Skip to main content
Log in

An Argument for the use of Aristotelian Method in Bioethics

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main claim of this paper is that the method outlined and used in Aristotle’s Ethics is an appropriate and credible one to use in bioethics. Here “appropriate” means that the method is capable of establishing claims and developing concepts in bioethics and “credible” that the method has some plausibility, it is not open to obvious and immediate objection. It begins by suggesting why this claim matters and then gives a brief outline of Aristotle’s method. The main argument is made in three stages. First, it is argued that Aristotelian method is credible because it compares favourably with alternatives. In this section it is shown that Aristotelian method is not vulnerable to criticisms that are made both of methods that give a primary place to moral theory (such as utilitarianism) and those that eschew moral theory (such as casuistry and social science approaches). As such, it compares favourably with these other approaches that are vulnerable to at least some of these criticisms. Second, the appropriateness of Aristotelian method is indicated through outlining how it would deal with a particular case. Finally, it is argued that the success of Aristotle’s philosophy is suggestive of both the credibility and appropriateness of his method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • E. Anscombe (1958) ArticleTitle‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ Philosophy 33 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (transl. R. Crisp).: 2000, Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • A. Bäck (1999) ‘Aristotle’s Discovery of First Principles’ M. Sim (Eds) From Puzzles to Principles Lexington Lanham 163–182

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Crisp (1996) How Should One Live? Clarendon Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dancy (1992) ArticleTitle‘Caring About Justice’ Philosophy 67 447–466

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dancy (1996) Moral Reasons Blackwell Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Hardie (1980) Aristotle’s Ethical Theory EditionNumber2 Clarendon Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Hare (1975) ArticleTitle‘Abortion and the Golden Rule’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 201–222 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnjtVKltQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11661183

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • J. Harris (1975) ArticleTitle‘The Survival Lottery’ Philosophy 50 81–87 Occurrence Handle11664454 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S0031819100059118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • T. Hassan et al. (1999) ArticleTitle‘Managing Patients with Deliberate Self Harm Who Refuse Treatment in the Accident and Emergency Department’ BMJ 319 107–109 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MzivVOqug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10398639

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • A. Hedgecoe (2004) ArticleTitle‘Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics’ Bioethics 4 120–143 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00385.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Hill (1995) Autonomy and Self-Respect Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Hursthouse (1987) Beginning Lives Open University/Blackwell London

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Irwin (1988) Aristotle’s First Principles Clarendon Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Jonsen (1991) ArticleTitle‘Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics’ Theoretical Medicine 12 295–307 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00489890 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2C1MnnsFY%3D Occurrence Handle1801300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I.: 1997, ‘On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy’, Appendix in: Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (transl. P. Guyer). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (original publication in 1797)

  • I. Kennedy A. Grubb (2000) Medical Law: Texts and Materials EditionNumber3 Butterworths London

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Korsgaard (1996) The Sources of Normativity Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kuczewski (1998) ArticleTitle‘Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics’ Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 509–524 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1009904125910 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M7mtV2nsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10051788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • J. Lear (1988) Aristotle: The Desire to Understand Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • A. MacIntyre (1985) After Virtue EditionNumber2 Duckworth London

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Mason P. Allmark (2000) ArticleTitle‘Obtaining Consent to Neonatal Randomised Controlled Trials: Interviews with Parents and Clinicians in the Euricon Study’ Lancet 356 2045–2051 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03401-2 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2Fos1KgsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11145490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • J. McDowell (1979) ArticleTitle‘Virtue and Reason’ Monist 62 331–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Megone, C.: 1997, ‘Aristotelian Ethics’, in: Encyclopaedia of Applied Ethics, Vol. 3. London: Academic Press

  • C. Megone (2000) ArticleTitle‘Mental Illness, Human Function and Values’ Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry 7 IssueID1 45–65

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Nelson (1999) ArticleTitle‘Morally Serious Critics of Moral Intuitions’ Ratio XII 54–79 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9329.00077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Norman (2000) ArticleTitle‘Applied Ethics: What is Applied to What?’ Utilitas 12 IssueID2 119–136 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S0953820800002740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Nussbaum (1986) The Fragility of Goodness Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • O. O’Neill (2001) Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Popper (1989) Conjectures and Refutations EditionNumber5 Routledge London

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Reeve (1992) Practices of Reason Clarendon Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Sauve-Meyer (1993) Aristotle on Moral Responsibility, Character and Cause Blackwell Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Shelp (1985) Virtue and Medicine: Explorations in the Character of Medicine Kluwer Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Sim (1999) ‘Introduction’ M. Sim (Eds) From Puzzles to Principles Lexington Lanham ix–xxv

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Singer (1993) Practical Ethics EditionNumber2 Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R.: 1997, ‘Introduction’, in: Aristotle: Topics. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. i–xxxi

  • R. Smith (1999) ‘Dialectic and Method in Aristotle’ M. Sim (Eds) From Puzzles to Principles Lexington Lanham 39–56

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Thomson (1971) ArticleTitle‘A Defense of Abortion’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 IssueID1 47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Whiting (1988) ArticleTitle‘Aristotle’s Function Argument: A Defense’ Ancient Philosophy 8 33–48

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Allmark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allmark, P. An Argument for the use of Aristotelian Method in Bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 9, 69–79 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-7225-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-7225-x

Keywords

Navigation