Another Defense of Common Morality
Robert Baker and Rosamond Rhodes each argue against the universality “common morality,” the approach to ethics that comprises four fundamental principles and their application in various settings. Baker contends that common morality cannot account for cultural diversity in the world and claims that...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Recurso Electrónico Artigo |
| Idioma: | Inglês |
| Verificar disponibilidade: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Carregar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado em: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2022
|
| Em: |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Ano: 2022, Volume: 31, Número: 2, Páginas: 177-184 |
| Outras palavras-chave: | B
medical professionals
B common morality B Human Rights B Global Ethics |
| Acesso em linha: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Resumo: | Robert Baker and Rosamond Rhodes each argue against the universality “common morality,” the approach to ethics that comprises four fundamental principles and their application in various settings. Baker contends that common morality cannot account for cultural diversity in the world and claims that a human rights approach is superior in the context of global health. Rhodes maintains that bioethics is not reducible to common morality because medical professionals have special privileges and responsibilities that people lack in everyday life. Baker fails to demonstrate how the human rights approach to global ethics is more sensitive to culture than the use of bioethics principles that comprise common morality. Rhodes has a narrow interpretation of “common morality,” which when understood more broadly, accounts for the special privileges and obligation of medical professionals. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-2147 |
| Obras secundárias: | Enthalten in: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0963180121000578 |