Ethical Engineering: Definitions, Theories and Techniques - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 34

people with learning diffi culties (Raskind and Higgins 1995 ) or dementia (Marshall
1999 ; Anon undated ).
Benefi cence involves the active promotion of acts that benefi t others, helping
people to further their legitimate interests and removing or preventing possible
harm. It has been suggested (Seedhouse 1988 ) that the principle of benefi cence goes
some way to unifying deontology and consequentialism, as the desire to maximise
good over evil is not motivated simply by the desire for better consequences, but is
also a result of the duty to do good and prevent harm. It has been summed up as
(Frankena 1963 ) the obligations not to infl ict evil or harm, to prevent evil or harm,
to remove evil and to do or promote good. This still leaves the problem of determining
what should be considered 'good' and what 'evil'.
There are a number of different defi nitions of the term autonomy. A number of
the defi nitions are based on a libertarian philosophy of the defence of individual
rights against the state, but there is no particular reason for this narrow defi nition
to be accepted. Wider defi nitions include the autonomy of social groups as well
as individuals. In this context, it is useful to consider the discussions of using tech-
nology and other approaches to increase the independence of disabled people.
Independence has been interpreted to indicate 'someone who has taken control of
their life and is choosing how that life is led … The most important factor … is the
amount of control they have over their everyday routine' (Brisenden 1986 , p. 178).
These factors of control over your own life, choosing how it is led and control over
everyday activities are also important components of autonomy.
Justice involves behaving fairly and in accordance with what is owed or due.
However, this does not take into account existing inequalities and the differing
needs of different social groups. Distributive justice requires the just distribution of
social benefi ts and burdens and everyone to be treated equally. However, different
(unequal) treatment can sometimes be required to alleviate structural or other
inequalities and in this context should be considered just (Barbour 1995 ). For
instance, there is the context of positive discrimination to overcome the disadvan-
tage experienced by women and various ethnic minority groups, and, for instance,
UK legislation allows more positive treatment of disabled people if required to
overcome the disadvantage they would otherwise experience.
The concept of justice as fairness has been defi ned in accordance with people receiv-
ing their deserts, their rights or their needs. All three of these concepts are open to
interpretation. With regard to rights, everyone should have a wide and equal range of
rights, for instance, under the UN Charter of Human Rights. The idea of deserts raises
a number of issues. It could be argued that everyone has equal deserts on the basis of
being human. However, it is often argued that people who have contributed 'more'
(however this is measured) 'deserve' more. This interpretation generally tends to
strengthen existing inequalities, and the evaluation of a greater contribution may
involve value judgements based on the status quo. For instance, the 'deserts' of the
entrepreneur who contributes the fi nance to set up a new fi rm are frequently given a
higher value than those of the workers who actually carry out the work. The concept of
needs is also not unambiguous. Autonomy should allow people to defi ne and determine
their own needs, but this often does not happen in practice. On the one hand, meeting