Wikipedia Deep Dive

Applied ethics

9 min read

The Rabbi, the Priest, and the Agnostic Walk Into a Hospital

Here's a scene that actually happens in hospital ethics committees across the world: A rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an agnostic philosopher sit around a table, arguing about whether to withdraw life support from a dying patient. They disagree about nearly everything—the nature of the soul, what happens after death, whether God exists at all. And yet, remarkably, they often reach the same conclusion about what should be done.

How is that possible?

This puzzle sits at the heart of applied ethics, a field that emerged in the early 1970s when medical and technological advances started outpacing our moral vocabulary. Suddenly we could keep bodies alive on machines long after minds had departed. We could fertilize eggs in laboratories. We could transplant organs from the recently dead into the still-living. The ancient philosophical question "What should we do?" had acquired an urgent, practical edge.

From Ivory Tower to Emergency Room

For most of its history, ethics was a spectator sport. Philosophers debated abstract questions about the nature of goodness, the foundations of moral obligation, and whether ethical statements could be objectively true. These debates were fascinating—and almost entirely useless for a doctor standing at a bedside, wondering whether to tell a patient the truth about a terminal diagnosis.

Applied ethics changed that. It dragged moral philosophy out of the seminar room and into the places where difficult decisions actually get made: hospitals, boardrooms, courtrooms, and laboratories.

The field now spans an enormous range of human activity. Bioethics wrestles with questions about euthanasia, the allocation of scarce medical resources, and the use of human embryos in research. Environmental ethics asks who bears responsibility for cleaning up pollution and how we should weigh the interests of future generations. Business ethics explores the duties that companies owe to their employees, customers, and communities—including the thorny question of when whistleblowers should expose wrongdoing.

Today, almost every profession has an ethical code. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, journalists, psychologists, accountants—all operate under formal guidelines about right and wrong conduct in their work. This is applied ethics in action.

The Four Principles That Run Modern Medicine

In 1979, two philosophers named Tom Beauchamp and James Childress published a book that would reshape how doctors think about ethics. They proposed that most medical ethical dilemmas could be analyzed through four fundamental principles.

The first is autonomy—the idea that patients have the right to make their own decisions about their bodies and their care. This seems obvious now, but for most of medical history, doctors operated paternalistically, making decisions for patients rather than with them. The rise of autonomy as a central value transformed the doctor-patient relationship.

The second principle is non-maleficence, from the Latin "do no harm." This is the ancient Hippocratic commitment to avoid injuring patients. It sounds straightforward, but in practice it's anything but. Every surgery carries risks. Every medication has side effects. The question isn't whether to do harm, but how to weigh potential harms against potential benefits.

Which brings us to the third principle: beneficence, the positive duty to promote patients' wellbeing. Non-maleficence tells you what not to do; beneficence tells you what you should do. A doctor who simply avoided harming patients while never actually helping them would be failing in their duty.

The fourth principle is justice—the fair distribution of medical resources and the equal treatment of patients. When there are more people who need organ transplants than there are available organs, how do we decide who gets them? When a pandemic overwhelms hospitals, how do we allocate ventilators? These are questions of justice.

Beauchamp and Childress called their approach "principlism," and it became the dominant framework in medical ethics. But here's the catch: these four principles often conflict with each other. Respecting a patient's autonomy might mean allowing them to make a choice that harms them. Beneficence and justice can collide when helping one patient means denying resources to another. The principles don't tell you what to do when they point in different directions.

The Three Great Traditions

When applied ethicists need to resolve these conflicts, they typically draw on one of three philosophical traditions that have been debating the foundations of morality for centuries.

Consequentialism says that the rightness of an action depends entirely on its outcomes. The most famous version is utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries. A utilitarian asks: Which action will produce the greatest total wellbeing for everyone affected?

This sounds reasonable, even obvious. But it leads to some disturbing conclusions. If killing one innocent person would somehow save five others, utilitarianism seems to say you should do it. If harvesting the organs of a healthy patient would save five dying patients, the utilitarian calculus points toward murder.

Most people's moral intuitions rebel against these conclusions. That's where deontology comes in—the view that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that we must treat human beings as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. You can't kill the one to save the five, because that treats the one person as a mere instrument for others' benefit.

Kant proposed what he called the "categorical imperative": act only according to principles that you could will to become universal laws. Could you universalize a principle that permits lying? No, because if everyone lied, language itself would collapse and lying would become impossible. Therefore lying is always wrong.

The strength of deontology is that it protects individual rights against the crushing math of aggregate welfare. Its weakness is its inflexibility. Really? Lying is always wrong? What about lying to the Nazi officer who asks if you're hiding Jews in your attic?

The third tradition, virtue ethics, takes a different approach entirely. Instead of asking "What should I do?" it asks "What kind of person should I be?" Rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle in ancient Greece and Confucius in ancient China, virtue ethics focuses on cultivating character traits like courage, honesty, compassion, and practical wisdom.

A virtue ethicist facing a dilemma asks: What would a truly virtuous person do in this situation? There's no algorithm, no formula. The answer requires judgment—the kind of judgment that comes from being a person of good character.

When Theory Meets Reality

Here's the uncomfortable truth about applied ethics: these three traditions often give different answers to the same question.

Consider a classic case. A trolley is barreling toward five workers on the track. You're standing next to a lever that would divert the trolley onto a side track, where only one worker stands. Should you pull the lever?

The utilitarian says yes. Five lives saved, one life lost—that's a net gain of four lives. Pull the lever.

Some deontologists say no. Pulling the lever makes you causally responsible for the one worker's death. You would be using that person as a means to save the others. Let the trolley continue; you didn't set it in motion.

The virtue ethicist might ask: What does it do to your character to become the kind of person who decides who lives and dies? There may be no clean answer here, only the recognition that some situations are genuinely tragic.

This is where casuistry enters the picture. Casuistry is case-based reasoning, and it represents a kind of rebellion against the tyranny of theory. Instead of starting from abstract principles and applying them downward to cases, casuists start with the messy particulars of actual situations and reason outward.

Two philosophers, Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, studied hospital ethics committees and noticed something remarkable. Committee members with wildly different theoretical commitments—consequentialists, deontologists, religious believers, secular humanists—often converged on the same practical conclusions when they focused on the specific details of real cases.

Remember the rabbi, the priest, and the agnostic? They disagree about everything metaphysical. But when they look at this particular patient, with this particular prognosis, with these particular wishes expressed to family members, they agree: it's time to withdraw extraordinary care and let nature take its course.

Their reasons differ. The rabbi might invoke the Jewish concept of goses, the dying person for whom we shouldn't prolong the death process. The priest might cite the Catholic distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of preserving life. The agnostic might appeal to the patient's autonomy and quality of life. But they land in the same place.

Casuistry suggests that moral knowledge might work more like common law than like geometry. We don't derive conclusions from axioms. We accumulate wisdom from cases, developing a sense of which features matter and how to weigh them.

The Opposite of Applied Ethics

To understand applied ethics better, it helps to contrast it with its neighbors.

Meta-ethics asks the most abstract questions: What does it mean for something to be "good" or "right"? Are moral statements objectively true, or are they expressions of personal preference? Does the concept of moral duty even make sense? Meta-ethics is philosophy about ethics rather than ethics itself.

Normative ethics is the attempt to formulate general principles about right and wrong conduct. This is where utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics live. Normative ethics gives us the theories; applied ethics puts them to work.

More recently, philosophers have begun developing applied epistemology—the application of theories about knowledge and justification to practical problems. If applied ethics asks "What should we do?" applied epistemology asks "What should we believe?" and "How should we form and revise our beliefs?" This matters for questions about expertise, testimony, fake news, and the epistemics of democracy.

Why This Matters

We live in an age of accelerating ethical complexity. Artificial intelligence raises questions that Aristotle couldn't have imagined: Can an algorithm be biased? Who's responsible when a self-driving car kills a pedestrian? Should we create machines that might become conscious?

Genetic engineering forces us to confront the boundaries of human nature. Climate change demands that we weigh our interests against those of people who don't exist yet. Social media has created new forms of harm—privacy violations, online harassment, algorithmic manipulation—that our existing moral frameworks struggle to address.

Applied ethics doesn't offer easy answers to these questions. What it offers is a discipline: a way of thinking carefully about hard problems, drawing on centuries of philosophical reflection while staying grounded in the messy particulars of real situations.

The rabbi, the priest, and the agnostic will keep disagreeing about the ultimate foundations of morality. But if they can sit in a room together and reach a shared conclusion about what to do for this patient, right now—that's applied ethics doing its job.

And that, perhaps, is enough.