Pragmatism has been understood by bioethicists as yet another rival in the “methods wars,” as yet another theory of moral deliberation. This has led to criticism of pragmatic bioethics as both theoretically and practically inadequate. Pragmatists’ responses to these objections have focused mainly on misunderstandings of pragmatism’s epistemology. These responses are insufficient. Pragmatism’s commitment to radical empiricism gives it theoretical resources unappreciated by critics and defenders alike. Radical empiricism, unlike its more traditional ancestors, undercuts the gaps between theory and practice, (...) and subjective and objective accounts of experience, and in so doing provides the metaphysical and epistemological basis for a thoroughgoing empirical naturalism in ethics. Pragmatism’s strength as an approach to moral problems thus emerges as a result of a much wider array of resources than contemporary interpreters have acknowledged, which makes it a richer, deeper framework for understanding moral deliberation in general and bioethical decision making in particular. (shrink)

Among the latest trends in moral educational theory, several authors have suggested that a sociocultural approach to moral education is an improvement over the dominant cognitive-developmental and character educational paradigms. This approach draws its inspiration from the work of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. In the 1920s, Vygotsky attempted to reconstruct psychology to overcome the false dichotomy psychologists had posited between the individual and the environment. This genre of sociocultural theory has come to be known as activity theory. Despite its (...) aims, however, activity theory never overcame the dualism of individual and environment. My contention is that Dewey's moral psychology is more adequate to that task, and thus is a more appropriate foundation for developing moral educational policy and practice. (shrink)