Debating ethical expertise

This paper explores the relevance of the debate about ethical expertise for the practice of clinical ethics. We present definitions, explain three theories of ethical expertise, and identify arguments that have been brought up to either support the concept of ethical expertise or call it into question. Finally, we discuss four theses: the debate is relevant for the practice of clinical ethics in that it (1) improves and specifies clinical ethicists' perception of their expertise; (2) contributes to improving the perception of moral competence of non-ethicists; (3) gives insight into complementary styles of argumentation of ethicists and non-ethicists; and (4) contributes to the awareness of the problem of profession-building of (clinical) ethicists.     

中医科学性论析

因为科学研究的对象是自然现象及其规律,而这一自然现象及其规律又是客观同一的,所以科学才是世界通约通用的。也正由于此,世界上可以有不同的文学、艺术、伦理、政治、哲学、宗教等等,就是不能有不同的科学。然而,中医确实带有鲜明的特殊性,至今也难以为世界所共同理解。那么中医是不是科学?又应怎样认识、理解和对待中医的科学性呢?     

中医科学性论析

因为科学研究的对象是自然现象及其规律,而这一自然现象及其规律又是客观同一的,所以科学才是世界通约通用的。也正由于此,世界上可以有不同的文学、艺术、伦理、政治、哲学、宗教等等,就是不能有不同的科学。然而,中医确实带有鲜明的特殊性,至今也难以为世界所共同理解。那么中医是不是科学?又应怎样认识、理解和对待中医的科学性呢?     

Debating the Theological Implications of New Technologies

In a recent report on focus group discussions of GMOs in Britain, Celia Deane Drummond et al. observed that public anxieties about emerging biotechnologies often reflect concerns that are ultimately theological in nature. Such concerns (whether in relation to biotechnology or other areas of technological development) may be easily dismissed as peripheral or irrelevant to the core secular issues of health, safety, environmental impacts, the politics of commercialization and research integrity. However, I shall argue that theological questions are actually integral to the ongoing development of technology and that there is a need for a public discourse that enables such questions to be articulated and debated.     

Debating Forgiveness: A Reply to My Critics

In this essay I offer a detailed reply to three critics (whose commentaries are included in this issue of Philosophia) of my Forgiveness: a Philosophical Exploration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). The topics explored include the nature and limits of forgiveness; its unconditional or conditional character; the problem of distinguishing between central and marginal cases; the analysis of political apology; and questions of philosophical methodology.     

Paul Everett Meehl

A brilliant thinker and a gifted teacher, Paul Meehl’s love for and dedication to the philosophy of science did not lead him, as it seems to have led others, to assume that all minds have the same structure and differ only parametrically. One of Meehl’s main interests in the latter part of his career was in taxometric methods for identifying psychological types or taxa. Another taxonomic method seeks traits that are very similar, for genetic reasons, in monozygotic twins, but not in other sib pairs. These emergenic traits may be more common than previously realized. Two examples are briefly discussed.     

Debating solutions: a model for teaching about psychosocial issues

In the course of their work paediatric ward staff encounter complex psychological and social problems and they develop expertise in helping children and their families through periods of crisis. This paper discusses a model which actively capitalizes on the problem-solving skills of ward staff in learning how to tackle everyday but intricate psychosocial issues. The model described is a ward-based, solution-focused discussion group using an outside facilitator. The aim is to enable staff to discover fresh alternatives through discussions aided by the use of questioning. The discussion starts from information provided by staff and the solutions evolve from the ensuing debate.     

Debating brain drain: Three objections that complicate the picture

In my contribution to this brain drain debate sparked by Brock and Blake’s book, Debating Brain Drain, I respond only to Brock’s position, and raise three objections which I suggest complicate the picture that she sketches. First, I take issue with the way in which she frames the moral question, namely by limiting her focus to what home countries may legitimately do to address the problems associated with the brain drain. I argue that the way in which she frames the question has important ideological consequences, because she does not adequately account for the larger context, in particular, by leaving out the moral obligations of the host countries who are the main beneficiaries of the brain drain. My second objection is rooted in the distinction between technical knowledge and practical knowledge found in the work of Habermas – an important distinction which gets obscured in Brock’s analysis in precisely the kind of ideological ways that Habermas was concerned about. She namely attempts to solve what are mainly practical (political) problems through purely instrumental, technical means. Several distortions accompany this fundamental confusion. My third point of critique has to do with the problem that an ethics of care (an ethics of responsibility and obligation) encounters within a liberal paradigm strongly shaped by an ethics of rights. Drawing on the work of Kroeger-Mappes, I argue that Brock arbitrarily singles out a group of people and holds them to an ethics of care which is strictly supererogatory within her own liberal paradigm.     

辩乎先验经验之际--康德伦理学与儒家道德哲学的一种比较阐释

康德伦理学的精髓可以表述为,由于在直觉中获得了道德本体,所以特别有助于产生最清晰的道德概念;由于借助最纯粹的先验分析把它叙述出来,所以它才成为禽兽与异化的生命无论如何都无法超越的“铁门槛”。与中国的儒家伦理学相比,康德伦理学由于是用文明时代最有力的思想武器,复活了人类在轴心时代最高形态的精神生命,因此,它无疑是人类精神哲学中最高的本体论,对于中国儒家也具有十分重要的批判性启蒙意义。