PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “The Foundations of Bioethics (Engelhardt, H.T.)”

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.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Nihilism, relativism, and Engelhardt.

This paper is a critical analysis of Tristram Engelhardt's attempts to avoid unrestricted nihilism and relativism. The focus of attention is his recent book, The Foundations of Bioethics (Oxford University Press, 1996). No substantive or "content-full" bioethics (e.g., that of Roman Catholicism or the Samurai) has an intersubjectively verifiable and universally binding foundation, Engelhardt thinks, for unaided secular reason cannot show that any particular substantive morality (or moral code) is correct. He thus seems to be committed to either nihilism or relativism. The first is the view that there is not even one true or valid moral code, and the second is the view that there is a plurality of true or valid moral codes. However, Engelhardt rejects both nihilism and relativism, at least in unrestricted form. Strictly speaking, he himself is a universalist, someone who believes that there is a single true moral code. Two argumentative strategies are employed by him to fend off unconstrained nihilism and relativism. The first argues that although all attempts to establish a content-full morality on the basis of secular reason fail, secular reason can still establish a content-less, purely procedural morality. Although not content-full and incapable of providing positive direction in life, much less a meaning of life, such a morality does limit the range of relativism and nihilism. The second argues that there is a single true, content-full morality. Grace and revelation, however, are needed to make it available to us; secular reason alone is not up to the task. This second line of argument is not pursued in The Foundations at any length, but it does crop up at times, and if it is sound, nihilism and relativism can be much more thoroughly routed than the first line of argument has it. Engelhardt's position and argumentative strategies are exposed at length and accorded a detailed critical examination. In the end, it is concluded that neither strategy will do, and that Engelhardt is probably committed to some form of relativism.

Bioethics↗
PubMed1988

The peaceable pluralistic society and the question of persons.

In his recent book The Foundation of Bioethics, H. Tristam Engelhardt Jr. advances the idea of a peaceable pluralist moral society based on principles of autonomy, beneficience, and ownership. This paper tries to show that unless there is one and only one rationally sustainable definition of "a person", then the peaceable society cannot remain peaceable, but will be stirred up by groups with different and equally rational definitions. The paper further tries to show that Engelhardt's own definition of "persons in the strict sense" is an unsatisfactory solution to the problem, and the same is true for any of the possible compromises.

Beginning of Human Life↗
PubMed2004

Libertarian bioethics and religion: the case of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.

This paper is a critique of certain moral perspectives that are found in the second edition of Engelhardt's Foundation of Bioethics. These views are spelled out in explicit detail in his second edition, and follow on the heels of a profound religious conversion. Engelhardt is an eminent bioethicist with strong religious convictions that overlay much of his writing. The author wishes to question some of the conclusions that Engelhardt reaches as they touch upon moral frameworks, pluralism, and a 'secular' bioethics.

Bioethics↗
PubMed1992

A libertarian critique of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.'s The Foundations of Bioethics.

CONCLUSION: Although Engelhardt's The Foundations of Bioethics is an impressive work, it is plagued by problems of justification, conceptual confusion, and inconsistencies....A libertarian theory can arrive at the same basic requirements of mutual respect, autonomy, nonuse of force, and tolerance for a wide range of diverse life styles without relying on a lowest-common-denominator principle and without depriving fetuses, infants, and the mentally retarded of their status as persons. This can be done by taking a deontological approach to libertarian theory that denies that all moral beliefs are worthy of respect. Some beliefs, such as Engelhardt's belief that fetuses, infants, and the mentally retarded are nonpersons, simply fall beneath the floor of acceptable moral alternatives, even in a libertarian society, because such beliefs are based on a misunderstanding of personhood and violate the principle of mutual respect.

Abortion, Induced↗