Show simple item record

dc.creatorGracia, Diegoen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T18:54:53Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T18:54:53Zen
dc.date.created1995-07en
dc.date.issued1995-07en
dc.identifier10.1111/biot.1995.9.issue-3en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationBioethics. 1995 Jul; 9(3/4): 192-206.en
dc.identifier.issn0269-9702en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Hard+Times,+Hard+Choices:+Founding+Bioethics+Today&title=Bioethics.++&volume=9&issue=3/4&pages=192-206&date=1995&au=Gracia,+Diegoen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/biot.1995.9.issue-3en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/747380en
dc.description.abstractThe discussions of these past twenty years have significantly improved our knowledge about the foundation of bioethics and the meaning of the four bioethical principles with concern to at least three different points: that they are organised hierarchically, and therefore not "prima facie" of the same level; that they have exceptions, and consequently lack of absolute character; and that they are neither strictly deontological nor purely teleological. The only absolute principle of moral life can be the abstract and unconcrete respect of human beings. But when determining the material content of this respect, principles become contingent and relative. Therefore, moral reasoning must have necessarily no less than three moments, one absolute but merely formal, namely respect for all human beings, and the other two relative and material. The first material moment is comprised of the four bioethical principles, divided into two levels, one private, including the principles of autonomy and beneficence, and the other one public, including those of nonmaleficence and justice. The second material moment deals with specific cases, and requires analysis of their context, including their circumstances and consequences. Only when following these steps, and therefore balancing principlism and contextualism, can moral reasoning be correct and complete.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:KIE/48174en
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectBeneficenceen
dc.subjectBioethicsen
dc.subjectCultural Pluralismen
dc.subjectEthical Theoryen
dc.subjectEthicsen
dc.subjectHistorical Aspectsen
dc.subjectInternational Aspectsen
dc.subjectJusticeen
dc.subjectKnowledgeen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subjectLiteratureen
dc.subjectMoral Obligationsen
dc.subjectMoral Policyen
dc.subjectMoralityen
dc.subjectNonmaleficenceen
dc.subjectPrinciple-Based Ethicsen
dc.subjectPublic Policyen
dc.subjectTeleological Ethicsen
dc.subjectTerminologyen
dc.subjectValuesen
dc.subjectVirtuesen
dc.titleHard Times, Hard Choices: Founding Bioethics Todayen
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2023 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885