'Nobody tosses a dwarf!' The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined
Bioethics 23 (4):226-235 (2009)
| Abstract | This article discusses the relation between empirical and normative approaches in bioethics. The issue of dwarf tossing, while admittedly unusual, is chosen as a point of departure because it challenges the reader to look with fresh eyes upon several central bioethical themes, including human dignity, autonomy, and the protection of vulnerable people. After an overview of current approaches to the integration of empirical and normative ethics, we consider five ways that the empirical and normative can be brought together to speak to the problem of dwarf tossing: prescriptive applied ethics, theoretical ethics, critical applied ethics, particularist ethics and integrated empirical ethics. We defend a position of critical applied ethics that allows for a two-way relation between empirical and normative theories. Against efforts fully to integrate the normative and the empirical into one synthesis, we propose that the two should stand in tension and relation to one another. The approach we endorse acknowledges that a social practice can and should be judged both by the gathering of empirical data and by normative ethics. Critical applied ethics uses a five stage process that includes: (a) determination of the problem, (b) description of the problem, (c) empirical study of effects and alternatives, (d) normative weighing and (e) evaluation of the effects of a decision. In each stage, we explore the perspective from both the empirical (sociological) and the normative ethical point of view. We conclude by applying our five-stage critical applied ethics to the example of dwarf tossing. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJoan E. Sieber (2004). Empirical Research on Research Ethics. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):397 – 412.
Lieke van Der Scheer & Guy Widdershoven (2004). Integrated Empirical Ethics: Loss of Normativity? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):71-79.
Linda Klebe Trevino (1994). Normative and Empirical Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (2):129-143.
Albert W. Musschenga (2005). Empirical Ethics, Context-Sensitivity, and Contextualism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):467 – 490.
Bert Molewijk, Anne M. Stiggelbout, Wilma Otten, Heleen M. Dupuis & Job Kievit (2004). Scientific Contribution. Empirical Data and Moral Theory. A Plea for Integrated Empirical Ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):55-69.
Katherina Glac & Tae Wan Kim (2009). The "I" in ISCT: Normative and Empirical Facets of Integration. Journal of Business Ethics 88:693 - 705.
Sandra B. Rosenthal & Rogene A. Buchholz (2000). The Empirical-Normative Split in Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (2):399-408.
M. S. Singer (1998). Paradigms Linked. Business Ethics Quarterly 8 (3):481-496.
Bjørn Hofmann, Anne Myhr & Søren Holm (2013). Scientific Dishonesty—a Nationwide Survey of Doctoral Students in Norway. BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):1-9.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-03-29Total downloads33 ( #36,617 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
