Article Text
Medical ethics
Can arguments address concerns?
Abstract
People have concerns, and ethicists often respond to them with philosophical arguments. But can conceptual constructions properly address fears and anxieties? It is argued in this paper that while it is possible to voice, clarify, create and—to a certain extent—tackle concerns by arguments, more concrete practices, choices, and actions are normally needed to produce proper responses to people’s worries. While logical inconsistencies and empirical errors can legitimately be exposed by arguments, the situation is considerably less clear when it comes to moral, cultural, and emotional norms, values, and expectations.
- arguments
- concerns
- bioethics
- ethics
- philosophy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The debate about physician assistance in dying: 40 years of unrivalled progress in medical ethics?
- Bioethics: why philosophy is essential for progress
- Moral pluralism versus the total view: why Singer is wrong about radical life extension
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- A Moorean argument for the full moral status of those with profound intellectual disability
- The use of vignettes within a Delphi exercise: a useful approach in empirical ethics?
- Normative consent and organ donation: a vindication
- Cui bono? Good for whom? Some apologies, confessions, musings, unsubstantiated views, not empirically founded statements, lists, a few commandments, reading suggestions, and rather practical tips for aspiring and experienced bioethicists
- Genetic information, discrimination, philosophical pluralism and politics
- How should we treat human–pig chimeras, non-chimeric pigs and other beings of uncertain moral status?