Reflective equilibrium and empirical data: Third person moral experiences in empirical medical ethics
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In ethics, the use of empirical data has become more and more popular, leading to a distinct form of applied ethics, namely empirical ethics. This 'empirical turn' is especially visible in bioethics. There are various ways of combining empirical research and ethical reflection. In this paper we discuss the use of empirical data in a special form of Reflective Equilibrium (RE), namely the Network Model with Third Person Moral Experiences. In this model, the empirical data consist of the moral experiences of people in a practice. Although inclusion of these moral experiences in this specific model of RE can be well defended, their use in the application of the model still raises important questions. What precisely are moral experiences? How to determine relevance of experiences, in other words: should there be a selection of the moral experiences that are eventually used in the RE? How much weight should the empirical data have in the RE? And the key question: can the use of RE by empirical ethicists really produce answers to practical moral questions? In this paper we start to answer the above questions by giving examples taken from our research project on understanding the norm of informed consent in the field of pediatric oncology. We especially emphasize that incorporation of empirical data in a network model can reduce the risk of self-justification and bias and can increase the credibility of the RE reached.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Charles Twardy, Steve Gardner & David Dowe (2005). Empirical Data Sets Are Algorithmically Compressible: Reply to McAllister. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 36 (2):391-402.
Guy Widdershoven (ed.) (2008). Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford University Press.
Nick Zangwill (2010). Science and Ethics: Demarcation, Holism and Logical Consequences. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (1):126-138.
Neelke Doorn (2010). Applying Rawlsian Approaches to Resolve Ethical Issues: Inventory and Setting of a Research Agenda. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 91 (1):127 - 143.
Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, Mieke Grypdonck, Nancy Cannaerts & Els Steeman (2004). Empirical Ethics in Action: Lessons From Two Empirical Studies in Nursing Ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):31-39.
Bjørn Hofmann, Anne Myhr & Søren Holm (2013). Scientific Dishonesty—a Nationwide Survey of Doctoral Students in Norway. BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):1-9.
Guy Widdershoven, Tineke Abma & Bert Molewijk (2009). Empirical Ethics as Dialogical Practice. Bioethics 23 (4):236-248.
Jonathan Ives & Heather Draper (2009). Appropriate Methodologies for Empirical Bioethics: It's All Relative. Bioethics 23 (4):249-258.
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.
Added to index2009-04-23
Total downloads37 ( #50,322 of 1,102,030 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #91,864 of 1,102,030 )
How can I increase my downloads?