John Gardner

In this article we consider and cast doubt on two doctrines given prominence and prestige by the utilitarian tradition in ethics. According to the interest theory of value, value is realized only in the advancement of people's interests. According to the well-being theory of interests, people's interests are advanced only in the augmentation of their well-being. We argue that it is possible to resist these doctrines without abandoning the value-humanist doctrine that the value of anything has to be explained in terms of its potential to contribute to human lives and their quality. (Published Online November 24 2006).

We report key themes arising from a postgraduate workshop organized by the King's Interdisciplinary Discussion Society (KIDS) held in April 2011. KIDS believe that health is a phenomenon that transcends disciplinary boundaries, and therefore issues relating to health care and medical ethics are best addressed with an interdisciplinary approach. The workshop, entitled ‘Everyday Ethics and Primary Healthcare’, included poster presentations and oral presentations from participants from a range of disciplines and occupational backgrounds which highlighted the challenges faced by primary health-care workers. Three common themes emerged: the impersonal and cumbersome work environment that can result from the encroachment of rationalizing tools; the tension between ‘ethical practice as an ongoing sensibility’ and ‘ethical practice as “box-ticking”’; and the contested nature of what constitutes ‘health’. Participants felt that the interdisciplinary perspective was helpful in elucidating the various ethical issues arising in primary health care

Sometimes emotions excuse. Fear and anger, for example, sometimes excuse under the headings of (respectively) duress and provocation. Although most legal systems draw the line at this point, the list of potentially excusatory emotions outside the law seems to be longer. One can readily imagine cases in which, for example, grief or despair could be cited as part of a case for relaxing or even eliminating our negative verdicts on those who performed admittedly unjustified wrongs. To be sure, the availability of such excuses depends on what wrong one is trying to excuse. No excuse is available in respect of all wrongs. Some wrongs, indeed, are inexcusable. This throws up the interesting question of what makes a particular emotion apt to excuse a particular wrong. Why is fear, for example, more apt to excuse more serious wrongs than, say, pride or shame? This question leads naturally to another. Why are some emotions, such as lust, greed, and envy, apparently not apt to furnish any excuses at all? Can one not be overcome by them? Can they not drive one to wrongdoing as readily as fear and grief? Or is that not the point?