新亚里士多德理论对医学伦理实践的贡献。

Blaine J Fowers, Lukas F Novak, Marah Selim, Latha Chandran, Kristján Kristjánsson
{"title":"新亚里士多德理论对医学伦理实践的贡献。","authors":"Blaine J Fowers, Lukas F Novak, Marah Selim, Latha Chandran, Kristján Kristjánsson","doi":"10.1007/s11017-024-09695-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Virtue-based ethics prioritizes phronesis (practical wisdom) because, as rules have become less action-guiding, good judgment (phronesis) becomes more necessary as a guiding meta-virtue. The view of phronesis that MacIntyre proposed in After Virtue (hereafter, AV phronesis) has been applied in medical ethics despite his substantial deviations from his source (Aristotle) in After Virtue. In this paper, we clarify the differences between the neo-Aristotelian and AV phronesis views and argue for a neo-Aristotelian phronesis with four functions (constitutive, adjudicative, emotion regulative, and blueprint). In referring to neo-Aristotelians, we refer to the recent scholars that who hark back strongly to Aristotle and have amended some of Aristotle's less palatable views by adding insights from current empirical science to the domains that he left vague. Then we discuss how AV phronesis and neo-Aristotelian phronesis differ, focusing on the distinction between technical (i.e., alterable means toward patient health such as medication choices) and phronetic (i.e., actions that are inseparable from patient health) actions in medicine. This distinction is understated in AV phronesis, but central to neo-Aristotelian phronesis. Accordingly, the neo-Aristotelian approach makes an important and unique contribution to physician ethical development.</p>","PeriodicalId":94251,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine and bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contributions of neo-Aristotelian phronesis to ethical medical practice.\",\"authors\":\"Blaine J Fowers, Lukas F Novak, Marah Selim, Latha Chandran, Kristján Kristjánsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11017-024-09695-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Virtue-based ethics prioritizes phronesis (practical wisdom) because, as rules have become less action-guiding, good judgment (phronesis) becomes more necessary as a guiding meta-virtue. The view of phronesis that MacIntyre proposed in After Virtue (hereafter, AV phronesis) has been applied in medical ethics despite his substantial deviations from his source (Aristotle) in After Virtue. In this paper, we clarify the differences between the neo-Aristotelian and AV phronesis views and argue for a neo-Aristotelian phronesis with four functions (constitutive, adjudicative, emotion regulative, and blueprint). In referring to neo-Aristotelians, we refer to the recent scholars that who hark back strongly to Aristotle and have amended some of Aristotle's less palatable views by adding insights from current empirical science to the domains that he left vague. Then we discuss how AV phronesis and neo-Aristotelian phronesis differ, focusing on the distinction between technical (i.e., alterable means toward patient health such as medication choices) and phronetic (i.e., actions that are inseparable from patient health) actions in medicine. This distinction is understated in AV phronesis, but central to neo-Aristotelian phronesis. Accordingly, the neo-Aristotelian approach makes an important and unique contribution to physician ethical development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical medicine and bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical medicine and bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-024-09695-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine and bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-024-09695-x","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

基于美德的伦理优先考虑实践智慧(phronesis),因为随着规则对行动的指导性减弱,良好的判断力(phronesis)作为指导性元美德变得更加必要。麦金太尔在《美德之后》中提出的现实主义观点(以下简称AV phronesis),尽管在《美德之后》中与他的来源(亚里士多德)有很大的偏差,但仍被应用于医学伦理学。在本文中,我们澄清了新亚里士多德主义和AV现实主义观点之间的差异,并主张新亚里士多德主义现实主义具有四种功能(构成、裁决、情感调节和蓝图)。说到新亚里士多德学派,我们指的是最近的学者,他们强烈地回到亚里士多德,并修正了亚里士多德的一些不太令人愉快的观点,将当前经验科学的见解添加到他留下模糊的领域。然后,我们讨论AV phronesis和新亚里士多德的phronesis如何不同,重点是医学中技术(即对患者健康的可改变手段,如药物选择)和phronetic(即与患者健康不可分割的行动)行为之间的区别。这一区别在AV phronesis中被低估了,但在新亚里士多德的phronesis中却很重要。因此,新亚里士多德方法对医生伦理发展做出了重要而独特的贡献。
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
Contributions of neo-Aristotelian phronesis to ethical medical practice.

Virtue-based ethics prioritizes phronesis (practical wisdom) because, as rules have become less action-guiding, good judgment (phronesis) becomes more necessary as a guiding meta-virtue. The view of phronesis that MacIntyre proposed in After Virtue (hereafter, AV phronesis) has been applied in medical ethics despite his substantial deviations from his source (Aristotle) in After Virtue. In this paper, we clarify the differences between the neo-Aristotelian and AV phronesis views and argue for a neo-Aristotelian phronesis with four functions (constitutive, adjudicative, emotion regulative, and blueprint). In referring to neo-Aristotelians, we refer to the recent scholars that who hark back strongly to Aristotle and have amended some of Aristotle's less palatable views by adding insights from current empirical science to the domains that he left vague. Then we discuss how AV phronesis and neo-Aristotelian phronesis differ, focusing on the distinction between technical (i.e., alterable means toward patient health such as medication choices) and phronetic (i.e., actions that are inseparable from patient health) actions in medicine. This distinction is understated in AV phronesis, but central to neo-Aristotelian phronesis. Accordingly, the neo-Aristotelian approach makes an important and unique contribution to physician ethical development.

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
den Hartogh, Govert. What Kind of Death: The Ethics of Determining One's Own Death. New York/London: Routledge, 2023. 402 pp. USD $ 128.00 (hardcover); USD $ 43.99 (paper); USD $ 43.99 (Ebook). ISBN 978-1-032-24796-0. Correction: On instrumentality and second-order effects: revisiting anti-natalism and animal farming. Antinatalism and the vegan's dilemma. Epicureanism and euthanasia. Biting the bullet on ethical veganism, antinatalism, and the demands of morality.
×
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