Skip to main content

Methodological Pragmatism in Bioethics: A Modest Proposal?

  • Chapter
Pragmatist Ethics for a Technological Culture
  • 204 Accesses

Abstract

Modesty is a virtue that is hard to find in philosophy. When a philosopher describes his own proposal as “modest”, this immediately arouses my suspicion. Only other people can judge if your proposal (or something else) is modest or not. In most cases an author has his reasons for claiming this, and is trying to influence the reader in a certain direction. Andrew Light’s proposal can be said to be modest in the sense that he does not want to put the kind of pragmatic reforms in applied ethics under the fully unfurled banner of “Pragmatism”. This may be explained by the fact that pragmatism is something of a problem child: some, rather negative, connotations are evoked when arguments are tied to the tradition of pragmatism in a debate. However, Light’s general claim is not modest at all: good bioethics is necessarily pragmatic. In this way the pragmatists are becoming not just one more group in bioethics next to consequentialists, deontologists, and principalists, but pragmatism becomes a feature of all schools in bioethics. I disagree with both of Light’s claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Gremrcen, B. and H. van den Belt (2001). “A Self-Inflicted Plague? The moral legacy of recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth diseace,”, in: preprints of the third congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, Milan: University of Milan, p. 229–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gremmen, B. and P. Koene (2001). “De-domestication and the Ethics of Practices”, in: preprints of the third congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, Milan: University of Milan, p. 225–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (2001). Samen werken aan duurzaamheid, dissertation, Wageningen: Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J.D. (1999). `Bioethics Is a naturalism“, in: G. McGee (ed.), Pragmatic Bioethics, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, p. 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gremmen, B. (2002). Methodological Pragmatism in Bioethics: A Modest Proposal?. In: Keulartz, J., Korthals, M., Schermer, M., Swierstra, T. (eds) Pragmatist Ethics for a Technological Culture. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0301-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0301-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1115-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0301-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics