Abstract
Traditional (bio) ethics relies to a large degree on the analysis of problems to determine the right course of action. In particular, in medicine, a dominant text declares that there is a “Common Morality” that applies to all people. This paper will argue that ethics is culture bound and that, in a pluralistic society, a common morality approach to the resolution of problems has significant limitations. I will argue that more attention needs to be paid to the process of agreeing to a way forward given that there is disagreement. I will illustrate how this applies not only at the clinical level but also at the level of national and international politics. A theoretical understanding of compromise and a look at ways of describing the way people make ethical decisions as opposed to seeking an ideal ethical code is presented as a way in which we can manage problems better in a pluralistic society.
Highlights
Prescott and Logan [1] argued the need for us to move from the “Anthropocene” to the “Symbiocene” from an era of dominance, exertion of power and competition, to an era of appreciating diversity, multilateralism, and co-operation
A similar phenomenon is true in politics at national and international levels where dominant political groups determine what they think is the right course of action and utilize their power to implement it, with scant attention paid to the views of minority cultural groups or nations
This paper will explore the ways in which we might expand both bioethics and ethics/political practice, in recognition of the reality of pluralism at an international level and in many countries at both a national and community level
Summary
Prescott and Logan [1] argued the need for us to move from the “Anthropocene” to the “Symbiocene” from an era of dominance, exertion of power and competition, to an era of appreciating diversity, multilateralism, and co-operation. The dominant mode has been one of analysis to determine what the right course is, often by those in power. Little attention is paid to how to respond if there is disagreement (other than debating what might be “right”). Such an approach does not work well with an understanding of cultural competence, which acknowledges that different cultures have different values and beliefs. A similar phenomenon is true in politics at national and international levels where dominant political groups determine what they think is the right course of action and utilize their power to implement it, with scant attention paid to the views of minority cultural groups or nations.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
