connect