4.1 Article

Principlism's Balancing Act: Why the Principles of Biomedical Ethics Need a Theory of the Good

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY
Volume 45, Issue 4-5, Pages 441-470

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhaa014

Keywords

axiology; balancing moral principles; Beauchamp and Childress; biomedical ethics; moral dilemmas; normative ethical theory; practical wisdom; principlism; specification of moral principles; the four principles; value theory; well-being

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Principlism, the bioethical theory championed by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, is centered on the four moral principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice. Two key processes related to these principles are specification-adding specific content to general principles-and balancing-determining the relative weight of conflicting principles. I argue that both of these processes necessarily involve an appeal to human goods and evils, and therefore require a theory of the good. A significant problem with principlism is that it lacks a theory of the good and consequently does not have an adequate solution to the problems of specification and balancing. My conclusion is that principlism must adopt some account of human well-being in order to be a satisfactory bioethical framework.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available