Freestanding pragmatism in law and bioethics

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Philosophy of Law
• Practical Reasoning

Background:

• The relevance of pragmatism to bioethics is explored.
• Existing approaches include returning to classical pragmatism or critiquing principlism using neopragmatism.
• This paper focuses on a third approach: freestanding pragmatism.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine freestanding pragmatism as a method in practical ethics.
• To analyze its application in judicial decision-making theory.
• To assess its prevalence and implications for contemporary bioethics.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of freestanding pragmatism in legal theory.
• Comparison of legal pragmatism's characteristics (contextualism, instrumentalism, eclecticism, freedom from grand theory) with bioethical practices.
• Argumentative and comparative analysis.

Main Results:

• Freestanding pragmatism in legal decision-making shares significant similarities with self-described pragmatist work in bioethics.
• Key features include contextualism, instrumentalism, eclecticism, and a rejection of grand theory.
• The study suggests a widespread, perhaps unrecognized, adoption of pragmatist methods in bioethics.

Conclusions:

• Freestanding pragmatism offers a distinct methodological approach to practical ethics.
• Its principles are demonstrably present in current bioethical discourse and practice.
• The paper concludes that many in bioethics may be pragmatists without explicitly identifying as such.