Jonathan Pugh,《自主性、理性与当代生物伦理学》(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2020),第287页。

IF 1.2 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Utilitas Pub Date : 2022-06-10 DOI:10.1017/S0953820822000127
Andréa Daventry
{"title":"Jonathan Pugh,《自主性、理性与当代生物伦理学》(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2020),第287页。","authors":"Andréa Daventry","doi":"10.1017/S0953820822000127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"tional cooperative scheme. There seems to be no reason why the elderly should be bound less by the principles of fairness. In conclusion, Heath has aimed to offer philosophical foundations for the kind of climate change policy proposed within mainstream economics. While this may result in recommendations that are readily digestible by policymakers, the philosophical foundations Heath offers are radical within the discourse of environmental philosophy. In combination with Heath’s polemical style, it remains to be seen whether he succeeds in ‘promoting greater dialogue’ (p. 23) between philosophers and economists.","PeriodicalId":45896,"journal":{"name":"Utilitas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jonathan Pugh, Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 287.\",\"authors\":\"Andréa Daventry\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0953820822000127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"tional cooperative scheme. There seems to be no reason why the elderly should be bound less by the principles of fairness. In conclusion, Heath has aimed to offer philosophical foundations for the kind of climate change policy proposed within mainstream economics. While this may result in recommendations that are readily digestible by policymakers, the philosophical foundations Heath offers are radical within the discourse of environmental philosophy. In combination with Heath’s polemical style, it remains to be seen whether he succeeds in ‘promoting greater dialogue’ (p. 23) between philosophers and economists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utilitas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utilitas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820822000127\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utilitas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820822000127","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国家合作计划。老年人似乎没有理由不受公平原则的约束。总之,希思旨在为主流经济学中提出的气候变化政策提供哲学基础。虽然这可能会产生决策者易于理解的建议,但希思提供的哲学基础在环境哲学的话语中是激进的。结合希思的辩论风格,他是否成功地“促进了哲学家和经济学家之间的更大对话”(第23页)还有待观察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jonathan Pugh, Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 287.
tional cooperative scheme. There seems to be no reason why the elderly should be bound less by the principles of fairness. In conclusion, Heath has aimed to offer philosophical foundations for the kind of climate change policy proposed within mainstream economics. While this may result in recommendations that are readily digestible by policymakers, the philosophical foundations Heath offers are radical within the discourse of environmental philosophy. In combination with Heath’s polemical style, it remains to be seen whether he succeeds in ‘promoting greater dialogue’ (p. 23) between philosophers and economists.
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
Utilitas
Utilitas PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
43
×
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