'Why Do You Ask?' Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public's Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Jared N Smith, Anne Barnhill, Julian Savulescu, S Matthew Liao, Matthew S McCoy, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
{"title":"'Why Do You Ask?' Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public's Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies.","authors":"Jared N Smith, Anne Barnhill, Julian Savulescu, S Matthew Liao, Matthew S McCoy, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2474911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with the public to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, especially ones that arise with new and emerging technologies. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? In this essay, we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. For each function, we offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with several preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their own purpose for soliciting moral judgments from the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2474911","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with the public to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, especially ones that arise with new and emerging technologies. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? In this essay, we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. For each function, we offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with several preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their own purpose for soliciting moral judgments from the public.

“你为什么这么问?”重新审视引发公众对新兴技术道德判断的目的。
生物伦理学家向公众咨询,征求他们对伦理问题和议题的判断和态度,尤其是那些与新兴技术有关的问题,这是越来越普遍的。然而,这种参与的目的是什么或应该是什么并不总是很清楚:生物伦理学家是寻求公众的意见来帮助他们达到道德上正确的合理政策立场,还是寻求这种意见来帮助他们塑造和构建他们已经建立的道德立场,或者完全是别的什么?在这篇文章中,我们讨论了从公众那里收集道德判断的四种不同的可能功能:发现问题、传递遵守和社会稳定的信息、实质性道德指导和程序公平。对于每个功能,在讨论每个功能的优点和缺点之前,我们提供了文献中的核心示例。最后,我们提出了几个生物伦理学家可以问自己的初步问题,以澄清他们征求公众道德判断的目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信