Can arguments address concerns?

Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (10):598-600 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

People have concerns, and ethicists often respond to them with philosophical arguments. But can conceptual constructions properly address fears and anxieties? It is argued in this paper that while it is possible to voice, clarify, create and—to a certain extent—tackle concerns by arguments, more concrete practices, choices, and actions are normally needed to produce proper responses to people’s worries. While logical inconsistencies and empirical errors can legitimately be exposed by arguments, the situation is considerably less clear when it comes to moral, cultural, and emotional norms, values, and expectations

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,953

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
32 (#515,304)

6 months
3 (#1,045,430)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Committees and consensus: How many heads are better than one?Peter Caws - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):375-391.
A Life in the Shadow: One Reason Why We Should Not Clone Humans.Søren Holm - 1998 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7 (2):160-162.
Two Models of Ethical Consensus, Or What Good Is a Bunch of Bioethicists?Mark Kuczewski - 2002 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11 (1):27-36.

Add more references