Values and Bioethics

Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 70)


Human beings are only morally responsible for their planned actions. Deliberation is the process that they have to carry out in order to mature their projects and make sound, reasonable, responsible and prudent decisions. And because all human projects include three aspects, the cognitive, the emotional and the operational or practical, deliberation will also proceed in three steps. First of all we must discuss the facts, reducing uncertainty in this regard, within reasonable limits. We then have to identify the values that are at stake, and the value conflicts that thus arise. And finally, it will be necessary, once a conflict of value has been selected from those that have been identified, to make explicit not only the extreme courses of action but also the intermediate courses, in order to choose from among them the optimal one, which will always be the one that to the greatest extent promotes, or to the least extent harms the values at stake.


Human Mind Human Species Moral Decision Monetary Unit Scientific Fact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aristotle. 1831. Aristotelis Opera. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 1979. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Daniels, Normal. 1996. Justice and justification. Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickens, Charles. 1854. Hard times. The Guttenberg project (
  5. Gracia, Diego. 2001. Moral deliberation: The role of methodologies in clinical ethics. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 4(2): 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gracia, Diego. 2003. Ethical case deliberation and decision making. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 6: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gracia, Diego. 2010. Philosophy: Ancient and contemporary approaches. In Methods in medical ethics, 2nd ed, ed. Jeremy Sugarman and Daniel P. Sulmasy, 55–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gracia, Diego. 2011a. Deliberation and consensus. In The SAGE handbook of health care ethics, ed. Ruth Chadwick, Henk ten Have, and Eric M. Meslin, 84–89. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Gracia, Diego. 2011b. Teoría y práctica de la deliberación moral. In Bioética: El estado de la cuestión, ed. Lydia Feito, Diego Gracia, and Miguel Sánchez, 101–154. Madrid: Triacastela.Google Scholar
  10. Jonsen, Albert R., and Stephen E. Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. San Francisco: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kant, Immanuel. 1968. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Akademie-Ausgabe Kant Werke IV. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Lorenz, Edward. 1993. Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Appendix 1: Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore, G.E. 1994. Principia ethica, Revisedth ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Potter, Van Rensselaer. 1971. Bioethics: Bridge to the future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fundación de Ciencias de la SaludMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations