Abstract
The main claim of this paper is that the method outlined and used in Aristotle’s Ethics is an appropriate and credible one to use in bioethics. Here “appropriate” means that the method is capable of establishing claims and developing concepts in bioethics and “credible” that the method has some plausibility, it is not open to obvious and immediate objection. It begins by suggesting why this claim matters and then gives a brief outline of Aristotle’s method. The main argument is made in three stages. First, it is argued that Aristotelian method is credible because it compares favourably with alternatives. In this section it is shown that Aristotelian method is not vulnerable to criticisms that are made both of methods that give a primary place to moral theory (such as utilitarianism) and those that eschew moral theory (such as casuistry and social science approaches). As such, it compares favourably with these other approaches that are vulnerable to at least some of these criticisms. Second, the appropriateness of Aristotelian method is indicated through outlining how it would deal with a particular case. Finally, it is argued that the success of Aristotle’s philosophy is suggestive of both the credibility and appropriateness of his method.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
E. Anscombe (1958) ArticleTitle‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ Philosophy 33 1–19
Aristotle (transl. R. Crisp).: 2000, Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
A. Bäck (1999) ‘Aristotle’s Discovery of First Principles’ M. Sim (Eds) From Puzzles to Principles Lexington Lanham 163–182
R. Crisp (1996) How Should One Live? Clarendon Oxford
J. Dancy (1992) ArticleTitle‘Caring About Justice’ Philosophy 67 447–466
J. Dancy (1996) Moral Reasons Blackwell Oxford
W. Hardie (1980) Aristotle’s Ethical Theory EditionNumber2 Clarendon Oxford
R. Hare (1975) ArticleTitle‘Abortion and the Golden Rule’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 201–222 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnjtVKltQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11661183
J. Harris (1975) ArticleTitle‘The Survival Lottery’ Philosophy 50 81–87 Occurrence Handle11664454 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S0031819100059118
T. Hassan et al. (1999) ArticleTitle‘Managing Patients with Deliberate Self Harm Who Refuse Treatment in the Accident and Emergency Department’ BMJ 319 107–109 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MzivVOqug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10398639
A. Hedgecoe (2004) ArticleTitle‘Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics’ Bioethics 4 120–143 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00385.x
T. Hill (1995) Autonomy and Self-Respect Cambridge University Press Cambridge
R. Hursthouse (1987) Beginning Lives Open University/Blackwell London
T. Irwin (1988) Aristotle’s First Principles Clarendon Oxford
A. Jonsen (1991) ArticleTitle‘Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics’ Theoretical Medicine 12 295–307 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00489890 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2C1MnnsFY%3D Occurrence Handle1801300
Kant, I.: 1997, ‘On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy’, Appendix in: Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (transl. P. Guyer). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (original publication in 1797)
I. Kennedy A. Grubb (2000) Medical Law: Texts and Materials EditionNumber3 Butterworths London
C. Korsgaard (1996) The Sources of Normativity Cambridge University Press Cambridge
M. Kuczewski (1998) ArticleTitle‘Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics’ Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 509–524 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1009904125910 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M7mtV2nsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10051788
J. Lear (1988) Aristotle: The Desire to Understand Cambridge University Press Cambridge
A. MacIntyre (1985) After Virtue EditionNumber2 Duckworth London
S. Mason P. Allmark (2000) ArticleTitle‘Obtaining Consent to Neonatal Randomised Controlled Trials: Interviews with Parents and Clinicians in the Euricon Study’ Lancet 356 2045–2051 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03401-2 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2Fos1KgsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11145490
J. McDowell (1979) ArticleTitle‘Virtue and Reason’ Monist 62 331–350
Megone, C.: 1997, ‘Aristotelian Ethics’, in: Encyclopaedia of Applied Ethics, Vol. 3. London: Academic Press
C. Megone (2000) ArticleTitle‘Mental Illness, Human Function and Values’ Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry 7 IssueID1 45–65
M. Nelson (1999) ArticleTitle‘Morally Serious Critics of Moral Intuitions’ Ratio XII 54–79 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9329.00077
R. Norman (2000) ArticleTitle‘Applied Ethics: What is Applied to What?’ Utilitas 12 IssueID2 119–136 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S0953820800002740
M. Nussbaum (1986) The Fragility of Goodness Cambridge University Press Cambridge
O. O’Neill (2001) Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics Cambridge University Press Cambridge
K. Popper (1989) Conjectures and Refutations EditionNumber5 Routledge London
C. Reeve (1992) Practices of Reason Clarendon Oxford
S. Sauve-Meyer (1993) Aristotle on Moral Responsibility, Character and Cause Blackwell Oxford
E. Shelp (1985) Virtue and Medicine: Explorations in the Character of Medicine Kluwer Dordrecht
M. Sim (1999) ‘Introduction’ M. Sim (Eds) From Puzzles to Principles Lexington Lanham ix–xxv
P. Singer (1993) Practical Ethics EditionNumber2 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
Smith, R.: 1997, ‘Introduction’, in: Aristotle: Topics. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. i–xxxi
R. Smith (1999) ‘Dialectic and Method in Aristotle’ M. Sim (Eds) From Puzzles to Principles Lexington Lanham 39–56
J. Thomson (1971) ArticleTitle‘A Defense of Abortion’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 IssueID1 47–66
J. Whiting (1988) ArticleTitle‘Aristotle’s Function Argument: A Defense’ Ancient Philosophy 8 33–48
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allmark, P. An Argument for the use of Aristotelian Method in Bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 9, 69–79 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-7225-x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-7225-x