残疾、主体依赖和不良差异观。

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-07-24 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70012
Shu Ishida, Mitsuru Sasaki-Honda, Tsutomu Sawai
{"title":"残疾、主体依赖和不良差异观。","authors":"Shu Ishida, Mitsuru Sasaki-Honda, Tsutomu Sawai","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Philosophers have debated on the \"mere-difference\" view of disability, according to which disability as such is neutral in terms of well-being, just like race and gender. It is contrasted with the \"bad-difference\" view, which holds that disability is bad for its possessor even in a non-ableist situation. We first illustrate how neither view can be sensitive to the diversity of disabled people and their disabilities. Subsequently, we propose an alternative outlook-the conditional bad-difference view of disability: a disability is bad for its possessor if and only if it hampers her aspired way of life, even without ableism. In addition to being theoretically moderate and thus more plausible than the existing outlooks, this view also offers a robust ethical case for policies and practices catering to the varying needs and values of disabled people, such as personalized healthcare and the user-led research of assistive technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disability, Subject-Dependence, and the Bad-Difference View.\",\"authors\":\"Shu Ishida, Mitsuru Sasaki-Honda, Tsutomu Sawai\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.70012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Philosophers have debated on the \\\"mere-difference\\\" view of disability, according to which disability as such is neutral in terms of well-being, just like race and gender. It is contrasted with the \\\"bad-difference\\\" view, which holds that disability is bad for its possessor even in a non-ableist situation. We first illustrate how neither view can be sensitive to the diversity of disabled people and their disabilities. Subsequently, we propose an alternative outlook-the conditional bad-difference view of disability: a disability is bad for its possessor if and only if it hampers her aspired way of life, even without ableism. In addition to being theoretically moderate and thus more plausible than the existing outlooks, this view also offers a robust ethical case for policies and practices catering to the varying needs and values of disabled people, such as personalized healthcare and the user-led research of assistive technologies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

哲学家们就残疾的“纯粹差异”观点进行了辩论,根据这种观点,残疾就像种族和性别一样,在福祉方面是中立的。它与“坏差异”观点形成对比,后者认为残疾即使在非残疾主义者的情况下也对其拥有者不利。我们首先说明,这两种观点如何都不能对残疾人及其残疾的多样性敏感。随后,我们提出了另一种观点——残疾的条件差差观点:残疾对其拥有者来说是有害的,当且仅当它阻碍了她向往的生活方式,即使没有残疾歧视。这一观点除了在理论上是温和的,因而比现有的观点更可信之外,还为迎合残疾人不同需求和价值观的政策和做法提供了强有力的伦理案例,例如个性化医疗保健和用户主导的辅助技术研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disability, Subject-Dependence, and the Bad-Difference View.

Philosophers have debated on the "mere-difference" view of disability, according to which disability as such is neutral in terms of well-being, just like race and gender. It is contrasted with the "bad-difference" view, which holds that disability is bad for its possessor even in a non-ableist situation. We first illustrate how neither view can be sensitive to the diversity of disabled people and their disabilities. Subsequently, we propose an alternative outlook-the conditional bad-difference view of disability: a disability is bad for its possessor if and only if it hampers her aspired way of life, even without ableism. In addition to being theoretically moderate and thus more plausible than the existing outlooks, this view also offers a robust ethical case for policies and practices catering to the varying needs and values of disabled people, such as personalized healthcare and the user-led research of assistive technologies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
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