社会公正理论作为心理药理学认知增强公共政策的基础

IF 0.3 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS
Astrid Maria Elfferich
{"title":"社会公正理论作为心理药理学认知增强公共政策的基础","authors":"Astrid Maria Elfferich","doi":"10.7202/1077629AR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychopharmacological cognitive enhancements could lead to a higher quality of life of healthy individuals with lower cognitive capacities, but the current regulatory framework does not seem to enable access to this group. This article discusses why Sen’s Capability Approach could open up such access, while two other modern social justice theories – utilitarianism and Rawls’ Justice as Fairness – could not. In short, the utilitarian approach is proven to be inadequate, due to practical reasons and having a low chance of real-world success. Rawls’ Justice as Fairness seems to be problematic because of conflicting stances that follow from his First Principle of Justice. The Capability Approach has the greatest chance of success in the context of these substances, because of arguments that can be identified under the banners of agency/self-respect and the way the public views those who take the capability path out of their poor situation. The article also discusses general and practical problems with psychopharmacological cognitive enhancement that should be addressed when writing new policy on this topic.","PeriodicalId":37334,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Justice Theories as the Basis for Public Policy on Psychopharmacological\\n Cognitive Enhancement\",\"authors\":\"Astrid Maria Elfferich\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1077629AR\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychopharmacological cognitive enhancements could lead to a higher quality of life of healthy individuals with lower cognitive capacities, but the current regulatory framework does not seem to enable access to this group. This article discusses why Sen’s Capability Approach could open up such access, while two other modern social justice theories – utilitarianism and Rawls’ Justice as Fairness – could not. In short, the utilitarian approach is proven to be inadequate, due to practical reasons and having a low chance of real-world success. Rawls’ Justice as Fairness seems to be problematic because of conflicting stances that follow from his First Principle of Justice. The Capability Approach has the greatest chance of success in the context of these substances, because of arguments that can be identified under the banners of agency/self-respect and the way the public views those who take the capability path out of their poor situation. The article also discusses general and practical problems with psychopharmacological cognitive enhancement that should be addressed when writing new policy on this topic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1077629AR\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1077629AR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

心理药理学认知能力的增强可能会使认知能力较低的健康个体的生活质量更高,但目前的监管框架似乎无法进入这一群体。这篇文章讨论了为什么森的能力方法可以打开这样的通道,而其他两种现代社会正义理论——功利主义和罗尔斯的正义即公平——却不能。简言之,由于实际原因,实用的方法被证明是不够的,而且在现实世界中成功的几率很低。罗尔斯的“公正即公平”似乎是有问题的,因为他的第一正义原则所遵循的立场是矛盾的。在这些物质的背景下,能力方法有最大的成功机会,因为可以在代理/自尊的旗帜下识别出论点,以及公众对那些通过能力途径摆脱困境的人的看法。文章还讨论了在撰写关于这一主题的新政策时应解决的心理药理学认知增强的一般和实际问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social Justice Theories as the Basis for Public Policy on Psychopharmacological Cognitive Enhancement
Psychopharmacological cognitive enhancements could lead to a higher quality of life of healthy individuals with lower cognitive capacities, but the current regulatory framework does not seem to enable access to this group. This article discusses why Sen’s Capability Approach could open up such access, while two other modern social justice theories – utilitarianism and Rawls’ Justice as Fairness – could not. In short, the utilitarian approach is proven to be inadequate, due to practical reasons and having a low chance of real-world success. Rawls’ Justice as Fairness seems to be problematic because of conflicting stances that follow from his First Principle of Justice. The Capability Approach has the greatest chance of success in the context of these substances, because of arguments that can be identified under the banners of agency/self-respect and the way the public views those who take the capability path out of their poor situation. The article also discusses general and practical problems with psychopharmacological cognitive enhancement that should be addressed when writing new policy on this topic.
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
Canadian Journal of Bioethics
Canadian Journal of Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
35 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信