充足主义者的选择:关于设置医疗保健优先事项的评论

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY
Diametros Pub Date : 2021-01-25 DOI:10.33392/DIAM.1605
Jay A. Zameska
{"title":"充足主义者的选择:关于设置医疗保健优先事项的评论","authors":"Jay A. Zameska","doi":"10.33392/DIAM.1605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary on Torbjörn Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities, I argue that sufficientarianism provides a valuable perspective in considering how to set health care priorities. I claim that pace Tännsjö, sufficientarianism does offer a distinct alternative to prioritarianism. To demonstrate this, I introduce sufficientarianism and distinguish two forms: Tännsjö’s “weak sufficientarianism” and an alternative strong form of sufficientarianism that I call “revised lexical sufficientarianism.” I raise a problem for Tännsjö’s sufficientarianism, and advocate for the revised view on this basis. I then demonstrate that in the area of population ethics, the revised view outperforms the other views Tännsjö considers. As such, I aim to demonstrate that sufficientarianism — understood as its own theory and not just as a form of prioritarianism — offers unique advantages in population ethics, and would have been a valuable complement to the other theories Tännsjö considers.","PeriodicalId":42290,"journal":{"name":"Diametros","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Sufficientarian Alternative: A Commentary on Setting Health-Care Priorities\",\"authors\":\"Jay A. Zameska\",\"doi\":\"10.33392/DIAM.1605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this commentary on Torbjörn Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities, I argue that sufficientarianism provides a valuable perspective in considering how to set health care priorities. I claim that pace Tännsjö, sufficientarianism does offer a distinct alternative to prioritarianism. To demonstrate this, I introduce sufficientarianism and distinguish two forms: Tännsjö’s “weak sufficientarianism” and an alternative strong form of sufficientarianism that I call “revised lexical sufficientarianism.” I raise a problem for Tännsjö’s sufficientarianism, and advocate for the revised view on this basis. I then demonstrate that in the area of population ethics, the revised view outperforms the other views Tännsjö considers. As such, I aim to demonstrate that sufficientarianism — understood as its own theory and not just as a form of prioritarianism — offers unique advantages in population ethics, and would have been a valuable complement to the other theories Tännsjö considers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diametros\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diametros\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33392/DIAM.1605\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diametros","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33392/DIAM.1605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在这篇关于Torbjörn Tännsjö的“设置医疗保健优先事项”的评论中,我认为充分主义在考虑如何设置医疗保健优先事项时提供了一个有价值的视角。我认为Tännsjö,充分主义确实为优先主义提供了一个独特的选择。为了证明这一点,我介绍了充分主义,并区分了两种形式:Tännsjö的“弱充分主义”和另一种强形式的充分主义,我称之为“修订的词汇充分主义”。笔者对Tännsjö的充分主义提出了质疑,并主张在此基础上修正其观点。然后我证明,在人口伦理领域,修订后的观点优于Tännsjö考虑的其他观点。因此,我的目标是证明充分主义——被理解为它自己的理论,而不仅仅是优先主义的一种形式——在人口伦理学中提供了独特的优势,并且将成为Tännsjö所考虑的其他理论的有价值的补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Sufficientarian Alternative: A Commentary on Setting Health-Care Priorities
In this commentary on Torbjörn Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities, I argue that sufficientarianism provides a valuable perspective in considering how to set health care priorities. I claim that pace Tännsjö, sufficientarianism does offer a distinct alternative to prioritarianism. To demonstrate this, I introduce sufficientarianism and distinguish two forms: Tännsjö’s “weak sufficientarianism” and an alternative strong form of sufficientarianism that I call “revised lexical sufficientarianism.” I raise a problem for Tännsjö’s sufficientarianism, and advocate for the revised view on this basis. I then demonstrate that in the area of population ethics, the revised view outperforms the other views Tännsjö considers. As such, I aim to demonstrate that sufficientarianism — understood as its own theory and not just as a form of prioritarianism — offers unique advantages in population ethics, and would have been a valuable complement to the other theories Tännsjö considers.
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
Diametros
Diametros PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 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