Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


Aric Hluch --- Thesis Submission.pdf (452.33 KB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Secular Moral Reasoning and Consensus: Uncertainty or Nihilism?

Hluch, Aric
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1661183968095359

Abstract Details

2022, Master of Arts, Ohio State University, Bioethics.
This project is a critique of the concept of consensus and its relation to secular moral reasoning. Proponents of public deliberation argue that achieving consensus is crucial to informing moral norms in secular pluralist societies. Without a transcendental basis for morality, ascribing authority to moral norms requires a process of deliberation. Many bioethicists are concerned with formulating ways to ensure discourse is tolerant, non-coercive, mutually respectful, and grounded in intersubjective understanding. The problem is that secular discourse is fraught with varying conceptions of human rights, ethical principles, and what constitutes a morally authoritative consensus. Bioethicists acknowledge the tyranny of the majority problem, but secularism lacks a sufficient rationale to identify when a majority is wrong. Since competing visions of the good comprise bioethics and consensus does not necessarily indicate moral truth, moral uncertainty is the logical result of secular pluralism. Some moral scientists argue that science can inform moral norms, but a careful reading of their work suggests that what is being espoused is moral nihilism. From determinism to deep pragmatism, many scientists are inadvertently supporting a view of reality that obliterates the possibility of values. In secular pluralist societies, consensus is required to establish basic norms, but no account of consensus can indicate when moral truth is known. Consensus is necessary to fulfill the visions of moral scientists, but such scientists implicitly endorse nihilism. What secularists are discovering – by their own reasoning – is that moral truth is elusive, science cannot inform human values, and bioethical dilemmas are incapable of being resolved. The conclusion to this project offers an Engelhardtian solution. Not only is the principle of permission the only viable basis for secular pluralism – the principle coincides with moral scientists’ own account of human nature.
Matthew Vest (Advisor)
Ryan Nash (Committee Member)
Ashley Fernandes (Committee Member)
58 p.
Ethics; Philosophy; Philosophy of Science
consensus; bioethics; secularism; morality; uncertainty; nihilism; science; neuroscience; ethics; liberalism; rationality; reason; reasoning; truth; bioethicists; determinism; empathy; gene editing; female genital cutting; well-being; pragmatism; secular moral reasoning; Engelhardt; permission; consent; principles; moral philosophy; facts; values

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Hluch, A. (2022). Secular Moral Reasoning and Consensus: Uncertainty or Nihilism? [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1661183968095359

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Hluch, Aric. Secular Moral Reasoning and Consensus: Uncertainty or Nihilism? 2022. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1661183968095359.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Hluch, Aric. "Secular Moral Reasoning and Consensus: Uncertainty or Nihilism?" Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2022. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1661183968095359

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1661183968095359
305
© 2022, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.