The rights and wrongs of ‘dwarf tossing’, where a large human attempts to hurl a smaller human as far as they can, have been debated by bodies as august as the United Nations. However, according to a paper published this week, careful consideration of the issue can also help us deal with ethical issues in science.

“While admittedly unusual, the case of dwarf tossing illuminates several themes central to the field of bioethics including the issues of human dignity, autonomy, and the protection of vulnerable people,” write Carlo Leget, Pascal Borry and Raymond De Vries in the latest edition of Bioethics.

Their paper explores the relationship between empirical approaches to ethics (assessing how things are) and normative approaches (assessing how things ought to be).

Paper author Raymond De Vries, of the University of Michigan Bioethics Program told Nature, “I assure you that we are serious about dwarf tossing, and if you can’t have fun while being serious, well then, count me out of this business.”

De Vries et al consider whether it maybe possible to integrate the empirical and normative approaches, as has been suggested by other researchers.

“Empiricists claim that one can easily determine whether dwarf tossing is morally wrong or right by interviewing dwarfs and/or a representative sample of members of that society,” the authors write. “… Not so fast, says the normative ethicist: have you forgotten the problems of slavery and the publicly sanctioned immorality of the Nazi regime?”

Sadly, the paper concludes that the two must be kept distinct. Instead, the authors suggest a five-step approach, shown here as it would apply to dwarf tossing:

1. The determination of the problem – “In this case the discussion on dwarf tossing is already going on: it does not need to be identified from a theoretical point of departure.”

2. The description of the problem – “Here theoretical ethics will help to map out and conceptually clarify the various meanings of keywords like dignity, autonomy, equality and freedom in which the question is framed. Empirical research will be helpful in order to lay bare the experiences, motives and intentions of those involved in the conflict. Different groups are involved here: authorities, people throwing dwarfs, little people being thrown, people watching this activity, etc.”

3. Effects and alternatives – “Although the question of alternatives does not seem to impose itself immediately, empirical research can help here to map out what consequences this activity has.”

4. The normative weighting – “Any ethical position on dwarf tossing can also be read as an expression of a certain way of life including (and excluding) certain experiences. The three authors of this article, for example, are white middle-class males of average or more than average height in their own countries and are not familiar with the actual practice of dwarf tossing and have no particular (consciously aware) motives to promote or reject this practice beforehand. This shapes the way they address this topic and contributes to define a reality that is value loaded. Being aware of this fact and communicating it in a transparent way is a methodological and ethical choice that is at the heart of our critical applied ethics.”

5. The evaluation of the effects of a decision – “If this article in Bioethics were to promote a great increase of the tossing of dwarves resulting in a social devaluation of the position of little people – to mention but one unintended and unforeseen side-effect, this would have impact on both our position and the our responsibilities as members of society. Although theoretical ethics will be critical in challenging the consequentialist nature of our evaluations, empirical research is also required in order to clarify the effects of our article, including whether a slippery slope is present and to what degree we can be held responsible for that slipperiness.”

The authors conclude: “Our five-step application of this approach allows fruitful and necessary conversation between facts and values, that can help create innovative, practical, and useful solutions to the moral dilemmas of medicine, medical science, and yes, dwarf-tossing.”

Ref: ‘Nobody Tosses A Dwarf!’ The relation between the empirical and the normative re-examined.*

* The authors note, “We are aware that the political correct term for people with dwarfism is ‘little people’. The quote in our title refers to Peter Jackson’s film of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, ‘The Fellowship of the Ring,’ where at the broken bridge in the Mines of Moria, the dwarf Gimli tells Aragorn: ‘Nobody tosses a dwarf!’ before jumping over a large gap himself.”