Konsens ohne Begründung?

Hans Joachim Türk
{"title":"Konsens ohne Begründung?","authors":"Hans Joachim Türk","doi":"10.30965/29498570-04601002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n To anyone who is not a positivist with respect to the law existing bioethical regulations must appear unsatisfactory; for the basic values cited to ground them are neither well defined nor adequately justified. Are they not merely the ones currently held by a majority of people in the Western industrialised nations? Might they not be subject to change either over time or in other cultural contexts? If human rights serve only to preserve people's rationally exercised individual freedom then restrictions like those of the German Embryo Protection Act cannot be adequately justified. Tue best chance for a consensus seems to result from the common experience of events intuitively judged as inhuman. lt appears therefore realistic to predict that legal, political and moral norms with respect to the life sciences are only consensually constituted if a society has had a bad experience in that field.","PeriodicalId":288000,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/29498570-04601002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To anyone who is not a positivist with respect to the law existing bioethical regulations must appear unsatisfactory; for the basic values cited to ground them are neither well defined nor adequately justified. Are they not merely the ones currently held by a majority of people in the Western industrialised nations? Might they not be subject to change either over time or in other cultural contexts? If human rights serve only to preserve people's rationally exercised individual freedom then restrictions like those of the German Embryo Protection Act cannot be adequately justified. Tue best chance for a consensus seems to result from the common experience of events intuitively judged as inhuman. lt appears therefore realistic to predict that legal, political and moral norms with respect to the life sciences are only consensually constituted if a society has had a bad experience in that field.
不能有共识?
对于任何一个不是法律实证主义者的人来说,现有的生物伦理法规肯定是不令人满意的;因为它们所引用的基本价值既没有得到很好的定义,也没有得到充分的证明。它们不只是目前西方工业化国家的大多数人所拥有的吗?它们可能不会随着时间或其他文化背景而改变吗?如果人权只是为了保护人们理性行使的个人自由,那么像德国胚胎保护法那样的限制就不能充分证明是合理的。达成共识的最佳机会似乎来自于直觉上被认为不人道的事件的共同经历。因此,预测有关生命科学的法律、政治和道德规范只有在一个社会在该领域有过不好的经历时才会在双方同意的情况下形成,似乎是现实的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信