Baker Robert
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998 Sep;8(3):201-31. doi: 10.1353/ken.1998.0017.
The first of two articles analyzing the justifiability of international bioethical codes and of cross-cultural moral judgments reviews "moral fundamentalism," the theory that cross-cultural moral judgments and international bioethical codes are justified by certain "basic" or "fundamental" moral priniciples that are universally accepted in all cultures and eras. Initially propounded by the judges at the 1947 Nuremberg Tribunal, moral fundamentalism has become the received justification of international bioethics, and of cross-temporal and cross-cultural moral judgments. Yet today we are said to live in a multicultural and postmodern world. This article assesses the challenges that multiculturalism and postmodernism pose to fundamentalism and concludes that these challenges render the position philosophically untenable, thereby undermining the received conception of the foundations of international bioethics. The second article, which follows, offers an alternative model -- a model of negotiated moral order -- as a viable justification for international bioethics and for transcultural and transtemporal moral judgments.
两篇分析国际生物伦理准则及跨文化道德判断合理性的文章中的第一篇，审视了“道德原教旨主义”，该理论认为跨文化道德判断和国际生物伦理准则是由某些在所有文化和时代都被普遍接受的“基本”或“根本”道德原则所证明合理的。道德原教旨主义最初由1947年纽伦堡法庭的法官提出，已成为国际生物伦理学以及跨时代和跨文化道德判断的公认理由。然而如今据说我们生活在一个多元文化和后现代的世界。本文评估了多元文化主义和后现代主义对原教旨主义构成的挑战，并得出结论认为这些挑战使该立场在哲学上站不住脚，从而削弱了关于国际生物伦理学基础的公认观念。接下来的第二篇文章提供了一种替代模式——协商道德秩序模式——作为国际生物伦理学以及跨文化和跨时代道德判断的可行理由。
