Wrigley Anthony
Bioethics. 2015 Sep;29(7):478-87. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12144. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
The concept of vulnerability has been subject to numerous different interpretations but accounts are still beset with significant problems as to their adequacy, such as their contentious application or the lack of genuine explanatory role for the concept. The constant failure to provide a compelling conceptual analysis and satisfactory definition leaves the concept open to an eliminativist move whereby we can question whether we need the concept at all. I highlight problems with various kinds of approach and explain why a satisfactory account of vulnerability is unlikely ever to be offered if we wish the concept to play a genuinely explanatory role in bioethical contexts. I outline why an eliminativist position should be taken with regard to this concept in light of these concerns but mitigate some of the severity of this position by arguing that we can still make sense of retaining our widespread use of the term by viewing it as nothing more than a useful pragmatic linguistic device that acts as a marker to draw attention to certain kinds of issue. These issues will be entirely governed by other, better understood ethical concepts and theories.
脆弱性这一概念已经有了众多不同的解释,但关于这些解释的充分性仍存在重大问题,比如它们在应用上存在争议,或者该概念缺乏真正的解释作用。始终未能提供令人信服的概念分析和令人满意的定义,使得这个概念容易受到消除主义主张的影响,即我们可以质疑是否真的需要这个概念。我强调了各种方法存在的问题,并解释了为何如果我们希望这个概念在生物伦理语境中发挥真正的解释作用,就不太可能提供一个令人满意的关于脆弱性的解释。鉴于这些担忧,我概述了为何应该对这个概念采取消除主义立场,但通过论证我们仍然可以理解保留该术语的广泛使用,即把它仅仅看作是一个有用的实用语言工具,作为一个标记来提请人们注意某些类型的问题,从而缓和了这一立场的严厉程度。这些问题将完全由其他更易理解的伦理概念和理论来支配。