David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):85-105 (1995)
Clouser and Gert’s 'A Critique of Principlism’ (1990) has ignited debate over the adequacy of substituting principlism for moral theory as a means for dealing with biomedical dilemmas. Clouser and Gert argue that this sort of substitution is not adequate to the task. I examine their argument in light of recent defences of principlism on this score, those of B. Andrew Lustig (1992), David Degrazia (1992), and Beauchamp and Childress (1994). I argue that both sides in the debate have assumed differing conceptions of a moral theory that virtually guarantee their respective conclusions. These differing conceptions are motivated by antecedent epistemological commitments. The present debate over principlism is therefore inconclusive. Future discussion should focus on the underlying epistemological issues.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
G. K. D. Crozier & Albrecht I. Schulte-Hostedde (2015). Towards Improving the Ethics of Ecological Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):577-594.
Susan Frances Jones & Anthony S. Kessel (2001). The 'Redefinition of Death' Debate: Western Concepts and Western Bioethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (1):63-75.
Theo Van Willigenburg (1998). New Casuistry: What's New? Philosophical Explorations 1 (2):152 – 164.
A. Kessel & Michael J. Crawford (1997). Openness with Patients: A Categorical Imperative to Correct an Imbalance. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (3):297-304.
Dr A. Kessel & Dr Michael J. Crawford (1997). Openness with Patients: A Categorical Imperative to Correct an Imbalance. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (3):297-304.
Similar books and articles
Tom Sorell (2011). The Limits of Principlism and Recourse to Theory: The Example of Telecare. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (4):369-382.
B. Andrew Lustig (1993). Perseverations on a Critical Theme. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):491-502.
Bernard Gert (1990). A Critique of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):219-236.
Carson Strong (2000). Specified Principlism: What is It, and Does It Really Resolve Cases Better Than Casuistry? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):323 – 341.
Michael Quante & Andreas Vieth (2002). Defending Principlism Well Understood. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (6):621 – 649.
David Degrazia (1992). Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):511-539.
Bernard Gert, Charles M. Culver & K. Danner Clouser (2000). Common Morality Versus Specified Principlism: Reply to Richardson. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):308 – 322.
K. Danner Clouser (1993). The Method of Public Morality Versus the Method of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):477-489.
B. Andrew Lustig (1992). The Method of 'Principlism': A Critique of the Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):487-510.
Added to index2009-05-29
Total downloads90 ( #47,903 of 1,911,676 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #322,162 of 1,911,676 )
How can I increase my downloads?