PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12735488

Pragmatism as a research program--a reply to Arras.

Abstract

This paper is a reaction to an article by John Arras published earlier in this journal. In this article Arras argues that "freestanding pragmatism" has little new to offer to bioethics. We respond to some of Arras' arguments and conclude that, although he overstates his case at certain points, his critique is, broadly speaking, correct. We then introduce and discuss an alternative approach to pragmatist ethics, one which puts to work the ideas and insights of pragmatism conceived as a broad philosophical movement, without lapsing into a canon dependent approach. The approach we propose exhibits a number of characteristics that differ from Arras's account of freestanding pragmatism and offers something new to bioethics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maartje Schermer, Jozef Keulartz. 2003. Pragmatism as a research program--a reply to Arras.. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1022945606323

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗