Suchergebnisse

Pünktlich zum Abschluss des 'Historischen Wörterbuchs der Philosophie' flackerte eine Kontroverse um die Beziehung zwischen seinem Begründer und ersten Herausgeber Joachim Ritter und dessen Münsteraner Lehrstuhlnachfolger Hans Blumenberg auf. Den Ausgangspunkt bildete die theoretisch-methodologische Frage der Verhältnisbestimmung von Begriff und Metapher bzw. Begriffsgeschichte und Metaphorologie, an die sich jedoch zumindest andeutungsweise auch biographisch und wissenschaftshistorisch ausgerichtete Erwägungen anschlossen.

"Ethics" is used as a label for a new kind of expertise in the field of science and technology. At the same time, it is not clear what ethical expertise consists in and what its political status in modern democracies can be. Starting from the "participatory turn" in recent social research and policy, we will argue that bioethical reasoning has to include public views of and attitudes towards biomedicine. We will sketch the outlines of a bioethical conception of "public understanding of ethics," addressing three different issues: (a) the methodological relevance of moral questions and problems raised by lay persons in everyday life regarding biomedicine and technology, (b) the normative relevance of such lay moralities for the justification of ethical decisions, and (c) the necessity of public deliberation in this context. Finally, we draw conclusions in view of the concepts and methods such a conception of "public understanding of ethics" should employ.

How are individual and social ideas of late-onset dementia shaped and negotiated in film, literature, the arts, and the media? And how can the symbolic forms provided by popular culture be adopted and transformed by those affected in order to express their own perspectives? This international and interdisciplinary volume summarizes central current research trends and opens new theoretical and empirical perspectives on dementia in popular culture. It includes contributions by internationally renowned scholars from the humanities, social and cultural gerontology, age(ing) studies, cultural studies, philosophy, and bioethics.Contributions by Lucy Burke, Marlene Goldman, Annette Leibing and others

Contesting previous deficit-oriented models of ageing by focusing on the resources and potential of older people, concepts of 'successful', 'productive', and 'active ageing' permeate social policy discourses and agendas in ageing societies. They not only represent descriptive categories capturing the changing realities of later phases of life, but also involve positive visions and prescriptive claims regarding old age. However, the evaluative and normative content of these visions and claims is hardly ever explicitly acknowledged, let alone theoretically discussed and justified. Therefore, such conceptions of 'ageing well' have been criticised for promoting biased policies that privilege or simply impose particular practices and lifestyles. This appears problematic as it can obstruct or even effectively foreclose equal chances of leading a good life at old age. Against this backdrop, our contribution aims to discuss current conceptions of active ageing from an ethical point of view. Starting from an analysis of policy discourses and their critique, we first examine the moral implications of prominent conceptions of active ageing, focusing on evaluative and normative premises. By employing philosophical approaches, we analyse these premises in light of a eudemonistic ethics of good life at old age and detect fixations, shortcomings, and blind spots. Finally, we discuss consequences for ethically informed active ageing research and policies, highlighting the interrelations between one-sided ideals of ageing well and social discrimination and exclusion.

Introduction -- Part I. Ageing and the Human Condition -- Chapter 1. The Individuality of Ageing(Thomas Rentsch) -- Chapter 2. The Potentiality of Ageing (Andreas Kruse) -- Chapter 3. Dependence and Passivity in Ageing (Heinz Rüegger) -- Part II. Ageing, Body, and Space -- Chapter 4. The Ageing Body as Lived History (Wim Dekkers) -- Chapter 5. Ageing and Vulnerability (Samia Hurst) -- Chapter 6. The Gendered Body and the Experience of Ageing (Maren Wehrle) -- Chapter 7. Capturing Space and (Dis-)Embodied Age (Christina Schües) -- Part III. Ageing and Time -- Chapter 8. Ageing, Time, and Temporality (Jan Baars) -- Chpater 9. Ageing and the Life Course (Mark Schweda) -- Chapter 10. The Paradox of Human Finitude (Christine Overall) -- Chapter 11. Ageing and Narrativity (Michael Coors) -- Part IV. Ageing in Relations -- Chapter 12. Responsible Ageing and the Ethics of Responsiveness (Frits de Lange) -- Chapter 13. Ageing and Care (Hartmut Remmers) -- Chapter 14. Ageing and Generationality from the Perspective of Historical Anthropology (Jörg Zirfas) -- Part V. Anthropological Views of Ageing in Contemporary Discourses and Practices -- Chapter 15. The Meaning of Ageing: Redemption or Liberation? (Ronald Manheimer) -- Chapter 16. Ageing in Dignity (Ralf Stoecker, Bielefeld) -- Chapter 17. The (Implicit) Anthropology of Bioethics Is Ageist – How Can We Change It? (Søren Holm) -- Chapter 18. Spirituality and Transcendence in Old Age (Ralph Kunz).

Background Data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare such as health-related big data research (HBDR) implies that data from clinical routine, research and patient-reported data, but also non-medical social or demographic data, are aggregated and linked in order to optimize biomedical research. In this context, notions of patient participation and involvement are frequently invoked to legitimize this kind of research and improve its governance. The aim of this debate paper is to critically examine the specific use and ethical role of participatory concepts in the context of HBDR and data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare. Discussion We introduce basic conceptual distinctions for the understanding of participation by looking at relevant fields of application in politics, bioethics and medical research. Against this backdrop, we identify three paradigmatic participatory roles that patients/subjects are assigned within the field of HBDR: participants as providers of biomaterials and data, participants as administrators of their own research participation and participants as (co-)principal investigators. We further illustrate these roles by exemplary data-intensive research-initiatives. Our analysis of these initiatives and their respective participatory promises reveals specific ethical and practical shortcomings and challenges. Central problems affecting, amongst others, ethical and methodological research standards, as well as public trust in research, result from the negligence of essential political-ethical dimensions of genuine participation. Conclusions Based on the conceptual distinctions introduced, we formulate basic criteria for justified appeals to participatory approaches in HBDR and data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare in order to overcome these shortcomings. As we suggest, this is not only a matter of conceptual clarity, but a crucial requirement for maintaining ethical standards and trust in HBDR and related medical research. ; Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2019

"Ethics" is used as a label for a new kind of expertise in the field of science and technology. At the same time, it is not clear what ethical expertise consists in and what its political status in modern democracies can be. Starting from the "participatory turn" in recent social research and policy, we will argue that bioethical reasoning has to include public views of and attitudes towards biomedicine. We will sketch the outlines of a bioethical conception of "public understanding of ethics," addressing three different issues: (a) the methodological relevance of moral questions and problems raised by lay persons in everyday life regarding biomedicine and technology, (b) the normative relevance of such lay moralities for the justification of ethical decisions, and (c) the necessity of public deliberation in this context. Finally, we draw conclusions in view of the concepts and methods such a conception of "public understanding of ethics" should employ.

"Ethics" is used as a label for a new kind of expertise in the field of science and technology. At the same time, it is not clear what ethical expertise consists in and what its political status in modern democracies can be. Starting from the "participatory turn" in recent social research and policy, we will argue that bioethical reasoning has to include public views of and attitudes towards biomedicine. We will sketch the outlines of a bioethical conception of "public understanding of ethics," addressing three different issues: (a) the methodological relevance of moral questions and problems raised by lay persons in everyday life regarding biomedicine and technology, (b) the normative relevance of such lay moralities for the justification of ethical decisions, and (c) the necessity of public deliberation in this context. Finally, we draw conclusions in view of the concepts and methods such a conception of "public understanding of ethics" should employ. ; peerReviewed

In the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, intergenerational solidarity and responsibility have become central points of reference in public discourses. However, the use of these concepts is often unclear and ambivalent: On one hand, older people are described as a vulnerable group whose protection requires sacrifices on the part of younger generations, e.g., regarding individual freedom and economic welfare. On the other, they appear as dispensable individuals that should relinquish their claims for the sake of the young and their future prospects. Our contribution offers an analysis of intergenerational solidarity and responsibility in public discourses on COVID-19. The leading question is how both concepts are used and how the corresponding claims can be justified or criticized. We first give an overview of notions of intergenerational solidarity and responsibility in current debates. In the next step, we provide a moral philosophical clarification of both concepts and their normative presuppositions. We then conduct a descriptive ethical discourse analysis of pertinent cases from three areas of European discourse: politics, civil society, and mass media. The analysis focuses on politico-moral claims and their normative premises, ambiguities, and biases. We argue that the discourse involves assumptions about old age and generational relations that need further clarification and justification. An analysis of intergenerational solidarity and responsibility in times of COVID-19 can help understand the dynamics of social cohesion in late-modern societies.