Main Research Areas

The Centre for Advanced Study in Bioethics analyzed the “intermediate” basic questions for the justification of norms in medical ethics and biopolitics each for itself as well as in their mutual relationship. According to the current state of discussion, these questions seem to be especially important and structure-forming and are presumably setting the course for future debates.

First of all, the research field has been operationalized according to thematic subdivisions, which addressed the most important basic questions and at the same time are formed nuclei of crystallization for co-operations with exceptional researchers and fellows.

These thematic subdivisions of research are not to be understood as partial projects but as dimensions of one homogeneous topic. Therefore each of the participating researchers was indeed primarily responsible for her/his topic; however, the topics have been worked on in close and continuous co-operation of members, fellows and participating junior researchers and closely cross-linked with each other.

"Happiness" and "Well-Being" as Basis for Moral Norms?

Whether the reference to human happiness/well-being is able to constitute (bio)ethical norms is controversial. However, it can easily be recognized that a number of fundamental ethical problems are posed here, at the same time, however, many application contexts are affected. These fundamental problems as well as the application problems have been examined in different directions.

The Ethics of Law and its Inclusion and Exclusion of Morals

The objects of medical ethics and bioethics are written in law. Any attempt to effectively control one of these objects through normative requirements must adopt the form of law and make use of its institutions. This research area dealed with the question which specific normative inclusion and exclusion mechanisms the legal discourse keeps available for medical ethics and bioethics.

The Consequentialism Debate Reflected by Modern Bioethics

In consequentialist ethics, norms are justified by assuming that they are directly or indirectly promoting the good in the world. Such a “functional” understanding of morality is confronted with a number of difficulties both in fundamental ethical debates and in bioethical contexts. This research area examined the potential and the limitations of an “enriched” concept of consequentialism.

The Constitution of Bioethical Norms between Nature and Agency

This research area dealed with the relationship between human actions and natural “borders”. Beyond teleology and pure conventionalism, it has been an attempt to develop a conception for the constitution of norms, which allows to justifiably correlate human actions and natural stages of development with one another.

Political Regulation of Moral Dissent and Moral Conflicts

As a rule the political regulation of biomedical issues is characterized by profound normative dissent and conflicts. The principles and procedures for the treatment of moral pluralism have been examined in regard to the question, to which extent these are able to handle moral pluralism in biopolitics.

Normative Implications and Function of Duration and Cut-Off Dates

Term regulations in the protection of life, terms of biopatents, or the temporal finiteness of human happiness are examples of bioethical issues, where duration and cut-off dates normatively take effect. Not least the ethical debates on the binding force of advance health care directives reflect the urgency of a systematic review of this theme.

Normative Foundations of Public Health

This research area intended to identify the basics and backgrounds for our normative and evaluative statements with regard to public health. The interdependencies between the answers to the question of the descriptive and evaluative status of collective actors and the axiological significance of health have been pointed out, especially with regard to the fundamental value of personal autonomy. On this basis a normatively plausible conception of public health have been developed, acting as neutrally as possible towards the schisms individualism-holism, liberalism-communitarianism and liberalism-perfectionism.