Pluralism, The Ethical Matrix, and Coming to Conclusions
Tóm tắt
The ethical matrix approach was developed by Prof Ben Mepham and his colleagues at the University of Nottingham in the early 1990s. Since then the approach has received increasing attention and has been used by several researchers in different projects related to assessing ethical impacts of different food production technologies and other policy options of societal concern. The ethical matrix is sometimes understood simply as a checklist of ethical concerns, but might also be seen as a guide to coming to conclusions on moral questions. The problem I discuss in this paper relates to how using the ethical matrix method as a decision guide can be combined with respecting pluralism. The aim of the paper is to suggest a framework making it possible to – at the same time – enhance public justification of judgments and respect pluralism. I argue that pluralism is fundamental to the ethical matrix approach; I distinguish between intuitionist principled pluralism and societal value pluralism; and I show how both kinds of pluralism imply restrictions on how conclusions can be made. No substantive moral decision principles can be allowed. Still, I argue, decision principles of a more epistemological or procedural character can be acceptable even within pluralism. The pragmatist principle of inquiry is defended as an account of moral problem solving compatible with both principled pluralism and value pluralism. When an ethical matrix is used within such a participatory inquiry process substantive conclusions can be drawn.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aaltola, E., “The Moral Value of Animals: Three Versions based on Altruism,” Essays in Philosophy. A Biannual Journal 5(2) (2004) http://www.humboldt.edu/∼essays/aaltola.html [May 2007]
Beauchamp, T. and J. Childress, The Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2001/1979)
Berlin, I., (2003/1935) “The Crooked Timber of Humanity”, Pimlico
Forsberg, E-M., “The Ethical Matrix – a tool for ethical assessment of biotechnology,” in L. Landeweerd, L-M Houdebine, and R. Termeulen (eds.), BioTechnology-Ethics. An Introduction, pp. 263–270
Forsberg E-M. (2007a), Value Pluralism and Coherentist Justification of Ethical Advice, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 20, pp. 81–97.
Forsberg E-M. (2007b), A Deliberative Ethical Matrix Mehod – Justification of Moral Advice on Genetic Engineering in Food Production, Dr. Art. Dissertation, Oslo: Unipub
Habermas J. (1989), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Habermas, J. (1993), Justification and Application, Polity Press
Kaiser M., E-M. Forsberg (2001), Assessing Fisheries – Using an Ethical Matrix in a Participatory Process, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, pp. 191–200
Kant, I., Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark (1891, translated and edited by W. Hastie) (1795)
Larmore, C. (1996), The Morals of Modernity, Cambridge University Press
Mepham T. B. (2000), A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: the ethical matrix, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, pp. 165–176
Mepham, T. B. (2004), “A decade of the ethical matrix: A response to criticisms,” in J. D. Tavernier and S. Aerts (eds.), Science, Ethics & Society. 5th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Preprints
Misak, C. (2000), Truth, Politics, Morality, Pragmatism and deliberation, Routledge
Nagel T. (1987), Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 16, pp. 215–240
Peirce C. S. (1955), Philosophical writings of Peirce, In: Buchler, J. (ed.), New York: Dover Publications Inc
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press
Rawls, J. (2001), Justice as Fairness. A Restatement, Harvard: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Richardson H. (1995), “Beyond Good and Right: Toward a Constructive Ethical Pragmatism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 24, pp. 108–141
Richardson H. (2000), “Specifying, Balancing, and Interpreting Bioethical Principles,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 25, pp. 285–307
Ross, D. (2002/1930), The Right and The Good, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Talisse, R. B. (2006), “From Pragmatism to Perfectionism: Implications of Misak’s Peircean Politics,” Philosophy & Social Criticism, (forthcoming). Reference from pdf-file on web: http://people.vanderbilt.edu/∼robert.talisse/Misak_demo_web.pdf [May 2006]