Literature DB >> 16199603

Can arguments address concerns?

M Häyry1.   

Abstract

People have concerns, and ethicists often respond to them with philosophical arguments. But can conceptual constructions properly address fears and anxieties? It is argued in this paper that while it is possible to voice, clarify, create and-to a certain extent-tackle concerns by arguments, more concrete practices, choices, and actions are normally needed to produce proper responses to people's worries. While logical inconsistencies and empirical errors can legitimately be exposed by arguments, the situation is considerably less clear when it comes to moral, cultural, and emotional norms, values, and expectations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethics and Professional Ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16199603      PMCID: PMC1734031          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.010017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  6 in total

1.  Accountability for reasonableness.

Authors:  N Daniels
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-25

2.  Two models of ethical consensus, or what good is a bunch of bioethicists?

Authors:  Mark Kuczewski
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Euthanasia.

Authors:  Philippa Foot
Journal:  Philos Public Aff       Date:  1977

4.  The survival lottery.

Authors:  John Harris
Journal:  Philosophy       Date:  1975-01

5.  Committees and consensus: how many heads are better than one?

Authors:  P Caws
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  1991-08

6.  A life in the shadow: one reason why we should not clone humans.

Authors:  S Holm
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.284

  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock.

Authors:  Jan Deckers
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.903

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.