In responding to my critics, James Childress, Tom Beauchamp, Soren Holm, and Ruth Macklin, I reprise my arguments for medical ethics being an uncommon morality. I also elaborate on points that required further clarification. I explain the role of trust and trustworthiness in the creation of a profession. I also describe my views on the relationship of the medical profession to the society in which medicine is practiced. Finally, I defend my claim that medical ethics “is constructed by medical professionals (...) for medical professionals” by describing the profession’s unique vantage point for regulating and policing the profession’s uncommon powers and privileges. (shrink)

In this paper I critically examine the implications of the uncodifiability thesis for principlism as a pluralistic and non-absolute generalist ethical theory. In this regard, I begin with a brief overview of W.D. Ross’s ethical theory and his focus on general but defeasible prima facie principles before turning to 2) the revival of principlism in contemporary bioethics through the influential work of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress; 3) the widespread adoption of specification as a response to the indeterminacy of abstract (...) general principles and the limitations of balancing and deductive approaches; 4) the challenges raised to fully specified principlism by the uncodifiability thesis and 5) finally offer a defense of the uncodifiability thesis against various critiques that have been raised. (shrink)

Drawing upon Confucian ethical insights extracted from the Analects, this essay argues that principlism suffers from fundamental theoretical flaws. Its four principles do not genuinely capture universal principles, because they distort the practice-embedded nature of authentic moral norms found within actual moral cultures, as elucidated by Confucian insights. Specifically, Confucianism highlights the importance of a reflective equilibrium between constitutive rules and regulative principles. Principlism, in reality, represents an abridged version of modern Western liberal ethical norms, as it retains their significant (...) regulative principles while excluding their specific constitutive rules. The essay also employs prominent examples to illustrate the practical ineffectiveness of principlism. Given that diverse cultures either adhere to different regulative principles that diverge from the four principles or are obligated to specify them with their distinct constitutive rules, relying on the four principles as a uniform starting point falls short in providing and justifying universal solutions to the bioethical dilemmas confronting contemporary societies. In addition, the essay delves into the underlying factors that have led to the seemingly widespread adoption of the four principles across different regions worldwide. Lastly, the essay introduces the concept of regioglobal bioethics as an alternative to principlism for global bioethics, outlining a general Confucian endorsement of this proposal and providing a brief response to potential objections, aiming to pave the way for further research. (shrink)