BU Humanists at Work: Meet Stephanie Sheintul
Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy Stephanie Sheintul may be new to BU, but she’s ready to jump right into difficult conversations surrounding contemporary topics, and she encourages students to do the same. Sheintul recently received her doctorate from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where she also acted as an instructor for undergraduate courses on contemporary moral dilemmas.
For Sheintul, philosophical conversations provide rare opportunities for students to question not only the workings of the world, but whether those processes are ethical or ideal. In addition to teaching Introduction to Ethics, Sheintul also leads a class on medical ethics where, she says, “Many of my students are medical sciences majors and are used to learning scientific facts and, more generally, about the way that the world is. But in our medical ethics course, students not only think about how the world is, but how it should be.”
While discussions of medical ethics are complex and often controversial, Sheintul encourages disagreement among students. Sheintul recognizes that these conversations around sensitive, contemporary issues may be difficult for students, but she believes the process of having the conversation is more important than reaching any sort of unanimous conclusion. “Students seem surprised by how much they learn about their own views as well as how much they learn about others’ views and the reasons that other people have for holding them,” she says. “They also seem surprised by how hard it can be to identify the precise locus of disagreement between themselves and those with whom they disagree.”
Considering why they hold certain beliefs is key for students in a class that touches on topics as sensitive as euthanasia, abortion, artificial reproductive technologies like commercial surrogacy, IVF, commercial egg donation, genetic enhancement, and the morality of medical paternalism.
Taking up the example of paternalism, Sheintul explains how students in her class learn to think about the ethics of sensitive topics. She defines paternalism as any case where “the paternalist interferes with or ‘takes over’ decisions or matters in the recipient’s legitimate control, for the sake of the recipient’s good, based on the paternalist’s belief that the recipient will not judge or act in their best interests.” When a person chooses to take over for the recipient, this paternalism may stem from deflationary beliefs about the recipient, a term Sheintul defines as “a belief that falsely underestimates either the soundness of a person’s judgment or the strength of a person’s will.”
In Sheintul’s classes, students use thought experiments as a tool to grapple with difficult concepts such as paternalism and deflationary beliefs. Sheintul provides this example scenario:
“Suppose that Rachel has recently quit drinking alcohol. Nevertheless, she judges that it is best for her to continue to hang out with her friends at the bar because she does not want to miss out on having fun with them. Nia, Rachel’s friend, disagrees with Rachel’s judgment. Nia believes that if Rachel hangs out with her friends at the bar, she will fail to resist the temptation to have a drink. Suppose both that Nia is Rachel’s ride to the bar and that Rachel cannot make it there otherwise. Also suppose that Nia’s belief that Rachel will act in a weak-willed way is false. If Nia refuses to drive Rachel to the bar based on her false, deflationary belief about Rachel’s will, then she undervalues, and thereby disrespects, Rachel’s agency.”
Sheintul calls this special type of disrespect for others’ agency in paternalistic situations agential injustice, and the aim of her current research is to explain the primary harm of an agential injustice. “I am interested in when and why it is morally objectionable to interfere with each other on this basis as well as whether it is ever permissible to do so,” Sheintul says.
The question of paternalism is especially relevant to discussions of medical ethics, where the doctor has power over the patient. “It can be difficult for doctors to determine whether a patient’s decision is in their best interests,” Sheintul notes. “One complicating factor is that there are physical, psychological, emotional, and social constraints on patients’ autonomy that may lead patients to make choices that actually conflict with their true preferences. . . . Another is that doctors and patients may disagree about what is objectively good.”
Sheintul is thrilled to see that students in her Medical Ethics and Introduction to Ethics classes don’t shy away from such complex topics and consistently participate in large lectures. “They sustain their own conversations with each other and, as a result, learn from each other,” she says. She is happy to see students from a variety of majors and perspectives engage with each other. “Even if students disagree with a certain conclusion (e.g., that abortion is immoral) they seem surprised by how intellectually rigorous it can be to explain in virtue of what they disagree.”
As her students continue to grapple with today’s ethical problems, Sheintul is exceedingly grateful for her continued welcome at BU. “The teaching experience that I am having this semester will make it very difficult for me to leave BU!”