Ives Jonathan, Draper Heather
Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Primary Care Clinical Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
Bioethics. 2009 May;23(4):249-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01715.x.
In this article we distinguish between philosophical bioethics (PB), descriptive policy orientated bioethics (DPOB) and normative policy oriented bioethics (NPOB). We argue that finding an appropriate methodology for combining empirical data and moral theory depends on what the aims of the research endeavour are, and that, for the most part, this combination is only required for NPOB. After briefly discussing the debate around the is/ought problem, and suggesting that both sides of this debate are misunderstanding one another (i.e. one side treats it as a conceptual problem, whilst the other treats it as an empirical claim), we outline and defend a methodological approach to NPOB based on work we have carried out on a project exploring the normative foundations of paternal rights and responsibilities. We suggest that given the prominent role already played by moral intuition in moral theory, one appropriate way to integrate empirical data and philosophical bioethics is to utilize empirically gathered lay intuition as the foundation for ethical reasoning in NPOB. The method we propose involves a modification of a long-established tradition on non-intervention in qualitative data gathering, combined with a form of reflective equilibrium where the demands of theory and data are given equal weight and a pragmatic compromise reached.
在本文中，我们区分了哲学性生命伦理学（PB）、描述性政策导向型生命伦理学（DPOB）和规范性政策导向型生命伦理学（NPOB）。我们认为，找到一种将实证数据与道德理论相结合的合适方法，取决于研究工作的目标是什么，并且在很大程度上，这种结合仅在规范性政策导向型生命伦理学中才是必要的。在简要讨论了围绕“是/应当”问题的争论，并指出争论双方都误解了对方（即一方将其视为概念性问题，而另一方将其视为实证性主张）之后，我们概述并捍卫了一种基于我们在一个探索父权权利与责任的规范性基础的项目中所开展工作的规范性政策导向型生命伦理学的方法论。我们认为，鉴于道德直觉在道德理论中已经发挥的突出作用，将实证数据与哲学性生命伦理学相结合的一种合适方式，是利用通过实证收集的外行直觉作为规范性政策导向型生命伦理学中伦理推理的基础。我们提出的方法涉及对定性数据收集方面长期存在的不干预传统的一种改进，同时结合一种反思平衡的形式，在这种形式中理论和数据的要求被给予同等的权重，并达成一种务实的妥协。
