Abstract
In this paper, I inquire justice theories in bioethics. First, justice theories in American bioethics are criticized as follows. American bioethics has traditionally concentrated on distributive justice, and this narrow definition is often helpless in arguing current issues in the front-line of biomedicine. To illustrate my argument, reproductive human cloning (RHC) is discussed. American bioethics has been founded on secular pluralism, and rejects any kind of communitarian arguments against RHC. However, when we establish another category in justice theory, which I call "resourcification justice," justice in utilizing something as resources, the nature of the conflict can be identified specifically by questioning on what basis the health care service is justifiable. Under this categorization, then, how can we approach current biomedical issues? To clarify methodological justice in policy making on resourcification of issues like RHC, I inquire Rawlsian principles of justice in the context of those issues with fairness as only one guiding principle. According to this rationalistic analysis, without any communitarian premises, we need to be omniscient in estimating who will be the worst off. This is contrary to Rawlsian original position or veil of ignorance, and will constitute what I call narrative justice, which will be required in bridging the private narrative context of the narrator and the naratee, and the public context of policy making.
