Academic publications of empirical public health research often entail recommendations for moral action that address practitioners and policy makers. These recommendations are regularly based on implicit moral judgments with the underlying reasons not explicitly stated. In this paper, we elaborate on the moral relevance of such judgments and the need to explain them in order to account for academic argumentation. We argue for an explicit reporting of bridge principles to increase the transparency of the reporting of public health research. The (...) reporting of bridge principles can inform readers, support them in understanding the relationship between empirical and normative claims in a specific paper, and may pave new ways for the rigorous reporting of empirical research that has moral implications. Furthermore, it can be used to classify studies to systematically address the justification for their argumentation. (shrink)

Researchers in applied ethics, and some areas of bioethics particularly, aim to develop concrete and appropriate recommendations for action in morally relevant real-world situations. When proceeding from more abstract levels of ethical reasoning to such concrete recommendations, however, even with regard to the very same normative principle or norm, it seems possible to develop divergent or even contradictory recommendations for action regarding a certain situation. This may give the impression that such recommendations would be arbitrary and, hence, not well justified. (...) Against this background, we, first, aim at showing that ethical recommendations for action, although being contingent in some sense, are not arbitrary if developed appropriately. For this purpose, we examine two types of contingencies arising in applied ethics reasoning based on recent examples of recommendations for action in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, we refer to a three-step model of ethical reasoning towards recommendations for actions. This, however, leaves open the question of how applied ethics may cope with contingent recommendations for action. Therefore, in a second step, we analyze the role of bridge principles for developing ethically appropriate recommendations for action, i.e., principles which connect normative claims with relevant empirical information to justify certain recommendations for action in a given morally relevant situation. Finally, we discuss some implications for reasoning and reporting in empirically informed ethics. (shrink)

The concept of “translational bioethics” has received considerable attention in recent years. Most publications draw an analogy to translational medicine and describe bioethical research that aims at implementing and evaluating ethical interventions. However, current accounts of translational bioethics are often rather vague and seem to differ with regard to conceptual and methodological assumptions. It is not clear and scarcely analyzed what exactly “translation” in the field of bioethics means, in particular regarding goals and processes so that it is justified to (...) appeal to translational medicine. In this article, we thus explore possible analogies and disanalogies between translational medicine and translational bioethics to establish whether the often occurring reference to concepts of translational medicine in the field of bioethics can be justified by substantial analogies. We will first provide an account of different models of translational medicine. In a second step, we will propose an analytic definition that explicitly articulates the essential characteristics of “translational research” irrespective of the research field (i.e., biomedicine, bioethics). Subsequently, we will explore whether and in how far general characteristics and phases of translational research in medicine can be applied to translational research in bioethics. Based on our analyses, we will come to the skeptical conclusion that at present there are considerable conceptual disanalogies and unsolved conceptual problems that disallow using “translational bioethics” in a meaningful analogy to respective accounts in biomedicine. Nevertheless, we will demonstrate that some insights gained by the conceptual accounts of translational medicine can contribute to advance current research activities in bioethics. (shrink)

This paper is a case study. After formulating three norms for critical assessment of argumentation (section 1), I give a brief overview of Galileo’s argumentative strategy in his Dialogue and present his argument for the cause of the tides, which appears as an argument by analogy (section 2). I then discuss possible reconstructions of this argumentation, with one particular suggestion in detail. These arguments seem to fall short, given the aforementioned set of norms (section 3). This leads to my own (...) proposal of Galileo’s argument. I defend this proposal and it’s general idea - that is, the argument’s pattern. It will be classified as ‘interventionist’ and useful regarding the goals of critical assessment (section 4). Finally, I suggest that the pattern of argument is applicable to other cases and useful for applied theory of science (section 5). (shrink)

Welche Rolle spielt Handlungswissen bei der Erkenntnis von Ursachen und Wirkungen? Wie argumentiert man etwa mit Experimentalergebnissen in der Evolutionsbiologie oder therapeutischem Wissen in der Medizin? Lassen sich Grenzen kausaler Erkenntnis gerade auch an Moglichkeiten des Eingreifens festmachen? Diesen Fragen geht das Buch nach - mit einer Diskussion der philosophischen Kausalitatstheorie des Interventionismus und einer Reihe wissenschaftstheoretischer Fallstudien aus der Physik, Biologie, Evolutionsbiologie, Psychologie, Medizin sowie psychiatrischer und psychoanalytischer Forschung.

The “model argument” against action-theories of causation is a reply to a strategy for avoiding the “argument of unmanipulable causes”. The critics follow the action- theorists in a certain shift of topic – leaving the explication debate towards one of justified assertion of causal claims – and end up at a wrong position concerning the role of practical knowledge for justifying causal claims about events that are not under technical control. Following them the justification would take the form of “analogy (...) arguments“, which can not guarantee the truth of the conclusion in a non-circular way. Contrary to their position I present a reconstruction of causal inference in which practical knowledge about manipulation does play the role of a necessary condition for justifiying causal claims about unmanipulable relations. (shrink)

The “model argument” against action-theories of causation is a reply to a strategy for avoiding the “argument of unmanipulable causes”. The critics follow the action-theorists in a certain shift of topic - leaving the explication debate towards one of justified assertion of causal claims - and end up at a wrong position concerning the role of practical knowledge for justifying causal claims about events that are not under technical control. Following them the justification would take the form of “analogy arguments“, (...) which can not guarantee the truth of the conclusion in a non-circular way. Contrary to their position I present a reconstruction of causal inference in which practical knowledge about manipulation does play the role of a necessary condition for justifiying causal claims about unmanipulable relations. (shrink)