Hawkins A H
Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, USA.
J Med Philos. 1996 Jun;21(3):341-54. doi: 10.1093/jmp/21.3.341.
This is a reply to Dan Clouser's philosophical commentary on the essays in this issue. Important assumptions that condition his perspective on the essays are identified and analyzed. Attention is drawn to his unhistorical emphasis on the exclusive importance of philosophy in ethical thought, and his resulting insistence that any discipline wishing to contribute to biomedical discourse must adopt the assumptions and methodologies of philosophy. Clouser's "three tenets" are examined, and then the question of what literature, considered in terms of its own aims and methodologies, has to offer to medical ethics. Genuine dialogue about medical ethics between philosophers and literary scholars is both desirable and important, but becomes possible only if the methods and insights of each discipline are honored in the pursuit of the overall goals they hold in common.
这是对丹·克劳泽(Dan Clouser)对本期论文的哲学评论的回应。文中识别并分析了形成他对这些论文观点的重要假设。人们注意到他对哲学在伦理思想中唯一重要性的非历史强调,以及他因此坚持认为任何希望为生物医学话语做出贡献的学科都必须采用哲学的假设和方法。对克劳泽的“三个原则”进行了审视,接着探讨了就文学自身的目标和方法而言,文学能为医学伦理学提供什么。哲学家和文学学者之间关于医学伦理学的真正对话既可取又重要,但只有在追求共同的总体目标时尊重各学科的方法和见解,这种对话才有可能实现。