Kant’s Teleology and the Problems of Bioethics

Svetlana Martynova

Resumen


One of the issues with which bioethics is concerned is defining the limits of the organism’s transformations by technology in order for humanity to avoid evil. Kant’s teleological power of judgment enables us to identify an organism and it allows nature to be transformed only insofar as it affirms a moral subject acting on the basis of autonomy as reason. I propose a new way of utilizing Kantian philosophy in bioethical knowledge. I ask: can we make judgments about nature via the principle of purposiveness? In answering this question, I clarify the following points. The first is Kant’s research into the foundations and reasons for using the teleological power of judgment. The second is the role of digital technology and how it complicates the use of the teleological power of judgment within the framework of bioethical knowledge. And the third is the preservation of the foundations for using the teleological power of judgment.


Palabras clave


Technology; Organism; Autonomy of Reason; Morality

Texto completo:

PDF HTML

Referencias


Berry D. M. (2011), The Philosophy of Software: Code and Mediation in the Digital Age, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Bianco J. (2012), “This Digital Humanities Which is Not One”, in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. M. K. Gold, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 96- 112.

Bogue R. (1989), Deleuze and Guattari, Routledge, London.

Breitenbach A. (2008), “Two Views on Nature: A Solution to Kant’s Antinomy of Mechanism and Teleology”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16, no. 2, pp. 351-369.

Deleuze G., and Guattari F. (2009), “Balance-Sheet Program for ‘Desiring Machines’”, in Chaosophy: Texts and Interviews 1972–1977 by F. Guattari ed. S. Lotringer, trans. D. L. Sweet, J. Becker, and T. Adkins, Semiotext(e), Cambridge, MA, pp. 90-115.

Donaldson C. M. (2017), “Using Kantian Ethics in Medical Ethics Education”, Medical Science Educator 27, no. 4, pp. 841-845.

Ginsborg H. (2004), “Two Kinds of Mechanical Inexplicability in Kant and Aristotle”, Journal of the History of Philosophy 42, pp. 33-65.

Henk A. M. J. ten Have, and Jean, M. S. (eds) (2009), The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Background, Principles and Application, UNESCO Publishing.

Jennings B. (2017), “Autonomy”, in The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics, ed. B. Steinkock, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 72-89.

Kant I. (1996), “Critique of Practical Reason”, in Practical Philosophy, by I. Kant, trans. and ed. M. Gregor, with an introduction by A. W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kant I. (2000), Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. P. Guyer and E. Matthews, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Klemme H. F. (2019), “How is Moral Obligation Possible? Kant’s Principle of Autonomy in Historical Context”, in The Emergence of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, ed. S. Bacin and O. Sensen, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 10-28.

Kreines J. (2005), “The Inexplicability of Kant’s Naturzweck: Kant on Teleology, Explanation and Biology”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 87, pp. 270-311.

Martynova S. A., and Bugaev D. S. (2019), “Definition of Organic Processes via Digital Monitoring Systems”, in Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, ed. I. Rojas et al., Springer, Cham, pp. 128-135.

McLaughlin P. (1990), Kant’s Critique of Teleology in Biological Explanation, Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY.

O’Neill O. (2002), Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Potter V. R. (1971), Bioethics: Bridge to the Future, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Quarfood M. (2004), Transcendental Idealism and the Organism, Almqvist & Wiksell,

Stockholm.

Quarfood M. (2006), “Kant on Biological Teleology: Towards a Two-level Interpretation”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37, no. 4, pp. 735-747.

Rothhaar M. (2010), “Human Dignity and Human Rights in Bioethics: The Kantian Approach”, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 13, no. 3, pp. 251-257.

Shell S. M. (2008), “Kant’s Concept of Human Dignity as a Resource for Bioethics”, in

Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics, ed. A. Schulman, Washington, pp. 333-349.

Steigerwald J. (2006), “Kant’s Concept of Natural Purpose and the Reflecting Power of Judgement”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part C) 37, pp. 712- 734.

Teufel T. (2011), “What is the Problem of Teleology in Kant’s Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment?”, SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 12, no. 2, pp. 198-236.

Thacker E. (2004), Biomedia, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Winner L. (1978), Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in

Political Thought, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Zylinska J. (2009), Bioethics in the Age of New Media, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.




DOI (PDF): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3865130

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para realizar análisis de uso y de medición de nuestra web para mejorar nuestros servicios. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso.


Creative Commons by-nc 3.0 Logo

ISSN: 2386-7655

URL: http://con-textoskantianos.net

  Scimago Journal & Country Rankscopus logo

 

DOAJ LogoErih Plus LogoCitefactor logoredib Logo

LatIndex LogoISOC Logo MIAR Logo
SHERPA/RoMEO Logo
MLA LogoZenodo Logo
ESCI LogoEBSCO LOGOWeb of Science