描绘道德心理学对生命伦理学的意义:生命伦理学的发展之路、局限性和道德哲学的教训

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Diametros Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI:10.33392/diam.1520
M. Klenk
{"title":"描绘道德心理学对生命伦理学的意义:生命伦理学的发展之路、局限性和道德哲学的教训","authors":"M. Klenk","doi":"10.33392/diam.1520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Empirical moral psychology is sometimes dismissed as normatively insignificant because it plays no decisive role in settling ethical disputes. But that conclusion, even if it is valid for normative ethics, does not extend to bioethics. First, in contrast to normative ethics, bioethics can legitimately proceed from a presupposed moral framework. Within that framework, moral psychology can be shown to play four significant roles: it can improve bioethicists’ understanding of (1) the decision situation, (2) the origin and legitimacy of their moral concepts, (3) efficient options for implementing (legitimate) decisions, and (4) how to change and improve some parts of their moral framework. Second, metaethical considerations suggest that moral psychology may lead to the radical revision of entire moral frameworks and thus prompt the radical revision of entire moral frameworks in bioethics. However, I show that bioethics must either relinquish these radical implications of moral psychology and accept that there are limits to progress in bioethics based on moral psychology or establish an epistemic framework that guides radical revision.","PeriodicalId":42290,"journal":{"name":"Diametros","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Charting Moral Psychology’s Significance for Bioethics: Routes to Bioethical Progress, its Limits, and Lessons from Moral Philosophy\",\"authors\":\"M. Klenk\",\"doi\":\"10.33392/diam.1520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Empirical moral psychology is sometimes dismissed as normatively insignificant because it plays no decisive role in settling ethical disputes. But that conclusion, even if it is valid for normative ethics, does not extend to bioethics. First, in contrast to normative ethics, bioethics can legitimately proceed from a presupposed moral framework. Within that framework, moral psychology can be shown to play four significant roles: it can improve bioethicists’ understanding of (1) the decision situation, (2) the origin and legitimacy of their moral concepts, (3) efficient options for implementing (legitimate) decisions, and (4) how to change and improve some parts of their moral framework. Second, metaethical considerations suggest that moral psychology may lead to the radical revision of entire moral frameworks and thus prompt the radical revision of entire moral frameworks in bioethics. However, I show that bioethics must either relinquish these radical implications of moral psychology and accept that there are limits to progress in bioethics based on moral psychology or establish an epistemic framework that guides radical revision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diametros\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diametros\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1520\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diametros","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1520","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: 3

摘要

经验道德心理学有时被认为在规范上无关紧要,因为它在解决伦理纠纷中没有起决定性作用。但这个结论,即使对规范伦理学是有效的,也不能延伸到生命伦理学。首先,与规范伦理学相反,生命伦理学可以合法地从预设的道德框架出发。在这个框架内,道德心理学可以发挥四个重要作用:它可以提高生物伦理学家对以下方面的理解:(1)决策情境;(2)其道德概念的起源和合法性;(3)实施(合法)决策的有效选择;(4)如何改变和改进其道德框架的某些部分。第二,元伦理学认为,道德心理学可能导致整个道德框架的彻底修正,从而促使整个生命伦理学道德框架的彻底修正。然而,我表明,生命伦理学必须要么放弃道德心理学的这些激进含义,并接受基于道德心理学的生命伦理学的进步是有限的,要么建立一个指导激进修正的认知框架。
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
Charting Moral Psychology’s Significance for Bioethics: Routes to Bioethical Progress, its Limits, and Lessons from Moral Philosophy
Empirical moral psychology is sometimes dismissed as normatively insignificant because it plays no decisive role in settling ethical disputes. But that conclusion, even if it is valid for normative ethics, does not extend to bioethics. First, in contrast to normative ethics, bioethics can legitimately proceed from a presupposed moral framework. Within that framework, moral psychology can be shown to play four significant roles: it can improve bioethicists’ understanding of (1) the decision situation, (2) the origin and legitimacy of their moral concepts, (3) efficient options for implementing (legitimate) decisions, and (4) how to change and improve some parts of their moral framework. Second, metaethical considerations suggest that moral psychology may lead to the radical revision of entire moral frameworks and thus prompt the radical revision of entire moral frameworks in bioethics. However, I show that bioethics must either relinquish these radical implications of moral psychology and accept that there are limits to progress in bioethics based on moral psychology or establish an epistemic framework that guides radical revision.
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
Diametros
Diametros PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reklamy eksperymentalnych produktów leczniczych i procedur medycznych w świetle polskiego prawa i etyki mediów Programy poszerzonego dostępu jako źródło danych poznawczych Atheist Therapy: Radical Embodiment in Early Modern Medical Materialism Niebezpieczne związki. Problem bliskości we współczesnej dyskusji nad zasadą podwójnego skutku Expertise, disagreement, and trust in vaccine science and policy. The importance of transparency in a world of experts
×
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