Abstract

INTRODUCTION[|]This paper has been planned as a critical response to Murat Civaner's article entitled 'Medical Ethics arguments should be concordant with scientific knowledge and certain values', published in the Autumn 2015 issue of Turkish Journal of Bioethics. It also aims to provide an evaluation of the way the authoritarian discourse manifests itself in ethical arguments.[¤]METHODS[|]For this purpose, the paper first presents the views of Orhan Hançerlioğlu on Karl Marx and Karl Popper and treats these views as a written example of such authoritarian discourse, which is essentially a problematic attitude that results from an inability to acknowledge the value-laden aspects of a given perspective. [¤]RESULTS[|]In order to show that problems in Hançerlioğlu's approach is also present in Civaner's arguments, several examples where the author did not recognize the value-laden aspects and the subjective nature of information are provided. The paper then examines the recent claim by Celal Şengör, who asserted that force feeding of feces to individuals do not qualify as torture. Based on the presentation and the justification of this reductionist claim, it is emphasized that the relationship between information and values is much more complicated than those presented by Civaner. Civaner's claim, which asserts that the concept of conscience should have no place in medical ethics arguments, is also evaluated on this basis and the dangers of excluding the moral agent in ethical evaluation are underlined. In addition, the relationship of the paternalist tradition with the perspective which I refer to as the 'macro axis' is examined. Last but not least, the paper deals with the concept of 'ethics of ethics' by using examples from national and international ethics literature and emphasizes the reason why it is important for the ethicist to become aware of her own scheme of values. [¤]DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION[|]The paper concludes that contrary to what Civaner has asserted, it is not possible to exclude subjective aspects from ethical argumentation and that such an appraoch will inevitably have an authoritarian quality. For this reason, the need for other approaches for revealing, rather than repressing or ignoring, the subjective aspects of ethical inquiry is underlined.[¤]