Lindsay Ronald A
Center for Inquiry, Amherst, NY 14226, USA.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2009;30(1):31-43. doi: 10.1007/s11017-009-9094-4.
Even if there is a common morality, many would argue that it provides little guidance in resolving moral disputes, because universally accepted norms are both general in content and few in number. However, if we supplement common morality with commonly accepted factual beliefs and culture-specific norms and utilize coherentist reasoning, we can limit the range of acceptable answers to disputed issues. Moreover, in the arena of public policy, where one must take into account both legal and moral norms, the constraints on acceptable answers will narrow the extent of reasonable disagreement even further. A consideration of the debate over legalization of assisted dying supports this claim.
即使存在一种普遍的道德观念，许多人仍会认为，在解决道德争端方面它几乎无法提供指导，因为普遍接受的规范在内容上既笼统又数量稀少。然而，如果我们用普遍接受的事实信念和特定文化规范来补充普遍道德观念，并运用融贯论推理，我们就能将有争议问题的可接受答案范围加以限制。此外，在公共政策领域，人们必须兼顾法律和道德规范，对可接受答案的限制会进一步缩小合理分歧的范围。对关于协助死亡合法化的辩论进行一番思考便可支持这一说法。
