Bioethics, religion, and democratic deliberation: policy formation and embryonic stem cell research (original) (raw)
AI-generated Abstract
This paper examines the complexities of public deliberation on embryonic stem cell research within the framework of bioethics and democratic deliberation. It argues that the diverse moral frameworks surrounding the issue, particularly regarding the moral status of the human embryo, challenge the possibility of achieving a comprehensive social consensus. The authors contend that while engaging a variety of voices in democratic processes is essential, it may also lead to the marginalization of core moral norms, calling into question the inclusivity of deliberative democracy.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Zones of consensus and zones of conflict: questioning the" common morality" presumption in bioethics
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2003
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.
Ethical issues in healthcare and biomedical research are often a matter of public debate. This article will explore several prominent views on how such debate should be conducted within pluralistic democratic societies. It begins by considering John Rawls’s account of public reason. It then examines how this account applies to the controversial issues of abortion and physician-assisted suicide, where one can see why some have objected to this view, especially with regard to the way it requires citizens to bracket their comprehensive moral, religious, and philosophical doctrines. Next, this article will consider some alternative approaches that endorse more expansive forms of public reason that allow greater room for appeals to comprehensive doctrines. While one might expect that many of the controversial issues in bioethics will continue to be a matter of public debate going forward, it will be seen that a necessary step towards making progress in these debates is to get clear on how such debate should be conducted.
1. Rawls puts forward a proposal of political philosophy suitable for a pluralistic society where members try to establish and make persistent a stable social cooperation. The proposal is very sophisticated and takes into consideration numerous elements of a complex society.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.