Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (2):265-276 (2018)

The advocates of Integrative Bioethics have insisted that this recently emerging project aspires to become a new stage of bioethical development, surpassing both biomedically oriented bioethics and global bioethics. We claim in this paper that if the project wants to successfully replace the two existing paradigms, it at least needs to properly address and surmount the lack of common moral vocabulary problem. This problem points to a semantic incommensurability due to cross-language communication in moral terms. This paper proceeds as follows. In the first part, we provide an overview of Integrative Bioethics and its conceptual building blocks: mutlidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. In the second part, we disclose the problem of semantic incommensurability. The third part gives an overview of various positions on the understanding of interdisciplinarity and integration in interdisciplinary communication, and corresponding attempts at solving the lack of common moral vocabulary problem. Here we lean mostly on Holbrook’s three theses regarding the character of interdisciplinary communication. Finally, in the fourth part, we discuss a particular bioethical case—that of euthanasia—to demonstrate the challenge semantic incommensurability poses to dialogues in Integrative Bioethics. We conclude that Integrative Bioethics does not offer a methodological toolset that would warrant optimism in its advocates’ predictions of surpassing current modes of doing bioethics. Since Integrative Bioethics leaves controversial methodological questions unresolved on almost all counts and shows no attempts at overcoming the critical stumbling points, we argue for its rejection.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11019-017-9799-5
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: 64,178
External links

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

Whose Justice? Which Rationality?Alasdair MacIntyre - 1988 - University of Notre Dame Press.
Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics.Onora O'Neill - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:669 - 688.
Innateness and the Sciences.Matteo Mameli & Patrick Bateson - 2006 - Biology and Philosophy 21 (2):155-188.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

From Integrative Bioethics to Pseudoscience.Tomislav Bracanović - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):148-156.
First International Summer School of Integrative Bioethics.Iva Lerga - 2007 - Synthesis Philosophica 22 (2):523-536.
Scientific and Bioethics Complaint Against the Genetic Engineering.M. Jost - 2007 - Proc. 3rd Southeast European Bioethics Forum–Integrative Bioethics. Mali Losinj 20:22.
Irreligious Bioethics: Benefits and Burdens.Joseph Clinton Parker - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (12):20-22.
The Ethics of Science and Technology.M. Jost - forthcoming - Proc. 1st Southeast European Bioethics Forum–Integrative Bioethics. Mali Losinj, June.


Added to PP index

Total views
22 ( #496,650 of 2,455,106 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,153 of 2,455,106 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes