This review essay examines H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.'s The Foundations of Bioethics, a contemporary nonfeminist text in mainstream biomedical ethics. It focuses upon a central concept, Engelhardt's idea of the moral community and argues that the most serious problem in the book is its failure to take account of the political and social structures of moral communities, structures which deeply affect issues in biomedical ethics.

The book challenges the values of much of contemporary bioethics and health care policy by confronting their failure to secure the moral norms they seek to apply.

This volume brings together a set of critical essays on the thought of Professor Doctor H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr., Co-Founding Editor of the Philosophy and Medicine book series. Amongst the founders of bioethics, Professor Engelhardt, looms large. Many of his books and articles have appeared in multiple languages, including Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Chinese. The essays in this book focus critically on a wide swath of his work, in the process elucidating, critiquing, and/or commending the rigor and reach (...) of his thought. This volume compasses analyses of many different aspects of Engelhardt's work, including social and political philosophy, biopolitics, the philosophy of medicine, and bioethics. It brings together internationally known scholars to assess key elements of Engelhardt's work. (shrink)

The article discusses the relationship of the axiological foundations of modern bioethics with casual and even incidental effects of the activity of scholars in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The author examine the ability of humanists to influence the formation of values system as well as the possibility of instrumentalizing these values in social practices. The study determines the entire causal complex that led to the formation of a special tradition of non-religious substantiation of values associated (...) with the teaching and study of ancient languages in the context of the functioning of political and legal institutions and cultural and historical traditions of European states. The author considers the origins and meaning of humanism and the gradual change of its content as well as the transformation of humanistic experience into a tool of constructing ideals and values and an element of social technology. A special place is given to the analysis of attempts to form meta-ethics and bioethics within the framework of the value system of post-Soviet Russian society and the role of humanistic ideas in this process. On the example of the development of modern European philosophical thought, the controversial and problematic nature of various interpretations of humanism is shown, and the thesis of the historical conditionality of the ideals of humanism and its connection with some certain paradigms of metaphysic is confirmed. The central theme of the article is the problem of the relationship between the historical and conceptual, conditional and unconditional, contextual and universal in the heritage of the late medieval humanism. Technologization paths and contexts for the interpretation of humanistic ideas in modern Russia are outlined. The paper determines the ways of harmonization of humanitarian values and the system of their social and legal legitimation. On the example of the educational policy of higher education in recent decades, achievements and failures in the process of forming a new value system are analyzed. This value system could be used as a basis for legislative practice and state policy that would allow determining the basis of modern bioethics, which is of great importance for the development of Russian society and further improvement of the moral and legal foundations of its existence. (shrink)

In this essay, I proceed by, first, laying out H. Tristram Engelhardt's argument for the principle of permission as the proper foundation for a secular bioethic. After considering how a number of commentators have tried to undermine this argument, I show why it is immune to some of these advances. I then offer my own critique of Engelhardt's project. This critique is two pronged. First, I argue that Engelhardt is unable to establish his own foundation for a secular bioethic. This (...) inability leaves him with only contingent points of departure for a secular bioethic, some of the more salient of which he has ignored. Second, I argue that even if Engelhardt's project succeeds, it is in danger of being irrelevant in a practical sense because it ignores important contextual dimensions of the peculiar enterprise we call bioethics. Ultimately, the proper foundations for a relevant secular bioethic, I argue, must appeal to certain contingent features of the context that gives rise to the need for it. (shrink)

H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.; Can Philosophy Save Christianity? Are the Roots of the Foundations of Christian Bioethics Ecumenical? Reflections on the Nature of.

ABSTRACT:In these Conversations, Robert Veatch reveals remarkable moments of his intellectual journey through bioethics. In Part I, he recalls some of the major historical events that contributed to modern bioethics development from the 1970s onward. Going back more than one decade, he emphasizes the impact of the Antiwar and Civil Rights movements, his pacifist ideals, and his engagement as an activist. In Part II, Veatch discusses the core of his theoretical proposal for bioethics, which is based on (...) seven principles. He explains how his principles work in practice and why he defends the lexical ordering strategy, prioritizing the duty-based principles over consequentialist ones. Finally, he addresses the issue of the universality of ethical principles while, at the same time, acknowledging that different cultural values may condition the interpretation of a problem and, thus, lead to a different conclusion. (shrink)

Much recent work on the ethics of new biomedical technologies is committed to hidden, contestable views about the nature of biological reality. This selection of essays by Tim Lewens explores and scrutinises these biological foundations, and includes work on human enhancement, synthetic biology, and justice in healthcare decision-making.

The first fundamental English-language study in bioethics, this book gives a lucid analysis of, and powerfully argued resolutions to, conflicts of values that arise in medicine. It also provides salutary emphasis upon the obligations of health-care professionals to respect the moral autonomy of patients or their guardians. It is fundamental, however, because it does more: it is concerned with rationally choosing among competing orderings of goods and harms which are involved not only in the proper practice of medicine but (...) in any diversity of views about the good life. Engelhardt frames his concern in terms of universal grounds for ethically obligating rational agents within a peaceable community. In what follows, I largely prescind from issues of bioethics to attend to issues more congenial to the interests of this journal's readers. (shrink)

These papers, arising from a 1983 conference on one of the last and most acute Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle, a Christian later condemned for his monophysitism and tritheism, focus on the arguments in which he objects to tenets of Aristotle's philosophy of nature, notably on the eternity of the world and the natures of place and projectile motion.

After a period during which the theological categories of sin and forgiveness were ignored or trivialized, presently these notions are being rediscovered. What could their impact be on bioethics, either in the narrow sense of medical ethics, or in the more encompassing sense of the ethics of the life sciences? This essay begins with describing the processes of transcending and ethitization, which gave rise to the biblical notion of sin. It portrays the theological foundation of sin in terms of (...) a twofold refusal of proper relations to God and other humans. Through the practise of confession in the face of God (coram deo), sin is placed into a horizon of hope for forgiveness and reconciliation. The heuristic and hermeneutical significance of these categories results from their introducing a “surplus value,” which transcends biological and ethical considerations. This additional dimension is illustrated in view of care (cura) for the injured, and in view of individual as well as collective willingness to forgive. (shrink)

Term and concept of bioethics originally were developed by Fritz Jahr, a Protestant Pastor in Halle an der Saale in 1927, long before the period, when bioethics in the modern sense was recreated in the US in 1970s and since that time has spread globally. Jahr’s bioethical imperative, influenced by Christian and humanist traditions from Assisi to Schopenhauer and by Buddhist philosophy holds its own position against Kant’s anthropological imperative and against dogmatic Buddhist reasoning: ‘Respect each living being (...) as an end in itself and treat it, if possible, as such’. Jahr interprets the 5th Commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’ offensively and liberally as ‘common morality’ which includes the obligation of caring for one’s own health, public health and health education within the wider framework of a universal bioethical Sittengesetz. In the article-translation the actual contemporary thoughts about the bioethical imperative, which serves not only the object of interdisciplinary study, but also the practical approach to acquiring responsibility and environmental image of thinking, are found. Didactic considerations of Yahr go beyond the paternalistic upbringing, they point to the content and methodological purpose of teaching ethics to ethical discourse. According to Yahr, ethics does not regulate philosophical, theological or political knowledge, does not act as a dictatorship of a way of behavior. Ethics is the conduct of discussions, the culture of discussion and communication. Following the philosophy of Yahr, Professor Hans-Martin Zass formulated the geo-ethical imperative: "Respect the Mother Earth and all natural life as it is, for which the responsible person is an end in itself, and get around as much as possible in this way!". In respect for all living things, there is a relationship between man and animals, plants, nature, including the health systems, educational-informational and research organizations. Pastor Fritz Jahr, who had no immediate influence during his times, built a strong first Protestant foundation for contemporary theological and ethical concepts in medical ethics, bioethics, and environmental ethics. (shrink)

In this article, I critically analyze the anthropological foundation of the bioethics of philosopher Jean-François Malherbe, particularly as presented in his book, Pour une Éthique de la Médecine. Malherbe argues that such practices as organ donation and transplants, assisted reproduction, resuscitation, and other uses of biotechnologies in contemporary medicine are unethical because they go against essential human nature. Furthermore, he uses this position as a basis to prescribe public policy and institutional practice. In contrast, I argue not only that (...) ‘human nature’ is much more malleable and adaptive to changes in technology and society than Malherbe allows, but also that his criticisms of medicine and technoscientific development overstep the bounds of the social function of philosophical ethics, which is to inform and clarify public debate. Public policy and institutional practice is thus best left to the democratic political process under the parameters of the just rule of law. (shrink)

Pavel Dmitrievich Tishchenko, one of the founders of Russian bioethics, turned 75 on January 10, 2022. Joining the numerous congratulations, journal “Bioethics” publishes the text of the discussion dedicated to this event. The discussion was initiated by the question of the history of Russian bioethics formation in the perspective of its simultaneous emergence in Moscow, Volgograd, St. Petersburg, Kazan. The participants exchanged opinions on the significance of I.T. Frolov's ideas for the formation of the Moscow School of (...) Bioethics. The influence of the concept of "frontier" proposed by Tristram Engelhardt Jr. on the formation of distinctive features of Russian bioethics was revealed during the discussion. It is emphasized that at the early stages of its formation Russian bioethics was more concerned with the problems of clinical trials than with the moral dilemmas arising from medical practice. An important stage for self-understanding of bioethics was the events of the Afghan company, which exposed the imperfection of the healthcare system in the USSR. The discussion touches a critical examination of the traditional principles of bioethics. The conversation of the philosophical foundations of modern bioethics allowed to formulate two theoretical opinions. The firs assertion determines that philosophical theories delay with revolutionary changes in the field of medical and scientific practice. The second one determines the need for the formation of stable teacher-student relations sufficient for enculturation with the tradition of thinking. The participants noted the undoubted humanizing influence of these principles on clinical practice and scientific research. At the same time the risks associated with an attempt to transfer the principles that was established in the Western tradition into the practices of Russian medicine and science were identified. Speakers claimed the idea of harmonization the principles to the traditions of Russian philosophy and ethics. Thus, the medical art should be conceived as an active mercy, and many bioethical problems as social challenges that require solidarity. It was noted, that bioethics is transforming from type of value-based communication of specialists to a formalized procedure. (shrink)

Amir Muzur and Hans Martin-Sass, Fritz Jahr and the foundations of global bioethics: The future of integrative bioethics, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2012, reviewed by Christopher P. La Barbera.

In this book, H Tristram Engelhardt Jr outlines his interpretation of Christian bioethics. His branch of Christianity, termed “traditional Christianity”, is described as “the Christianity of the first millennium”. Authority is derived from the church fathers (whose works are continually cited) and from the church community, in accordance with “the Spirit” (this is contrasted with Western Christianity's use of scriptures and philosophical theology). In the first half of the book (chapters 1–4) Engelhardt describes the contemporary moral condition, characterised by (...) moral diversity and fragmentedness. He bemoans the eroding effect of pluralism on moral values and the lack of mechanisms to distinguish between opposing value systems. He terms the present state of affairs as “liberal cosmopolitanism” and argues that the only available moral authority derives from the “principle of permission”—that is, moral authority legitimised by the autonomous choices …. (shrink)

Will the ecological crises of our time be resolved using the same form of thought that has brought them about? Are technological prowess and political power the proper tools to address them? Is there not a deeper connection between our ecological crises and our human, social, political, economic, and ethical crises? This book argues that the popular approaches to ecological, bioethical, and other human crises are not working because they fail to examine the problem in its full depth. This depth (...) escapes us because we have abandoned true metaphysical reflection on the whole and substituted it unknowingly for a series of inadequate alternatives. Both the technocratic paradigm that views all of nature mechanistically and its antagonists--the eco-philosophies that argue for the realities of intrinsic value, relationality, and beauty--carry partial truths but are insufficient. This book presents a more radical alternative, rooted in the classical tradition yet fresh and vibrant. The metaphysics of gift, based in the giftedness of existence shared by all, offers a deeper and more satisfying vision of all things that can transform our relationship with nature and touches every aspect of human life: social, political, economic, technical, and ethical"-- Back cover. (shrink)

The foundations of research ethics are riven with fault lines emanating from a fear that if research is too closely connected to weighty social purposes an imperative to advance the common good through research will justify abrogating the rights and welfare of study participants. The result is an impoverished conception of the nature of research, an incomplete focus on actors who bear important moral responsibilities, and a system of ethics and oversight highly attuned to the dangers of research but (...) largely silent about threats of ineffective, inefficient, and inequitable medical practices and health systems. -/- In For the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations of Research Ethics, Alex John London defends a conception of the common good that grounds a moral imperative with two requirements. The first is to promote research that generates the information necessary to enable key social institutions to effectively, efficiently, and equitably safeguard the basic interests of individuals. The second is to ensure that research is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects its various contributors' moral claims to be treated as free and equal. Connecting research to the goals of a just social order grounds a framework for assessing and managing research risk that reconciles these requirements and justifies key oversight practices in non-paternalistic terms. Reconceiving research ethics as resolving coordination problems and providing credible assurance that these requirements are being met expands the issues and actors that fall within the purview of the field and provides the foundation for a more unified and coherent approach to domestic and international research. -/- This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. (shrink)

I explore the implications of the foundation metaphor for understanding the role of moral theories in ethics and bioethics and argue.

Thomasma and Pellegrino''s [3] focus on the healing relationship as the way to give medical ethics a philosophical foundation contains a number of difficulties. Most importantly, their approach focuses philosophical analysis on an idealized view of the healing relationship in which the ideal of health is seen as an uncontroversial norm in the individual case. medical ethics is then characterized as an intrinsic part of the medical act itself. Philosophical inquiry seems limited to a description of the practice of medicine (...) in which ethical norms are embodied. Insufficient attention to methodology leaves unclear how this vision is to be achieved in philosophical reflection. (shrink)

The United Nations Scientific, Education and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR) expresses in its title and substance a controversial linkage of two normative systems: international human rights law and bioethics. The UDBHR has the status of what is known as a ‘non-binding’ declaration under public international law. The UDBHR’s normative foundation within bioethics (and association, for example, with virtue-based or principlist bioethical theories) is more problematic. Nonetheless, the UDBHR contains socially important (...) principles of technology transfer and transnational benefit (articles 14, 15 and 21). This paper is one of the first to explore how the disciplines of bioethics and international human rights law may interact in the UDBHR to advance the policy relevance and health impact of technology transfer and transnational benefit principles. It investigates their normative ancestry in the UDBHR, as well as relevant conceptual differences between bioethics and public international law in this respect and how these may be relevant to their conceptual evolution and application. (shrink)

We share Minkoff et al.’s (2024) concern regarding the potential disavowal of pregnant patients’ right to refuse medical interventions, without or against their explicit consent, aimed at preservin...

The decades following the Second Vatican Council witnessed Catholic theology's break from classicism. Deductive, classical theology was replaced by an empirical, historically minded theology. The result was moral confusion and intellectual controversy whose effects are still felt by the Church. Benedict Ashely agreed that some revision in moral theology was necessary after Vatican II to formulate and integrate the mysteries of the Catholic faith. The question was how such teachings could be reformulated while preserving their substantive content. Ashley presents a (...) method of theological reflection that challenges the subjectivity, relationality, and language of historical mindedness with a tradition focusing on Scripture, the Magisterium, sound natural science, and a considered relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. This volume also contains commentary by four distinguished scholars: Matthew McWhorter provides an intellectual biography of Ashley, examining the development of this thought before and after Vatican II. Rev. Cajetan Cuddy, OP, reviews Ashley's philosophical theology in its principles, especially as grounded in natural law philosophy. Matthew Minerd assesses Ashley's approach to the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, the papacy, and the formation of conscience. Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, OP, evaluates Ashley's application of his moral theology to beginning- and end-of-life decision-making. (shrink)

This review essay examines H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.'s The Foundations of Bioethics, a contemporary nonfeminist text in mainstream biomedical ethics. it fo-cuses upon a central concept, Engelhardt's idea of the moral community and argues that the most serious problem in the book is its failure to take account of the political and social structures of moral communities, structures which deeply affect issues in biomedical ethics.

The book includes all 15 long forgotten articles on bioethics and ethics written by Jahr from 1927 to 1947 in English translation. (Series: Practical Ethics / Ethik in der Praxis - Studies / Studien - Vol. 37).