이성적 불일치 문제에 대한 절충안 모색과 인테그러티의 문제 - 실천윤리적 문제의 정책결정 -

Abstract

We are often faced with sharp conflicts of opinions when we discuss policies about various bioethical issues and environmental ones. It is very hard to find a societal solution to this kind of issues. One reason is that there is no objective evidence favoring either of conflicting opinions. The other is that these conflicts come from different and often conflicting views of life, world, and values. These difficulties are based on "the burdens of judgment" John Rawls mentioned. I consider these conflicts of opinions to be reasonable disagreement. Although lots of issues in bioethics and environmental ethics may be such reasonable disagreement, we often have to make a decision of policy. What can we do in this circumstance? I argue that we have to make a compromise. In most cases, however, there is a discrepancy between a personal beliefs and compromise as a group belief. Some wonder if this discrepancy harms the integrity of a person who makes a compromise. For those who follows wide reflective equilibrium, compromise may not harm a personal integrity because they should take into account the role of committee, the sources of reasonable disagreement, the necessity of toleration, and the understanding of compromise. Rather, we may say in this circumstance that the attitude denying any kind of compromise is unreasonable because it does not take into account other's purpose or perspective. In addition, wide reflective equilibrium requires that compromise cohere a belief system of a group. Thus, compromise does not harm an integrity of a society, either.