Carter Snead criticizes public bioethics for being based on a thin and therefore problematic anthropology that he calls “expressive individualism.” For Snead, expressive individualism emphasizes individual autonomy as an end-state and ignores other relevant moral concepts, for example, bodily fragility, neediness, and vulnerability. Snead’s criticism implicates an important topic for public bioethics: namely, what kind of anthropology does public bioethics require? This paper responds to Snead.
Since it is concerned with the formation of public policy amidst cultural and religious diversity, public bioethics must remain neutral regarding the final ends that Snead believes must inform a thick and therefore adequate anthropology. This paper argues that a liberal conception of bioethics aims to reconcile respect for diversity with moral judgments about public policy. But reconciling respect for diversity with moral judgments about public policy neither entails individual autonomy as an end-state nor precludes anthropologies that incorporate Snead’s concerns into public bioethics.