Why is “doing ethics in the public domain” hard?
Morality depends on many social factors and must guide policy for everyone, not just individuals.
What does “problematize” mean?
when you question hidden assumptions shaping problems/solutions (e.g., androcentrism).
Why does problematizing matter in health?
Hidden biases → blind spots (e.g., PPE sizing, symptoms research) → unfair outcomes.
Why can’t one theory rule them all? Anchor everything?
Real cases are messy: uncertainty, many stakeholders, competing goods.
Deontology in one line?
Do your duty; some acts are off-limits even if outcomes are good (respect rights/rules).
Utilitarianism in one line?
Maximize overall good (best net outcomes).
Virtue ethics in one line?
Cultivate character; right action flows from virtues with practical wisdom.
What’s Holm’s point?
Modern democracies contain many reasonable, incompatible moral doctrines.
What does “many reasonable but incompatible doctrines” mean?
A: Different moral outlooks can be coherent and well-argued yet still disagree on basics, so no single doctrine can claim public authority for everyone.
So how do we govern?
Use fair procedures and build overlapping agreement, not one “true” doctrine.
What is morally pluralistic?
what most societies are
there are many views concerning concerning moral issues.
what are moral norms
theories on what is right and wrong
What is ethical pluralism?
More than one moral norm can reasonably guide action; conflicts are real, not mistakes.
What does monism claim?
There’s one supreme moral basis we can apply coherently across cases.
What does pluralism claim?
Several legitimate values exist, often in tension, requiring case-by-case balancing.
Does pluralism mean “anything goes”?
No. That’s relativism; pluralism still justifies choices.
What does “relativism” mean
The idea that what counts as right/wrong can vary by culture or time, so moral claims are not automatically universal.
Why is relativism central to applied health ethics?
We routinely judge practices across cultures and eras (e.g., research ethics, public-health rules). To do that fairly, we need clear reasons, not just “that’s how they do it.”
what is the difference between normative relativism and descriptive relativism?
Descriptive relativism (people disagree about morals)
normative relativism (no standards apply across groups). Noticing differences doesn’t mean anything goes.
What does it say? (descriptive relativism)
Different groups/times hold different moral beliefs (a fact, not approval).
What does it say? Normative relativism
Right/wrong depends on culture; no universal moral standard.
with relativism What’s the practical problem for health ethics?
It’s hard to build general policies if “right” varies with each culture.
What’s the key worry for normative relatism
You can’t condemn clearly harmful practices outside your culture/time.
“Is” does not imply “ought”
Why not?
Facts about what is common or natural don’t automatically yield what we should do.
