FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2106815569> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2106815569 endingPage "13" @default.
• W2106815569 startingPage "13" @default.
• W2106815569 abstract "David Rothman has noted that at least some of success of bioethics movement this country can be attributed to fortuitous timing. In an age of great concern with civil rights, bioethicists had much in common with new roster of rights agitators who were appearing on American scene.(1) It is, therefore, no surprise that rights talk should have dominated bioethics world, but such an emphasis has problems and dangers. In a powerful attack on uses to which rights language is put our society, Mary Ann Glendon has written that its simple American form [by contrast, she means, with rights language Western European societies], language of rights is language of no compromise. The winner takes all and loser has to get out of town. The conversation is over.(2) Glendon is only one of a number of thinkers who have argued recent years that we have mistakenly isolated rights from responsibilities, to detriment of our common life. I, at least, would not deny that they have a legitimate concern. When our moral language shirvels and narrows to point where we can discuss disputed issues only language of rights, we are impoverished important ways. However essential that language may be, it is insufficient for everything we need to say. That I have a right to do something does not mean that it is right thing to do, nor even that I have any good reason to do it. To Judith Jarvis Thomson's now famous distinction between what a pregnant woman has a right to do and what it would be decent of her to do, Philip Abbott quite properly responded: Who would want to live a society which everyone was positively indecent to another and at same time positively scrupulous respecting another's rights?(3) And, although bioethicists have seldom mused about connections, it is striking that commitment within bioethical community to language of rights and autonomy has taken place over two decades which political theorists--who are more inclined to remember that language of rights West was first developed to discuss way unlimited rights are given up by those who enter civil society--have debated whether American founding is best characterized as liberal or republican.(4) We can recognize truth communitarian critiques of rights talk, however, without denying that such talk plays an essential role bioethical reflection. Thus, for example, Beauchamp and Childress distinguish between of autonomous person and principle of for autonomy. We may need principle even if we think ideal a mistaken understanding of our humanity. And, fact, when a principle of respect for autonomy is criticized by those who prefer to balance and weigh different values search of social harmony or consensus, we lose much of bite of moral reflection as we transform bioethics into public policy. Stephen Toulmin, for instance, wants us to avoid the cult of absolute principles, which cult expresses, evidently, not our concern for wellbeing of others but our immature quest for certainty. He argues that ethics is not well served by appeal to principle. Moral wisdom is exercised not by those who stick by a single principle come what may, absolutely and without exception, but rather by those who understand that, long run, no principle--however absolute--can avoid running up against another equally absolute principle; and by those who have experience and discrimination needed to balance conflicting considerations most humane way. The best we can hope for is that good-hearted, clear-headed will triangulate their way across complex terrain of moral life and problems.(5) Alas, good-hearted people sometimes find themselves standing at selection ramps balancing conflicting considerations, and [a]ny account of morality which does not allow for fact that my death may be required of me at any moment is thereby an inadequate account. …" @default.
• W2106815569 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2106815569 creator A5081808381 @default.
• W2106815569 date "1994-05-01" @default.
• W2106815569 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2106815569 title "Our Vocabularies, Our Selves" @default.
• W2106815569 cites W2327093872 @default.
• W2106815569 cites W2417458023 @default.
• W2106815569 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/3563386" @default.
• W2106815569 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8088994" @default.
• W2106815569 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W2106815569 type Work @default.
• W2106815569 sameAs 2106815569 @default.
• W2106815569 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2106815569 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2106815569 hasAuthorship W2106815569A5081808381 @default.
• W2106815569 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2106815569 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2106815569 hasConceptScore W2106815569C144024400 @default.
• W2106815569 hasConceptScore W2106815569C15744967 @default.
• W2106815569 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2106815569 hasLocation W21068155691 @default.
• W2106815569 hasLocation W21068155692 @default.
• W2106815569 hasOpenAccess W2106815569 @default.
• W2106815569 hasPrimaryLocation W21068155691 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W1710126152 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2039952445 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2077865380 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2138503431 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2765597752 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2789488587 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W2958642381 @default.
• W2106815569 hasRelatedWork W3049356719 @default.
• W2106815569 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2106815569 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2106815569 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2106815569 magId "2106815569" @default.
• W2106815569 workType "article" @default.