Should Bioethics Be Cosmopolitan?
Courtney Thiele, JD, MA, Martin Fitzgerald, PhD, Matthew Vest, PhD, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and Jason Eberl, PhD, Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO
Moral history, told optimistically, is the history of people realizing the moral worth of others outside of the family, clan, village, and nation. In other words, this optimistic telling of world history positions moral progress as humans recognizing an ever-expanding ring that circumscribes those people who are entitled to our care, respect, consideration, or whatever it may be. On this view, moral progress is something like the unfolding of history towards a cosmopolitan future.
And yet, we ought to stop and question this narrative. As bioethicists, should we see our field as fundamentally cosmopolitan in intent? On one hand, the universalizing tendencies of normative ethics seem to push us towards cosmopolitanism. On the other hand, one fears an imperialistic tendency which threatens to flatten alterity in the name of re-forming other cultures around an idealized – and stipulative – “cosmopolitan subject.” Or should we chart a position in between these two poles?
To answer these questions, this moderated panel will consist of three speakers. Our first speaker will survey how we should even understand the concept cosmopolitanism in bioethics. They do this by examining three forms of cosmopolitan thought: the cynicism of Diogenes of Sinope, the international world order of Immanuel Kant, and the Neo-hoodooism of Ishmael Reed’s “Loop Garoo Kid.”
The next panelist seeks to understand the cosmopolitan impulse in bioethics by noting an inherent tension between cosmos and polis with a special emphasis on Confucian bioethics. Long before figures such as Jahr, Potter, and Hellegers debated the scope of bioethics, the Stoics envisioned a close relationship between cosmology and ethics. For the Stoics, the hinge for this relationship is the “rational spark” within humanity that matches cosmic reason or nature. For us today, invoking such “reason,” however, is far from an uncomplicated gesture and more rightly should be seen as a sphere for engaging difference. Philosophy and bioethics assume dialogue, which brings to mind movement amidst and across (dia) reason (logos). But, when Western and Confucian bioethics meet, are their encounters marked more by dialogue or by monologue?
Finally, the last panelist will consider the implications of engaging differences in bioethics by discussing concrete examples in public policy and education. Taking the cosmopolitan idea of equality of all human beings as a starting point, this panelist will seek to understand whether the construction of a “cosmopolitan bioethics” is actually the best way to realize this fundamental equality. They will consider what it means to constructively engage with differences and respond compassionately, using difference – and its correlate, diversity – as a way to deepen our understanding of a richer bioethics informed cultural humility.
And yet, we ought to stop and question this narrative. As bioethicists, should we see our field as fundamentally cosmopolitan in intent? On one hand, the universalizing tendencies of normative ethics seem to push us towards cosmopolitanism. On the other hand, one fears an imperialistic tendency which threatens to flatten alterity in the name of re-forming other cultures around an idealized – and stipulative – “cosmopolitan subject.” Or should we chart a position in between these two poles?
To answer these questions, this moderated panel will consist of three speakers. Our first speaker will survey how we should even understand the concept cosmopolitanism in bioethics. They do this by examining three forms of cosmopolitan thought: the cynicism of Diogenes of Sinope, the international world order of Immanuel Kant, and the Neo-hoodooism of Ishmael Reed’s “Loop Garoo Kid.”
The next panelist seeks to understand the cosmopolitan impulse in bioethics by noting an inherent tension between cosmos and polis with a special emphasis on Confucian bioethics. Long before figures such as Jahr, Potter, and Hellegers debated the scope of bioethics, the Stoics envisioned a close relationship between cosmology and ethics. For the Stoics, the hinge for this relationship is the “rational spark” within humanity that matches cosmic reason or nature. For us today, invoking such “reason,” however, is far from an uncomplicated gesture and more rightly should be seen as a sphere for engaging difference. Philosophy and bioethics assume dialogue, which brings to mind movement amidst and across (dia) reason (logos). But, when Western and Confucian bioethics meet, are their encounters marked more by dialogue or by monologue?
Finally, the last panelist will consider the implications of engaging differences in bioethics by discussing concrete examples in public policy and education. Taking the cosmopolitan idea of equality of all human beings as a starting point, this panelist will seek to understand whether the construction of a “cosmopolitan bioethics” is actually the best way to realize this fundamental equality. They will consider what it means to constructively engage with differences and respond compassionately, using difference – and its correlate, diversity – as a way to deepen our understanding of a richer bioethics informed cultural humility.