Language
Country/Area
No result found
The Birth of Principled Ethics: How did America change moral thinking in the 1970s?
In the field of moral philosophy, principle ethics, as a practical method of analyzing moral issues, has gradually become a consensus in many professional fields. Compared with traditional moral theories such as virtue ethics, deontology or consequentialism, principle ethics focuses on specific ethical principles, making it realistic and operational in dealing with real moral dilemmas. The rise of this concept is closely related to the development of several important ideas in the United States in the 1970s.
The use of principled ethics in medical and behavioral research can avoid complex moral debates at the theoretical level and reflect more substantive moral decisions. This approach allows stakeholders to find common moral ground among diverse moral perspectives and thus focus on practical issues.
The Origins of Principled Ethics
The formation of principle ethics can be traced back to the late 1970s in the United States. It was originally proposed in the Belmont Report published in 1979 by the U.S. National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The report sets out three fundamental ethical principles: autonomy, self-interest, and justice, which aim to guide ethical decision-making in biomedical and behavioral research.
This understanding was solidified during the four years of conferences that followed, and was later articulated by Tom Biokamp and James Childress in their 1979 Principles of Biomedical Ethics. , further elaborated on four core ethical principles: respect for autonomy, self-interest, nonmaleficence, and justice.
These four principles became known as the "Georgetown Principles" because Biocamp and Childress were both at Georgetown University at the time. These principles derive from both deontological and consequentialist moral theories, forming an inclusive moral framework.
Four core principles
Respect for autonomy
Respect for autonomy emphasizes the individual's ability to make self-determination and the right of people to make their own choices without oppression or coercion. This is in contrast to protective action, which holds that the actions of health practitioners override the will of the patient.
Self-interest
Self-interest requires acting in the interests of others, whether preventing or eliminating harm or actively promoting some good, such as health. The purpose of self-interested action is to produce the best decision among multiple options.
Do no harm
The duty not to harm requires us to avoid intentionally causing harm or adverse consequences. While this duty is generally more binding than the duty of self-interest, in some cases, particularly when harm is unavoidable, a cost-benefit analysis is necessary to ensure that the chosen action will produce the greatest net benefit.
JusticeThe principle of justice requires us to distribute costs and benefits fairly. While following the principles of non-harm and self-interest, ethical behavior is likely to still need to consider the impact on others, which is the necessity of exploring a balance of rights and interests.
Practicality and Controversy
As a practical method of moral decision-making, principle-based ethics promotes the harmonious coexistence of various ethical, philosophical and social thoughts, and is widely used in different fields. However, since its proposal, principle ethics has also faced many challenges and criticisms.
Some scholars believe that although principle ethics can combine various moral theories, it also produces contradictory conclusions due to the lack of theoretical unity. This phenomenon of "random selection" troubles the effectiveness of its basic theory.
In addition, the selection of principles and their scope of application have also been questioned. Some argue that it ignores the impact of the intentions and values of moral actors; for example, some point out that European moral values represent significantly different ethical views than American liberalism.
Supporters’ Views
Despite criticism, principle-based ethics still has many supporters. Some scholars point out that these four principles can effectively explain and support various moral claims in medical ethics, and its cross-cultural framework helps promote ethical Analytical communication.
Principle-based ethics has undoubtedly become one of the most influential methods in current bioethics, and its successful use in the medical field, in particular, demonstrates its practicality. It remains to be seen whether these principles can continue to work in a rapidly changing moral environment.
