事实/价值幽灵

J. Mcmillan
{"title":"事实/价值幽灵","authors":"J. Mcmillan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199603756.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The fact/value distinction has cast a shadow over bioethics and if taken in a naïve sense it has damaging implications for method in bioethics. Some still believe that all values are on a par epistemically and that leads to absurdity when we consider the status of some scientific values. It can be taken to imply positivism, meaning that unless ethics is conducted empirically it will be meaningless or subjective. It can also be taken to imply that all values are on an equal footing and I will show how that cannot be true and leads to an impoverished conception of what it is to do ethics well.","PeriodicalId":113930,"journal":{"name":"The Methods of Bioethics","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fact/Value Spectre\",\"authors\":\"J. Mcmillan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780199603756.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The fact/value distinction has cast a shadow over bioethics and if taken in a naïve sense it has damaging implications for method in bioethics. Some still believe that all values are on a par epistemically and that leads to absurdity when we consider the status of some scientific values. It can be taken to imply positivism, meaning that unless ethics is conducted empirically it will be meaningless or subjective. It can also be taken to imply that all values are on an equal footing and I will show how that cannot be true and leads to an impoverished conception of what it is to do ethics well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":113930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Methods of Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Methods of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199603756.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Methods of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199603756.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

事实/价值的区别给生物伦理学蒙上了一层阴影,如果从naïve的角度来看,它对生物伦理学的方法有破坏性的影响。一些人仍然认为所有的价值在认识论上都是同等的,当我们考虑一些科学价值的地位时,这就导致了荒谬。它可以被理解为暗示实证主义,这意味着除非伦理是经验性的,否则它将是无意义的或主观的。它也可以被理解为暗示所有的价值观都是平等的,我将展示这是如何不可能的,并导致一个贫穷的概念,什么是做好伦理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Fact/Value Spectre
The fact/value distinction has cast a shadow over bioethics and if taken in a naïve sense it has damaging implications for method in bioethics. Some still believe that all values are on a par epistemically and that leads to absurdity when we consider the status of some scientific values. It can be taken to imply positivism, meaning that unless ethics is conducted empirically it will be meaningless or subjective. It can also be taken to imply that all values are on an equal footing and I will show how that cannot be true and leads to an impoverished conception of what it is to do ethics well.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Empirical, Socratic Bioethics The Fact/Value Spectre Four Spectres of Bioethics Speculative Argument and Bioethics What It Is to Reason about Ethics
×
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