冲突的思想:伊曼努尔·康德,约翰·丹尼尔·梅茨格,以及关于法医精神病学的辩论。

IF 0.5 4区 哲学 Q2 Arts and Humanities
Jonas Gerlings
{"title":"冲突的思想:伊曼努尔·康德,约翰·丹尼尔·梅茨格,以及关于法医精神病学的辩论。","authors":"Jonas Gerlings","doi":"10.1017/S0269889725100690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article explores the dispute between the philosopher Immanuel Kant and the physician Johann Daniel Metzger over the moral autonomy of individuals with mental illness. Situating the debate within the broader context of the evolving philosophical and medical professions in eighteenth-century Germany, the article examines how a professional conflict emerged over who - the physician or the philosopher - should serve as the legal authority in cases where moral responsibility was in question. The analysis shows that this was not merely a theoretical issue for Kant, but a practical one, brought to the fore by the infanticide trial of Margarethe Kaveczynska, in which Kant's friend, Theodor Gottlieb Hippel, presided as judge. The article argues that while Kant's vision for the practical application of his anthropology influenced his conception of moral autonomy, he ultimately lost ground to the rising authority of the medical profession.</p>","PeriodicalId":49562,"journal":{"name":"Science in Context","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conflicting minds: Immanuel Kant, Johann Daniel Metzger, and the debate about forensic psychiatry.\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Gerlings\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0269889725100690\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article explores the dispute between the philosopher Immanuel Kant and the physician Johann Daniel Metzger over the moral autonomy of individuals with mental illness. Situating the debate within the broader context of the evolving philosophical and medical professions in eighteenth-century Germany, the article examines how a professional conflict emerged over who - the physician or the philosopher - should serve as the legal authority in cases where moral responsibility was in question. The analysis shows that this was not merely a theoretical issue for Kant, but a practical one, brought to the fore by the infanticide trial of Margarethe Kaveczynska, in which Kant's friend, Theodor Gottlieb Hippel, presided as judge. The article argues that while Kant's vision for the practical application of his anthropology influenced his conception of moral autonomy, he ultimately lost ground to the rising authority of the medical profession.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science in Context\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889725100690\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science in Context","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889725100690","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章探讨了哲学家伊曼努尔·康德和医生约翰·丹尼尔·梅茨格之间关于精神疾病患者道德自主权的争论。这篇文章将这场辩论置于18世纪德国哲学和医学职业发展的更广阔背景下,研究了在道德责任受到质疑的情况下,医生和哲学家应该作为法律权威,这一职业冲突是如何出现的。分析表明,对康德来说,这不仅是一个理论问题,而且是一个实践问题,在玛格丽特·卡维琴斯卡(Margarethe Kaveczynska)杀婴案的审判中,康德的朋友西奥多·戈特利布·希佩尔(Theodor Gottlieb Hippel)担任法官。本文认为,尽管康德对其人类学的实际应用的看法影响了他的道德自主概念,但他最终还是输给了医学界日益上升的权威。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conflicting minds: Immanuel Kant, Johann Daniel Metzger, and the debate about forensic psychiatry.

This article explores the dispute between the philosopher Immanuel Kant and the physician Johann Daniel Metzger over the moral autonomy of individuals with mental illness. Situating the debate within the broader context of the evolving philosophical and medical professions in eighteenth-century Germany, the article examines how a professional conflict emerged over who - the physician or the philosopher - should serve as the legal authority in cases where moral responsibility was in question. The analysis shows that this was not merely a theoretical issue for Kant, but a practical one, brought to the fore by the infanticide trial of Margarethe Kaveczynska, in which Kant's friend, Theodor Gottlieb Hippel, presided as judge. The article argues that while Kant's vision for the practical application of his anthropology influenced his conception of moral autonomy, he ultimately lost ground to the rising authority of the medical profession.

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
Science in Context
Science in Context 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science in Context is an international journal edited at The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, with the support of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. It is devoted to the study of the sciences from the points of view of comparative epistemology and historical sociology of scientific knowledge. The journal is committed to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of science and its cultural development - it does not segregate considerations drawn from history, philosophy and sociology. Controversies within scientific knowledge and debates about methodology are presented in their contexts.
×
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