Abolishing morality in biomedical ethics

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Ethics
• Moral Philosophy
• Epistemology

Background:

• Moral realism is widely accepted in biomedical ethics, positing that moral claims are true propositions.
• Biomedical ethics frequently attributes moral obligations, stating what individuals
• should do.
• However, these attributions may be inaccurate under moral realism.

Purpose of the Study:

• To present a novel argument demonstrating widespread error in biomedical ethical obligation attribution.
• To propose the abolition of obligation attribution within biomedical ethics discourse.

Main Methods:

• The study introduces the concept of 'epistemic burdens'—obstacles to achieving aims.
• It argues that epistemic burdens influence decision-making and determine actual obligations.
• The core argument highlights ethicists' limited access to individuals' epistemic burdens.

Main Results:

• Most obligation attributions in biomedical ethics are erroneous or inaccurate.
• Ethicists' lack of access to epistemic burdens means accurate obligation attribution is often coincidental.
• The practice of attributing obligations in biomedical ethics is fundamentally flawed.

Conclusions:

• The practice of attributing moral obligations in biomedical ethics should be abolished.
• This abolition is proposed as a solution to the pervasive errors in obligation attribution.
• Rethinking the discourse around moral obligations in this field is necessary.