In an attempt to be rational and objective, and, possibly, to avoid the charge of moral relativism, ethicists seek to categorise and characterise ethical dilemmas. This approach is intended to minimise the effect of the confusing individuality of the context within which ethically challenging problems exist. Despite and I argue partly as a result of this attempt to be rational and objective, even when the logic of the argument is accepted—for example, by healthcare professionals—those same professionals might well respond by stating that the conclusions are unacceptable to them. In this paper, I argue that an interpretative approach to ethical analysis, involving an examination of the ways in which ethical arguments are constructed and shared, can help ethicists to understand the origins of this gap between logic and intuition. I suggest that an argument will be persuasive either if the values underpinning the proposed argument accord with the reader’s values and worldview, or if the argument succeeds in persuading the reader to alter these. A failure either to appreciate or to acknowledge those things that give meaning to the lives of all the interested parties will make this objective far harder, if not impossible, to achieve. If, as a consequence, the narratives ethicists use to make their arguments seem to be about people living in different circumstances, and faced with different choices and challenges, from those the readers or listeners consider important or have to face in their own lives, then the argument is unlikely to seem either relevant or applicable to those people. The conclusion offered by the ethicist will be, for that individual, counterintuitive. Abortion, euthanasia and cadaveric organ donation are used as examples to support my argument.
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.
↵i Mrs Pretty had the degenerative disorder motor neurone disease. She sought a judicial review as to her husband’s legal position were he to help her commit suicide. The final judicial review, delivered by the House of Lords, ruled that such an intervention by Mr Pretty would be illegal and that he would be liable for criminal prosecution.8
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- Killing people: what Kant could have said about suicide and euthanasia but did not
- Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalised
- Withholding versus withdrawal of life support: is there an ethical difference?
- Euthanasia and other end of life decisions and care provided in final three months of life: nationwide retrospective study in Belgium
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Consent and end of life decisions
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva