Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T11:01:23.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Exactly Did You Claim?

A Call for Clarity in the Presentation of Premises and Conclusions in Philosophical Contributions to Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2014

MATTI HÄYRY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Philosophers should express their ideas clearly. They should do this in any field of specialization, but especially when they address issues of practical consequence, as they do in bioethics. This article dissects a recent and much-debated contribution to philosophical bioethics by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, examines how exactly it fails to meet the requirement of clarity, and maps a way forward by outlining the ways in which philosophical argumentation could validly and soundly proceed in bioethics.

Keywords

abortionAlberto GiubiliniargumentbioethicsclarityconceptualconclusionsdescriptiveFrancesca Minervainfanticideinquisitivelogicalnormativephilosophypremises
Type
Dissecting Bioethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 107 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Minerva, F. New threats to academic freedom. Bioethics 2014;28:157–62.Google Scholar

2. Häyry, M. Academic freedom, public reactions, and anonymity. Bioethics 2014;28:170–3.Google Scholar

3. Giubilini, A, Minerva, F. After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? Journal of Medical Ethics 2012. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411.Google Scholar

4. Häyry, M. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. London and New York: Routledge; 1994Google Scholar, at 66–7, 122–3.

5. See note 1, Minerva 2014, at 157.

6. See note 3, Giubilini, Minerva 2012, at 3.

7. See note 3, Giubilini, Minerva 2012, at 1–2.

8. See note 3, Giubilini, Minerva 2012, at 3.

9. See note 3, Giubilini, Minerva 2012, at 2.

10. See note 3, Giubilini, Minerva 2012, at 2–3.

11. See note 3, Giubilini, Minerva 2012, at 3.

12. See note 1, Minerva 2014, at 161–2.

13. Savulescu J. “Liberals are disgusting”: In defence of the publication of “After-Birth Abortion.” BMJ Blogs; 2012 Feb 28; available at http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/ (last accessed 16 Apr 2014).

14. The grand idea defended in the paper could also be psychological personhood, but this would not have been original enough to warrant publication.