ETHICAL THEORY AND ETHICAL RESEARCH
 David Archard
 Professor of Philosophy, Lancaster University
 Member of the Lancaster University Research Ethics
Committee
 Member of the North-West Clinical Ethics
Committee
 Deputy Chair, Ethics and Law Advisory Committee,
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
 Chair, Licence Committee, HFEA
ESRC Research Ethics Framework
 1.3.1 Research proposals
involving human
participants must normally
be reviewed and approved
by
 a Research Ethics
Committee (REC) which
has been established and
operates in accordance
with
 the standards and
guidelines set out in this
Research Ethics
Framework.
Codes of ethics
 The formulation, publication,
and implementation of codes
of ethics is the normal
manner in which the ethical
integrity of research is
guaranteed
 Codes of ethics are formal
statements of moral
principles of relevance to
conduct of research
 Such as: obtain informed
consent of involved parties;
respect confidentiality;
preserve anonymity;
 They should be clear and
accessible
Principles or phronesis
 To Aristotle is owed the
idea that morality (and
doing the right thing) is not
a matter of following
principles, but
 Acquiring (or following the
example of those who have)
 Phronesis (practical
wisdom)
 And each situation requires
its own particular
appreciation
A contrast
 There is thus in the history and theory of ethical






thought a basic contrast between
Principle-based theory that is general in form, and
Can (and should) be applied to all situations in a
consistent manner
And
Moral knowledge which tends to be
Particularistic, and
A matter of practical wisdom not the command of a
theory
A further contrast
 Generally accepted that there are three broad moral
theories that offer accounts of what is morally wrong
(and why):
 Consequentialism: concerned with the outcomes of
actions
 Deontology: concerned with the moral qualities of
the actions
 Virtue theory: concerned with the character or
nature of the agents
Different moral theories may agree on what is
moral
 We should seek informed
consent for anything
involving another adult
because:
 Doing so promotes better
consequences overall
than not doing so
 Each of us has a right to
have our consent secured
 Morally good persons ask
for consent
Moral theory and commonsense morality
 Ordinary commonsense moral judgements such as ‘Killing
is wrong’ (or ‘Lying/breaking promises/cruelty/ is wrong’)
 Moral theory: ‘Do whatever produces the most happiness’
 We may use our moral theory to improve (correct, refine,
modify) our ordinary judgments: ‘Killing innocent human
beings is wrong’ (so the execution of murderers or the
killing in combat of enemy soldiers is not)
 Or we may use our ordinary judgements to correct
(constrain, impose limits on, refine) our moral theory: ‘A
moral theory - maximise happiness - which implies that
killing any innocent human being is allowed cannot be
correct’
Moral Expertise
 ‘At least one member must be knowledgeable in ethics’
 Moral philosophers (‘ethicists’) do not have moral




expertise in the sense that a judgment by a moral
philosopher (‘Everyone ought to do x’) gives nonphilosophers good (sufficient reason) to do x. Rather
Argumentative and conceptual ‘coaching’:
This is what ‘informed consent’ means
That argument is invalid (does not establish the desired
conclusion)
It is inconsistent to claim ‘X is permissible’ and ‘Y is
impermissible’
What codes of ethics are not
 They are not guarantors of morally exemplary





research
They merely rule out what is morally impermissible
They are not guarantors of exemplary research
Morally permitted programmes of research may be
poorly designed, unoriginal and unproductive
They are not equivalent to statements of what the
law requires (or prohibits)
But no code of ethics should permit what the law
forbids
Reporting crime example
 It is not legally required
that one report a crime
(although it is considered
good citizenship to do so)
 Should a code of ethics
require those who engage
in observational social
science research in public
places to do so?
 Note: it is unlikely (or
impossible) to secure
consent to being observed
What codes of ethics are (or should be)
 Publicly known
 Clear and unambiguous
 Universal in scope and application
 Conform to what we generally accept as moral
standards
 Enforced impartially
 Interpreted consistently
Universal standards and cultural differences
 A statement of universally applicable ethical




standards should be sensitive to cultural differences
For instance, the requirement that informed consent
be obtained should allow that
Consent may be obtained in various ways – written,
verbal
But a sensitivity to cultural differences should not
slip into moral relativism:
If culture A thinks something is morally permissible
whereas culture B thinks it is morally impermissible
they are somehow both right
Codes of practices are general statements which
can be variously interpreted
 ‘Harm to research participants must be avoided’
 A classic principle of non-maleficence. But,
 Significant or trivial harm?
 Harms of omission or only commission?
 Risks of harm?
 Physical, reputational, psychological, emotional…….
 Harms that depend on moralised judgments
Codes of practice are applied by different
committees
 Committees that
interpret and enforce
codes of ethics will
 Be constituted of
different memberships
with
 Different ethical
sensibilities
 And different ethical
commitments
Conclusion
 Good ethical practice in research should be informed
by good ethical theory
 Even if this is indirectly by means of a code of ethics
and a good process of ethical review
 But good ethical theory does not yield determinate
answers in all cases
 And the role of theory in ethical reasoning is itself a
matter of ongoing theoretical dispute