Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Making the morally relevant features explicit: a response to Carson Strong.

Bernard Gert1

  • 1Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
|June 15, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Neuroscience and morality.

The Hastings Center report·2012
Same author

Computer implants and death.

Reviews in the neurosciences·2010
Same author

Sex, immorality, and mental disorders.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2009
Same author

Core curriculum: research ethics for radiology residents.

Academic radiology·2008
Same author

A brief reply to Carson Strong.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2006
Same author

Matters of "life" and "death".

The Hastings Center report·2006

This study clarifies a moral theory applied to bioethics, addressing criticisms regarding decision rationality and the ranking of evils. It refines the application of a two-step procedure for evaluating moral justifications in complex cases.

Area of Science:

  • Moral Philosophy
  • Bioethics
  • Decision Theory

Background:

  • Carson Strong has raised criticisms regarding the application of a specific moral theory to bioethics.
  • These criticisms highlight potential ambiguities in the theory's application, particularly concerning rationality and the ranking of evils.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To address Carson Strong's criticisms of the author's moral theory in bioethics.
  • To clarify the role of rationality in decision-making and the ranking of evils within the moral framework.
  • To refine the rigorous application of a two-step procedure for moral evaluation.

Main Methods:

  • Explicitly defining "morally relevant feature 3" to include both decision and ranking rationality.
  • Applying a two-step procedure rigorously to analyze bioethical cases.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBioethics and Professional Ethics

Related Experiment Videos

  • Distinguishing between universally permitted actions and those where rational persons may disagree.

    • Main Results:

    • Clarification of "morally relevant feature 3" addresses criticisms concerning rationality.
    • Rigorous application of the two-step procedure enhances the theory's practical use.
    • Re-evaluation of "weakly justified violations" demonstrates nuanced moral permissibility.

    Conclusions:

    • The moral theory, when applied with explicit attention to rationality and rigorous procedure, offers a robust framework for bioethics.
    • Strong's criticisms are addressed through clarification and refined application of the theory.
    • The study emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between consensus and disagreement among rational agents in moral evaluations.