Enríquez Teresa, Alonso-Stuyck Paloma, Martínez-Villaseñor Lourdes
Instituto de Humanidades, Universidad Panamericana, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer 101, Aguascalientes 20296, Mexico.
Facultad de Psicología, Universitat Abat Oliba CEU, Bellesguard 30, 08022 Barcelona, Spain.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Aug 1;20(15):6499. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20156499.
Given the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and the conditions of vulnerability of large sectors of the population, the question emerges: what are the ethical limits of technologies in patient care? This paper examines this question in the light of the "language of nature" and of Aristotelian causal analysis, in particular the concept of means and ends. Thus, it is possible to point out the root of the distinction between the identity of the person and the entity of any technology. Nature indicates that the person is always an end in itself. Technology, on the contrary, should only be a means to serve the person. The diversity of their respective natures also explains why their respective agencies enjoy diverse scopes. Technological operations (artificial agency, artificial intelligence) find their meaning in the results obtained through them (). Moreover, the person is capable of actions whose purpose is precisely the action itself (), in which personal agency and, ultimately, the person themselves, is irreplaceable. Forgetting the distinction between what, by nature, is an end and what can only be a means is equivalent to losing sight of the instrumental nature of AI and, therefore, its specific meaning: the greatest good of the patient. It is concluded that the language of nature serves as a filter that supports the effective subordination of the use of AI to its specific purpose, the human good. The greatest contribution of this work is to draw attention to the nature of the person and technology, and about their respective agencies. In other words: listening to the language of nature, and attending to the diverse nature of the person and technology, personal agency, and artificial agency.
鉴于人工智能（AI）的发展以及大部分人群的脆弱状况，问题随之而来：医疗技术的伦理界限是什么？本文根据“自然的语言”和亚里士多德的因果分析，特别是手段和目的的概念来审视这个问题。因此，有可能指出人的身份与任何技术实体之间区别的根源。自然表明人本身始终是目的。相反，技术应该只是服务于人的手段。它们各自性质的多样性也解释了它们各自作用范围的不同。技术操作（人工作用、人工智能）的意义在于通过它们所获得的结果（）。此外，人能够做出目的恰恰是行动本身的行为（），在这种行为中，个人作用乃至人本身都是不可替代的。忘记自然意义上何为目的、何为手段之间的区别，就等于忽视了人工智能的工具性质，进而忽视其特定意义：患者的最大利益。结论是，自然的语言作为一种过滤器，支持将人工智能的使用有效地服从于其特定目的——人类福祉。这项工作的最大贡献在于提请人们关注人和技术的本质，以及它们各自的作用。换句话说：倾听自然的语言，关注人和技术、个人作用和人工作用的不同本质。
