Abstract
In one of a series of articles on philosophical medical ethics, Gillon rebuts the argument that moral claims are essentially different from scientific claims because scientific claims are objective and confirmable or refutable, while moral claims are subjective, unconfirmable, irrefutable, and their differences incapable of resolution. He contends that there is widespread agreement about many moral principles, that moral disagreement may arise from the use of ambiguous terminology, and that progress toward resolution may be accomplished by analysis of the logical validity and consistency of the arguments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
