Recent developments in neuroscience have inspired proposals to perform deep brain stimulation on psychopathic detainees. We contend that these proposals cannot meet important ethical requirements that hold for both medical research and therapy. After providing a rough overview of key aspects of psychopathy and the prospects of tackling this condition via deep brain stimulation, we proceed to an ethical assessment of such measures, referring closely to the distinctive features of psychopathic personality, particularly the absence of subjective suffering and a lack (...) of moral motivation. Scrutiny of these factors reveals that two essential bioethical criteria, individual medical benefit and voluntary informed consent, cannot be met in performing neurosurgical experiments or treatments on psychopathic inmates. (shrink)

The prospective introduction of autonomous cars into public traffic raises the question of how such systems should behave when an accident is inevitable. Due to concerns with self-interest and liberal legitimacy that have become paramount in the emerging debate, a contractarian framework seems to provide a particularly attractive means of approaching this problem. We examine one such attempt, which derives a harm minimisation rule from the assumptions of rational self-interest and ignorance of one’s position in a future accident. We contend, (...) however, that both contractarian approaches and harm minimisation standards are flawed, due to a failure to account for the fundamental difference between those ‘involved’ and ‘uninvolved’ in an impending crash. Drawing from classical works on the trolley problem, we show how this notion can be substantiated by reference to either the distinction between negative and positive rights, or to differences in people’s claims. By supplementing harm minimisation with corresponding constraints, we can develop crash algorithms for autonomous cars which are both ethically adequate and promise to overcome certain significant practical barriers to implementation. (shrink)

The burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research. We conducted a systematic review of (...) the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: “What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?” Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected. Four hundred and thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types.15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research, while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera, its treatment, reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence and to potential downstream effects of chimera research. A significant proportion of identified passages fell under Category C. We hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation. (shrink)

The prospect of creating and using human–animal chimeras and hybrids that are significantly human-like in their composition, phenotype, cognition, or behavior meets with divergent moral judgments: on the one side, it is claimed that such beings might be candidates for human-analogous rights to protection and care; on the other side, it is supposed that their existence might disturb fundamental natural and social orders. This paper tries to show that both positions are paradoxically intertwined: they rely on two kinds of species (...) arguments, “individual species arguments” and “group species arguments,” which formulate opposing demands but are conceptually interdependent. As a consequence, the existence of HACHs may challenge exactly those normative standards on which the protection of HACHs may eventually be based. This ethical paradox could constitute the ultimate source of the “moral confusion” that some authors have suspected HACHs to provoke. (shrink)

John Rawls’ “reflective equilibrium” ranges amongst the most popular conceptions in contemporary ethics when it comes to the basic methodological question of how to justify and trade off different normative positions and attitudes. Even where Rawls’ specific contractualist account is not adhered to, “reflective equilibrium” is readily adopted as the guiding idea of coherentist approaches, seeking moral justification not in a purely deductive or inductive manner, but in some balancing procedure that will eventually procure a stable adjustment of relevant doctrines (...) and standpoints. However, it appears that the widespread use of this idea has led to some considerable deviations from its meaning within Rawls’ original framework and to a critical loss of conceptual cogency as an ethico-hermeneutical tool. This contribution identifies three kinds of “balancing” constellations that are frequently, but inadequately brought forth under the heading of Rawlsian “reflective equilibrium”: (a) balancing theoretical accounts against intuitive convictions; (b) balancing general principles against particular judgements; (c) balancing opposite ethical conceptions or divergent moral statements, respectively. It is argued that each of these applications departs from Rawls’ original construction of “reflective equilibrium” and also deprives the idea of its reliability in clarifying and weighing moral stances. (shrink)

Das Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndrom (WAS), ein genetisch bedingter Immundefekt mit klinischer Manifestation im Kleinkindalter, wird voraussichtlich in näherer Zukunft erstmals versuchsweise durch eine somatische Gentherapie behandelt werden. Im vor- liegenden Beitrag werden die wichtigsten medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakten dieses Krankheitsbildes sowie die bisherigen Erfahrungen mit somatischen Gentherapien bei anderen Immunmangelsyndromen ausführlich dargestellt. Sodann erfolgt eine ethische Analyse eines möglichen gentherapeutischen Eingriffs bei WAS-Patienten, bei der die spezifischen Aspekte des Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndroms – insbesondere die fast ausschließliche Betroffenheit von Kindern sowie die unterschiedlich aussichtsreiche Alter- nativoption einer (...) allogenen Knochenmarktransplantation–wesentliche Aspekte der Beurteilung sind. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass ein gentherapeutischer Eingriff im vorliegenden Fall nicht im Rahmen einer Forschungsstudie, d.h. als Humanexperiment, gerechtfertigt werden kann, sondern allein als individueller Heilversuch. Gleichwohl las- sen die besonderen Risiken und die Innovativität eines solchen Eingriffs es notwendig erscheinen, diesen Heilversuch – anders als andere Heilbehandlungen mit bislang unerprobten Mitteln – in streng kontrollierter Form durchzuführen. Der neuartige Gedanke eines kontrollierten individuellen Heilversuchs zeichnet sich daher für den vorliegenden Fall, und womöglich auch für vergleichbare risikoreiche Behandlungsansätze namentlich im Bereich der Gentherapie, als geeignetes Instrument der Konzeption und Beurteilung ab. (shrink)

Natürlichkeitsargumente haben allgemein in der Bioethik und speziell in der Debatte um Enhancement und Anthropotechnik keinen guten Ruf. Neben dem formalen Vorwurf, einen naturalistischen Fehlschluss zu begehen, werden sie mit dem inhaltli-chen Einwand konfrontiert, eine falsche Auffassung von menschlicher Natur zugrunde zu legen: Recht verstanden definiere sich diese menschliche Natur nicht durch eine biologische Substanz, die durch biotechnische Eingriffe korrumpiert werden könnte, sondern durch kulturelle Vollzüge, zu denen gerade auch der Einsatz biotechnischer Verfahren zähle und die daher durch biotechnische Manipulationen (...) am Menschen keineswegs beeinträchtigt, sondern eher noch bestätigt würden. Der vorliegende Beitrag unterzieht diese Argumentation einer kritischen Prüfung. Dabei zeigt sich, dass der Ansatz, den Menschen von seiner ‚Kultürlichkeit‘ statt von seiner ‚Natürlichkeit‘ her zu begreifen, tatsächlich keine glaubhafte Rechtfertigung von Anthropotechniken liefert, sondern im Gegenteil ein neues Argument gegen sie begründet: Anthropotechniken untergraben bei genauerem Hinsehen auch und gerade den Status des Menschen als Kulturwesen. (shrink)

Since J. McTaggart’s paper on “The Unreality of Time” the opposition of “A-theorists” and “B-theorists” establishes a focal point in the modern debate on the metaphysics of time: While “A-theorists” claim the existence of an objective present, moving along time positions, “B-theorists” maintain that time is just a set of ontologically equivalent coordinates, “now” being merely the indexical of the speaker’s position. Contemporary attempts to resolve the issue by resorting to the analysis of language or to the theory of science (...) seem to deliver no definite results. By contrast, practical and existential aspects of the two models promise to be more univocal guides in deciding between them. Particularly, C. D. Broad’s hybrid conception of a “growing block theory” attains special attractiveness in this regard. (shrink)

The concept of power is not restricted to the usual idea of domination, as mainly implemented in the governmental structures of society. Rather, power also occurs at other places of a com-munity, adopting highly divergent forms. This plurality often impedes its reliable identification and precise labeling. However, the classical concepts of power, potestas and auctoritas, can be widened to more comprehensive perspectives that eventually promise to embrace modern societal places of power such as the market or the media in their (...) respective peculiarities. (shrink)

Escalation is commonly understood as the constant aggravation of mutual sanctions between two conflicting parties. While escalations have been intensively explored within the empirical sciences, philosophy and ethics have scarcely touched upon the issue up to now. This paper tries to fill this gap by analysing the normative structure that underlies escalations and determines their psychosocial dynamics. The experience of injustice suffered by the opponent and a resulting desire to perform unjust acts of one’s own are highlighted as the essential (...) ingredients of escalations. Against this background, the remarkable stability of escalating conflicts as well as certain paradoxical phenomena in escalating behaviour can both be satisfactorily reconstructed. Additionally, familiar aspects in the realisation of escalations can be better understood and new options for terminating escalations may be developed. (shrink)

The concept of power is not restricted to the generally understood idea of domination, as mainly implemented in the governmental structures of society. Rather, power is also to be found within other community spheres, where it adopts highly divergent forms. This plurality often impedes its reliable identification and precise labeling. However, the classical concepts of power, potestas and auctoritas, can be widened to more comprehensive perspectives that ultimately promise to embrace modern societal places of power such as the market or (...) the media in their respective peculiarities. (shrink)

Würdeschutz und Lebensschutz werden insbesondere in der angewandten Ethik regelmäßig als fundamentale Beurteilungsprinzipien herangezogen. Das genaue Verhältnis dieser beiden normativen Aspekte erweist sich allerdings als unsicher: Oftmals scheinen Würdeverletzungen gerade in einer unberechtigten Beeinträchtigung von anderen Rechtsgütern wie Leben oder Gesundheit, auch Eigentum oder Ansehen zu bestehen. Darüber hinaus aber mag es Würdeverletzungen geben, die sich nicht auf eine verfehlte Missachtung solcher anderweitiger Rechtsbelange herunterbrechen lassen, sondern eigenständige Formen der Demütigung und Erniedrigung, der Ausnutzung und Verwendung bezeichnen. Der vorliegende Beitrag (...) geht dieser Frage namentlich mit Blick auf die Forschung an Menschen, an Tieren und an Embryonen nach. Dabei liefert eine bestimmte Fallkonstellation in der Debatte um die Embryonenforschung einen starken Beleg dafür, dass Würde in der Tat zuweilen einen originären Schutzbereich markiert, der unabhängig von Fragen des Umgangs mit Leben oder sonstigen elementareren Rechtsgütern ist. (shrink)