Aristotle’s ethics and politics: eflections on bioethics and the contemporary state
Keywords:
ristotle, bioethics, common morality, ethics, polis, politicsAbstract
For Aristotle, ethics and politics are inseparable. The polis is essential to fostering the good life and exists for a moral purpose. Contemporary bioethics in the West reflects an account of the state that, like Aristotle’s state, has a substantial role to play in enforcing an account of the good life. Bioethics in the West has its origins largely in the political setting and remains politically oriented. Efforts to describe a common morality that transcends particular religious commitments dominate much of the bioethics literature and the work of public bioethics. Such efforts have failed, resulting in a politically active bioethics that seeks to use the authority of the state to enforce a particular account of the good life. This account of the good life rejects and undermines many religious commitments, despite claiming to be universal and neutral. This happens both at the national level and at the international level through various organizations such as the United Nations. In the West, we inherited a view from Aristotle that politics and ethics are intimately connected and that the state should foster the good life. This view of the state has been applied inappropriately in light of the fact that the contemporary state has little in common with Aristotle’s polis. We should be cautious of contemporary bioethics’ efforts to promulgate a common morality through the secular state.
Downloads
References
Aristotle. The Politics. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1998.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by
Terry Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1999.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1973.
Hunter, James Davison. Culture wars: The struggle
to control the family, art, education, law, and politics in
America. Basic Books, 1992.
Jonsen A.R. The birth of bioethics. Oxford University
Press, 2003.
In re Quinlan (70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647 (NJ 1976).
Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to
Examine the Definition of Brain Death. A Definition
of Irreversible Coma. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 1968; 205: 337–340.
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical
Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral
Research, 1981, Defining Death: Medical, Legal and
Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death, Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws. Uniform Determination of Death Act. Available
online: http://www.uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.
aspx?title=Determination%20of%20Death%20Act.
Jones J.H. Bad blood. Simon and Schuster, 1993.
National Research Act, Public Law. 1974: 93–348.
National Commission for the Protection of Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont Report:
Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Research, 1979.
Beauchamp T.L., Childress J.F. Principles of biomedical
ethics. 6th ed. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Engelhardt H.T., Jr. Public discourse and reasonable
pluralism: Rethinking the requirements of neutrality. In:
Guinn D.E. (ed.). Handbook of bioethics and religion.
Oxford University Press, 2006: 169–194.
North Coast Women’s Medical Group, Inc. et al. v.
Guadalupe T. Benitez 44 Cal. 4th 1145, 189 P. 3d 959,
Cal. Rptr. 3d 708.
LaPlante J. Tough times for Catholic adoption agencies.
OSV Newsweekly. May 7, 2014.
United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Geneva: United Nations, 1989.
Weithorn L.A., Campbell S.B. The competency of
children and adolescents to make informed treatment
decisions. Child development. 1982; 53: 1589–1598.
Weithorn L.A. Children’s capacities to decide about
participation in research. IRB. 1983: 1–5.
Partridge B.C. The decisional capacity of the adolescent:
an introduction to a critical reconsideration of the doctrine
of the mature minor. Journal of medicine and philosophy.
; 38 (3): 249–255.
Steinberg, Laurence. Does recent research on adolescent
brain development inform the mature minor doctrine?
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2013; 38 (3):
–267.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.