From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sun Jul 21 2002 - 03:03:30 MDT
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 01:50:43AM -0700, Reason wrote:
>
> Definately in quotes; I wasn't aiming for rigorous, I was aiming for "does
> anyone here think it's worth spending a day to do this right?"
I think there is a lot of value in that. But it needs to be a serious
criticism that hits at the core issues.
One problem with bioethics is that it seems to separate biotechnology
from the rest of ethics. In reality bioethicists use the same ethical
arguments (with some domain specialisation) as in other areas to deal
with biotech issues. But by calling the result bioethics they end up
with very strong resolutions that they do not attempt to consistently
generalize into other fields. For example, if one really believed in
"the wisdom of repugnance" or utilitarianism as it is commonly expressed
in bioethics, then one would be obliged to suggest that this should be
used for everything - social security, foreign policy etc.
> I would argue though that bioethics at root has nothing to do with ethics
> and everything to do with the age-old ugly fight to control what other
> people do with their own lives and own bodies. No particular aim beyond
> control itself; the fight just happens to center on the points at which
> those who want to force the issue think they can advance their case. I mean,
> just look at links from that upenn department page:
>
> http://bioethics.net/beginners.php
> http://www.med.upenn.edu/bioethic/wol/
If you can really build a good case for this, then you have done
something important. However, I would be surprised if it turned out that
bioethics was *at root* about control.
One possibility we mention in our book is the rise of the "ethical
priesthood". The fast growth of the medical ethics community in the
early 70's (caused by how people increasingly questioned the profession
and its practices) led to a large number of philosophers, lawyers and
even theologicians moving into the field. Several observers commented
upon that there were rather few medical professionals getting into the
field, and that this "priesthood" was quite separated from medical
practice. The bioethics began to expand in the early 80's, doing roughly
the same. But what does a bioethicist *do*? At first it was not well
defined, so bioethicists found something to do: participating in
regulatory boards, comissions, committees and generally acting within
the political rather than the practical sphere.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:36 MST