Graduate studies at Western
Nanoethics 5 (3):285-293 (2011)
|Abstract||How are we to understand the fact that the philosophical debate over nanotechnologies has been reduced to a clash of seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that paralyzes all rational discussion of the ultimate ethical question of social acceptability in matters of nanotechnological development? With this issue as its starting point, the study reported on here, intended to further comprehension of the issues rather than provide a cause-and-effect explanation, seeks to achieve a rational grasp of what is being said through the appeals made to this or that principle in the range of arguments put forward in publications on the subject. We present the results of the study’s analyses in two parts. In the first, we lay out the seven categories of argument that emerged from an analysis of the literature: the arguments based on nature, dignity, the good life, utility, equity, autonomy, and rights. In the second part, we present the background moral stances that support each category of argument. Identifying the different categories of argument and the moral stance that underlies each category will enable a better grasp of the reasons for the multiplicity of the arguments that figure in discussions of the acceptability of nanotechnologies and will ultimately contribute to overcoming the tendency towards talking past each other that all too often disfigures the exchange. Clarifying the implications of the moral arguments deployed in the debate over nanotechnologies may make it possible to reduce the confusion observable in these exchanges and contribute to a better grasp of the reasons for their current unproductiveness|
|Keywords||Acceptability Debate on nanotechnology Dialogue Interdisciplinarity Moral arguments Nanoethics Philosophy and nanotechnology Social acceptability and nanotechnology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jean-Pierre Béland, Johane Patenaude, Georges Legault, Patrick Boissy & Monelle Parent (2011). The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement: Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse? [REVIEW] Nanoethics 5 (3):295-307.
Céline Kermisch (2012). Do New Ethical Issues Arise at Each Stage of Nanotechnological Development? Nanoethics 6 (1):29-37.
Regula Valérie Burri (2007). Deliberating Risks Under Uncertainty: Experience, Trust, and Attitudes in a Swiss Nanotechnology Stakeholder Discussion Group. NanoEthics 1 (2):143-154.
Ariela Tubert (2010). Constitutive Arguments. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):656-666.
Paul B. Thompson (2008). The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 2 (3):305-316.
Geoff Moore (1999). Corporate Moral Agency: Review and Implications. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 21 (4):329 - 343.
J. Warren (2003). Sextus Empiricus and the Tripartition of Time. Phronesis 48 (4):313 - 343.
James Warren (2003). Sextus Empiricus and the Tripartition of Time. Phronesis 48 (4):313-343.
Vojko Strahovnik (2007). Principled Ethics: Generalism as a Regulative Ideal. [REVIEW] Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (21):512-518.
Jan Helge Solbakk (2004). Use and Abuse of Empirical Knowledge in Contemporary Bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):5-16.
Chris Kaposy (2012). Two Stalemates in the Philosophical Debate About Abortion and Why They Cannot Be Resolved Using Analogical Arguments. Bioethics 26 (2):84-92.
Fabrice Teroni & Otto Bruun (2011). Shame, Guilt and Morality. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2):223-245.
Alfred Nordmann (2010). Beyond Conversation: Some Lessons for Nanoethics. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 4 (2):171-181.
Added to index2011-10-29
Total downloads14 ( #90,773 of 751,289 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,000 of 751,289 )
How can I increase my downloads?