How Interrupting Moral Technique Could Transform Bioethics
Imagine a team of doctors faced with a heartbreaking decision: should they override a family's deeply-held religious objections to a life-saving blood transfusion for their child? Modern medicine delivers such ethically complex scenarios with increasing frequency, from gene editing and artificial intelligence in healthcare to end-of-life decisions and resource allocation during pandemics. For decades, the field of bioethics has relied on abstract principles and standardized frameworks to navigate these turbulent waters—a approach that philosopher Ashley John Moyse powerfully critiques as "moral technique."
In our technologically advanced medical landscape, bioethics has become increasingly procedural, dominated by checklists and universal principles that promise efficient solutions to moral problems. But what happens when this technical approach fails to account for the rich, relational, and particular realities of human life?
This article explores a revolutionary proposal: by "interrupting" our standardized moral techniques, we might transform biomedical ethics into a practice that truly serves human flourishing.
The "common morality" approach that dominates contemporary bioethics functions much like a technical manual—it offers systematic procedures and universal principles designed to generate morally efficient decisions across diverse situations 1 . While this method provides consistency and predictability, Moyse argues it has significant limitations.
Moral technique tends to prioritize abstract reasoning over concrete human relationships. When reduced to a technical exercise, ethical decision-making can become disconnected from the particular stories, relationships, and contexts that give moral dilemmas their meaning.
This approach has historical roots in what the Open Philanthropy project identifies as a transfer of authority from medical professionals to bioethicists 6 . This division of labor inadvertently created a gap between technical medical expertise and the human experience of illness, suffering, and healing.
Against the backdrop of impersonal moral technique, Ashley John Moyse turns to an unexpected source: the 20th-century theologian Karl Barth. Rather than importing religious dogma into bioethics, Barth's work offers a fundamentally relational understanding of human existence that profoundly reorients ethical thinking 1 8 .
For Barth, humans are fundamentally relational beings whose identity and worth derive from their connections to others.
Moral responsibility transforms into response to concrete neighbors rather than obligation to abstract rules 8 .
What should be "common" is not universal principles but the provisional, public character of moral conversation 8 .
Recent psychological research provides compelling evidence for Moyse's critique of rigid moral systems. Studies reveal that human moral decision-making is remarkably flexible and context-dependent—far from the consistent application of principles that moral technique assumes 5 .
To understand how people acquire and apply moral rules, researchers devised an innovative supervised learning task using hypothetical moral scenarios 5 .
Participants engaged in a two-stage experiment involving multiple learning trials. In each trial, they faced binary moral choices accompanied by visual stimuli. After each selection, they received corrective feedback that guided them toward understanding an underlying moral rule. The researchers then tested whether participants could transfer these learned rules to new situations where no feedback was provided 5 .
The findings revealed several fascinating aspects of human moral learning:
| Condition Type | Rule Acquisition Success Rate | Transfer to Novel Situations | Utility Override Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supervised Learning | High | Moderate | High |
| Unsupervised Learning | Moderate | Low | Medium |
| Control Group | N/A | N/A | Low |
| Conflict Scenario | Choose Rule Option | Choose Utility Option | Unable to Decide |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Utility Advantage | 22% | 71% | 7% |
| Moderate Utility Advantage | 45% | 48% | 7% |
| Low Utility Advantage | 68% | 25% | 7% |
These findings demonstrate that our moral minds are neither blank slates nor rigid rule-followers. Instead, we possess flexible moral learning systems that integrate new rules while balancing them against other considerations like overall benefit 5 .
What would it mean to take these insights seriously in biomedical ethics? Moyse proposes reimagining bioethics as a practice that interrupts moral technique and transforms how we approach ethical dilemmas in healthcare 1 8 .
Rather than focusing primarily on consistent rule application, ethical deliberation would emphasize our responsibility to, with, and for specific persons in their particular situations 8 .
This doesn't mean abandoning moral guidelines, but recognizing that they must be wisely applied in context, with attention to the unique aspects of each situation and the people involved 1 .
By making space for dialogue, imagination, and innovation in addressing ethical challenges, we might discover responses that technical approaches would overlook 8 .
| Tool | Function | Application Example |
|---|---|---|
| Relational Anthropology | Understanding humans as fundamentally interconnected rather than isolated individuals | Considering family dynamics and community impacts in treatment decisions |
| Contextual Discernment | Attending to the particular details of specific situations rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions | Adapting communication approaches to individual patients' values and backgrounds |
| Moral Imagination | Enabling creative ethical responses beyond standard frameworks | Developing novel solutions that honor multiple competing values in resource allocation |
| Dialogical Practice | Creating space for inclusive conversation among all stakeholders | Facilitating conversations between medical staff, patients, and families in end-of-life care |
| Virtue Formation | Cultivating moral character rather than just teaching rules | Fostering empathy and wisdom in healthcare professionals through training and mentorship |
The interruption of moral technique represents neither a rejection of ethics nor a descent into relativism. Rather, it invites us into a more authentic ethical practice—one that acknowledges the complexity of human life, honors our relational nature, and embraces the challenging work of contextual moral discernment 1 8 .
As psychological research confirms, our moral minds are designed for flexible, context-sensitive judgment rather than rigid rule-following 5 .
By aligning our ethical practices with this reality, we might develop approaches to biomedical ethics that are both theoretically robust and practically meaningful.
The transformation of biomedical ethics begins when we interrupt the comfort of technical solutions and dare to embrace the messy, relational, and ultimately human work of moral deliberation. In healthcare settings where technological advancement continues to outpace our moral understanding, this transformed approach may be exactly what we need to ensure that ethics keeps pace with innovation—always serving the flourishing of human persons in their beautiful complexity.
References will be added here in the appropriate format.