Uncommon misconceptions and common morality

Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12):778-779 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One of the fundamental challenges in any field of practical ethics is to articulate a framework for deliberation and decision making that is capable of providing warranted guidance about contentious ethical questions.1 Such a framework has to function effectively in the face of empirical uncertainty and what Rawls refers to as the fact of reasonable pluralism—the fact that individuals often differ in their ideals, ambitions, preferences and conceptions of the good life. One of the perennial questions in normative and metaethics concerns the source of the warrant for such judgments, and a major preoccupation of practical ethics has been to find a way to generate such warrant without having to first settle all contentious philosophical questions about the nature and source of normativity. To the extent that scholars use the term ‘common morality’ to refer to a set of moral norms or concerns that are sufficiently common and widespread that they can be used as starting points for moral deliberation and inquiry, I am sympathetic to the term.2 To the extent that appeals to common morality are supposed to do more significant epistemic or justificatory work, they have always struck me as dangerously ad hoc and insufficiently responsive to the legitimate need to explain the ground for common normative claims. Although I am relatively sceptical of appeals to common morality, I am concerned that the version of this view that is critiqued in ‘Why not common morality’ is simply a straw person. Throughout the paper, Rhodes treats common morality as synonymous with everyday ethics and the ethics of everyday life. She says, ‘If common morality and medical ethics were the same, then the ethically justified behaviour for medical professionals and everyone else would be the same’.3 In effect, the view that Rhodes attacks is …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,813

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Bayesian Baseline for Belief in Uncommon Events.Vesa Palonen - 2017 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (3):159-175.
Justifying group-specific common morality.Carson Strong - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):1-15.
Morality and literary criticism.T. J. Diffey - 1975 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 33 (4):443-454.
Misconceptions of evolutionary biology and its ethical implications.Luzitano Brandão Ferreira - 2007 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 17 (1):14-15.
Common morality and moral reform.K. A. Wallace - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):55-68.
The hedgehog and the Borg: Common morality in bioethics.John D. Arras - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):11-30.
In the Eyes of Others. [REVIEW]James Mackey - 1964 - Philosophical Studies (Dublin) 13:320-321.
Morality for moderns.Marc Oraison (ed.) - 1972 - Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-26

Downloads
21 (#757,947)

6 months
9 (#352,458)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex John London
Carnegie Mellon University

Citations of this work

A Defence of medical ethics as uncommon morality.Rosamond Rhodes - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12):792-793.
Broadening the debate: the future of JME feature articles.Lucy Frith & John McMillan - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (3):155-155.
The Trusted Doctor: Medical Ethics and Professionalism by Rosamond Rhodes. [REVIEW]Elizabeth Lanphier - 2022 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 15 (2):174-178.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Principles of biomedical ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by James F. Childress.
Why not common morality?Rosamond Rhodes - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12):770-777.
The independence of practical ethics.Alex John London - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (2):87-105.

Add more references