‘Why Do You Ask?’ Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies

It is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with the public to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, especially ones that arise with new and emerging technologies. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? In this essay, we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. For each function, we offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with several preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their own purpose for soliciting moral judgments from the public.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Published
2025-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2474911
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘Why Do You Ask?’ Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies

Julian Savulescu, S. Matthew Liao, Jared N. Smith, Anne Barnhill et al.
1 citations
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
1.43
article

‘Why Do You Ask?’ Revisiting the Purpose of Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments About Emerging Technologies

Julian Savulescu, S. Matthew Liao, Jared N. Smith, Anne Barnhill, Jennifer Blumenthal‐Barby, Matthew S. McCoy
article en
1 citations

Abstract

It is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with the public to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, especially ones that arise with new and emerging technologies. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? In this essay, we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. For each function, we offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with several preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their own purpose for soliciting moral judgments from the public.

AJOB Empirical BioethicsVol. 16(3)
Johns Hopkins University (US), National University of Singapore (SG), Baylor College of Medicine (US), University of Oxford (GB), Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics (US), New York University (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Greenwall Foundation
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.