Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 407–417

Who is Authorized to Do Applied Ethics? Inherently Political Dimensions of Applied Ethics

Article

Abstract

A standard view in ethics is that ethical issues concern a different range of human concerns than does politics. This essay goes beyond the long-standing dispute about the extent to which applied ethics needs a commitment to ethical theory. It argues that regardless of the outcome of that dispute, applied ethics, because it presumes something about the nature of authority, rests upon and is implicated in political theory. After internalist and externalist accounts of applied ethics are described, “mixed” approaches are considered that contain inevitable political dimensions. A feminist alternative, Walker’s metaethic of responsibility, shows that authority is best understood as relational and that situations of unequal power are therefore often the places where applied ethics arises. Furthermore, in a democratic society, commitments to democracy should shape the account of authority, and, thus, the nature of applied ethics as well.

Keywords

Authority Applied ethics Responsibility Theory 

References

  1. Arendt H (1970) On violence. Harcourt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp TL (2003) The nature of applied ethics. In: Frey RG, Wellman CH (eds) A companion to applied ethics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Brody H (1992) The healer’s power. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan AL (1992) If I were a rich man could I buy a pancreas? And other essays on the ethics of health care. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Code L (2002) Narratives of responsibility and agency: reading Margaret Walker’s moral understandings. Hypatia 17(1):156–173Google Scholar
  7. Cortina Orts A (2008 [2003]) The Public Task of Applied Ethics: Transnational Civic Ethics. In: Cortina Orts A, García Marzá D, Conill Sancho J (eds) Public reason and applied ethics: the ways of practical reason in a pluralist society. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp 9–32Google Scholar
  8. Darwall SL (2003) Theories of ethics. In: Frey RG, Wellman CH (eds) A companion to applied ethics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 17–37Google Scholar
  9. Engelhardt HT (1996) Foundations of bioethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Engelhardt HT (ed) (2006) Global bioethics: the collapse of consensus. M & M Scrivener Press, SalemGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerth HH, Mills CW (eds) (1949) From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Gert B, Culver CM, Clouser KD (1997) Bioethics: a return to fundamentals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton A, Jay J, Madison J (1787) The Federalist Papers. Library of Congress. Accessed May 5 2011Google Scholar
  14. Hedgecoe AM (2004) Critical bioethics: beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 18(2):120–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbes T (1994) Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley. Hackett, Indianapolis Koggel CM (1998) Perspectives on Equality: constructing a relational theory. Rowman and Littlefield, Latham, MDGoogle Scholar
  16. Koggel CM (2006) Global Inequalities and Relational Ethics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, September 2006Google Scholar
  17. Kohlen H (2009) Conflicts of care: hospital ethics committees in the USA and Germany. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. MacIntyre A (1984) After virtue: a study in moral philosophy, 2nd edn. University of Notre Dame Press, South BendGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) (2000) Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. McLeod C, Sherwin S (2000) Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In: Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 259–279Google Scholar
  21. Niebuhr R (1932) Moral man and immoral society: a study in ethics and politics. Scribner’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Walker MU (1998) Moral understandings: a feminist study in ethics. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams B (1985) Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations