Zones of consensus and zones of conflict: questioning the "common morality" presumption in bioethics.
Many bioethicists assume that morality is in a state of wide reflective equilibrium. According to this model of moral deliberation, public policymaking can build upon a core common morality that is pretheoretical and provides a basis for practical reasoning. Proponents of the common morality approach to moral deliberation make three assumptions that deserve to be viewed with skepticism. First, they commonly assume that there is a universal, transhistorical common morality that can serve as a normative baseline for judging various actions and practices. Second, advocates of the common morality approach assume that the common morality is in a state of relatively stable, ordered, wide reflective equilibrium. Third, casuists, principlists, and other proponents of common morality approaches assume that the common morality can serve as a basis for the specification of particular policies and practical recommendations. These three claims fail to recognize the plural moral traditions that are found in multicultural, multiethnic, multifaith societies such as the United States and Canada. A more realistic recognition of multiple moral traditions in pluralist societies would be considerable more skeptical about the contributions that common morality approaches in bioethics can make to resolving contentious moral issues.
Turner
Leigh
L
Biomedical Ethics Unit and Department of Social Studies in Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
D001675:Bioethics; D032921:Consensus; D003431:Cross-Cultural Comparison; D018864:Cultural Diversity; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D036262:Empirical Research; D028781:Ethical Relativism; D028663:Ethical Theory; D038622:Internationality; D009014:Morals; D009656:North America; D028662:Principle-Based Ethics; D011640:Public Policy; D035481:Retrospective Moral Judgment