Living ethics: a stance and its implications in health ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Moral questions are vital questions because they concern what is esteemed to be the best action, the best choice and, ultimately, the best life to live. Health ethics which aims to address these moral questions has contributed to moving ethics toward more experience-based and user-oriented ethics theory and methodology. Despite this, current approaches remain an incomplete lever for human development and flourishing. This context led us to imagine and develop the stance of a “living ethics”, a radically participatory and situated form of ethics which we describe in this inaugural collective and programmatic paper. Methods We followed a participatory discussion and writing process known as instrumentalist concept analysis. Initial informal local consultations were undertaken about pragmatic ethics, and from these conversations emerged the current project. An exploratory literature review was undertaken, and a diverse working group of 21 co-authors was assembled. The working group held a total of 8 workshop-like meetings supported by prior reading and iterative revision of a shared draft document accessible through an online platform. Meetings were video-recorded and transcribed to support this process. Four subgroups were created to further the working group’s reflections in specific domains of health ethics. Results In its first sense, a living ethics designates a form of ethics attentive to human experience and the role played by morality in human existence. In its second sense, a living ethics represents an ongoing effort to interrogate and scrutinize our moral experiences to promote the engagement of both individuals and communities in envisioning and enacting scenarios which correspond to their flourishing as authentic ethical agents. Living ethics bears specific theoretical, methodological, and practical implications in various areas of health ethics activity such as clinical and organizational ethics, health policy and public health, health ethics research, and learning and teaching health ethics. Conclusions Living ethics encourages meaningful participation of stakeholders and reflects a commitment to the existential nature of moral affairs. Looking forward, there is a need for ongoing dialogue about the nature of living ethics and the methodological practices coherent with this orientation. We hope to build on this idea to initiate collaborative projects locally and internationally.
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 | 0.049 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.158 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".