Zones of Consensus and Zones of Conflict: Questioning the "Common Morality" Presumption in Bioethics

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (3):193-218 (2003)
Abstract
: Many bioethicists assume that morality is in a state of wide reflective equilibrium. According to this model of moral deliberation, public policymaking can build upon a core common morality that is pretheoretical and provides a basis for practical reasoning. Proponents of the common morality approach to moral deliberation make three assumptions that deserve to be viewed with skepticism. First, they commonly assume that there is a universal, transhistorical common morality that can serve as a normative baseline for judging various actions and practices. Second, advocates of the common morality approach assume that the common morality is in a state of relatively stable, ordered, wide reflective equilibrium. Third, casuists, principlists, and other proponents of common morality approaches assume that the common morality can serve as a basis for the specification of particular policies and practical recommendations. These three claims fail to recognize the plural moral traditions that are found in multicultural, multiethnic, multifaith societies such as the United States and Canada. A more realistic recognition of multiple moral traditions in pluralist societies would be considerably more skeptical about the contributions that common morality approaches in bioethics can make to resolving contentious moral issues
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/ken.2003.0023
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,141
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Justifying Group-Specific Common Morality.Carson Strong - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):1-15.
Common Morality: Comment on Beauchamp and Childress.Oliver Rauprich - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):43-71.
Does Ethical Theory Have a Future in Bioethics?Tom L. Beauchamp - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (2):209-217.
A Small Bioethical World?Roberta Berry - 2011 - HEC Forum 23 (1):1-14.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Bioethics Policies and the Compass of Common Morality.Ronald A. Lindsay - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):31-43.
Common Morality and Computing.Bernard Gert - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (1):53-60.
Consistency, Common Morality, and Reflective Equilibrium.Jeffrey Brand-Ballard - 2003 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (3):231-258.
Common Morality and Moral Reform.K. A. Wallace - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):55-68.
The Hedgehog and the Borg: Common Morality in Bioethics.John D. Arras - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):11-30.
Justifying Group-Specific Common Morality.Carson Strong - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):1-15.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

31 ( #164,566 of 2,163,616 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #348,040 of 2,163,616 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums