Abstract
Principlism has dominated contemporary Anglophone practical ethics often regarded as the most important methodological conception. Young biomedical scientists grow up learning to apply the “four principles”, an approach originally introduced in the USA by Beauchamp & Childress but soon accepted also in the UK with the support of Professor Raanan Gillon. The central idea of the method involves, first identifying the relevant among the four moral principle(s), (beneficence, non maleficence, respect for autonomy and justice) that is (are) connected with a specific moral dilemma. Then, one follows procedures of balancing, specification and deductive application, as a bridge between the moral dilemma and the four principles. Some attention is paid while balancing, to consequentialist considerations, and to other ethically significant concepts as the virtues and the emotions, but only incidentally. What is central in Beauchamp & Childress’s principlism is the adoption of normative insights of common morality, holding the position of a theoretical justification for the methodological reasoning which will determine the solution of a specific moral problem.The main ambition of the four principles approach and its main virtue is the clarity of the method and consequently the ability to become comprehensive and easily applied. There are certain problems though in applying the method. Here, we are going to investigate the problem of relative priority of principles, i.e. which principle overrides the other when two or more of them are in conflict, seeking help by the Kantian division, in perfect and imperfect duties. But we must first answer the question: Is the four principles approach, a method of moral objectivism as Beauchamp & Childress claim, or is it a method of moral relativism, as it is often argued by some of their critics? Only if our answer to the objectivity question is positive, can the main issue of priority be addressed, because an attempt at a determinate ordering wouldn’t mean anything in a relativist frame.
Highlights
Principlism has dominated contemporary Anglophone practical ethics often regarded as the most important methodological conception
Gillon claims that the four principles occupy the middle ground between moral relativism and what he dubs as moral ‘imperialism’
Gillon says that the actual use made of the four principles approach can legitimately vary from person to person, from culture to culture[9]. It seems that we have an unjustifiable collapsing of the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive senses of common morality, prescriptive being the morality that prescribes what we should do and descriptive the morality commonly practiced by people. Is it possible that such a place as Gillon’s middle ground exists? For it to exist there must be a compromise between the two conflicting conceptions of objectivism and relativism and we are confronted by the following dilemma: Either principlism works properly only with western liberal and individualist http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 08/11/2021 14:25:54 |
Summary
Principlism has dominated contemporary Anglophone practical ethics often regarded as the most important methodological conception. We are going to investigate the problem of relative priority of principles, i.e. which principle overrides the other when two or more of them are in conflict, seeking help by the Kantian division, in perfect and imperfect duties.
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.
