Transformation of the subject in bioethics: From an autonomous person to cosmopolitan

Authors

  • Boris S. Solozhenkin Privolzhsky Research Medical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.306

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to trace the development of the idea of subjectivity in bioethics, starting from the level assumed by the prevailing model of personal autonomy up to the cosmopolitan dimension innate to the global model proposed by Van Rensselaer Potter. In the article, autonomy is considered in the more general context of the individualization of Western societies. It is revealed that autonomy is inherently dependent on the idea of human well-being and the values of individualism and therefore it can be reduced to individual decisions. This devaluation of personal autonomy finds justifiable criticism among bioethicists. The concept of the subject is restored in the frame of the substantive model of autonomy indicating the inextricable connection of a choice and a common personal perspective. Such an individualistic approach to the subject is initially limited. Being concentrated on the behavior of a rational individual, the approach localizes all relevant ethical cases. In the modern world, global problem intersect with each other they cease to be noticed and moreover become intimatized due to their individualistic description. This approach to the subject is thus inadequate and needs to be replaced. For this purpose, the difference between the two traditions within bioethics must be overcome: an autonomous person and cosmopolitan remain the two significant models of subjectivity, and the bridge between them has never been built. The article explores the possibility of such a transition to a cosmopolitan position on the classic example from The Phenomenology of Spirit. It can be concluded that the current position of the theory of the subject is tenuous on both flanks of bioethics. When it loses the message of subjectivity and becomes a servant of the technological approach, we get just another version of medical ethics and lose the long-term perspective appropriate for the cosmopolitan world. 

Keywords:

personal autonomy, cosmopolitan, Potter, subjectivity, global bioethics, individualization, Phenomenology of spirit, principles of biomedical ethics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

1. Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (1994), Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4 th ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Arras, J. (2017), Methods in Bioethics: The Way We Reason Now, ed. by Childress, J. and Adams, M., New York: Oxford University Press.

3. Campbell, A. V. (2013), Bioethics: The Basics, New York: Routledge.

4. Varelius, J. (2006), The value of autonomy in medical ethics, Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 377–388.

5. Dove, E. S., Kelly S. E., Lucivero F., Machirori, M., Dheensa, S. and Prainsack, B. (2017), Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?, Clinical Ethics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 150–165.

6. Dive, L. and Newson, A. (2018), Reconceptualizing autonomy for bioethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 171–203.

7. Бауман, З. (2005), Индивидуализированное общество, пер. и ред. Иноземцев, В. Л., М.: Логос.

8. Бек, У. (2000), Общество риска. На пути к другому модерну, пер. Седельник, В. и Федорова, Н., М.: Прогресс-Традиция.

9. Бауман, З. (1995), От паломника к туристу, Социологический журнал, № 4, с. 133–154.

10. Walker, R. L. (2008), Medical ethics needs a new view of autonomy, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 594–608.

11. Christen, M., Ineichen, C. and Tanner, C. (2014), How “moral” are the principles of biomedical ethics? — a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis, BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 15, no. 47, pp. 1–12.

12. Potter, V. R. (1988), Global bioethics: Building on the Leopold legacy, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

13. Potter, V. R. (1971), Bioethics: Bridge to the Future, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

14. Ten Have, H. (2016), Global bioethics: an introduction, New York: Routledge.

15. Свендсен, Л. (2016), Философия свободы, пер. Воробьева, Е., М.: Прогресс-Традиция.

16. Engelhardt, H. Tr., Jr. (1996), The Foundations of Bioethics, 2 nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

17. Гегель, Г. В. Ф. (2019), Феноменология духа, пер. Шпет, Г., СПб.: Азбука.

18. Verene, D. P. (1985), Hegel’s Recollection. A Study of Images in the Phenomenology of Spirit, New York: State University of New York Press.

19. Бек, У. (2008), Космополитическое мировоззрение, М.: Центр исследований постиндустриального общества.

20. Декомб, В. (2000), Философия грозовых времен, в Современная французская философия, пер. Федорова, М. М., М.: Весь Мир, с. 184–336.

21. Whitehouse, P. J. (2001), The Rebirth of Bioethics: A Tribute to Van Rensselaer Potter, Global Bioethics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 37–45.

22. Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A. and Whitehouse, H. (2019), Is It Good to Cooperate?: Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies, Current Anthropology, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 47–69.

23. Бек, У. (2012), Жизнь в обществе глобального риска — как с этим справиться: космополитический поворот. URL: https://www.gorby.ru/userfiles/lekciya_ulrih_beka.pdf (дата обращения: 16.11.2019).

24. Hutchings, K. (2019), Decolonizing Global Ethics: Thinking with the Pluriverse, Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 115–125.

References

1. Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (1994), Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4 th ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Arras, J. (2017), Methods in Bioethics: The Way We Reason Now, ed. by Childress, J. and Adams, M., New York: Oxford University Press.

3. Campbell, A. V. (2013), Bioethics: The Basics, New York: Routledge.

4. Varelius, J. (2006), The value of autonomy in medical ethics, Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-006-9000-z.

5. Dove, E. S., Kelly, S. E., Lucivero, F., Machirori, M., Dheensa, S. and Prainsack, B. (2017), Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?, Clinical Ethics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477750917704156.

6. Dive, L. and Newson, A. (2018), Reconceptualizing autonomy for bioethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2018.0013.

7. Bauman, Z. (2005), The Individualized Society, transl. and ed. by Inozemtsev, V. L., Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russian)

8. Beck, U. (2000), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, transl. by Sedel’nik, V. and Fedorova, N., Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia Publ. (In Russian)

9. Bauman, Z. (1995), From a pilgrim to a tourist, Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, no. 4, pp. 133–154. (In Russian)

10. Walker, R. L. (2008), Medical ethics needs a new view of autonomy, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 594–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhn033.

11. Christen, M., Ineichen, C. and Tanner, C. (2014), How “moral” are the principles of biomedical ethics? — a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis, BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 15, no. 47, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-47.

12. Potter, V. R. (1988), Global bioethics: Building on the Leopold legacy, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

13. Potter, V. R. (1971), Bioethics: Bridge to the Future, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

14. Ten Have, H. (2016), Global bioethics: an introduction, New York: Routledge.

15. Svendsen, L. (2016), A Philosophy of Freedom, transl. by Vorob’eva, E., Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia Publ. (In Russian)

16. Engelhardt, H. Tr., Jr. (1996), The Foundations of Bioethics, 2 nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

17. Hegel, G. W. F. (2019), Die Phänomenologie des Geistes, transl. by Shpet, G., St. Petersburg: Azbuka Publ. (In Russian)

18. Verene, D. P. (1985), Hegel’s Recollection. A Study of Images in the Phenomenology of Spirit, New York: State University of New York Press.

19. Beck, U. (2008), The Cosmopolitan Perspective, Moscow: Tsentr issledovaniia postindustral’nogo obshchestva Publ. (In Russian)

20. Descombes, V. (2000), Thunderstorm Philosophy, Modern French Philosophy, transl. by Fedorova, M. M., Moscow: Ves’ Mir Publ., pp. 184–336.

21. Whitehouse, P. J. (2001), The Rebirth of Bioethics: A Tribute to Van Rensselaer Potter, Global Bioethics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2001.10800813.

22. Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A. and Whitehouse, H. (2019), Is It Good to Cooperate?: Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies, Current Anthropology, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/701478.

23. Beck, U. (2019), Living in a Global Risk Society — How to Deal With It: A Cosmopolitan Turn. Available at: https://www.gorby.ru/userfiles/lekciya_ulrih_beka.pdf (accessed: 16.11.2019). (In Russian)

24. Hutchings, K. (2019), Decolonizing Global Ethics: Thinking with the Pluriverse, Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679419000169.

Downloads

Published

2020-09-30

How to Cite

Solozhenkin, B. S. (2020). Transformation of the subject in bioethics: From an autonomous person to cosmopolitan. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(3), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.306

Issue

Vol. 36 No. 3 (2020): 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.