Beauchamp Tom L
Kennedy Institute Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2007 Mar;17(1):55-64. doi: 10.1353/ken.2007.0001.
Robert Baker and Laurence McCullough argue that the "applied ethics model" is deficient and in need of a replacement model. However, they supply no clear meaning to "applied ethics" and miss most of what is important in the literature on methodology that treats this question. The Baker-McCullough account of medical and applied ethics is a straw man that has had no influence in these fields or in philosophical ethics. The authors are also on shaky historical grounds in dealing with two problems: (1) the historical source of the notion of "practical ethics" and (2) the historical source of and the assimilation of the term "autonomy" into applied philosophy and professional ethics. They mistakenly hold (1) that the expression "practical ethics" was first used in a publication by Thomas Percival and (2) that Kant is the primary historical source of the notion of autonomy as that notion is used in contemporary applied ethics.
罗伯特·贝克和劳伦斯·麦卡洛认为,“应用伦理模型”存在缺陷,需要一个替代模型。然而,他们并未明确“应用伦理”的含义,并且遗漏了该领域文献中关于这一问题的大部分重要内容。贝克 - 麦卡洛对医学和应用伦理的论述是一个稻草人式的观点,在这些领域或哲学伦理中都没有产生影响。作者在处理两个问题时的历史依据也站不住脚:(1)“实践伦理”概念的历史渊源;(2)“自主性”这一术语在应用哲学和专业伦理中的历史渊源及同化过程。他们错误地认为:(1)“实践伦理”这一表述最早由托马斯·珀西瓦尔在一篇出版物中使用;(2)康德是当代应用伦理中所使用的自主性概念的主要历史来源。