PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Retrospective Moral Judgment”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Zones of consensus and zones of conflict: questioning the "common morality" presumption in bioethics.

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 considerable more skeptical about the contributions that common morality approaches in bioethics can make to resolving contentious moral issues.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2005

Slaves, embryos, and nonhuman animals: moral status and the limitations of common morality theory.

Common morality theory must confront apparent counterexamples from the history of morality, such as the widespread acceptance of slavery in prior eras, that suggest core norms have changed over time. A recent defense of common morality theory addresses this problem by drawing a distinction between the content of the norms of the common morality and the range of individuals to whom these norms apply. This distinction is successful in reconciling common morality theory with practices such as slavery, but only at the cost of underscoring the limits of common morality theory, in particular its inability to resolve disputes about the moral status of entities. Given that many controversies in bioethics center on the disputed status of various entities, such as embryos and nonhuman animals, this is an important limitation. Nonetheless, common morality theory still can be a useful resource in diminishing moral conflict on issues that do not involve disputes over moral status.

Animal Rights↗
PubMed1996

Radiation.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Administrative Personnel↗
PubMed2005

More history "lite" in modern American bioethics.

This article revisits a disconcerting phenomenon. The history of prominent 17th and 18th century moral theorists who exhibited disapproval of all forms of suicide is well known. Nevertheless, there are many bioethicists who continue to claim that either these moral theorists never actually opposed suicide, or that they never believed in the inalienable right to life and liberty that is an important basis for secular moral opposition to assisted suicide. These erroneous claims evince an improper historical methodology. They originate from the bioethicists' inaccurate quotation of the moral theorists and also from the bioethicists' unwillingness to understand the moral theorists in their relevant historical context. The author concludes that this attempt to obfuscate the true history of 17th and 18th century moral theory may also be removing a line of inquiry from originalist constitutional analysis that Federal Courts have a duty to engage in.

Bioethics↗