Negotiating Virtue

Abstract

Principlist modes of reasoning in bioethics – with autonomy at the core – resonate strongly with a legalism that dominates Muslim ethics, including the understanding of the shari’a. From abortion and organ donation/transplant to end-of-life decisions, both secular and Muslim bioethics generally apply “cardinal” principles in ways felt to be relatively objective and certain, though they may produce different outcomes. This article builds on recent critiques, notably that of virtue ethics, in drawing attention to the cost in sensitivity to context and the individual. The Aristotelian basis of virtue ethics has a venerable place in Islamic traditions – as does maslaha, the public good, which has long played a critical role in tempering formalism in the shari’a. In conjunction with the agent- and context-centred reasoning of virtue ethics, maslaha can contribute vitally to negotiating competing bioethical claims. It is also more inclusive than principlist legalism, given the latter’s traditionalist and patriarchal moorings. The shift is urgent amid the growing interface of religious and secular approaches to problems raised by biomedical technologies, and to biosocial issues such as female genital mutilation (FGM) and honour killings.