Keeping it Ethically Real

Area of Science:

• Philosophy
• Ethics
• Moral Philosophy

Background:

• The possibility of expertise in clinical ethics is debated.
• Skeptical arguments assume expertise requires knowledge of correct moral conclusions derived from specific ethical theories.
• This perspective limits the scope and attainability of ethical expertise.

Purpose of the Study:

• To challenge the skeptical argument against ethics expertise.
• To propose an alternative framework for understanding ethical expertise.
• To demonstrate that ethical progress can be made without relying on deep ethical theories.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of ordinary ethical deliberations.
• Introduction of the Default Principle for adjudicating ethical disagreements.
• Application of arguments by parity to moral reasoning.

Main Results:

• Ordinary ethical deliberations do not necessitate the use of ethical or meta-ethical theories.
• The Default Principle provides a substantive rule for resolving moral differences.
• Arguments by parity, combined with the Default Principle, enable genuine moral progress.

Conclusions:

• The skeptical argument against ethics expertise is unsound.
• Ethical expertise involves the ability to effectively use the Default Principle and arguments by parity.
• Moral progress is achievable through practical reasoning methods rather than solely through theoretical frameworks.