Applying Bioethics in the 21st Century: Principlism or Situationism?

After an examination of the four cardinal bioethical principles which define Principlism — autonomy, beneficence, non maleficence and justice — an explication of Joseph Fletcher’s theory of Situationism is undertaken.The conclusion of this Article is that when an ethical dilemma arises and is “tested” as to its moral efficacy, rather than judge the acts in question in order to determine whether they are in conformance with one of the four bioethical principles, it is more humane and practical to determine the ethical propriety of questioned conduct by use of a situation ethic which in fact is more sensitive. This ethic “validates” conduct which is compassionate, merciful and loving — particularly when issues of end-of-life care arise. Accordingly, when medical conduct alleviating pain and suffering for patients in a futile state is pursued, common sense morality and sound medical practice should dictate that all reasonable and lawful steps be followed which allow as dignified a death as is possible

Applying Bioethics in the 21st Century: Principlism or Situationism?

After an examination of the four cardinal bioethical principles which define Principlism — autonomy, beneficence, non maleficence and justice — an explication of Joseph Fletcher’s theory of Situationism is undertaken.The conclusion of this Article is that when an ethical dilemma arises and is “tested” as to its moral efficacy, rather than judge the acts in question in order to determine whether they are in conformance with one of the four bioethical principles, it is more humane and practical to determine the ethical propriety of questioned conduct by use of a situation ethic which in fact is more sensitive. This ethic “validates” conduct which is compassionate, merciful and loving — particularly when issues of end-of-life care arise. Accordingly, when medical conduct alleviating pain and suffering for patients in a futile state is pursued, common sense morality and sound medical practice should dictate that all reasonable and lawful steps be followed which allow as dignified a death as is possible

Towards an Eco-Relational Approach: Relational Approaches Must Be Applied in Ethics and Law

Relational approaches are gaining more and more importance in philosophy of tech-nology. This brings up the critical question of how they can be implemented in applied ethics, law, and practice. In “Extremely Relational Robots: Implications for Law and Ethics”, Nancy S. Jecker (2024) comments on my article “Not Relational Enough? Towards an Eco-Relational Approach in Robot Ethics” (Puzio, 2024), in which I present a deep relational, “eco-relational approach”. In this reply, I address two of Jecker’s criticisms: in section. 3, I deal with the connection of personhood and human identity with relationality, and in section. 4, I discuss the consequences of relational approaches for practical ethics and law. Unlike Jecker, I am strongly convinced that relational approaches can and should be implemented in applied ethics and law