Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:07:26.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Get to the Point!

Philosophical Bioethics and the Struggle to Remain Relevant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2015

TUIJA TAKALA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article argues that practicality is currently overemphasized in philosophical contributions to bioethics. The inclinations to aim at relevance, to ground normativity on common morality, and to involve many academic disciplines in ethical discussions is understandable, but they are all poorly founded. When answers to difficult questions are already known at the outset, these endeavors can help decisionmakers in gaining the acceptance of the general public. Wider theoretical analyses, in which philosophers could excel, however, tend to be lost in these practical enterprises.

Keywords

bioethicscommon moralityinterdisciplinaritymultidisciplinarityphilosophypracticereflective equilibriumreflexive balancingrelevancetheory
Type
Special Section: Philosophical Bioethics—Its State and Future
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 149 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Green, RM. Method in bioethics: A troubled assessment. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1990;15:179–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. See note 1, Green 1990, at 194.

3. See, e.g., Fox, R, Swazy, J. Observing Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. I recently edited, with Matti Häyry, two special issues for the journal Bioethics: Best Practice in Conceptual Philosophical Bioethics and The Role of Philosophy and Philosophers in Bioethics. For the collections we browsed through all the ca. 1,000 articles that had been published in the journal since 1987, and only about 50 could be considered nonpractical. The special issues are available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-8519/homepage/best_practice_in_conceptual_philosophical_bioethics.htm and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-8519/homepage/the_role_of_philosophy_and_philosophers_in_bioethics.htm(last accessed 15 Aug 2014)

5. When Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics was established, in 1992, there were only a handful of bioethics journals, whereas now there are dozens and dozens of journals in the English language alone. Today, it would be almost impossible to keep track of all the published research.

6. Archer, D. Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics 2009;25:119–27.Google Scholar

7. Häyry, M. Can arguments address concerns? Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31:598–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Machery, E, Mallon, R, Nichols, S, Stich, JP. Semantics, cross cultural style. Cognition 2004;92:B1–B12, at B9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Alvarez, AAA. How rational should bioethics be? The value of empirical approaches. Bioethics 2001;15:501–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Heimes, E. What can social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 2002;16:89–113, at 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. E.g., Rawls, J. Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1972.Google Scholar

12. Ives J. A method of reflexive balancing in a pragmatic, interdisciplinary and reflexive bioethics. Bioethics 2013. doi:10.1111/bioc.12018, at 3.

13. E.g., see note 12, Ives 2013.

14. See note 12, Ives 2013.

15. See note 12, Ives 2013, at 11.

16. See note 12, Ives 2013, at 9.

17. This phrase is from Jonathan Ives; see note 10, Ives 2013, at 3. His methodological piece surely belongs to an academic journal.

18. This is especially true of those of us in the analytical tradition.