David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (5):455-468 (2007)
The ethical matrix approach was developed by Prof Ben Mepham and his colleagues at the University of Nottingham in the early 1990s. Since then the approach has received increasing attention and has been used by several researchers in different projects related to assessing ethical impacts of different food production technologies and other policy options of societal concern. The ethical matrix is sometimes understood simply as a checklist of ethical concerns, but might also be seen as a guide to coming to conclusions on moral questions. The problem I discuss in this paper relates to how using the ethical matrix method as a decision guide can be combined with respecting pluralism. The aim of the paper is to suggest a framework making it possible to – at the same time – enhance public justification of judgments and respect pluralism. I argue that pluralism is fundamental to the ethical matrix approach; I distinguish between intuitionist principled pluralism and societal value pluralism; and I show how both kinds of pluralism imply restrictions on how conclusions can be made. No substantive moral decision principles can be allowed. Still, I argue, decision principles of a more epistemological or procedural character can be acceptable even within pluralism. The pragmatist principle of inquiry is defended as an account of moral problem solving compatible with both principled pluralism and value pluralism. When an ethical matrix is used within such a participatory inquiry process substantive conclusions can be drawn
|Keywords||Ethical matrix intuitionism pluralism pragmatism|
|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
L. Coutellec & I. Doussan (2012). Legal and Ethical Apprehensions Regarding Relational Object. The Case of Genetically Modified Fish. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):861-875.
Similar books and articles
Karsten Jensen, Ellen-Marie Forsberg, Christian Gamborg, Kate Millar & Peter Sandøe (2011). Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):425-445.
Ben Mepham (2000). A Framework for the Ethical Analysis of Novel Foods: The Ethical Matrix. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):165-176.
Doris Schroeder & Clare Palmer (2003). Technology Assessment and the 'Ethical Matrix'. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (4):295-307.
Matthias Kaiser, Kate Millar, Erik Thorstensen & Sandy Tomkins (2007). Developing the Ethical Matrix as a Decision Support Framework: GM Fish as a Case Study. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (1):65-80.
Matthias Kaiser & Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2001). Assessing Fisheries – Using an Ethical Matrix in a Participatory Process. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):191-200.
Roger Brownsword (2008). Regulating Nanomedicine—the Smallest of Our Concerns? NanoEthics 2 (1):73-86.
Christopher Grau (2005). Bad Dreams, Evil Demons, and the Experience Machine: Philosophy and The Matrix. In , Philosophers Explore The Matrix. Oxford University Press.
Robert B. Talisse (2011). Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):87-100.
Philip J. Ivanhoe (2009). Pluralism, Toleration, and Ethical Promiscuity. Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (2):311-329.
Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2007). Value Pluralism and Coherentist Justification of Ethical Advice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (1):81-97.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #233,320 of 1,679,386 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #182,933 of 1,679,386 )
How can I increase my downloads?