Bioethics as a language game: probing the quality of moral guidance in principlism.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1007/s11017-025-09702-9
Matthew Vest
{"title":"Bioethics as a language game: probing the quality of moral guidance in principlism.","authors":"Matthew Vest","doi":"10.1007/s11017-025-09702-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This essay asks what quality of moral guidance is offered via the language of principlism, the lingua franca of bioethics. In particular, I suggest three approaches to principlist language via Kant, Rawls, and Wittgenstein. A 'top down' Kantian view of language would seem to offer 'pure' or 'crystalline' moral guidance as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice function as linguistic links to draw us towards universal values up or out there to engage. While drawing upon Rawls, Beauchamp and Childress differ importantly by citing a universal morality grounded in reflective equilibrium amongst citizens. Principlism, hence, possesses a democratic form where the common morality depends upon a historically consistent majority position; what is 'universal' arises from political 'bottom up' discourses and processes. Wittgenstein, however, offers a notably different view of language that embraces the mystical and aesthetic realities of 'the ethical' while also affirming the grounding of language in everyday contexts. Not unlike the Stoics, language for Wittgenstein is ascetic in that it is a practice, a formative exercise that reveals the humility of language as an immanent 'game' that should nevertheless inspire one towards 'the ethical.'</p>","PeriodicalId":94251,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine and bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"51-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11876201/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine and bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-025-09702-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay asks what quality of moral guidance is offered via the language of principlism, the lingua franca of bioethics. In particular, I suggest three approaches to principlist language via Kant, Rawls, and Wittgenstein. A 'top down' Kantian view of language would seem to offer 'pure' or 'crystalline' moral guidance as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice function as linguistic links to draw us towards universal values up or out there to engage. While drawing upon Rawls, Beauchamp and Childress differ importantly by citing a universal morality grounded in reflective equilibrium amongst citizens. Principlism, hence, possesses a democratic form where the common morality depends upon a historically consistent majority position; what is 'universal' arises from political 'bottom up' discourses and processes. Wittgenstein, however, offers a notably different view of language that embraces the mystical and aesthetic realities of 'the ethical' while also affirming the grounding of language in everyday contexts. Not unlike the Stoics, language for Wittgenstein is ascetic in that it is a practice, a formative exercise that reveals the humility of language as an immanent 'game' that should nevertheless inspire one towards 'the ethical.'

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为语言游戏的生命伦理学:探究原则主义道德指导的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reviewers, 2024. Benjamin's translation as dialectical abduction: a novel epistemic framework for diagnostic hypothesizing. Bioethics as a language game: probing the quality of moral guidance in principlism. Can bioethics bray? Non-human animals, biosemiotics, and a road to shared decision-making. Hermeneutics as impediment to AI in medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1