Advertisement

Principlism and Normative Systems

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

Abstract

Principlism is a highly remarkable contribution to the field of Bioethics and hence it has become the most prevalent theoretical model in western contemporary Bioethics. The aim of this chapter is to assess it under the perspective of normative systems. Regardless its important achievements, the main difficulties that have been identified are the following. First, it does not succeed to justify the normativity of the model, considering the historical character of the common morality. Second, the principlist systemic basis shows some problems regarding its formal properties (wholeness, consistency and independence). Third, the deployment of the system through specification is actually a determination activity and this necessarily implies a break of the logical link between the initial norm and the specified one. Fourth, if narrow reflective equilibrium shows a remarkable problem of relativity, wide reflective equilibrium can neither solve important problems, among others to overcome the hermeneutical circle.

Keywords

Moral Agent Advance Directive Normative System Reflective Equilibrium Biomedical Ethic 
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.

References

  1. Alchourrón, Carlos E. 1991. Conflictos de normas y revisión de sistemas normativos. In Análisis lógico y derecho, ed. Alchourrón and Bulygin, 291–301. Madrid: CEC.Google Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, Carlos E., and Eugenio Bulygin. 1971. Normative systems. Wien: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alchourrón, Carlos E, and Eugenio Bulygin. 1977. Incompletezza, contraddittorietà e indeterminatezza degli ordinamenti normativi. In Logica deontica e semantica, ed. G. Di Bernardo, 291–307. Bolonia.Google Scholar
  4. Aquinas, Thomas. 1947. The Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York/Boston: Bezinger Bros.Google Scholar
  5. Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. W. D. Ross. Kitchener: Batoche Books.Google Scholar
  6. Arras, John. 2009a. The way we reason now: Reflective equilibrium in bioethics. In Steinbock, B.(ed.) The Oxford handbook of bioethics, 46–71. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Arras, John. 2009b. The hedgehog and the Borg: Common morality in bioethics. In Steinbock, B. (ed.) Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30: 11–30.Google Scholar
  8. Beauchamp, Tom L. 1994. Principles and other emerging paradigms in bioethics. Indiana Law Journal 69: 955–971.Google Scholar
  9. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James Childress. 1989. Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James Childress. 1994. Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clouser, K. Danner, and Bernard Gert. 1990. A critique of principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15: 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeGrazia, David. 1992. Moving forward in bioethical theory: Theories, cases and specified principlism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17: 511–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2010. Wahrheit und Methode (1960), Band I. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  15. García Llerena, Viviana. 2012. De la bioética a la biojurídica: el principialismo y sus alternativas. Comares: Granada.Google Scholar
  16. Gert, Bernard, Charles M. Culver, and K. Danner Clouser. 2006. Bioethics: A systematic approach, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonsen, Albert R., Mark Siegler and William Winslade. 2002. Clinical ethics. A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine.Google Scholar
  18. Kelsen, Hans. 1949. General theory of law and state. English edition. Trans. A. Wedberg. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  19. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
  20. Richardson, Henry S. 1990. Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 279–307.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson, Henry S. 2000. Specifying, balancing and interpreting bioethical principles. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25: 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ross, William D. 1988. The right and the good (1930). Indianapolis: Hacket.Google Scholar
  23. Tealdi, Juan Carlos. 2005. Los principios de Georgetown: análisis crítico. In Estatuto epistemológico de la bioética, ed. V. Garrafa, M. Kottow and A. Saada, 1–6. Unesco: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas. The version available at www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/4/1666/7.pdf. Accessed 2 May 5, 2014.
  24. Wildes, Kevin. 1992. Principles, rules, duties and Babel: Bioethics in the face of postmodernity. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17: 483–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade da CoruñaA CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations