Doing and Being: A Metaphysic of Persons from an Ontology of Action

Simon Smith
{"title":"Doing and Being: A Metaphysic of Persons from an Ontology of Action","authors":"Simon Smith","doi":"10.5772/INTECHOPEN.82837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A significant and worrying lacuna lies at the heart of neuroethics: viz., a coherent conception of personal identity. Philosophically, the consequences are serious; morally, they are disastrous. The entire discourse is constrained by a narrow empiricism, oblivious to its own metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions; worse still, it remains hostage to a latent Cartesianism, which logically and ontologically isolates neuroethicists from their subjects. Little wonder neuroethics lacks an anchor for its normative judgements. This chapter aims to supply that anchor. The key lies in action: action as essentially personal; acts owned; acts intended; and acts that embody those intentions that embody meaning . Such acts are the primary manifestation of ‘personhood’; they are also socially oriented, therefore morally interesting. Action locates persons in a world of objects and, most importantly, others. Crucially, relocating neuroethics within this context of personal activity supplies the logical and ontological foundations for both its judgements and its participants.","PeriodicalId":421156,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics in Principle and Praxis - Conceptual Foundations","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics in Principle and Praxis - Conceptual Foundations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.82837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A significant and worrying lacuna lies at the heart of neuroethics: viz., a coherent conception of personal identity. Philosophically, the consequences are serious; morally, they are disastrous. The entire discourse is constrained by a narrow empiricism, oblivious to its own metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions; worse still, it remains hostage to a latent Cartesianism, which logically and ontologically isolates neuroethicists from their subjects. Little wonder neuroethics lacks an anchor for its normative judgements. This chapter aims to supply that anchor. The key lies in action: action as essentially personal; acts owned; acts intended; and acts that embody those intentions that embody meaning . Such acts are the primary manifestation of ‘personhood’; they are also socially oriented, therefore morally interesting. Action locates persons in a world of objects and, most importantly, others. Crucially, relocating neuroethics within this context of personal activity supplies the logical and ontological foundations for both its judgements and its participants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
行为与存在:从行动本体论看人的形而上学
神经伦理学的核心存在一个重大而令人担忧的空白:即对个人身份的连贯概念。从哲学上讲,后果是严重的;在道德上,它们是灾难性的。整个论述被一种狭隘的经验主义所束缚,忘记了它自己的形而上学和认识论的前提;更糟糕的是,它仍然受制于一种潜在的笛卡尔主义,这种笛卡尔主义在逻辑和本体论上将神经伦理学家与他们的研究对象隔离开来。难怪神经伦理学缺乏规范判断的依据。本章的目的就是要提供这个锚。关键在于行动:行动本质上是个人的行动;徒拥有;行为的目的;行为体现了这些意图,体现了意义。这些行为是“人格”的主要表现;它们也是面向社会的,因此在道德上很有趣。行动将人置于物体的世界中,最重要的是,将人置于他人的世界中。至关重要的是,在个人活动的背景下重新定位神经伦理学为其判断和参与者提供了逻辑和本体论基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Values-Based Medicine (VsBM) and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Terminality Advance Directives and Nursing Practice in Brazil: Bioethical Issues Doing and Being: A Metaphysic of Persons from an Ontology of Action Introductory Chapter: Reconciling Neurobioethics through Nature’s Lens - Metaphysical Determinants of Subjectivity Naturalizing Neuroethics? A Syncretic Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1