Between ethics and technology: Metamorphosis of ethical expertise

Authors

  • Natalja A. Sinyukova Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 8, ul. Nikolayeva, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russian Federation
  • Sergey A. Smirnov Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 8, ul. Nikolayeva, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2021.405

Abstract

This article analyses the fluidity of a human condition in terms of ethical boundaries. Recent technological developments have made the ethical framework of the notion of a human volatile and prone to revaluation. This revaluation requires established practices of conduct and interpretation of an ethical expertise. The article describes such new forms and ways to make them part of the repertoire of established institutions. In addition, the article differentiates the specifics of an ethical expertise and a humanitarian one. The former is focused on protecting the human condition from technologically-borne distortions and on making such protection a part of political and social institutions. The latter, in turn, is designed for the purposes of social engineering. It is supposed to help in the development of new social contexts, including ones that merge humanity with the results of high-tech endeavours. An ethical expertise is more focused on preserving the status quo. A humanitarian expertise is proactive and based on non-linear social foresights. The authors believe the reactionary nature of an ethical expertise to be the result of widespread shifts in the established definition of a human. This can be easily illustrated in such fields as biomedicine and gene research. Namely gene editing and major organ transplants can blur the line between human and non-human entities. The article points out an ongoing deficiency, on a methodological and conceptual level, when it comes to a humanitarian expertise. Furthermore, the article contains the groundwork for articulation of a humanitarian expertise. This form of expertise is unique due to its institutional nature and inclusion of the role of “researcher-participant,” which an expert is supposed to play. While elaborating on the differences between a humanitarian and an ethical expertise, it is noted that an ethical expertise aims at preserving the existing norms and boundaries of the notion of a human, outlined in treatise and conventions, while a humanitarian expertise strives to recreate the norm of a human in accordance with its new state — as a fluid and dynamic category

Keywords:

ethical expertise, humanitarian expertise, human, notion of a human, human boundaries, institutional form

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Нюрнбергский Кодекс 1947 г. URL: http://www.psychepravo.ru/law/int/nyurnbergskij-kodeks.htm (дата обращения: 18.04.2021).

Хельсинкская Декларация всемирной медицинской Ассоциации. URL: http://www.psychepravo.ru/law/int/helsinkskaya-deklaraciya.htm (дата обращения: 18.04.2021).

Конвенция о защите прав и достоинства человека в связи с применением достижений биологии и медицины: Конвенция о правах человека и биомедицине. URL: https://rm.coe.int/168007d004 (дата обращения: 18.04.2021).

Юдин, Б.Г. (2011a), Человек как испытуемый: антропология биомедицинского исследования, Личность. Культура. Общество, т. XIII, вып. 3, с. 84–96.

Юдин, Б.Г. (2011b), Границы человеческого существа в мире новых технологий, Рабочие тетради по биоэтике, вып. 12: Биоэтическое обеспечение инновационного развития биомедицинских технологий, под ред. Тищенко, П.Д., М.: Издательство Московского гуманитарного университета, с. 4–21.

Петров, М.К. (2012), Системный подход и человекоразмерность теоретического мышления, Социология науки и технологий, т. 3, № 3, с. 97–111.

Петров, М.К. (2010), Человеческая размерность и мир предметной деятельности, Высшее образование в России, № 4, с. 108–118.

Мамардашвили, М.К. (2004), Классический и неклассический идеалы рациональности, М.: Логос.

Gorbacheva, A. and Smirnov, S. (2016), Converging technologies and a modern man: emergence of a new type of thinking, AI & Society, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 465–473.

Смирнов, С.А. и Яблокова, Е.П. (2019), Антропологические границы гуманитарной экспертизы, Философская антропология, т. 5, № 1, с. 26–44.

Смирнов, С.А. (2018), Антропологическая платформа для Национальной технологической инициативы, Философская антропология, т. 4, № 2, с. 69–80.

Воронин, А.А. (2012), Гуманитарная экспертиза (обзор), Философия и культура, № 5 (53), 118–127.

Воронин, А.А. (2013), Гуманитарная экспертиза: опыт исследования и проблемы, Биоэтика и гуманитарная экспертиза,, М.: ИФ РАН, с. 87–112.

Юдин, Б.Г. (2006), От этической экспертизы к экспертизе гуманитарной, Гуманитарное знание: тенденции развития в XXI веке, общ. ред. Луков, В.А., М.: Издательство национального института бизнеса, 2006, с. 214–237.

Jonsen, A. (2000), A Short History of Medical Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press.

Engelhardt, T. (ed.) (2012), Bioethics critically reconsidered, Springer Netherlands

Макинтайр, А. (2000), После добродетели: Исследования теории морали, пер. Целещев, В.В., М.: Академический проект, Екатеринбург: Деловая книга.

Frank, A., Jones, T., (2003), Bioethics and the later Foucault, Journal of Medical Humanities, vol. 24, is. 3/4, pp. 179–186.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001), Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, London: Polity Press.

Федеральный закон «Об основах охраны здоровья граждан в Российской Федерации» № 323- ФЗ от 21 ноября 2011 года. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_121895/ (дата обращения: 18.04.2021).

Netzke, G. (2015), Ethikberatung und Ethikkomitees als Instrumente der Entscheidungsunterstützung, Praxisbuch Ethik in der Medizin, Hrsg. Markmann, G., Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlaggesellschaft, S. 23–35

Fahr, U. (2010), Discourse ethics and ethics consultation, in Schildmann, J., Gordon, J.-S. and Vollman, J. (eds), Clinical Ethics Consultation: Theories and Methods, Implementation, Evaluation, UK: Ashgate, pp. 53–64.

Ашмарин, И.И. и Юдин, Б.Г. (1997), Основы гуманитарной экспертизы, Человек, № 3, с. 76–85

Gibson, J., Sibbald, R., Connolly, E. and Singer, P. (2008), Organizational Ethics, in Singer, P. and Viens, A. (eds), The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–250.

Розин, М.М. (ред.) (2002), Этюды по социальной инженерии. От утопии к организации, М.: УРСС.

Киященко, Л.П. и Тищенко, П.Д. (2011), Гуманитарная экспертиза: герменевтика субъектности, Личность. Культура. Общество, т. XIII, вып. 2, с. 152–165.


References

The Nuremberg Code. 1947. Available at: http://www.psychepravo.ru/law/int/nyurnbergskij-kodeks.htm (accessed: 18.04.2021). (In Russian)

The Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association. Available at: http://www.psychepravo.ru/law/int/helsinkskaya-deklaraciya.htm (accessed: 18.04.2021). (In Russian)

The Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Available at: https:// rm.coe.int/168007cf98 (accessed: 18.04.2021)

Yudin, B.G. (2011a), The Human Being as Test Subject: The Anthropology of Biomedical Research, Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo, vol. XIII, is. 3, pp. 84–96. (In Russian)

Yudin, B.G. (2011b), The boundaries of the human being in the world of new technologies in Tischenko, P.D. (ed.), Rabochie tetradi po bioetike, iss. 12, Moscow: Moskovskii gumanitarnyi universitet Publ., pp. 4–21. (In Russian)

Petrov, M.C. (2012), Systematic approach and human dimension of theoretical thinking Sotsiologiia nauki i tekhnologii, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 97–111. (In Russian)

Petrov, M.C. (2010), Human dimension and the world of objective activity, Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, no. 4, pp. 108–118. (In Russian)

Mamardashvili, M.C. (2004), Classical and non-classical ideals of rationality, Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russian)

Gorbacheva, A. and Smirnov, S. (2016), Converging technologies and a modern man: emergence of a new type of thinking, AI & Society, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 465–473.

Smirnov, S.A. and Yablokova, E.P. (2019), Anthropological boundaries of humanitarian expertise, Filosofskaia antropologiia, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 26–44. (In Russian)

Smirnov, S.A. (2018), Anthropological Platform for the National Technology Initiative, Filosofskaia antropologiia, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 69–80. (In Russian)

Voronin, A.A. (2012), Humanitarian expertise (review), Filosofiia i kul’tura, no. 5 (53), pp. 118–127. (In Russian)

Voronin, А.А. (2013), Humanitarian expertise: research experience and problems, Bioetika i gumanitarnaia ekspertiza, Moscow, pp. 87–112. (In Russian)

Yudin, B.G. (2006), From ethical expertise to humanitarian expertise, in Lukov, V.A. (ed.), Gumanitarnoe znanie: tendentsii razvitiia v XXI veke, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo natsional’nogo instituta biznesa Publ., pp. 214–237. (In Russian)

Jonsen, A., (2000), A Short History of Medical Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press.

Engelhardt, T. (ed.) (2012), Bioethics critically reconsidered, Springer, Netherlands.

Macintajr, A., (2000), After Virtue: Studies in Moral Theory, trans. by Tzelischev, V.V., Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt Publ., Jekaterinburg: Delovaia kniga Publ. (In Russian).

Frank, A., Jones, T. (2003), Bioethics and the later Foucault, Journal of Medical Humanities, no. 24 (3/4), pp. 179–186.

Nowotny, H., Scott P., Gibbons M. (2001), Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, London: Polity Press

Federal Law “On the basics of public health protection in Russian Federation” № 323 — FL accepted on the 21 of November 2011. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_121895/ (accessed: 18.04.2021).

Netzke, G. (2015), Ethikberatung und Ethikkomitees als Instrumente der Entscheidungsunterstützung, in Markmann, G. (ed.), Praxisbuch Ethik in der Medizin, Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlaggesellschaft, S. 23–35.

Fahr, U. (2010), Discourse ethics and ethics consultation, in Schildmann, J., Gordon, J.-S. and Vollman, J. (ed), Clinical Ethics Consultation: Theories and Methods, Implementation, Evaluation, UK: Ashgate, pp. 53–64.

Ashmarin, I.I. and Yudin, B.G. (1997), Fundamentals of humanitarian expertise, Chelovek, no. 3, pp. 76–85. (In Russian)

Gibson, J., Sibbald, R., Connolly, E. and Singer, P. (2008), Organizational Ethics, in Singer P. and Viens A. (ed.), The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–250.

Rozin, M.M. (ed.) (2002), Essays on social engineering. From Utopia to organization, Moscow: URSS Publ. (In Russian)

Kijaschenko, L.P. and Tischenko, P.D. (2011), Humanitarian expertise: hermeneutics of subjectivity, Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo, vol. XIII, iss. 2, pp. 152–165. (In Russian)

Downloads

Published

2021-12-31

How to Cite

Sinyukova, N. A., & Smirnov, S. A. (2021). Between ethics and technology: Metamorphosis of ethical expertise. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 37(4), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2021.405

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 4 (2021): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Philosophy

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.