Institute for Science, School of Law, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2011 May;37(5):262-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2011.043695.
In a number of papers, including the one published in this journal, Robert Sparrow has mounted attacks on consequentialism using principally what he takes to be an important fact, which he believes constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of consequentialism in its many forms and of this author's approach to enhancement and disability in particular (see page 276). This fact is the current longer life expectancy of women when compared with men. Here the author argues that Sparrow's arguments and entire approach utterly fail. In doing so the author hopes to shed further light on the role of normalcy, normal species functioning and species-typical functioning in debates about enhancement and disability.
在一些论文中,包括发表在本期刊上的那一篇,罗伯特·斯派罗(Robert Sparrow)主要利用他认为是一个重要事实的东西,对后果主义进行了攻击,他认为这一事实是对后果主义的多种形式以及作者对增强和残疾的方法的一种荒谬的简化(见第 276 页)。这个事实是当前女性与男性相比预期寿命更长。在这里,作者认为斯派罗的论点和整个方法完全失败了。作者希望通过这样做,进一步阐明在关于增强和残疾的辩论中,常态、正常物种功能和物种典型功能的作用。