Abstract
Liberal societies are characterized by respect for a fundamental value pluralism; i.e., respect for individuals’ rights to live by their own conception of the good. Still, the state must make decisions that privilege some values at the cost of others. When public ethics committees give substantial ethical advice on policy related issues, it is therefore important that this advice is well justified. The use of explicit tools for ethical assessment can contribute to justifying advice. In this article, I will discuss one approach to ethical assessment, the ethical matrix method. This method is a variant of intuitionist balancing. Intuitionism is characterized by stressing the existence of several (at least two) fundamental prima facie moral principles, between which there is no given rank order. For some intuitionist approaches, coherentism has been proposed as a model of justification. This article will discuss justification of ethical advice and evaluate the appropriateness of coherentism as a justificatory approach to intuitionist tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Audi R. (2004) The Good in the Right. A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press
Beauchamp T., J. Childress (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press
Daniels N. (1996a) Justice and Justification. Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Daniels N. (1996b) Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Practice, In L. W. Sumner, J. Boyle (eds.) Philosophical Perspectives on Bioethics. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, pp. 96–114
Forsberg E.-M. (2005) The Ethical Matrix – a Tool for Ethical Assessment of Biotechnology In L. Landeweerd, L.-M. Houdebine, R. Termeulen (eds.) BioTechnology-Ethics. An Introduction, Firenze: Angelo Pontecorboli Editore, pp. 263–269
Goodman N. (1965) Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hooker B. (2002) Justifying Moral Pluralism In Ph. Stratton-Lake (ed.) Ethical Intuitionism. Re-evaluations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 161–183
Kaiser M., E.-M. Forsberg (2001) Assessing Fisheries – Using an Ethical Matrix in a Participatory Process. The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 191–200
Mepham T. B. (1995) Ethical Impacts of Biotechnology in Dairying In C. J. C. Phillips (ed.) Progress in Dairy Science Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 375–395
Mepham T. B. (2005) Bioethics. An Introduction for the Biosciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Misak C. (2000) Truth, Politics, Morality. Pragmatism and Deliberation. London and New York: Routledge
Rawls, J., “The independence of moral theory,” in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (November 1975), 48, pp. 5–22
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, 1971)
Ross, D., The Right and The Good (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2002, 1930)
Singer P. (1974) Sidgwick and Reflective Equilibrium, The Monist 58: 490–517
Thagard P. (2000) Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forsberg, EM. Value Pluralism And Coherentist Justification of Ethical Advice. J Agric Environ Ethics 20, 81–97 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9017-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9017-6