Federico Bina

What makes social change morally progressive or regressive? Recent debates on moral progress have largely overlooked the “location” issue: which goods are taken to bear the value that makes change progressive or regressive. This paper addresses this issue empirically, asking whether laypeople locate such value in well-being, principles-norms, or virtues, and whether they do so symmetrically across progress and regress. In two experiments, participants rated how much positive or negative changes in these three dimensions made a society more just or unjust. Improvements in principles-norms were judged more progressive than improvements in well-being or virtues. By contrast, losses in well-being and virtues were judged more regressive than losses in principles-norms. We suggest possible interpretations of this asymmetry, asking whether it reflects a rational and defensible structure or a cognitive bias in moral judgments about social change.

Evolutionary psychology claims that human cognition results from adaptations to ancestral environments. We have computational limits that make us myopic because farsighted traits made no sense when humans had limited technologies and chances of interaction. We are biased and tribalistic because in small, closely genetically related tribal groups, limited prosocial traits like kin altruism and in-group reciprocity increased survival and reproduction, while greater inclusivity and cooperation was costly and dangerous. Several scholars argue that shortsightedness and tribalism are rigidly embedded in our genes and hard-wired into our brains: in a world that changed dramatically and rapidly, our Stone Age minds struggle to address problems that are vastly different from those they evolved to meet. This book challenges the view that human psychology is fixed by our evolutionary past, highlighting the fallacies of an adaptationist approach to the moral mind. Human cognition has changed significantly since the Pleistocene, especially over the last few centuries and decades. There is no fixed and universal psychology, and no reason to believe that further shifts toward greater cooperation, inclusivity, and trust cannot occur in the future.

In this paper, I show how a pragmatist stance may address the problem of the resolvability of moral conflicts. Pragmatism challenges skeptical and relativist views by arguing that moral conflict resolution is possible via inquiry and exchange of reasons. From a normative standpoint, pragmatism also differs from utilitarian and deontological views, according to which a specific moral theory is correct in every context. From a pragmatist point of view, both utilitarian and deontological responses can be justified, depending on contextual conditions and reasons, on the people to whom reasons are offered, and on constraints of inclusivity, publicity, empirical accuracy, and coherence. Pragmatism’s empiricist method for solving conflicts and making normative adjustments can be seen as a form of reflective equilibrium, where moral beliefs and commitments are adjusted in light of new non-moral knowledge, such as evidence about the reliability of decision processes. Recent empirical research also supports pragmatism’s pluralist and flexible approach more than monistic and generalist normative views like deontology and utilitarianism.

Several influential recent accounts of moral progress avoid engaging with normative ethical reflection to understand this idea. This allegedly ‘value-neutral’ methodology is based on the belief that we should not ground a theory of progress on abstract, ideal ethical views, and that defining a clear criterion for moral progress would be too epistemically arrogant and disrespectful of ethical pluralism. For these reasons, these accounts mostly provide ‘taxonomic’ views of moral progress, rather than justifying why certain changes should be deemed morally progressive. I argue that it is problematic to address the topic in this way, and that engaging with normative ethics in moral progress theory does not necessarily entail adopting an “ideal” approach. I then defend an agency-based view of moral progress, showing that the value of gains in agency systematizes and justifies paradigmatically progressive historical shifts and extant normative criteria of moral progress. I conclude by replying to concerns of epistemic arrogance and arbitrariness that can be directed against it.

This article defends the centrality of practical wisdom in medical practice by building on a monistic view of moral virtue, termed the “Aretai model,” according to which possession of practical wisdom is necessary and sufficient for virtuousness, grounding both moral growth and effective moral behavior. From this perspective, we argue that practical wisdom should be conceived as a cross-situational ethical expertise consisting of four skills:moral perception, moral deliberation, emotion regulation, and moral motivation. Conceiving of practical wisdom as both overall virtuousness and ethical expertise makes it possible to deal adequately with the uniqueness of concrete ethically relevant situations. We contend that this becomes particularly evident in the context of medical practice, both in terms of decision-making and action-taking, especially in the most challenging or contentious clinical cases. We conclude the article by suggesting the potential implications of the Aretai model for continuing education in medical and healthcare professions.

This paper explores the concept of moral expertise in the contemporary philosophical debate, with a focus on three accounts discussed across moral epistemology, bioethics, and virtue ethics: an epistemic authority account, a skilled agent account, and a hybrid model sharing key features of the two. It is argued that there are no convincing reasons to defend a monistic approach that reduces moral expertise to only one of these models. A pluralist view is outlined in the attempt to reorient the discussion about moral expertise.

Since the advent of drug regulation in 1962, regulatory agencies have been in the practice of using strict standards to test the safety and efficacy of medical treatments and products. Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, demand two full-fledged Randomized Clinical Trials demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of drugs to grant its marketing authorization. On the contrary, surgical treatments are left completely unregulated. There are several reasons explaining this difference, and all of them point to the difficulty of conducting well-designed RCTs in surgery. However, we argue that none of these arguments is decisive and that, under certain conditions, surgical RCTs can be morally justified and methodologically sound. Although ethical constraints restrict the number of testable surgical procedures, and surgical trials might not be as dependable as pharmaceutical RCTs, our analysis suggests that, in certain cases, it is possible to obtain high-quality evidence about the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures. Untested surgical treatments may prove to be ineffective and harm patients. Therefore, regulation of surgical procedures seems not only morally acceptable and able to provide reliable scientific evidence, but also desirable and justified from an ethical-political standpoint.

Knowledge brokers are among the main channels of communication between scientists and the public and a key element to establishing a relation of trust between the two. But translating knowledge from the scientific community to a wider audience presents several difficulties, which can be accentuated in times of crisis. In this paper we study some of the problems that knowledge brokers face when communicating in times of crisis. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected interviews with Italian experts that played a major role as knowledge brokers in the local media. We asked them questions about five main topics: the features and role of science communicators; the use of language in communicating science; the importance of the relation of trust with the public; the peculiarity of communicating in a context of emergency; the problem of disagreement among experts, and its public perception and communication. The goal of this paper is to understand, through the words of knowledge brokers themselves, what they consider as best practices (and obstacles) to create trust between scientists and the public. Our empirical work can inform normative accounts of what knowledge brokering should be about.