How to Deal with Counter-Examples to Common Morality Theory: A Surprising Result

Herissone-Kelly, Peter N orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-3292-5273 (2022) How to Deal with Counter-Examples to Common Morality Theory: A Surprising Result. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 31 (2). pp. 185-191. ISSN 0963-1801

[thumbnail of Author Accepted Manuscript]
Preview
PDF (Author Accepted Manuscript) - Accepted Version
224kB

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S096318012100058X

Abstract

Tom Beauchamp and James Childress are confident that their four principles—respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—are globally applicable to the sorts of issues that arise in biomedical ethics, in part because those principles form part of the common morality (a set of general norms to which all morally committed persons subscribe). Inevitably, however, the question arises of how the principlist ought to respond when presented with apparent counter-examples to this thesis. I examine a number of strategies the principlist might adopt in order to retain common morality theory in the face of supposed counter-examples. I conclude that only a strategy that takes a non-realist view of the common morality’s principles is viable. Unfortunately, such a view is likely not to appeal to the principlist.


Repository Staff Only: item control page