Abstract
The multidisciplinary provenance of bioethics leads to a variety of discursive styles and ways of reasoning, making the discipline vulnerable to criticism and unwieldy to the setting of solid theoretical foundations. Applied ethics belongs to a group of disciplines that resort to deliberation rather than formal argumentation, therefore employing both factual and value propositions, as well as emotions, intuitions and other non logical elements. Deliberation is thus enriched to the point where ethical discourse becomes substantial rather than purely analytical. Caution must be exercised to avoid this formal permissiveness from accepting empty and incorrigible statements that are but flatus voci since they can neither be supported nor falsified. It is therefore suggested that deliberation in bioethics should comply with three sets of conditions: (1) Be understandable, truthful, honest and pertinent, as suggested by communicative ethics; (2) Allow for second order, thick judgements as suggested by pragmatism; (3) Abide by additional criteria as here proposed: Doxastic propositions should be bolstered by a cognitive element; statements should be specific and proportional to the issue at hand, and they should be arguable and coherent.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aristotle. 2004. The art of rhetoric, p. 84. London: Penguin Classics.
Castoriadis, C. 1996. La montée de la insignificance. Paris: Editions Du Seuil.
Cowley, C. 2005. A new rejection of moral expertise. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8(3): 273–279.
Dancy, J. 1993. Moral reasons. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dewey, J. 1998. The essential Dewey. Volume II: Ethics, logic, psychology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Drane, J.F. 1990. Methodologies for clinical ethics. In Bioethics, issues and perspectives, ed. S.S. Connor, and H.L. Fuenzalida-Puelma, 39–47. Washington: Pan American Health Organization.
Durante, C. 2009. Bioethics in a pluralistic society: Bioethical methodology in lieu of moral diversity. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12(1): 35–47.
Elliott, C. 2007. The tyranny of expertise. In The ethics of bioethics, ed. L.A. Eckenwiller, and F.G. Cohn, 43–46. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Farrelly, C. 2007. Deliberative democracy and nanotechnology. In Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology, ed. F. Allhoff, et al., 215–224. Hoboken: Wiley.
Foucault, M. 1976. Histoire de la sexualité, I: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Ed. Gallimard.
Gert, B., C.M. Culver, and K.D. Clouser. 1997. Bioethics. A return to fundamentals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gracia, D. 2001. Moral deliberation: The role of methodologies in clinical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4(2): 223–232.
Gracia, D. 2003. Ethical case deliberation and decision making. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6(3): 227–233.
Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Habermas, J. 1973. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Kaebenick, G.E. 2008. Reasons of the heart. The Hastings Center Report 38(4): 36–45.
Kass L.R. 1997. The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic 216(June 2): 17–26.
Kottow, M. 1999. Theoretical aids in teaching medical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2(3): 225–229.
Loughlin, M. 2004. Camouflage is still no defence-another plea for a straight answer to the question ‘what is bioethics?’. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 10(1): 75–84.
Nelson, J.L. 2007. Trusting bioethicists. In The ethics of bioethics, ed. L.A. Eckenwiller, and F.G. Cohn, 47–55. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 2008. The new rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Putnam, H. 2002. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, H. 2004. Ethics without ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rose, N. 2007. The politics of life itself. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Steinkamp, N., and B. Gordjin. 2003. Ethical case deliberation on the ward. A comparison of four methods. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6(3): 235–246.
Toulmin, S.E. 2007. The use of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varelius, J. 2008. Is ethical expertise possible? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11(2): 127–132.
Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, L. 2008. The quality of bioethics debate: Implications for clinical ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(5): 357–360.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kottow, M. Refining deliberation in bioethics. Med Health Care and Philos 12, 393–397 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-009-9216-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-009-9216-9