Table 3 Eleven quality criteria for bioethics derived from an in-depth analysis of Moen’s Is Prostitution Harmful?
From: In pursuit of goodness in bioethics: analysis of an exemplary article
Argumentative concerns | 1. Presenting counter-arguments in a manner that opponents can accept and countering these arguments with clear (counter-counter) arguments |
2. Underpinning adequately the premises employed, especially those that are controversial or essential to the argument | |
3. Avoiding double standards by applying the same standard of argument or principle consistently throughout one’s own reasoning, and not demanding a higher standard of opponents | |
4. Introducing only relevant examples, analogies and thought experiments and not substituting these where other kinds of argumentation (empirical or normative) are required | |
5. Fostering transparency and explicitness about crucial theoretical assumptions and definitions, including showing explicitly how the conclusions drawn rely on these assumptions | |
6. Refraining from drawing normative conclusions beyond the limitations or premises of the argument, i.e., avoiding unwarranted extrapolation or generalization | |
Empirical concerns | 7. Ensuring that the evidence for empirical premises is of good quality according to standard criteria for empirical evidence of the relevant kinds |
8. Keeping the distinction between empirical and normative arguments clear | |
Dialectic concerns | 9. Responding to challenges by examining, expanding on and justifying controversial premises in the argument |
10. Taking into account also objections and counterarguments from outside one’s scholarly field and tradition | |
11. Openly assessing and discussing one’s line of argument in light of quality criteria such as the above |