Will we ever discover a single scientific theory that explains everything that has ever happened and everything that will happen - a key that unlocks the ...

Josiah Royce was born in California where he began his teaching career.

By articulating a Peircean strain of bioethical inquiry, Elizabeth Cooke admirably attempts to avert the anti-realism, subjectivism and focus on consensus that afflict much so-called “pragmatic” bioethics. Yet, like many of her Deweyan colleagues, she falls prey to the egalitarian conviction that inquiry should be undertaken by huge numbers of like-minded individuals, proceeding in accordance with an authoritative canon of rules of discourse. In this essay, I argue that Cooke's egalitarianism is inconsistent with her apparent commitment to Peirce, and that (...) an alternative, libertarian account of inquiry is better and truer to Peirce. (shrink)

Contemporary bioethics begins with the perception that medical values are a matter of public, rather than merely professional, interest. Such was the message of delegates in Helsinki and of the New Jersey court that decided for Quinlan. It is a theme that lurks within almost every major bioethical treatise since the first edition of PrinciplesofBioethics. This perception also undergirds the increasingly popular suggestion that moral authority in the patient-physician relationship resides neither in the medical profession, nor in the singular will (...) of the patient, but in moral communities that link both parties with higher social orders. (shrink)

The social consequences of extending the human life span might be quite bad; perhaps the worst outcome is that power could be concentrated into ever fewer hands, as those who wield it gave way more slowly to death and disease. But the worry that more life would damage individuals' quality of life is not persuasive. Depending on what the science of aging makes possible, and on how people plan their lives, longer life might even facilitate a richer and deeper life.

Book reviewed in this article: How We Die. By Sherwin B. Nuland. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

From the author of Setting Limits comes a challenging exploration of the proper goals of medicine in our rapidly changing society--a work destined to spark debate and influence policy for years to come.

As its subtitle 'Skepticism, Individuality and Chastened Politics' indicates, this book is an exploration of and a largely favorable engagement with salient elements in the thinking of a theorist who is widely regarded as the greatest Anglophone political thinker and among the top rank of philosophical writers generally. In emphazing Hobbes's skepticism, Richard Flathman goes against the grain of much of the literature concerning Hobbes. The theme of individuality is more familiar, particularly from the celebrated writings on Hobbes by Michael (...) Oakeshott, but the idea of a chastened politics challenges the widely influential view that Hobbes was not only an authoritarian but an incipient or proto-totalitarian. (shrink)

The medical profession, challenged by critics and reformers, is hard-pressed to give account of itself. Just what do physicians stand for? What do they revere? Where are they headed? These questions are becoming increasingly important yet increasingly difficult to answer, by established physicians and aspiring medical students alike. The perceived paralysis in the face of such questions and challenges is the central problem around which this book was written. To correct this failure, Dr. Trotter proposes the application of Josiah Royce's (...) "philosophy of loyalty" and the related thought of Alasdair MacIntyre to the practice of medicine. Uniquely qualified as both a professionally trained philosopher and an experienced physician, Trotter is the first to apply systematic philosophical precepts to this fundamentally important professional discipline. (shrink)

Western society today is less unified by a set of core values than ever before. Undoubtedly, the concept of moral consensus is a difficult one in a liberal, democratic and pluralistic society. But it is imperative to avoid a rigid majoritarianism where sensitive personal values are at stake, as in bioethics. Bioethics has become an influential part of public and professional discussions of health care. It has helped frame issues of moral values and medicine as part of a more general (...) effort to find consensus about some of the most perplexing questions of our time. But why is it thought that a moral consensus is important or that it deserves respect? How does moral consensus acquire legitimacy in a society that includes diverse value systems? How is moral consensus possible and how do small groups help create or distort consensus processes? Written by a medical school professor trained in philosophy, this timely work tackles these questions from philosophical, historical, and social scientific standpoints. It begins by describing the traditional ambivalence about consensus in Western culture as well as the uncertain relationship in modernity between consensus and expertise. After outlining the current bioethical consensus, the book gives philosophical and political analyses of the idea of consensus, then assesses the role of consensus in national ethics commissions and in the ethics committee movement. Moreno constructs an original, naturalistic philosophy of moral consensus, referred to as "bioethical naturalism", and then applies sociology and social psychology to actual consensus processes. The book concludes with an account of bioethics as a consensus-oriented social reform movement. This insightful volume will be essential reading for bioethicists, philosophers, physicians, members of ethics committees, and all those concerned with ethical and social issues in health care. (shrink)