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 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

Unit code	BETH5101
Academic unit	Public Health
Credit points	6
Prohibitions ?	None
Prerequisites ?	None
Corequisites ?	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:
Online task	Online Participation Participation in online discussion posts.	10%	Ongoing	N/A
Outcomes assessed:
Assignment	Essay Written assessment	40%	Week 07 Due date: 05 Apr 2023 at 23:59	2000 words
Outcomes assessed:

Assessment summary

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	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 sydney.edu.au/students/guide-to-grades.

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.

You may only use artificial intelligence and writing assistance tools in assessment tasks if you are permitted to by your unit coordinator, and if you do use them, you must also acknowledge this in your work, either in a footnote or an acknowledgement section.

Studiosity is permitted for postgraduate units unless otherwise indicated by the unit coordinator. The use of this service must be acknowledged in your submission.

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	Topics change weekly - see Canvas for details	Independent study (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, if and when they are able. Philosophy and ethics are difficult to learn without dialogue; students’ learning will be greatly improved if they participate in real-time and online 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

INTRODUCTION

Week 1: What is Moral Theory?

Driver, Julia, "Moral Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/moral-theory/

Recommended:

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

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

PART 1 - METAETHICS

Week 2: The Good

Schroeder, Mark, "Value Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/value-theory/

Hussain, Waheed, "The Common Good", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/common-good/

Week 3: The Right

Alvarez, Maria, "Reasons for Action: Justification, Motivation, Explanation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/

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. 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

Recommended:

Swanton, C. (2001). A Virtue Ethical Account of Right Action . Ethics 112(1), 1032 – 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252866.001.0001

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

Week 6: Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism

Dorsey, D. (2010). Three Arguments for Perfectionism. Noûs, 44(1), 59–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40660478

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019, June 3). Consequentialism (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved 16 January 2020, from SEP: 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 Worse and Is Sometimes Better Than Letting Die. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7(4), 371–374.

Week 7: 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.

PART 2 – 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), 38–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1159749

Mehl-Madrona, L. (2007). The nature of narrative medicine. Permanente Journal, 11(3), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/07-052

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.

Dickson, M. (2020). Learning ethics from an echidna: Embedding Indigenous knowledges at the core of ethical research practice. Methodological Innovations, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120976929

Week 9: 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:

Raphael, D. Daiches. “Equality and Equity.” Philosophy (London) 21, no. 79 (1946): 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100005301

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 10: Feminist Ethics

Held, V. (1993). Feminist moral inquiry: Methods and prospects. 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’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.

Recommended:

Dillon. (2018). Feminist Approaches to Virtue Ethics. In Snow (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Virtue. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199385195.013.15

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.

Week 11: 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

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

Week 12: 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.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477750917704156

Campbell, L. “Kant, Autonomy and Bioethics.” Ethics, medicine, and public health 3, no. 3 (2017): 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2017.05.008.

Recommended

Stoljar, Natalie, "Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy )", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Ray, KS (2021) It’s Time for a Black Bioethics, The American Journal of Bioethics, 21:2, 38-40, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1861381 )

PART 3 – 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: 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

Recommended:

Carpenter M. and C. Jordens, (2022). When Bioethics Fails: Intersex, Epistemic Injustice and Advocacy. In Interdisciplinary and Global Perspectives on Intersex, 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91475-2_7

Hoffmaster, B. (2018) From applied ethics to empirical ethics to contextual ethics. Bioethics 32: 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12419

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

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, 2023 [Online] - 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

INTRODUCTION

Week 1: What is Moral Theory?

PART 1 - METAETHICS

Week 2: The Good

Week 3: The Right

Part 2 - THEORIES

Week 4: Virtue Theory

Week 5: Utilitarianism

Week 6: Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism

Week 7: Deontology

PART 2 – MID-LEVEL THEORIES

Week 8: Narrative Ethics

Week 9: Egalitarianism

Week 10: Feminist Ethics

Week 11: Care Ethics

Week 12: Principlism

PART 3 – WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Week 13: Strengths and Weaknesses of High Moral Theory

FURTHER READING

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