I takt med sekulariseringen av Norge har den kristne bioetikken mistet innflytelse. For klassisk kristen etikk har det vært mange nederlag de siste tiårene. Men det har skjedd noe mer enn at klassiske kristne posisjoner har mistet tilslutning. De kristnes argumenter har også mistet appell og gjennomslagskraft i det offentlige rom, i en grad som ikke alene kan forklares med at antallet kristne synker. Artikkelen identifiserer fem hovedgrunner til at kristne argumenter i bioetikken ikke får gjennomslag i offentligheten: politisk liberalisme, (...) avvisningen av religiøs argumentasjon, avvisningen av unntaksløse moralske forbud, moralsk subjektivisme og relativisme, og avvisning av handlingers symbolverdi. Grunnene drøftes med eksempler fra offentlig debatt.Nøkkelord: bioetikk, kristen etikk, naturrett, politisk liberalismeEnglish summary: Christian bioethics on the defensiveIn Norway, Christian bioethics has lost influence in step with secularization. For classical Christian ethics there have been numerous defeats in recent decades. However, something more than a simple decline in support for classical Christian positions has taken place. Christian arguments have also lost appeal and impact in the public square, to a degree that cannot be explained merely by the falling rate of adherence to Christianity. The article identifies five major reasons why Christian arguments in the sphere of bioethics fail to have an impact in the public square: political liberalism, the rejection of religious argumentation, the rejection of moral absolutes, moral subjectivism and relativism, and the rejection of the symbolic value of actions. The reasons are discussed with examples from the public debate. (shrink)

Omfanget av helsepersonells reservasjonsrett har nylig vært gjenstand for debatt i Norge. Vi spør om leger bør ha reservasjonsrett ved utførelse og henvisning til assistert befruktning, og drøfter argumenter for og imot ved hjelp av et rammeverk med sju kriterier for vurdering av reservasjon. Reservasjonsrettens grunnleggende dilemma er hvordan to viktige hensyn, henholdsvis pasientens rett til behandling og hensynet til helsepersonellets moralske integritet, best kan ivaretas. Det argumenteres for at leger bør ha rett til å reservere seg mot å utføre, (...) assistere ved og henvise til assistert befruktning generelt hvis begrunnelsen er hensynet til befruktede eggs moralske verdi. Videre finner vi at leger også kan ha en moralsk rett til reservasjon mot å utføre, assistere ved og henvise til assistert befruktning for likekjønnede, men da på nærmere spesifiserte vilkår.Nøkkelord: reservasjonsrett, assistert befruktning, samvittighet, moralsk integritetEnglish summary: Should physicians have the right to conscientiously object to assisted reproduction?The extent of the healthcare worker's right to conscientious objection has recently been debated in Norway. This article asks whether physicians should have a right to conscientious objection to the performance of, and referral for, assisted reproduction, and discusses arguments for and against the same, utilizing a framework of seven criteria for the evaluation of conscientious objection. The fundamental dilemma of conscientious objection is how two important considerations can be reconciled: the patient's right to treatment, and the protection of the healthcare worker's moral integrity. It is argued that physicians should have the right to object to performing, assisting with, and referring for assisted reproduction generally when the objection is grounded in the moral value of the embryo. Furthermore, physicians may also have a moral right to object to performing, assisting with, and referring for assisted reproduction for same-sex couples, but only on conditions that are further specified. (shrink)

With the rapid advance of bio-genetic technology, it will soon be possible for parents to design children who are born with certain genetic traits. This raises the question whether parents should be allowed to use this technology to engineer their children as they please. In this context it is often thought and argued that liberalism, which has a reputation for being permissive of all kinds of practices, grants parents the right to do so. However, I will argue that, on an (...) understanding of liberalism that is identical to the one used by the defenders of genetic design, liberals should wary of such practices. Liberalism, in its most general form, requires that any time individuals exercise power over others they justify it without relying on any particular conception of what a good life is. When we design children to have certain traits that are only useful for realising some conceptions of the good life, we are implicitly endorsing those conceptions. Hence this practice cannot be justified in neutral terms, and liberals should be sceptical of it. Only when we engineer our children to have traits that are useful for all conceptions of the good life can liberals allow the use of this new technology. Indeed, liberalism holds that this is morally required. (shrink)

This paper considers the prospect of moral transhumanism from the perspective of theological virtue ethics. I argue that the pursuit of goodness inherent to moral transhumanism means that there is a compelling prima facie case for moral enhancement. However, I also show that the proposed enhancements would not by themselves allow us to achieve a life of virtue, as they appear unable to create or enhance prudence, the situational judgement essential for acting in accordance with virtue. I therefore argue that (...) moral enhancement technologies should take a limited or supporting role in moral development, which I call ‘moral supplementation’. (shrink)