‘Why Do You Ask?’ Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies

Jared N. Smith, Anne Barnhill, Julian Savulescu, S. Matthew Liao, Matthew S. McCoy, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

It is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with the public to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, especially ones that arise with new and emerging technologies. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? In this essay, we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. For each function, we offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with several preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their own purpose for soliciting moral judgments from the public.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAJOB Empirical Bioethics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2025

Keywords

  • Procedural fairness
  • empirical research
  • health policy
  • issue spotting
  • public engagement
  • reflective equilibrium

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '‘Why Do You Ask?’ Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this