Symbiotic Empirical Ethics: A Practical Methodology

Bioethics

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 198-206

  Frith, Lucy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Empirical ethics; Ethical theory; Methodology; Naturalism; Social science

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOETHICS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; SOCIOLOGY;

BIOETHICS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; ETHICAL THEORY; HUMANS; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 84859628165     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01843.x     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. R. Chadwick, H. Kuhse, W. Landman and P. Singer. 2007. Bioethics: The Reader. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell
2. B. Molewijk and L. Frith. Empirical Ethics: Who is the Don Quixote? Bioethics 2009; 23(4): ii-iv.
3. It is beyond the remit of this paper to consider why bioethics is changing, this is more a topic for a sociology of ethics
4. see E Haimes. What Can the Social Sciences Contribute to the Study of Ethics? Theoretical, Empirical and Substantive Considerations. Bioethics 2002; 16(2): 89-113.
5. P. Borry, P. Schotsmans and K. Dierickx. Empirical Research in Bioethical Journals: a Quantitative Analysis. J Med Ethics 2006; 32: 240-254
6. A. Kon. The Role of Empirical Research in Bioethics. Am J Bioeth 2009; 9(6-7): 59-65.
7. P. Borry, P. Schotsmans and K. Dierickx. The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics. Bioethics 2005; 19(1): 49-71.
8. E. Pellegrino. The Limitation of Empirical Research in Ethics. J Clin Ethics 1995; 6(2): 161-162
9. J. Harris. 2001. Introduction: The Scope and Importance of Bioethics. In Bioethics. J. Harris, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-22
10. C. Herrera. Is It Time For Bioethics To Go Empirical? Bioethics 2008; 22(3): 137-146
11. R. De Vries and B. Gordijn. Empirical Ethics and its Alleged Meta-ethical Fallacies. Bioethics 2009; 23(4): 193-201.
12. I will use the terms 'context' and 'practice' interchangeably to mean wider features of the world, the 'empirical contingencies of life'. These features are anything that could be said to have an impact on or relevance to the situations in which ethical decisions are made, including data from empirical studies. Further, this practice does not have to been seen as an objective sphere; as many authors have pointed out, empirical data is theory laden and not a 'pure' reflection of reality.
13. See S. Carter. Beware Dichotomies and Grand Abstractions. Am J Bioeth 2009; 9(6-7): 76-77;
14. R. Bennett and A Cribb. 2003. The Relevance of Empirical Research to Bioethics: Reviewing the Debate. In Scratching the Surface of Bioethics M. Hayry and T. Takala, eds. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 9-18.
15. See Caplan who elucidates this approach, which he calls the 'engineering model'. A. Caplan. 1982. Mechanics on Duty: The Limitations of a Technical Definition of Moral Expertise for Work in Applied Ethics. Can J Philos 1982; VIII: 1-18.
16. See R. Macklin. 1999. Against Relativism. New York: Oxford University Press; also, for a discussion of some of the limitations and limits of contextualism
17. see C. Kukathas. Contextualism Reconsidered: Some Skeptical Reflections. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 2004; 7: 215-225.
18. J. Rachels. 1986. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: Random House.
19. A. Hedgecoe. Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics. Bioethics 2004; 18(2): 120-143.
20. B. Molewijk, A.M. Stiggelbout, W. Otten, H.M. Dupuis, and J. Kievit. Empirical Data and Moral Theory: a Plea for Integrated Empirical Ethics. Med Health Care Philos 2004; 7: 55-69.
21. L.van der Scheer, G. Van Thiel and G. Widdershoven. 2004. Theory and Methodology of Empirical-ethical Research. In Engaging the World. S. Holm, and M. Jonas, eds. Amsterdam: IOS Press: 89-96.
22. J. van Delden and G. Van Thiel. 1998. Reflective Equalibrium as a Normative-Empirical Model in Bioethics. In Reflective Equilibrium: Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger. W. van der Burg and T. van Willigenburg, eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 251-259.
23. C. Leget, P. Borry and R. DeVries. Nobody Tosses a Dwarf! The Relationship between the Empirical and the Normative Re-examined. Bioethics 2009; 24(4): 226-235.
24. G. Widdershoven,T. Abma and B. Molewijk. Empirical Ethics as Dialogical Practice. Bioethics 2009; 23(4): 236-248.
25. Molwijk et al, op.cit. note 10, p. 57.
26. H. Lindemann, M. Verkerk and M. Walker, eds. 2009. Naturalized Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. M. Nussbaum. Reply to Wolheim, Gardiner and Putnam. New Literary History 1983; 15(1): 201-208, p. 204.
28. B. Hoffmaster, ed. 2001. Bioethics in Social Context. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
29. L. DeVries Turner, K. Orfali, and C. Bosk. Sociol Health Illn 2006; 28(6); Hedgecoe, op.cit. note 9.
30. M. Parker. Two Concepts of Empirical Ethics. Bioethics 2009. 23(4): 202-213, p. 207.
31. E. Racine. Which Naturalism for Bioethics? Bioethics 2008; 22(2): 92-100, p. 100. For a further elucidation of naturalism in bioethics
32. see J. Moreno. 1995. Deciding Together: bioethics and moral consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Defined as: a universal is a type or kind of thing (doctors); whereas a particular is one of such a type (Dr Smith).
34. Aristotle argued that this abstract 'ideal of the good' is not something that man can, in practice, achieve (1096a11-97a14, EN).
35. See also D. Devereux. Particular and Universal in Aristotle's Conception of Practical Knowledge. Rev Metaphys 1986; 39(3): 483-504 for a discussion of the difference between Plato and Aristotle's views on the universal and the particular.
36. A. Jonsen and S. Toulmin. 1998. The Abuse of Casuistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 71.
37. M. Nussbaum. 2001. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 301.
38. M. Nussbaum. 1990. Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press: 68.
39. M. Nussbaum. 1994. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 66.
40. M. Nussbaum. 2000. Why Practice Needs Ethical Theory: Particularism, Principle, and Bad Behaviour. In B. Hooker and M. Little, eds. Moral Particularism, Oxford: Clarendon Press: 227-255, p. 246.
41. R. Crisp. 2000. Particularizing Particularism. In B. Hooker and M. Little, eds. Moral Particularism. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 23-47, p. 28.
42. Nussbaum, op.cit. note 28, p. 306.
43. R. Dworkin. 1993. Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia. London: Harper Collins Publishers: 29.
44. M. Nussbaum. 2000. Woman and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. M. Nussbaum. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press: 1.
46. For more details of the study see: L. Frith, A. Jacoby and M. Gabbay. Ethical Boundary Work in the Infertility Clinic. Sociology, Health and Illness, in press. L. Frith. Process and Consensus - Ethical Decision-Making in the Infertility Clinic: A Qualitative Study. Journal of MedicalEthics, 2009; 35(11): 662-667.
47. L. Frith. Use or Ornament? Clinical Ethics Committees in the Infertility Clinic: A Qualitative Study. Clinical Ethics, 2009; 4(2): 91-97.
48. Nussbaum, op.cit. note 35, p. xv.
49. P. Allmark. An Argument for the Use of Aristotelian Method in Bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 2006; 9(1): 69-79, p. 71.
50. Nussbaum, op.cit. note 28, p. 244.
51. Haimes, op.cit. note 1.
52. B. Jennings. 1986. Applied Ethics and the Vocation of Social Science. In J. DeMarco and R.M. Fox, eds. New Directions in Ethics: the Challenge of Applied Ethics. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 205-217.
53. H. Richardson. Specifying Norms as a Way to Resolve Concrete Ethical Problems. Philos Public Aff 1990; 19(4): 279-310
54. M. Verweij. 1998. Moral Principles: Authoritative Norms or Flexible Guidelines? In Reflective Equilibrium. W. van der Burg and T. van Willigenburg, eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press: 29-40
55. T. Beauchamp and J. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Racine, op.cit. note 24, p. 97.
57. There are criticisms of this approach to specifying principles.
58. See Beauchamp and Childress, op.cit. note 44, where they that argue moral conflict may never be completely avoided.
59. See also J. DeMarco and P. Ford. Balancing in Ethical Deliberation: Superior to Specification and Casuistry. J Med Philos 2006; 31(5); 483-497.
60. They advocate the use of balancing instead of specification, because, they argue, it more clearly displays the reasons behind the decision.
61. D. Birnbacher. Ethics and Social Science: Which Kind of Co-operation? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 1999; 2(4): 319-336, p. 321.
62. Rachels, op.cit. note 8, p. 10.
63. D. Callahan. The Social Sciences and the Task of Bioethics. Daedelus 1999; 128(4): 275-295, p. 291.
64. Caplan, op.cit. note 6, p. 15.
65. J. Maxwell. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
66. See Frith 2009, op.cit. note 38.
67. P. Alasuutari. 1995. Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. London: Sage: 175.
68. Carter, op.cit. note 5, p. 76.
69. Racine, op.cit. note 24.
70. See the following who advance this view of ethical theory not as advancing truth but as a way of solving practical problems that can be justified to those involved: T. Beauchamp. Reply to Strong on Principlism and Casuistry. J Med Philos 2000; 25(3): 342-347
71. C. Strong. Specified Principlism: What is it and Does it Really Solve Cases Better? J Med Philos 2000; 25(3): 323-341
72. Jonsen, op.cit. note 25
73. A. Smith Iltis. Bioethics a Methodological Case Resolution: Specification, Specified Principles and Casuistry. J Med Philos 2000; 25(3): 271-284, p. 273.
74. G. Hughes. 2001. Aristotle on Ethics. London: Routledge: 115.
75. Molewijk et al., op.cit. note 10.
76. L. Frith, op.cit. note 38.
77. N. Daniels. 1996. Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. For an overview of these methodologies
78. see A. Musschenga. Empirical Ethics, Context-sensitivity, and Contextualism, J Med Philos 2005; 30: 467-490.
79. Beauchamp and Childress (2001) op.cit. note 44, p. 398.
80. Musschenga, op.cit. note 61.
81. Van Theil and Van Delden, op.cit. note 12.
82. N. Daniels. 2003. Reflective Equilibrium. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. Zalta, ed. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/reflective-equilibrium/ [Accessed 19 Jun 2010].
83. Musschenga op.cit. note 61, p. 482.
84. Van der Scheer et al., op.cit. note 11.
85. G. Widdershoven. 2005. Interpretation and Dialogue in Hermeneutic Ethics. In Case Analysis in Clinical Ethics, R. Ashcroft et al., eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 57-75.
86. Daniels, op.cit. note 61, p. 339.