In his recent paper about understanding ethical issues, Boyd suggests that traditional approaches based on principles or people are understood better in terms of perspectives, especially the perspective-based approach of hermeneutics, which he uses for conversation rather than controversy. However, we find that Boyd’s undefined contrast between conversation and controversy does not point to any improvement in communication: disputes occur during conversation and controversy may be conducted in gentle tones. We agree with Boyd, that being prepared to listen and learn are excellent attitudes, but his vague attempts to establish these and similar virtues in hermeneutic theory are not plausible. Additionally, the current controversy about the use of human embryos in stem cell therapy research shows Boyd missing the opportunity to illustrate how conversation would improve understanding.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None declared.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Medical ethics: principles, persons, and perspectives: from controversy to conversation
- Research Ethics, Science Policy, and Four Contexts for the Stem Cell Debate
- Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- Human embryonic stem cell research debates: a Confucian argument
- Ethical and legal aspects of stem cell practices in Turkey: where are we?
- directives to protect embryos?
- The ethics of stem cell research: can the disagreements be resolved?
- The moral value of induced pluripotent stem cells: a Japanese bioethics perspective on human embryo research
- What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate