Abstract
A Conceptual Exploration Illustrated by Recent Debates Regarding the Use of Human Reproductive Technologies Discussions of the moral and political significance of consensus go aground on the difference between consensus in small face-to-face communities such as families, clubs, and clans on the one hand, and large-scale states on the other. Lewis and Short translate the Latin consensus as “agreement, accordance, unanimity, and concord” ([17], p. 428). The Oxford English Dictionary defines the English word consensus as “agreement in opinion” or “collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons.” As we will see, the difficulty is that consensus as unanimity of opinion or agreement is possible in families, clubs, clans, and small-scale organizations. It is not possible, or it is at least highly unlikely, in large-scale states as we know them. It is possible in churches where dissent entails ipso facto excommunication. However, the life of large-scale, peaceable, democratic states is one marked by minority opinion, dissent, and lack of consensus as unanimity. Consensus in the case of large-scale, peaceable, democratic states can only mean the existence of a preponderant and overwhelming majority view in a particular matter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Bamett, R.E. (ed.): 1989, The Rights Retained by the People, George Mason University Press, Fairfax, Virginia.
Buckley, M.J.: 1987, At the Origins of Modern Atheism, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Chagnon, N.A.: 1977, Yanomanö: The Fierce People, 2nd ed., Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: 1987, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation <Donum Vitae>, Vatican City.
de Zulueta, F. (ed.): 1975, The Institutes of Gaius, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Department of Church and Society, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America: (undated), Statements on Moral and Social Concerns, New York.
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972).
Eliot, T.S.: 1958, The Complete Poems and Plays, Harcourt, Brace, New York.
Engelhardt, H.T., Jr.: 1986, The Foundations of Bioethics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Flathman, R.E.: 1982, ‘Power, Authority, and Rights in the Practice of Medicine’, in G.J. Agich (ed.), Responsibility in Health Care, D.Reidel, Dordrecht.
Gauthier, D.: 1986, Morals by Agreement, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Gauthier, D.: 1987, ‘Taming Leviathan’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 15 (Summer), 280–298.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965).
Hampton, J.: 1986, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jaeger, W.: 1943, Humanism and Theology, Marquette University, Milwaukee.
Lea, H.C.: 1973, Torture, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Lewis, C.T. and Short, C. (eds.): 1980, A Latin Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
MacIntyre, A.: 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Makarios, Bishop Vladika: 1989, ‘Human Sexuality in the 1980s’, Orthodox Outreach 12 (October-December), 11–15.
Nicodemus and Agapius: 1983, The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Orthodox Christian Educational Society, Chicago.
O’Brien, D.M.: 1979, Privacy, Law, and Public Policy, Praeger, New York.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Patterson, B.B.: 1955, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
Piesman, M. and Hartley, M.: 1984, The Yuppie Handbook, Pocket Books, New York.
Prudentius: 1953, ‘A Reply to the Address of Symmachus (Contra Orationem Symmachi)’, in Prudentius, vol. II, trans. H.J. Thomson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).
Sandars, T.C. (ed.): 1970, The Institutes of Justinian, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn.
Tanquerey, Ad.: 1937, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis, Society of St. John the Evangelist, Paris.
Warren, S. and Brandeis, L.: 1890, ‘The Right to Privacy’, Harvard Law Review 4, 193–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Engelhardt, H.T. (1994). Consensus: How much can We Hope for?. In: Bayertz, K. (eds) The Concept of Moral Consensus. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 46. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0860-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0860-7_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4371-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0860-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive