Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the process ofconcluding
that a general principle is true because the special
cases you have seen are true. This is the opposite to
deduction, and may be thought of asbottom-up
reasoning. One moves from the specific(s) to the
general. Clearly, the likelihood that inductive rea-
soning is ‘correct’ improves with the cumulation of
larger numbers of special cases. Inductive reason-
ing can thus generate the general laws that can later
be applied deductively.
One might assume thatdeductivereasoning is
superior– as itwould appear to offer mathematical-
style ‘proof’. But a ‘law’ is only as good as the
premise on which it is based. Virtually, all scientific
laws are derivedinductively– from observation.
But once the ‘law’ is established, it is then applied
deductively. However, when the original ‘law’
turns out to be flawed it has usually been disproved
inductively. Thus, in bioethics (as in science), the
best approach is often a mixture of deductive and
inductive reasoning.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a doctrine, enunciated by Jeremy
Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–
1873): it is the search for ‘the greatest happiness for
the greatest number’^7 or, more eloquently, the
‘quantitativemaximizationofsomegoodforsociety
or humanity...a form of consequentialism’. Con-
sequentialism is the belief that what ultimately mat-
ters in evaluating actions or policies of action are the
consequences that result from choosing one action
or policy rather than the alternative.^8 Thus, utilitar-
ianism is a direct counter to the motivation-based
categorical imperatives (essentially a deductive
approach)ofKant.
Casuistry
Casuistry is an inductive method: it is the task of
deriving principles from cases. Moral dilemmas
can be addressed by comparing them with ‘agreed
responses to pure cases’. Its main weakness is that
there can be inadequate selection of suitable com-
parative cases, which may be by omission or com-
mission (the latter being especially common
amongst politicians). Occasionally, there is also
obscurity concerning the specifics of what the
‘agreed responses’ might be.Feminist bioethics
Feminist bioethics deals with bioethical issues
that particularly affect women. Controversially, it
has been asserted by some that women approach
ethical dilemmas differently to men, because of
dissimilar contexts. The ethic of care^9 is proposed
as a ‘female’ trait, while the ethic of justice or
rights^10 is supposedly more ‘male’. A common
illustration of this is when a married couple is
asked to include a clause in their wills concerning
the disposal of property in the case of their
simultaneous deaths: the wife will often propose
a scheme dividing joint property unequally
and according to need and number of all their
relatives; the husband frequently sees the situation
as requiring a simple 50–50 split between their two
families.The golden rule
Another important principle is ‘The Golden Rule’,
which states ‘Do unto others as you would have
others do unto you’. This is also called the Ethic of
Reciprocity. Note that this isnotthe same as ‘tit-
for-tat’ or ‘an eye for an eye’ which describespost
hocresponses and vengeance, rather than prospec-
tive guidance of behavior by an ethical, golden rule(^7) From http://www.wordwebonline.com.
(^8) From http://en.wikipedia.org.
(^9) Sherwin Susan. 1989. ‘Feminist and medical ethics: two
different approaches to contextual ethics’. Hypatia 4
(Summer): 57–71, reprinted (abridged) in ‘Bioethics: an
Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice’, Jecker,
Jonsen, Pearlman (eds). Jones and Bartlett Publishers:
Sudbury; 1997.
(^10) Gilligan Carol. 1982.In a Different Voice: Psychological
Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press:
Cambridge.
45.2 BASIC TOOLS OF BIOETHICS 589