Spanning our differences

Moral psychology, physician beliefs, and the practice of medicine

Ryan M. Antiel, Katherine M. Humeniuk, Jon C Tilburt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Moral pluralism is the norm in contemporary society. Even the best philosophical arguments rarely persuade moral opponents who differ at a foundational level. This has been vividly illustrated in contemporary debates in bioethics surrounding contentious issues such as abortion and euthanasia. It is readily apparent that bioethics discourse lacks an empirical explanation for the broad differences about various topics in bioethics and health policy. In recent years, social and cognitive psychology has generated novel approaches for defining basic differences in moral intuitions generally. We propose that if empirical research using social intuitionist theory explains why people disagree with one another over moral issues, then the results of such research might help people debate their moral differences in a more constructive and civil manner. We illustrate the utility of social intuitionism with data from a national physician survey.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number17
JournalPhilosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 4 2014

Fingerprint

Bioethics
Medicine
Psychology
Physicians
Cultural Diversity
Intuition
Social Psychology
Empirical Research
Euthanasia
Health Policy
Research
Moral Psychology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • History and Philosophy of Science
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cite this

Spanning our differences : Moral psychology, physician beliefs, and the practice of medicine. / Antiel, Ryan M.; Humeniuk, Katherine M.; Tilburt, Jon C.

In: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 1, 17, 04.11.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{61a82ae44f2c4f5b84ac4a9a949b3a1f,
title = "Spanning our differences: Moral psychology, physician beliefs, and the practice of medicine",
abstract = "Moral pluralism is the norm in contemporary society. Even the best philosophical arguments rarely persuade moral opponents who differ at a foundational level. This has been vividly illustrated in contemporary debates in bioethics surrounding contentious issues such as abortion and euthanasia. It is readily apparent that bioethics discourse lacks an empirical explanation for the broad differences about various topics in bioethics and health policy. In recent years, social and cognitive psychology has generated novel approaches for defining basic differences in moral intuitions generally. We propose that if empirical research using social intuitionist theory explains why people disagree with one another over moral issues, then the results of such research might help people debate their moral differences in a more constructive and civil manner. We illustrate the utility of social intuitionism with data from a national physician survey.",
author = "Antiel, {Ryan M.} and Humeniuk, {Katherine M.} and Tilburt, {Jon C}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1186/1747-5341-9-17",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine",
issn = "1747-5341",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spanning our differences

T2 - Moral psychology, physician beliefs, and the practice of medicine

AU - Antiel, Ryan M.

AU - Humeniuk, Katherine M.

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

PY - 2014/11/4

Y1 - 2014/11/4

N2 - Moral pluralism is the norm in contemporary society. Even the best philosophical arguments rarely persuade moral opponents who differ at a foundational level. This has been vividly illustrated in contemporary debates in bioethics surrounding contentious issues such as abortion and euthanasia. It is readily apparent that bioethics discourse lacks an empirical explanation for the broad differences about various topics in bioethics and health policy. In recent years, social and cognitive psychology has generated novel approaches for defining basic differences in moral intuitions generally. We propose that if empirical research using social intuitionist theory explains why people disagree with one another over moral issues, then the results of such research might help people debate their moral differences in a more constructive and civil manner. We illustrate the utility of social intuitionism with data from a national physician survey.

AB - Moral pluralism is the norm in contemporary society. Even the best philosophical arguments rarely persuade moral opponents who differ at a foundational level. This has been vividly illustrated in contemporary debates in bioethics surrounding contentious issues such as abortion and euthanasia. It is readily apparent that bioethics discourse lacks an empirical explanation for the broad differences about various topics in bioethics and health policy. In recent years, social and cognitive psychology has generated novel approaches for defining basic differences in moral intuitions generally. We propose that if empirical research using social intuitionist theory explains why people disagree with one another over moral issues, then the results of such research might help people debate their moral differences in a more constructive and civil manner. We illustrate the utility of social intuitionism with data from a national physician survey.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925295664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925295664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1747-5341-9-17

DO - 10.1186/1747-5341-9-17

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

JF - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

SN - 1747-5341

IS - 1

M1 - 17

ER -