ZusammenfassungIm Zuge des „empirical turn“ der Medizin- und Bioethik ist von verschiedenen Autoren in den vergangenen Jahren die Idee einer „evidenzbasierten Ethik“ diskutiert worden. Die Analogie zwischen evidenzbasierter Medizin und „evidenzbasierter Ethik“ soll in diesem Beitrag kritisch diskutiert und dabei gezeigt werden, dass der Ausdruck „evidenzbasierte Ethik“ irreführend ist. Zentraler Ausgangspunkt der Kritik ist die unterschiedliche Bedeutung, die empirische Informationen für das medizinisch-klinische Urteil zum einen und das ethische Urteil in der Medizin zum anderen haben. Im medizinisch-klinischen Urteil können mit (...) Hilfe empirischer Informationen hypothetische Handlungsnormen generiert werden, welche auf den der Medizin inhärenten Zwecksetzungen basieren. Bei Fragen der Ethik in der Medizin hingegen sind die Handlungsziele selbst Gegenstand des Urteils; diese aber können allein aus empirischem Wissen heraus nicht zureichend bestimmt werden. Die Diskussion um die Möglichkeit einer „evidenzbasierten Ethik“ eröffnet weiterhin aufschlussreiche Perspektiven in Bezug auf empirische Forschung und den Umgang mit empirischen Informationen in der Angewandten Ethik und das Aufgabenfeld der Medizinethik. (shrink)

What behavior is rational? It’s rational to act ethically, some think. Others endorse instrumentalism — it is rational to pursue one’s goals. Still others say that acting rationally always involves promoting one’s self-interest. Many philosophers have given each of these answers. But these answers don’t really conflict; they aren’t vying to describe some shared concept or to solve some mutually acknowledged problem. In so far as this is debated, it is a pseudo-debate. The different uses of ‘rational action’ differ merely (...) in meaning. I shall defend the following claims: ‘rational behavior’ is used in ethical, prudential, and instrumental ways (section 1); these uses of ‘rational behavior’ are distinct (section 2); they do not represent competing theories of rational behavior (section 3); we should stop using ‘rational behavior’ ethically and prudentially, but we may continue its instrumental use (section 4). (shrink)

In this paper, I propose and defend a structural ownership condition on moral responsibility. According to the condition I propose, an agent owns a mental item if and only if it is part of or is partly grounded by a coherent set of psychological states. As I discuss, other theorists have proposed or alluded to conditions like psychological coherence, but each proposal is unsatisfactory in some way. My account appeals to narrative explanation to elucidate the relevant sense of psychological coherence.

If emotions provide reasons for action through their intentional content, as is often argued, where does this leave the role of the affective element of an emotion? Can it be more than a motivator and have significant bearing of its own on our emotional actions, as actions done for reasons? One way it can is through reinforcing other reasons that we might have, as Greenspan argues. Central to Greenspan’s account is the claim that the affective discomfort of an emotion, as (...) a fact about the agent’s state of being, provides an additional normative reason to act to alleviate the state. This, I argue, is not correct, nor is it the best way to understand emotions as reason-reinforcers. In this paper, I thus do two things: I provide an examination of how and why the affect of emotion could provide reasons to act to alleviate it and I propose that the real way emotions reinforce reasons is through the way they orient our attention onto things that matter, registering them as salient. (shrink)

The puzzle of the self-torturer raises intriguing questions concerning rationality, cyclic preferences, and resoluteness. Interestingly, what makes the case puzzling has not been clearly pinpointed. The puzzle, it seems, is that a series of rational choices foreseeably leads the self-torturer to an option that serves his preferences worse than the one with which he started. But this is a very misleading way of casting the puzzle. I pinpoint the real puzzle of the self-torturer and, in the process, reveal a neglected (...) but crucial dimension of instrumental rationality. (shrink)

Conflicts between morality and prudence are often thought to pose a special problem because the normativity of moral considerations derives from a distinctively moral point of view, while the normativity of prudential considerations derives from a distinctively prudential point of view, and there is no way to ‘put together’ the two points of view. I argue that talk of points of view is a red herring, and that for any ‘prumoral’ conflict there is some or other more comprehensive value – (...) often nameless – that accounts for the relative normative weight of conflicting moral and prudential considerations. The rational resolution of conflict is possible only in virtue of a more comprehensive value that includes the conflicting moral and prudential considerations as parts. (shrink)