Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 169–176 | Cite as

Questioning Engelhardt’s assumptions in Bioethics and Secular Humanism

  • Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

In Bioethics and Secular Humanism: The Search for a Common Morality, Tristram Engelhardt examines various possibilities of finding common ground for moral discourse among people from different traditions and concludes their futility. In this paper I will argue that many of the assumptions on which Engelhardt bases his conclusion about the impossibility of a content-full secular bioethics are problematic. By starting with the notion of moral strangers, there is no possibility, by definition, for a content-full moral discourse among moral strangers. It means that there is circularity in starting the inquiry with a definition of moral strangers, which implies that they do not share enough moral background or commitment to an authority to allow for reaching a moral agreement, and concluding that content-full morality is impossible among moral strangers. I argue that assuming traditions as solid and immutable structures that insulate people across their boundaries is problematic. Another questionable assumption in Engelhardt’s work is the idea that religious and philosophical traditions provide content-full moralities. As the cardinal assumption in Engelhardt’s review of the various alternatives for a content-full moral discourse among moral strangers, I analyze his foundationalist account of moral reasoning and knowledge and indicate the possibility of other ways of moral knowledge, besides the foundationalist one. Then, I examine Engelhardt’s view concerning the futility of attempts at justifying a content-full secular bioethics, and indicate how the assumptions have shaped Engelhardt’s critique of the alternatives for the possibility of content-full secular bioethics.

Keywords

Bioethics Common morality Secular humanism Engelhardt Religious traditions Content-full morality Moral strangers Moral disagreement Foundationalism 

References

  1. Armstrong, A. 1949. An introduction to ancient philosophy. Westminster: Newman Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bosley, H.A. 1944. The philosophical heritage of the christian faith. Chicago: Willett Clark.Google Scholar
  3. Engelhardt, T. 1991. Bioethics and secular humanism: The search for a common morality. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
  4. Engelhardt, T. 1996. The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hanson, S. 2009. Moral acquaintances and moral decisions: Resolving moral conflicts in medical ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hourani, G.F. 1975. Essays on Islamic philosophy and science. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jonsen, A., and S. Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kuczewski, M. 1997. Fragmentation and consensus: Communitarian and casuist bioethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Larmore, C. 1987. Patterns of moral complexity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loewy, E. 1997. Moral strangers, moral acquaintance, and moral friends: Connectedness and its conditions. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Nasr, S.H. 2006. Islamic philosophy from its origin to the present: Philosophy in the land of prophecy. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Nasr, S.H. 2013. The Islamic intellectual tradition in Persia. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Toulmin, S. 1981. The tyranny of principles. The Hastings Center Report 11(6): 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Welie, J.V.M. 1998. In the face of suffering: The philosophical–nthropological foundations of clinical ethics. Omaha: Creighton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Welie, J.V.M. 1999. Towards an ethics of immediacy: A defense of noncontractual foundation of the care giver-patient relationship. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2(1): 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wildes, K. 1997. Engelhardt’s communitarian ethics: The hidden assumptions. In Reading Engelhardt: Essays on the thought of H. Tristram Engelhardt, ed. B.P. Minogue, G. Palmer-Fernandez, and J.E. Reagan. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Wildes, K. 2000. Moral acquaintances: Methodology in bioethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Salus CenterSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations