Bibliographic record
Abstract
Principlist modes of reasoning in bioethics – with autonomy at the core – resonate strongly with a legalism that dominates Muslim ethics, including the understanding of the shari’a. From abortion and organ donation/transplant to end-of-life decisions, both secular and Muslim bioethics generally apply “cardinal” principles in ways felt to be relatively objective and certain, though they may produce different outcomes. This article builds on recent critiques, notably that of virtue ethics, in drawing attention to the cost in sensitivity to context and the individual. The Aristotelian basis of virtue ethics has a venerable place in Islamic traditions – as does maslaha, the public good, which has long played a critical role in tempering formalism in the shari’a. In conjunction with the agent- and context-centred reasoning of virtue ethics, maslaha can contribute vitally to negotiating competing bioethical claims. It is also more inclusive than principlist legalism, given the latter’s traditionalist and patriarchal moorings. The shift is urgent amid the growing interface of religious and secular approaches to problems raised by biomedical technologies, and to biosocial issues such as female genital mutilation (FGM) and honour killings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".