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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armstrong, A. 1949. An introduction to ancient philosophy. Westminster: Newman Press.
Bosley, H.A. 1944. The philosophical heritage of the christian faith. Chicago: Willett Clark.
Engelhardt, T. 1991. Bioethics and secular humanism: The search for a common morality. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.
Engelhardt, T. 1996. The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hanson, S. 2009. Moral acquaintances and moral decisions: Resolving moral conflicts in medical ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hourani, G.F. 1975. Essays on Islamic philosophy and science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Jonsen, A., and S. Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kuczewski, M. 1997. Fragmentation and consensus: Communitarian and casuist bioethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Larmore, C. 1987. Patterns of moral complexity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loewy, E. 1997. Moral strangers, moral acquaintance, and moral friends: Connectedness and its conditions. Albany: State University of New York Press.
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.
Nasr, S.H. 2013. The Islamic intellectual tradition in Persia. New York: Routledge.
Toulmin, S. 1981. The tyranny of principles. The Hastings Center Report 11(6): 31–39.
Welie, J.V.M. 1998. In the face of suffering: The philosophical–nthropological foundations of clinical ethics. Omaha: Creighton University Press.
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.
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.
Wildes, K. 2000. Moral acquaintances: Methodology in bioethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmadi Nasab Emran, S. Questioning Engelhardt’s assumptions in Bioethics and Secular Humanism . Med Health Care and Philos 19, 169–176 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9681-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9681-2