Antiel Ryan M, Humeniuk Katherine M, Tilburt Jon C
Biomedical Ethics Research Unit, Program in Professionalism and Ethics, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Division of General Internal Medicine, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2014 Nov 4;9:17. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-9-17.
Moral pluralism is the norm in contemporary society. Even the best philosophical arguments rarely persuade moral opponents who differ at a foundational level. This has been vividly illustrated in contemporary debates in bioethics surrounding contentious issues such as abortion and euthanasia. It is readily apparent that bioethics discourse lacks an empirical explanation for the broad differences about various topics in bioethics and health policy. In recent years, social and cognitive psychology has generated novel approaches for defining basic differences in moral intuitions generally. We propose that if empirical research using social intuitionist theory explains why people disagree with one another over moral issues, then the results of such research might help people debate their moral differences in a more constructive and civil manner. We illustrate the utility of social intuitionism with data from a national physician survey.
道德多元主义是当代社会的常态。即使是最好的哲学论证也很少能说服在根本层面存在分歧的道德反对者。这一点在当代生物伦理学围绕堕胎和安乐死等争议性问题的辩论中得到了生动体现。很明显,生物伦理学话语缺乏对生物伦理学和卫生政策中各种主题广泛差异的实证解释。近年来,社会和认知心理学产生了一些新方法来总体界定道德直觉的基本差异。我们认为,如果运用社会直觉主义理论的实证研究能够解释人们为何在道德问题上存在分歧,那么此类研究结果或许能帮助人们以更具建设性和文明的方式辩论他们的道德差异。我们用一项全国性医生调查的数据说明了社会直觉主义的效用。