Bioethics 28 (6):302-312 (2014)

Abstract
In recent years there has been a wealth of literature arguing the need for empirical and interdisciplinary approaches to bioethics, based on the premise that an empirically informed ethical analysis is more grounded, contextually sensitive and therefore more relevant to clinical practice than an ‘abstract’ philosophical analysis. Bioethics has (arguably) always been an interdisciplinary field, and the rise of ‘empirical’ (bio)ethics need not be seen as an attempt to give a new name to the longstanding practice of interdisciplinary collaboration, but can perhaps best be understood as a substantive attempt to engage with the nature of that interdisciplinarity and to articulate the relationship between the many different disciplines (some of them empirical) that contribute to the field. It can also be described as an endeavour to explain how different disciplinary approaches can be integrated to effectively answer normative questions in bioethics, and fundamental to that endeavour is the need to think about how a robust methodology can be articulated that successfully marries apparently divergent epistemological and metaethical perspectives with method. This paper proposes ‘Reflexive Bioethics’ (RB) as a methodology for interdisciplinary and empirical bioethics, which utilizes a method of ‘Reflexive Balancing’ (RBL). RBL has been developed in response to criticisms of various forms of reflective equilibrium, and is built upon a pragmatic characterization of Bioethics and a ‘quasi-moral foundationalism’, which allows RBL to avoid some of the difficulties associated with RE and yet retain the flexible egalitarianism that makes it intuitively appealing to many
Keywords empirical bioethics  reflexive bioethics  scepticism  pragmatism  empirical ethics  interdisciplinary ethics  naturalism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12018
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,199
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Can History Do for Bioethics?Duncan Wilson - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (4):215-223.
On the Nature and Sociology of Bioethics.Mark Sheehan & Michael Dunn - 2013 - Health Care Analysis 21 (1):54-69.
Method in Bioethics: A Troubled Assessment.Ronald M. Green - 1990 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):179-197.
For an Ethnomethodology of Healthcare Ethics.Nathan Emmerich - 2013 - Health Care Analysis 21 (4):372-389.
The Future of Bioethics.Howard Brody - 2009 - Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-03-01

Total views
43 ( #234,601 of 2,411,826 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #346,023 of 2,411,826 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes