What is the outcome of applying principlism?
What is the outcome of applying principlism?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11017-011-9185-x
复制
发表时间：
2011-12-01
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Hine, Kristen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hine, Kristen
生命伦理学的四原则方法，一种与汤姆·比彻姆和詹姆斯·奇尔德里斯的工作联系最紧密的方法，被认为是通过医学中的道德问题提供一个推理框架。有人可能会问，如果一个人用原则主义所建议的方法来指导自己的思想，他会识别并执行客观上道德上正确的行动吗？一个人的决策是否合理，因此，从决策本身产生的行动是否合理？在本文中，我表明，原则主义可以，并已在这两个不同的方式特点。我还认为，当它被理解为根据第一定性，该观点不能付诸实践。然而，当它被理解为一种辩护时，就有理由认为它确实是行动指导。考虑到第一种观点所面临的问题，也许最好是把原则主义和生物医学伦理理论一般地理解为不是正确行动的行动指导理论，而是理解为一个人在医学上的决定和行动可以达到合理程度的道德辩护的程序。
The four principles approach to bioethics, an approach most associated with the work of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, is supposed to provide a framework for reasoning through moral issues in medicine. One might wonder, if one were to guide one's thinking by the method suggested by principlism, will one identify and perform the objectively morally right action? Will one's decision making be justified, and consequently, will the action that flows from that decision itself be justified? In this paper, I show that principlism can, and has been, characterized in these two different ways. I also argue that when it is understood according to the first characterization, the view cannot be put into practice. However, when it is understood as an account of justification, there is reason to think that it is indeed action-guiding. Given the problems that confront the first version of the view, perhaps it is best to understand principlism, and biomedical ethical theories generally, not as action-guiding theories of right action, but rather, as procedures by which one's decisions and actions in medicine can achieve a reasonable degree of moral justification.