Extreme Particularism
At this point, we have examined problems with rules and principles. One stands out to particularists: Rules and principles often conflict or else circumstances seem exceptional. Particularists go further. They claim that all moral problems occur in a context that is so rich with detail that it is morally improper to apply rules and principles. Particularists claim that rules and principles, in their simplicity, always miss important features of cases each of which is, in one way or another, unique.
How does one decide what is right without rules and principles? Well, simply attend to the situation carefully, very carefully. Note all of its salient ( or morally relevant) features. Then come to a decision. Many would say, then use your moral intuitions. That is the best you can do.
It is similar to judging the beauty of a building. A new building goes up in our city, one that is unusual because it is black and modern in a traditional setting. We step back, and examine it in relation to its background, noting its use. We then decide, simply decide, whether or not it is beautiful.
This is something like what some rule theorists say we should do when rules conflict: Use your good moral sense to resolve difficult cases. But the particularists take it further. Always and only rely on moral intuitions.
It is true that sometimes going by the rules doesn’t get us far enough. This is true in any field, including medicine. Suppose a physician thinks that chemotherapy is appropriate yet worries that it will exacerbate a heart condition. He meets with two colleagues, each with a different view on what to do. He plays a hunch, and decides not to go with chemo.
This case fell between the cracks. So a hunch, or intuition, is used to solve it. Maybe reasons are offered. But we suspect that these cover up the fact that, in this case, the accepted “rules” don’t work. Again, the particularist, in ethics, goes further. All cases, so to speak, fit between the cracks. Rules and principles are never appropriately used.
Here is a case to think about.
A pediatrician, Dr. Dan, as he is affectionately called, notices light scares on a young child’s abdomen during a routine exam. These seem relatively minor, but surely caused significant pain. He wonders whether any of the scaring will be permanent. Her mother, Mrs. Yen, explains that they are the result of a traditional healing practice called moxibustion. Special wax was melted on the child’s stomach by a religious healer. Dr. Dan feels both a strange sense of admiration and mild shock at the practice. He thinks it would count as child abuse, but fears telling the authorities. Mrs. Yen’s family might be tormented, and she may never trust or use Western medicine again. He isn’t sure what to do, fearing the practice will continue. But he knows Mrs. Yen as a loving parent, and has some respect for the ancient right. He says nothing and proceeds with the exam.
Think of your own reaction to this case. Would you resolve it using rules or principles? Would you appeal to Dr. Dan’s obligation to the law, to the well being of his patient, or to respect for cultural practices? If you would do any of these, you are not addressing the problem as a particularist.
A particularist surveys the salient features of the case, probably in greater detail than is offered in our presentation of the case. Then a decision is made. That’s it. Maybe that is what Dr. Dan did.
Here is a little self-test on particularism in relation to the moxibustion case.
Which statement is the one that would be made by a particularist? (Try picking the incorrect answers first, to see the feedback.
1. More harm than good would be done by telling the authorities.
Incorrect. This appeals to the principle of harm.
2. A physician has a moral obligation to obey the law and so the authorities should be notified.
Incorrect. This makes appeal to a moral rule about obeying the law.
3. The right thing is to do or say nothing about the scares.
Yes, that’s right. A particularist does not offer any reasons.
4. This is a tough case. If nothing is said, more harm may be done in the future to the child. If the authorities are told, then Mrs. Yen’s family will be disrupted, with all suffering. The best thing to do is to say nothing.
This is incorrect. This answer seems to appeal to rules and principles, but finds that the circumstances involve conflict among them. So a simple decision is made. This is the way a principlist or a rule theorist might argue.
[Put a continue button.]
There are strong points in particularism.
Extreme particularism recognizes the need for intuition in moral decision-making. Even principlists and rule theorists must admit that in some cases we cannot easily apply rules and principles.
Extreme particularism properly emphasizes the complexity of moral decision making by requiring that we gather all the salient facts. This is crucial to good moral decision-making.
There are weak points in particularism.
By failing to offer reasons, particularism hinders moral debate.
If we met Dr. Dan we might ask him why he did what he did. He might explain that he feared what the authorities would do. We might agree or disagree about the authorities. If we disagree, we might explain what would have happened. If we agree that the authorities are not to be trusted in this case, we might respond by suggesting that he cannot ignore suspected child abuse, and that he should, at the least, have sternly warned Mrs. Yen about the harmful effects of the procedure. Here we try to get to Dr. Dan’s reasoning, and counter that reason if we disagree. We looked to moral rules and principles for guidance. If we are simply particularists ourselves and disagree with Dr. Dan, all we can do is say that we disagree, much as all we can say is that we disagree about the beauty of that new black modern building. Particularists might “debate” by pointing out that a feature is missed. But sooner or later but assuming all the salient features were accounted for by Dr. Dan, then moral debate ends, at least among particularists.
Particularism works best responding to current cases. It is not effective in dealing with policy issues.
Should we have laws requiring reports about child abuse? How would a particularist answer this? A law is a rule that may have moral force behind i, and a particularist rejects rules. As a rule, it might be quite effective, eliminating much harm. The law should be morally judged, partly, that way. But this judgment depends on a moral principle.
Lessons from Particularism
We suggest that particularism expresses a part of moral experience, the part that we encounter when a case defies solution by the normal rules and principles. It also effectively points to the need to deal with all the relevant complexities of a case. All salient features need to be explored. These are good lessons, which we will take very seriously when we deal with procedures to use in addressing difficult cases in bioethics.
Self Test.
Determine whether the following statements are correct or incorrect.
1. Particularist argue that moral intuitions are only needed when rules or principles conflict.
Correct
That is not right. Particularists argue that rules and principles should never be used because they are too simplistic to handle the complexity of all real moral problems.
Incorrect.
That is right. Particularists argue that rules and principles should never be used because they are too simplistic to handle the complexity of all real moral problems.
Incorrect.
2. Particularism fosters moral debate because anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s.
Correct
That is not right. Good moral debate depends on offering reasons, not mere opinion.
Incorrect.
That is right. Good moral debate depends on offering reasons, not mere opinion.
3. Since moral rules are too simplistically stated, particularists insist that acceptable moral rules need to be stated in a more complex way.
Correct
That is not right. Particularists believe that even complex rules will fail to cover the true deep complexity of actual moral problems.
Incorrect.
That’s right. Particularists believe that even complex rules will fail to cover the true deep complexity of actual moral problems.
4. Particularists reject the use of rules and principles.
Correct
That’s right. Particularists argue that rules and principles are too simplistic to handle the complexity of real moral problems.
Incorrect.
Incorrect
That is not right. Particularists argue that rules and principles are too simplistic to handle the complexity of real moral problems.