Corporate Social Responsibility Essay Research Paper Corporate

>denotes page number taken from an online electronic source. The Journal of

Medicine and Philosophy, Oct 1992 v17 n5 p487(14) The method of ‘principlism’: a

critique of the critique. (Principles and Patients) B. Andrew Lustig. Author’s

Abstract: COPYRIGHT Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992 Several scholars have

recently criticized the dominant emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics

best exemplified by Beauchamp and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics.

In Part I of this essay, I assess the fairness and cogency of three broad

criticisms raised against ‘principlism’ as an approach: (1) that principlism, as

an exercise in applied ethics, is insufficiently attentive to the dialectical

relations between ethical theory and moral practice; (2) that principlism fails

to offer a systematic account of the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence,

respect for autonomy, and justice; and (3) that principlism, as a version of

moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by its theoretical agnosticism. While

acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress’s reliance upon Ross’s version of

intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the critics of principlism have

failed to make a compelling case against its theoretical or practical adequacy

as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess the moral theory developed by

Bernard Gert in Morality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules, because Gert

has recommended his approach as a systematic alternative to principlism. I judge

Gert’s theory to be seriously incomplete and, in contrast to principlism, unable

to generate coherent conclusions about cases of active euthanasia and

paternalism. ***************** The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Oct 1992

v17 n5 p487(14) The method of ‘principlism’: a critique of the critique.

(Principles and Patients) B. Andrew Lustig. Author’s Abstract: COPYRIGHT Kluwer

Academic Publishers 1992 Several scholars have recently criticized the dominant

emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics best exemplified by Beauchamp

and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics. In Part I of this essay, I

assess the fairness and cogency of three broad criticisms raised against ‘principlism’

as an approach: (1) that principlism, as an exercise in applied ethics, is

insufficiently attentive to the dialectical relations between ethical theory and

moral practice; (2) that principlism fails to offer a systematic account of the

principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice;

and (3) that principlism, as a version of moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by

its theoretical agnosticism. While acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress’s

reliance upon Ross’s version of intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the

critics of principlism have failed to make a compelling case against its

theoretical or practical adequacy as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess

the moral theory developed by Bernard Gert in Morality: A New Justification of

the Moral Rules, because Gert has recommended his approach as a systematic

alternative to principlism. I judge Gert’s theory to be seriously incomplete

and, in contrast to principlism, unable to generate coherent conclusions about

cases of active euthanasia and paternalism. ************* Technology and ethics:

From Expertise to Public Participation ( The World & I ) Carl Mitcham;

03-01-1996 Technologies appear in society accompanied by assumptions about their

inherent beneficence. But shortly after their appearance questions often arise,

stimulated by unintended consequences or unclear implications for established

moral values. Consider, for example, the following three instances of

technosocial problems. Each involves issues that cannot be resolved simply on

the basis of scientific or technical reasoning, but call for reflection on and

reference to moral principles and practice: * There are not enough organ

donations for everyone who needs a liver transplant. How should a physician (or

a patient) decide who gets a new liver and who does not–and dies as a result?

Should it always be the Mickey Mantles of the world who get priority treatment?

* Nuclear waste is accumulating at temporary storage facilities all across the

United States. But every proposal for the construction of a permanent storage

facility is challenged by some interest group (such as environmentalists) as

reflecting the biases of another interest group (such as the nuclear power

industry). How are such conflicts to be resolved? * The Fourth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures." What is the meaning of this right in a world where papers and

effects, not to mention persons and places, are increasingly transformed into

digitalized information in cyberspace? Ethical problems of personal and public

decision making are not new. The need to undertake ethical reflection is

part–indeed a central part–of what it means to be human. But as these three

cases indicate, ethical decision making is increasingly engaged with advances in

modern technology. Even if technology does not create radically new ethical

problems, as some philosophers have argued, it surely constitutes a new and

important domain for old-fashioned moral struggles to resist temptation and to

do the good. The importance of such struggles can scarcely be overemphasized,

since technological change not only sets up hard problems for ethical

reflection, but ethical decisions also influence how we use and live with our

technologies. The problems of ethical technodecision making are compounded by

the emergence of two cultures of expertise. One is that of the technical experts

who create and manage our medical, energy, and information technologies. Another

is that of those on ethics committees at hospitals, in regulatory agencies, and

with professional organizations who articulate and reflect on the issues

involved in these various areas of technoethical concern. Indeed, the last two

decades have witnessed the development of a number of specialized fields of

reflection on ethics and technology. Among these are biomedical ethics,

environmental ethics, and computer ethics. In each case, however, discussions

have remained largely restricted to professionals in these different fields of

applied ethics. What scientist and novelist C.P. Snow in 1959 called the

"two cultures" gap between literary and scientific

intellectuals–which is related to what earlier in the century sociologist

William Fielding Ogburn had identified as the "cultural lag" between

science and society– is further reflected today in a hiatus between technical

experts and applied ethicists. Although one aim of the academic study of ethics

and technology has been to bridge this two-cultures divide, applied ethics

expertise sometimes creates a new version of the very difference it would

overcome. The real promise of applied ethics will be realized only when such

reflection both transforms technical decision making and enters the public

realm. Science and technology have major influences on our lives today, so much

so that they often seem to dominate. How many times have we heard about a need

to invest in the most advanced science, and to adopt the most efficient

technology, in order to be economically competitive- -even though economic

competitiveness is not the highest value? Haven’ t we all experienced

difficulties controlling the use of our technologies- -from limiting the TV our

kids watch to not letting the hurried pace of high-tech transportation and

communication engulf our lives? Although an ethical analysis of technodecision

making has begun to emerge among specialized experts, it must be expanded to

include all citizens in a high-science, high-technology society. Experts alone,

whether scientists and engineers or philosophers, cannot solve our problems for

us. Efforts must be made to open and involve the emerging specialized fields of

techno-ethical analysis with a wider public. One reasonable way to begin is with

a review of some recent developments in biomedical, environmental, and computer

ethics- -relating them to real-world problems facing society. FROM MEDICAL TO

BIOMEDICAL ETHICS >From its earliest history, medicine was associated with

the acceptance of special moral obligations by those who attempted to assist

nature in promoting health and overcoming illness. Because physicians brought

specialized knowledge or expertise to bear on vulnerable patients, the

Hippocratic tradition of medical ethics emphasized their responsibilities not

just to avoid harm and to do good but also not to disclose confidences or to

take sexual advantage. At the same time there was always an implicit

responsibility on the part of