Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T22:23:18.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatism and Experimental Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Henrik Rydenfelt Open the ORCID record for Henrik Rydenfelt [Opens in a new window]
Henrik Rydenfelt*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
*
Emails: henrik.rydenfelt@helsinki.fi; henrik.rydenfelt@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pragmatism gained considerable attention in bioethical discussions in the early 21st century. However, some dimensions and contributions of pragmatism to bioethics remain underexplored in both research and practice. It is argued that pragmatism can make a distinctive contribution to bioethics through its concept, developed by Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, that ethical issues can be resolved through experimental inquiry. Dewey’s proposal that policies can be confirmed or disconfirmed through experimentation is developed by comparing it to the confirmation of scientific hypotheses, with a focus on the objection that the consequences of following a moral view or policy do not provide guidance on choosing among competing ethical perspectives. As confirmation of scientific hypotheses typically relies on evidence gathered from observation, the possibility of ethically relevant observation is then explored based on Peirce’s views on feelings as emotional interpretants. Finally, the connection between Dewey’s experimental ethics and democracy is outlined and compared to unfettered ethical progressivism.

Keywords

Pragmatismexperimental ethicsconfirmationmoral progressobservation
Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2024 , pp. 174 - 184
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001 Google Scholar.

2. Miller, FG, Fins, JJ, Bacchetta, MD. Clinical pragmatism: John Dewey and clinical ethics. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 1996;13(1):27–52 Google Scholar.

3. Fins, JJ, Bacchetta, MD, Miller, FG, Dewey, J. Clinical pragmatism: a method of moral problem solving. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1997;7(2):129–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

4. Arras, JD. Pragmatism in bioethics: been there, done that. Social Philosophy and Policy 2002;19(2):29–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Schmidt-Felzmann, H. Pragmatic principles—Methodological pragmatism in the principle-based approach to bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2003;28(5–6):581–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

6. See note 4, Arras 2002, at 44.

7. See note 5, Schmidt-Felzmann 2003.

8. Moreno, JD. Bioethics is a naturalism. In: McGee, GE, ed. Pragmatic Bioethics. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press; 1999:5–17 Google Scholar.

9. See note 4, Arras 2002, at 41.

10. Vaught, W. A moral framework for multicultural education in healthcare. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2003;24(4):301–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See note 8, Moreno 1999.

12. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001:399 Google Scholar.

13. See note 3, Miller et al. 1996, at 37–38.

14. Pamental, M. Pragmatism, metaphysics, and bioethics: beyond a theory of moral deliberation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2013;38(6):725–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

15. Pavarini, G, Singh, I. Pragmatic neuroethics: Lived experiences as a source of moral knowledge. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018;27(4):578–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16. See note 4, Arras 2002.

17. Cooke, EF. On the possibility of a pragmatic discourse bioethics: Putnam, Habermas, and the normative logic of bioethical inquiry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2003;28(5–6):635–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

18. For discussion on this point, see Racine, E, Cascio, MA, Montreuil, M, Bogossian, A. Instrumentalist analyses of the functions of ethics concept-principles: a proposal for synergetic empirical and conceptual enrichment. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2019;40(4):253–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19. Putnam, H. A reconsideration of Deweyan democracy. In: Renewing Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992:180–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. See note 17, Cooke 2003.

21. Habermas, J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Lenhardt, C and Nicholsen, SW, trans. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1990 Google Scholar.

22. Rydenfelt, H. Epistemic Norms and Democracy: A Response to Talisse. Metaphilosophy 2011;42(5):572–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Rydenfelt, H. Democracy and Moral Inquiry: Problems of the Methodological Argument. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2019;55(2):254–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. See note 2, Miller et al. 1996.

25. Dewey, J. Logic: A Theory of Inquiry. The Later Works of John Dewey, vol 12. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1938:487–9Google Scholar.

26. Rydenfelt, H. Environmental Pragmatism and the Revision of Values. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2022;58(1):52–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Dewey, J. A theory of valuation. In: The Later Works of John Dewey, vol 13. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1939:204 Google Scholar.

28. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 207.

29. See note 4, Arras 2002, at 50.

30. See note 4, Arras 2002, at 49.

31. See note 4, Arras 2002, at 49.

32. See note 4, Arras 2002, at 48.

33. See note 13, Pamental 2013, at 736.

34. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 218.

35. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 218.

36. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 218.

37. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 229.

38. See note 2, Miller et al. 1996, at 38.

39. See note 14, Pavarini, Singh 2018, at 580.

40. Rydenfelt, H. Emotional Interpretants and Ethical Inquiry. Sign System Studies 2015;43(4):501–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. See note 14, Pavarini, Singh 2018, at 581.

42. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 243.

43. See note 11, Beauchamp, Childress 2001, at 399.

44. Rydenfelt, H. Pragmatism, Social Inquiry and the Method of Democracy. In: Holma, K. & Kontinen, T., eds., Practices of Citizenship in East Africa. Perspectives from Philosophical Pragmatism. London: Routledge; 2019:29–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. See note 3, Fins et al. 1997, at 130.

46. See note 3, Fins et al. 1997, at 130.

47. Trotter, G. Grounding moral authority in spirit. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2018;43(6):686–709 Google ScholarPubMed.

48. Alexander, TA John Dewey and the moral imagination: Beyond Putnam and Rorty toward a postmodern ethics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1993;29(3):369–400 Google Scholar.

49. Herdy, R. The origin and growth of Peirce’s ethics. A categorical analysis. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 2014;6(2):18 Google Scholar.

50. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 233.

51. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 243.

52. See note 12, Beauchamp, Childress 2001, at 400.

53. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 245.

54. See note 28, Dewey 1939, at 246.

55. See Rydenfelt H. Realism without Representationalism. Synthese 2021;198(4):2901–2918.