Søren in Norwegen

Im Beitrag „Stem Cell Research: An Approach To Bioethics Based On Scientific Naturalism“ bin ich auf ein paar feine Saetze gestoszen, die zu einigen der in diesem Weblog behandelten Themen passen.

Das Zitierte bezieht sich zwar immer auf Stammzellenforschung, aber ich møchte es gern in einen grøszeren Zusammenhang gesehen haben. Deswegen kuerze ich alles diesbezeuglich.

Beim lesen kønnt ihr, meine lieben Leserinnen und Leser ja bspw. an die „Informationsapokalypse“ oder „nicht-vorhandene-Arbeit“ denken.

Auf geht’s:

[…] it is important to acknowledge that the dispute […] is difficult to resolve in part because it raises novel questions.

Neue Fragen deswegen, weil …

Our ancestors did not address ethical quandaries [in Verbindung zu bspw. obigen Problemstellungen] […] for the obvious reason that such [achievements were] not a possibility for them.

All dies ist …

[…] of recent origin.

Das Obige ist deswegen so wichtig anzuerkennen, …

[…] because many find uncertainty and doubt about moral questions deeply disquieting and troubling.

Und leider ist es immer …

[…] a temptation to remove such doubts through an unreflective and dogmatic application of norms and principles that may be widely accepted but which were developed to address different situations.

Aber wie wir alle so schøn wissen (und leider auch so oft vergessen)

Dogma is not very helpful in any human endeavor.

Seit Popper sollten wir wissen, dass …

In science, hypotheses are continually tested and then modified or rejected as a result of experimental evidence.

Das laeszt sich natuerlich nicht 1:1 auf ethische Fragen anwenden, aber …

[…] our moral judgments should continually be tested for adequacy by considering their practical implications.

Eine interessante Methode wie dies zu bewerkstelligen waere und die ich ungefaehr so anwende (ohne dass ich davon wusste) verlangt ein laengeres Zitat.

[…] the method of reflective equilibrium. This approach is also referred to as the coherence model of justification. […] the method seeks to test our initial moral judgments by detailing and examining the consequences of adhering to these judgments. One then tries to systematize the judgments and their consequences in a set of general moral principles that can explain and account for these judgments. These principles are themselves tested against our background theories, both moral and nonmoral. Judgments and principles that cannot be rendered consistent with each other and our background theories will need to be modified or discarded. Moreover, in this method, the testing and process of justification works in the other direction as well, that is, theories and principles are evaluated against our considered moral judgments to determine whether our more general commitments may require adjustments (hence the derivation of the term “reflective equilibrium”).

Toll wa! So einfach kønnte das alles sein, wenn es nicht so verdammt schwer waere ueber seinen eigenen Schattten zu huepfen. … Deswegen liebe Leserinnen und Leser bitte ich mal wieder um: Kritik, denn …

this method […] has the virtue of forcing us to examine critically many of our moral beliefs by considering their consequences and their consistency with our other beliefs.

Deswegen: Immer her mit den neuen Fragen!