Bioethical Quality of Life Concept Through the Eyes of Critics

Kateryna Rassudina
{"title":"Bioethical Quality of Life Concept Through the Eyes of Critics","authors":"Kateryna Rassudina","doi":"10.18523/2617-1678.2021.7.71-77","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bioethics is an interdisciplinary science that deals with the moral aspects of medicine, biotechnology and the value of life in general. Quality of life concept is the basis for one of the models of bioethics. Its supporters understand the value of human life by relying on the categories of its qualitative characteristics. They argue that the value of life is relative and depends on certain criteria, and prove the permissibility to terminate it in some cases. Quality of life conception is criticized, above all, by those scholars who rely on religious ideas of the equal value and inviolability of all people’s lives. This article reveals several examples of such criticism in the works of Polish and American authors: T. Biesaga, H. Ciach, G. Hołub, P. Kieniewicz, R. P. George and P. Lee. Citing the arguments of that Christian thinkers, the author forms her own attitude to the problem. The ethical and ontological sources of quality of life concept, namely utilitarianism and naturalism, become the main object of criticism. It is significant that in the utilitarian appeal to maximize happiness as pleasure and calculate the gain or loss they see an attempt to establish the primacy of the overall well-being over an individual’s life as well as a reason for killing those individuals whose lives do not meet quality criteria and impair overall well-being. They also criticize such a consequence of the naturalistic view as reduction of the personality to its manifestations. The absence of such manifestations becomes for the supporters of the quality of life concept the basis for conclusion about a low quality of life of some individuals. One more critical remark towards the quality of life concept concern erasing of differences between humans and animals and their interests. The technocratic attitude that permits any manipulations of a human life if only they can be performed is criticized too. The author demonstrates that the fundamental fault of the quality of life concept which is criticized by all its opponents is a limited understanding of human nature and human life.","PeriodicalId":34696,"journal":{"name":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.7.71-77","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

Bioethics is an interdisciplinary science that deals with the moral aspects of medicine, biotechnology and the value of life in general. Quality of life concept is the basis for one of the models of bioethics. Its supporters understand the value of human life by relying on the categories of its qualitative characteristics. They argue that the value of life is relative and depends on certain criteria, and prove the permissibility to terminate it in some cases. Quality of life conception is criticized, above all, by those scholars who rely on religious ideas of the equal value and inviolability of all people’s lives. This article reveals several examples of such criticism in the works of Polish and American authors: T. Biesaga, H. Ciach, G. Hołub, P. Kieniewicz, R. P. George and P. Lee. Citing the arguments of that Christian thinkers, the author forms her own attitude to the problem. The ethical and ontological sources of quality of life concept, namely utilitarianism and naturalism, become the main object of criticism. It is significant that in the utilitarian appeal to maximize happiness as pleasure and calculate the gain or loss they see an attempt to establish the primacy of the overall well-being over an individual’s life as well as a reason for killing those individuals whose lives do not meet quality criteria and impair overall well-being. They also criticize such a consequence of the naturalistic view as reduction of the personality to its manifestations. The absence of such manifestations becomes for the supporters of the quality of life concept the basis for conclusion about a low quality of life of some individuals. One more critical remark towards the quality of life concept concern erasing of differences between humans and animals and their interests. The technocratic attitude that permits any manipulations of a human life if only they can be performed is criticized too. The author demonstrates that the fundamental fault of the quality of life concept which is criticized by all its opponents is a limited understanding of human nature and human life.
从批评家的角度看生命伦理学的生命质量概念
生物伦理学是一门跨学科的科学,涉及医学、生物技术和生命价值的道德方面。生命质量观是生命伦理学模型的基础之一。它的支持者依靠生命的质量特征来理解生命的价值。他们认为生命的价值是相对的,取决于某些标准,并证明在某些情况下终止生命是允许的。生活质量概念首先受到那些依赖于所有人的生命价值平等和不可侵犯的宗教思想的学者的批评。本文揭示了波兰和美国作家的几个例子:T. Biesaga, H. Ciach, G. Hołub, P. Kieniewicz, R. P. George和P. Lee。引用基督教思想家的论点,作者对这个问题形成了自己的态度。生活质量观念的伦理本体论根源,即功利主义和自然主义,成为批判的主要对象。重要的是,在功利主义的诉求中,他们把幸福作为快乐最大化,并计算得失,他们看到了一种建立整体福祉高于个人生活的尝试,以及杀死那些生活不符合质量标准、损害整体福祉的人的理由。他们也批评这种自然主义观点的结果,将人格还原为其表现形式。对生活质量概念的支持者来说,缺乏这种表现就成了得出某些人生活质量低的结论的依据。对生活质量概念的另一个批评涉及消除人与动物之间的差异及其利益。技术官僚的态度也受到了批评,这种态度允许任何对人类生命的操纵,只要它们能被执行。作者论证了被其反对者所诟病的生命质量观的根本错误在于对人性和生命的认识有限。
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
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信