The View From Somewhere: Moral Judgment in Bioethics

Dissertation, Rice University (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Secular bioethics has been involved in the resolution of moral controversies both in the clinic and in the discussion of public policy and there are three models used to justify moral judgments in bioethics. The first is the foundational model which seeks to build a theoretical account of the moral life. The foundational project must confront two difficulties. First, it must come to terms with the dilemma that there is no universal account of the nature of moral reason. Second, each foundational account requires some ranking of moral values if it is to make content-full judgments. Absent a universal moral narrative there is no canonical ranking of values. ;Two attempts to circumvent these foundational dilemmas have been prominent in bioethics. The first is the middle level principle approach. This model appeals to a set of principles to justify moral judgments. The model assumes that these principles are shared and that they can resolve moral dilemmas without requiring the resolution of the foundational questions. The model faces three difficulties. First there is no conclusive argument as to why this list of principles should be canonical. Second, it is not clear how the principles are related to one another. Third, the principles, without foundations, are ambiguous in their meaning. ;Another attempt to avoid foundational dilemmas is the hope of Jonsen and Toulmin to revive some model of casuistry. Jonsen and Toulmin select the model of Roman Catholic casuistry in the High Middle Ages. Yet they fail to take full account of the moral values and moral authority which governed this practice of casuistry. ;Both casuistry and principlism argue that we can reach agreement on moral controversies without appeal to foundations. In carefully examining what is agreed to one comes to see that the assertion of agreement is a sham. It becomes clear that secular discourse in bioethics must rely on a procedural morality which is empty of content. Content-full moral judgments can only be understood and accepted within particular moral communities

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,592

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The priesthood of bioethics and the return of casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1993 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1):33-49.
Usable moral principles.Pekka Väyrynen - 2008 - In Vojko Strahovnik, Matjaz Potrc & Mark Norris Lance (eds.), Challenging Moral Particularism. Routledge. pp. 75-106.
Applying Principles to Cases and the Problem of Judgment.John K. Davis - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):563 - 577.
Respondeo: Method and content in casuistry.Kevin Wm Wildes - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):115-119.
How good is the linguistic analogy?Susan Dwyer - 2005 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen P. Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York, US: Oxford University Press USA. pp. 145--167.
How Jonsen really views casuistry: A note on the abuse of father Wildes.James M. Tallmon - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):103-113.
Moral Dilemmas and Prescriptivism.Christopher W. Gowans - 1989 - American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (3):187 - 197.
Moral Dilemmas and Virtues.Robert Barrington Butcher - 1992 - Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-02

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references