When it comes to major decisions about policies concerning health and science, e.g., how the public should be kept informed during a pandemic, there probably is more disagreement than agreement in the U.S. and other countries. Stepping into this debate, in the pages of the highly respected journal Bioethics, University of Baltimore Associate Prof. Joshua Kassner argues that proceduralism—an adherence to established processes and rules as an acceptable way of reaching a decision—is insufficient to the task when it comes to matters of great moral and ethical importance, such as climate change or artificial intelligence. Proceduralism may not be satisfactory, Dr. Kassner writes, when questions concerning health and science policy involve disputes with multiple descriptive components.
In his article, "Maintaining the Divide: The Legitimate Role for the Public in Health and Science Policymaking," Prof. Kassner writes: "Proceduralism is one of the most widely endorsed answers to the challenge that such normative disagreement presents. The policy choices we face, however, also include descriptive questions. Given the significant difference between these types of questions, the respective roles they ought to play in our collective decision-making, and the fact that their respective answers ought to be measured against different standards of justification and legitimacy, I argue that proceduralism fails as a complete account of legitimate decision-making and offer a more nuanced and epistemically informed account of legitimate decision-making."
Dr. Kassner also considers the proper role of the public in major policy decisions—policies driven by our individualistic, technocratic society—and embraces the idea that there is a better way to achieve social goals: "Many of the most pressing policy choices we face are matters of health and science, and are thus grounded in our descriptive understanding of the world. Yet, the choices we must make—that is, what we ought to do about climate change, how we ought to prepare for and respond to the next pandemic, or how we ought to manage the potential promise and peril of artificial intelligence—are value-laden normative questions. Thus, the choices we face are matters of both descriptive and normative concern, and though related, the underlying questions are different in important ways."
Read the abstract of Dr. Kassner's article in Bioethics.
Learn more about Dr. Joshua Kassner, including his work with UBalt's Hoffberger Center for Ethical Engagement.