Hellsten S K
Department of Political Science, Philosophy Unit, University of Dar es Salaam, PO Box 35042, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Dev World Bioeth. 2001 Nov;1(2):98-115. doi: 10.1111/1471-8847.00015.
This article argues that in the quest for global bioethics in its relation to the promotion of women's health and women's rights, the main challenge is to, first, rise above the relativist trap and second, to solve the false dilemma between individualism and collectivism. Particularly in order to improve women's position and advance their well-being in many developing countries with patriarchal cultural practices, there is an urgent need to introduce modern medicine and to share more evenly and efficiently the health care resources of the industrialized societies. This presumes that we can find a normative bioethical approach that promotes the rights of individuals without striving for cultural assimilation and disrespect. From the philosophical point of view this means that we have to overcome the debate between the rival views of justice, and rather find the shared features of the various approaches, thus diminishing the exaggerated polarizations between them. The author claims that despite its importance in women's rights protection, feminist bioethics cannot remain as a normative alternative that can replace either liberal or communitarian approaches. Instead feminism needs to be part of both liberal and communitarian ethical thinking. Communitarianism, for its part, cannot offer an alternative to either liberalism or feminism, but it can function as an essential critical balancing force within these approaches. Individualist liberalism, on the other hand, has to find its way into collective social structures and accept their maintenance, instead of exhausting itself in its attempts to lift individuals above or beyond their social contexts. All in all, the article shows that in finding the global bioethical norms the incompatibility between universalist and relativist reasoning or between individualist and collective ethical positions per se is not the main problem. Rather the problem is in our persistent tendency to believe that such an incompatibility exists. However, if we overcome the debate on whether one cultural background is superior to another, we can find a way to agree on some common norms that are based on shared values of very different traditions. Finding globally acceptable values, however, is not enough unless we pay more attention to their promotion in practice, in very different economic, social and political circumstances.
本文认为，在寻求与促进妇女健康和妇女权利相关的全球生物伦理学时，主要挑战在于，其一，超越相对主义陷阱；其二，解决个人主义与集体主义之间的错误困境。特别是在许多存在父权文化习俗的发展中国家，为了提高妇女地位并增进其福祉，迫切需要引入现代医学，并更公平、高效地分享工业化社会的医疗资源。这假定我们能够找到一种规范性的生物伦理学方法，在不追求文化同化和不尊重的情况下促进个人权利。从哲学角度来看，这意味着我们必须克服不同正义观之间的争论，而是找到各种方法的共同特征，从而减少它们之间过度的两极分化。作者声称，尽管女性主义生物伦理学在保护妇女权利方面很重要，但它不能作为一种规范性替代方案来取代自由主义或社群主义方法。相反，女性主义需要成为自由主义和社群主义伦理思想的一部分。社群主义本身不能为自由主义或女性主义提供替代方案，但它可以在这些方法中发挥至关重要的批判性平衡力量。另一方面，个人主义自由主义必须融入集体社会结构并接受其维持，而不是在试图将个人提升到社会背景之上或之外的努力中耗尽自身。总而言之，本文表明，在寻找全球生物伦理规范时，普遍主义与相对主义推理之间或个人主义与集体伦理立场本身之间的不相容性并非主要问题。相反，问题在于我们一直倾向于认为存在这种不相容性。然而，如果我们克服关于一种文化背景是否优于另一种文化背景的争论，我们就能找到一种基于非常不同传统的共同价值观达成某些共同规范的方法。然而，除非我们更加关注在非常不同的经济、社会和政治环境中在实践中推广这些价值观，否则找到全球可接受的价值观是不够的。
