Lesson 3: Social & Ethical Perspectives (Utilitarianism vs Deontology)

NCEA Level 3 Biology. Students evaluate ethical frameworks (Utilitarianism, Deontology, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence) applied to genetic pest control, writing Portfolio Section 3.

Lesson at a Glance | He Tirohanga Whakamua

Do NowCompare saving 25 million native birds vs modifying wild genomes10 min
Utilitarianism vs DeontologyConsequentialist outcomes vs duty-based moral rules15 min
4 Bioethical PrinciplesAutonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice15 min
Portfolio EntryWrite Section 3: Ethical Frameworks & Stakeholder Analysis10 min
Exit CheckClassify a stakeholder quote as Utilitarian or Deontological5 min

Ngā Whāinga Ako | Learning Intentions

Students will know

  • Utilitarianism (Consequentialism): Ethical decisions judged by net outcomes—maximising benefits for the greatest number (e.g. saving endangered species from extinction).
  • Deontology (Duty Ethics): Ethical decisions judged by adherence to moral duties or intrinsic rules regardless of outcomes (e.g. belief that altering wild species DNA is inherently unethical).
  • The 4 Bioethical Principles: Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice.

Students will demonstrate

  • By evaluating the ethics of CRISPR gene drives through both Utilitarian and Deontological lenses.
  • By completing Section 3 of their Level 3 Biology Socio-Scientific Report Portfolio.

Do Now | Tīmatanga Whakaaro (10 min)

Ethical Trade-off Prompt:

"Predatory possums kill over 25 million native Aotearoa birds every year. If releasing a gene drive eradicates possums completely but carries a 2% risk of spreading to Australia where possums are native, is it ethically justified?"

Unpack: A Utilitarian weighs 25 million saved bird lives against the potential Australian damage. A Deontologist examines whether humanity has a moral right to engineer extinction or cross species boundaries.

Core Ethical Frameworks in Bioethics (15 min)

1. Utilitarian / Consequentialist Lens

Focuses on net outcomes. Eliminating invasive predators prevents mass avian suffering and prevents ecosystem collapse (Beneficence > Non-Maleficence).

2. Deontological / Rights-Based Lens

Focuses on moral duties. Argues that permanently modifying wild genomes breaches ecological integrity and creates irreversible moral hazards.

📁 Socio-Scientific Report Portfolio — Section 3: Ethical Frameworks

Students open their Level 3 Biology Portfolio and complete Section 3:

Section 3 Requirements:

1. Ethical Matrix Table: Evaluate your target issue using the 4 Bioethical Principles (Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice).

2. Utilitarian vs Deontological Analysis: Write a comparative 2-paragraph analysis explaining how each framework justifies opposing stances on gene editing.

3. Excellence Precautionary Principle Evaluation: 1-paragraph explanation of the Precautionary Principle ("lack of full scientific certainty shall not postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation").

Exit Verification | Ka Mutu Hoki (5 min)

Exit Check:

"My Section 3 contrasts Utilitarian arguments (saving 25M birds) against Deontological concerns (intrinsic sanctity of species genomes) using bioethical principles."

Teacher Planning & NCEA Alignment

NCEA Level 3 Biology Alignment (3 Credits Internal):

  • Ethical Perspectives: Evaluate diverse social and ethical perspectives using established bioethical frameworks.
  • Critical Reasoning: Analyse trade-offs between risks, benefits, duties, and rights.

Vocabulary: Bioethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Autonomy, Justice, Precautionary Principle.

Other teaching approach: Guided Viewing & Deliberation →