Concerning Our Measures of the True-Good: What is the Role of Consensus in Bioethics?

Abstract: What is the role of consensus in ethical deliberation? Ironically, this question remains one of the most contested issues in bioethics. First, there are the followers of Thomas Beauchamp and James Childress who firmly believe there is a common morality that constitutes consensus, delimits public discourse, and circumscribes ethical practice. Second, there are the followers of H. T. Engelhardt, who deny the existence of the moral consensus. When brought into conversation with the role of religion in bioethics, the question of the consensus becomes even more controversial. Some secular ethicists have argued that the moral consensus does exist if we specify that consensus as secular. In response, Christian bioethicists have protested that secular bioethics is meant to include Christians, this claim is false. While maintaining Engelhardt’s critique of secular bioethics, as a Catholic bioethicist, I believe that Engelhardt and his followers go too far to deny any role for consensus at all. Rather, I assert that consensus is necessary for different parties to cooperate towards a common good. Following Engelhardt, I reject a mid-level principle model, however, I believe there is still potential for a metaphysical basis for consensus across the secular religious divide. This paper seeks to contribute to the development of a metaphysical-moral approach to consensus-based reasoning that can both a) maintain religious difference and b) function as a guide to cooperation across the secular religious divide by drawing to light how their can be different degrees of consensus across communities based on different kinds of belief stances.