Common morality versus specified principlism: reply to Richardson.

@article{Gert2000CommonMV,
  title={Common morality versus specified principlism: reply to Richardson.},
  author={Bernard Gert and Charles M. Culver and K Danner Clouser},
  journal={The Journal of medicine and philosophy},
  year={2000},
  volume={25 3},
  pages={308-22}
}
In his article 'Specifying, balancing and interpreting bioethical principles' (Richardson, 2000), Henry Richardson claims that the two dominant theories in bioethics--principlism, put forward by Beauchamp and Childress in Principles of Bioethics, and common morality, put forward by Gert, Culver and Clouser in Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals--are deficient because they employ balancing rather than specification to resolve disputes between principles or rules. We show that, contrary to… CONTINUE READING