Another Defense of Common Morality. (April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Macklin, Ruth
• Is Part Of: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics. Volume 31:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: 177
• Page End: 184
• Publication Date: 2022-04
• Subjects: common morality -- human rights -- global ethics -- medical professionals; Medical ethics -- Periodicals; 174.2
• DOI: 10.1017/S0963180121000578
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0963-1801

Abstract

Abstract: 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.