Rydenfelt Henrik
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2024 Apr;33(2):174-184. doi: 10.1017/S0963180123000282. Epub 2023 Jun 19.
Pragmatism gained considerable attention in bioethical discussions in the early 21st century. However, some dimensions and contributions of pragmatism to bioethics remain underexplored in both research and practice. It is argued that pragmatism can make a distinctive contribution to bioethics through its concept, developed by Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, that ethical issues can be resolved through experimental inquiry. Dewey's proposal that policies can be confirmed or disconfirmed through experimentation is developed by comparing it to the confirmation of scientific hypotheses, with a focus on the objection that the consequences of following a moral view or policy do not provide guidance on choosing among competing ethical perspectives. As confirmation of scientific hypotheses typically relies on evidence gathered from observation, the possibility of ethically relevant observation is then explored based on Peirce's views on feelings as emotional interpretants. Finally, the connection between Dewey's experimental ethics and democracy is outlined and compared to unfettered ethical progressivism.
实用主义在21世纪初的生物伦理讨论中受到了相当多的关注。然而，实用主义在生物伦理学方面的一些维度和贡献在研究和实践中仍未得到充分探索。有人认为，实用主义可以通过其由查尔斯·S·皮尔斯和约翰·杜威提出的概念，即伦理问题可以通过实验探究来解决，从而为生物伦理学做出独特贡献。通过将杜威关于政策可通过实验得到证实或证伪的提议与科学假设的证实进行比较，对其进行了拓展，重点关注了这样一种反对意见，即遵循一种道德观点或政策的后果并不能为在相互竞争的伦理视角中进行选择提供指导。由于科学假设的证实通常依赖于从观察中收集的证据，于是基于皮尔斯关于情感作为情感解释项的观点，探讨了与伦理相关的观察的可能性。最后，概述了杜威的实验伦理学与民主之间的联系，并将其与不受约束的伦理进步主义进行了比较。
