Journal
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 443-456Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhac007
Keywords
consensus; dialogic consensus; medical ethics; medical morality; moral authority
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Consensus, specifically dialogic consensus, possesses a unique form of moral authority in our pluralistic society. Through unforced dialogue and properly founded argumentation, dilemmatic situations can be morally evaluated and action-guiding decisions can be made.
Prompted by recent comments on the moral authority of dialogic consensus, we argue that consensus, specifically dialogic consensus, possesses a unique form of moral authority. Given our multicultural era and its plurality of values, we contend that traditional ethical frameworks or principles derived from them cannot be viewed substantively. Both philosophers and clinicians prioritize the need for a decision to be morally justifiable, and also for the decision to be action-guiding. We argue that, especially against the background of our pluralistic society, it is only via unforced dialogue and properly founded argumentation, aiming for consensus, that we can ascribe rightness or wrongness in a normative fashion to dilemmatic situations. We argue that both the process of dialogue, properly constituted, and the consensual outcome itself have moral authority vested within them. Finally, we argue that the consensual decision made is able to withstand moral scrutiny and is action-guiding, without claiming absolute moral authority in other contexts.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available