Biotechnology, the Limits of Norton's Convergence Hypothesis, and Implications for an Inclusive Concept of Health

IF 0.5 0 PHILOSOPHY Ethics and the Environment Pub Date : 2000-09-01 DOI:10.1016/S1085-6633(00)00029-2
Marc A Saner
{"title":"Biotechnology, the Limits of Norton's Convergence Hypothesis, and Implications for an Inclusive Concept of Health","authors":"Marc A Saner","doi":"10.1016/S1085-6633(00)00029-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Bryan Norton proposes a “convergence hypothesis” stating that anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists can arrive at common environmental policy goals if certain constraints are applied. Within his theory he does not, however, address the consideration of nonconsequentualist issues, and, therefore, does not provide an argument for the convergence between consequentualist and nonconsequentualist ethical positions. In the case of biotechnology, nonconsequentualist issues can dominate the debate in both the fields of environmental ethics and bioethics. I argue that, the convergence hypothesis must be rejected when tested against the case of biotechnology, and this limitation of convergence applies to any theory of reconciliation within the “health” concept because the achievement and preservation of “health” emphasizes a consequentualist outlook. I conclude that an inclusive ethics for ecosystem and human health should be explicit about this limitation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54127,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and the Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1085-6633(00)00029-2","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1085663300000292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Bryan Norton proposes a “convergence hypothesis” stating that anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists can arrive at common environmental policy goals if certain constraints are applied. Within his theory he does not, however, address the consideration of nonconsequentualist issues, and, therefore, does not provide an argument for the convergence between consequentualist and nonconsequentualist ethical positions. In the case of biotechnology, nonconsequentualist issues can dominate the debate in both the fields of environmental ethics and bioethics. I argue that, the convergence hypothesis must be rejected when tested against the case of biotechnology, and this limitation of convergence applies to any theory of reconciliation within the “health” concept because the achievement and preservation of “health” emphasizes a consequentualist outlook. I conclude that an inclusive ethics for ecosystem and human health should be explicit about this limitation.

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
生物技术,诺顿趋同假说的极限,以及对健康的包容性概念的影响
布莱恩·诺顿提出了一个“趋同假说”,认为人类中心主义者和非人类中心主义者可以达成共同的环境政策目标,只要施加一定的限制。然而,在他的理论中,他没有解决非结果主义问题的考虑,因此,没有为结果主义和非结果主义伦理立场之间的趋同提供论据。就生物技术而言,非后果主义问题可以主导环境伦理和生物伦理领域的辩论。我认为,当对生物技术进行检验时,趋同假设必须被拒绝,这种趋同的限制适用于“健康”概念内的任何和解理论,因为“健康”的实现和保持强调结果主义的观点。我的结论是,生态系统和人类健康的包容性伦理应该明确指出这一限制。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mapping Gendered Ecologies: Engaging with and Beyond Ecowomanism and Ecofeminism by K. Melchor Quick Hall and Gwyn Kirk (review) Missing Voices of Ecofeminism in Environmental Governance: Consequences and Future Directions Ecofeminist Ontology in Karen Warren's Ethic 'I am cringe, but I am free': A Reparative Reading of Assuming the Ecosexual Position Karen J. Warren: Her Work in The Making of Ecofeminism
×
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