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 25 (3):308 – 322 (2000)
In his article 'Specifying, balancing and interpreting bioethical principles' (Richardson, 2000), Henry Richardson claims that the two dominant theories in bioethics - principlism, put forward by Beauchamp and Childress in Principles of Bioethics , and common morality, put forward by Gert, Culver and Clouser in Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals - are deficient because they employ balancing rather than specification to resolve disputes between principles or rules. We show that, contrary to Richardson's claim, the major problem with principlism, either the original version, or the specified principlism of Richardson, is that it conceives of morality as being composed of free-standing principles, rather than as common morality conceives it, as being a complete public system, composed of rules, ideals, morally relevant features, and a procedure for determining when a rule can be justifiably violated.
|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
Yotam Lurie & Robert Albin (2007). Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics: From Decision Procedures to Edifying Perspectives. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 71 (2):195 - 207.
George J. Agich (2005). What Kind of Doing is Clinical Ethics? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (1):7-24.
Orsolya Friedrich (2013). Knowledge of Partial Awareness in Disorders of Consciousness: Implications for Ethical Evaluations? Neuroethics 6 (1):13-23.
K. A. Wallace (2009). Common Morality and Moral Reform. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):55-68.
L. M. Kopelman (2009). Bioethics as Public Discourse and Second-Order Discipline. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (3):261-273.
Similar books and articles
Andrew Alexandra & Seumas Miller (2009). Ethical Theory, “Common Morality,” and Professional Obligations. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):69-80.
David Degrazia (1992). Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):511-539.
B. Andrew Lustig (1992). The Method of 'Principlism': A Critique of the Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):487-510.
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.
Henry S. Richardson (2000). Specifying, Balancing, and Interpreting Bioethical Principles. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):285 – 307.
Richard B. Davis (1995). The Principlism Debate: A Critical Overview. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):85-105.
John D. Arras (2009). The Hedgehog and the Borg: Common Morality in Bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):11-30.
Bernard Gert (1990). A Critique of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):219-236.
B. Andrew Lustig (1993). Perseverations on a Critical Theme. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):491-502.
K. Danner Clouser (1993). The Method of Public Morality Versus the Method of Principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (5):477-489.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #78,035 of 1,796,258 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #284,614 of 1,796,258 )
How can I increase my downloads?