The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

On method and resolution in philosophical bioethics

On method and resolution in philosophical bioethics
On method and resolution in philosophical bioethics
A large tranche of contemporary bioethical inquiry is self-consciously focused on purpose and methodology. Bioethics is a field of disparate disciplines, and it is not always clear what role the philosopher plays in the wider scheme. Even when philosophical reflections can, in principle, find application in the real world (and often, in bioethics, there is too heady a degree of abstraction for this), there can be difficulty in finding sound resolution between the competing perspectives. Where fundamentals differ, we face apparent deadlock, with theorists seemingly able only to talk across each other. Perspectives on this vary. For example, some will argue that the philosopher’s role is purely reflective and need have no practical resonance whatsoever. Others may say that philosophers are not equipped to engage with empirical questions or, when they do, they do so on flawed understandings of “the real world”; bad science or science fiction replaces brute fact and emotional, social, and empirical reality. Some may seek to strike a balance by trying to engage the questions within a political framing, allowing both for normative and real-world concerns
0963-1801
159-163
Coggon, John
192d1511-cd81-45f4-8748-c398b74949b9
Coggon, John
192d1511-cd81-45f4-8748-c398b74949b9

Coggon, John (2011) On method and resolution in philosophical bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20 (2), 159-163. (doi:10.1017/S0963180110000800). (PMID:21435290)

Record type: Article

Abstract

A large tranche of contemporary bioethical inquiry is self-consciously focused on purpose and methodology. Bioethics is a field of disparate disciplines, and it is not always clear what role the philosopher plays in the wider scheme. Even when philosophical reflections can, in principle, find application in the real world (and often, in bioethics, there is too heady a degree of abstraction for this), there can be difficulty in finding sound resolution between the competing perspectives. Where fundamentals differ, we face apparent deadlock, with theorists seemingly able only to talk across each other. Perspectives on this vary. For example, some will argue that the philosopher’s role is purely reflective and need have no practical resonance whatsoever. Others may say that philosophers are not equipped to engage with empirical questions or, when they do, they do so on flawed understandings of “the real world”; bad science or science fiction replaces brute fact and emotional, social, and empirical reality. Some may seek to strike a balance by trying to engage the questions within a political framing, allowing both for normative and real-world concerns

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: April 2011
Organisations: Southampton Law School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 343831
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/343831
ISSN: 0963-1801
PURE UUID: 5b48200c-0fb2-4ce4-99a0-5a23aa7e93ec

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 11 Oct 2012 13:26
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 12:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: John Coggon

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×