Apply normative ethical theories to contested applied issues in bioethics and animal ethics, and evaluate the arguments on each side

What this dot point is asking

You need to take a contested practical issue, set out the main arguments for and against, show how the major normative theories handle it, and reach a reasoned position rather than simply reporting opinions.

What makes a question one of applied ethics

A question belongs to applied ethics when it concerns a specific, real practical decision and when reasonable people disagree about it. Euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, the treatment of animals and our duties to future generations are all standard examples. The point of studying them is not to win an argument by force of feeling but to show that moral conclusions can be reached by argument from principles, just like any other philosophical conclusion.

Euthanasia and the sanctity of life

Voluntary euthanasia is the deliberate ending of a patient's life at their competent request to relieve suffering. The central clash is between autonomy and the sanctity of life. A consequentialist who counts suffering will often permit it: if a terminally ill patient in great pain freely requests death, ending the suffering may produce the best outcome. James Rachels pressed this further, arguing in his discussion of active and passive euthanasia that there is no clear moral difference between killing and letting die, since both can have the same intention and the same result.

The opposing view rests on the principle that innocent human life is inviolable, a principle defended on both religious and secular grounds. A Kantian may worry that treating one's own life as a thing to be disposed of fails to respect humanity as an end. The doctrine of double effect is often invoked here: giving a drug to relieve pain is permissible even if it foreseeably shortens life, because the death is a side effect rather than the intended aim.

Abortion and moral status

The abortion debate turns largely on moral status: at what point, if any, does a developing human acquire the full right to life? Don Marquis argued that abortion is seriously wrong because it deprives the foetus of a valuable future, a future like ours. Mary Anne Warren replied that moral status depends on personhood traits such as consciousness, reasoning and self-awareness, which a foetus lacks. Judith Jarvis Thomson offered a different route entirely: even granting the foetus a right to life, her famous violinist analogy argues that this does not entail a right to use another person's body without consent.

Animal ethics

Animal ethics asks whether non-human animals have moral standing. Peter Singer, drawing on Bentham's claim that the relevant question is not whether animals can reason but whether they can suffer, argues that ignoring animal interests is speciesism, a prejudice as arbitrary as racism. Tom Regan takes a rights-based line: animals that are subjects of a life have inherent value and may not be used merely as means. Critics reply that only beings capable of moral agency can be full members of the moral community, though this risks excluding human infants too.

Reaching a reasoned position

A strong applied-ethics answer does three things. It identifies the morally relevant features rather than reacting to surface details. It applies a clearly stated principle and follows the reasoning honestly to its verdict, even when uncomfortable. And it tests that verdict against the most serious objection, adjusting the principle if needed. The aim is consistency: if you permit euthanasia on autonomy grounds, you should be ready to say what limits, if any, autonomy faces elsewhere.