Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:28:38.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of the New Biology on ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Jürgen Mittelstrass
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Developments in biology have raised important questions concerning the ethical basis on which these developments can be applied to human life and to the ecology of the world. This article explores these questions.

Type
Focus: Science and society
Information
European Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , May 1999 , pp. 277 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and notes

1.Plessner, H. (1928) Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp) (Gesammelte Schriften IV), pp. 360ff., 383ff., 396ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Jonas, H. (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press), p. 1.Google Scholar
3. See Mittelstrass, J. (1988) ‘Nature and science in the renaissance’. In: Metaphysics and Philosophy of Science in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Essays in Honour of Gerd Buchdahl, Woolhouse, R. S. (Ed.). (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer) (The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science 43), pp. 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Honnefelder, L. (1998) ‘Humangenetik (3. Ethisch)’. In: Lexikon der Bioethik II, Korff, W. (Ed.) (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus), p. 256. For the most immediate practical implications of the new genetics and for the ethical questions following from them, see P. Kitcher (1996) The Lives to Come. The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities (New York: Simon & Schuster), and for the present state of molecular genetics see T. Strachnan and A. P. Read (1996) Human Molecular Genetics (New York: Bios Scientific).Google Scholar
5. See Siep, L. (1996) ‘Ethik und Anthropologie’. In: Identität, Leiblichkeit. Normativität. Neue Horizonte anthropoloaischen Denkens, Barkhaus, A. et al. (Eds) (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 274–298.Google Scholar
6. On the basis of this distinction see Plessmer, H. (1941, 3rd. ed. 1961) Lachen und Weinen. Eine Untersuchung der Grenzen menschlichen Verhaltens. In: H. Plessner (1970) Philosophische Anthropologie. Lachen und Weinen. Das Lächeln. Anthropologie der Simme, Dux, G. (Ed.) (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer) (Gesammelte Schriften VII: Ausdruck und menschliche Natur), pp. 201–398. According to Plessmer man is his phenomenological body (Leib) and has it as a physical body (Körper); he is a ‘Leib im Körper’ as opposed to an animal that is its (physical) body and has it as its phenomenological body (Gesammelte Schriften VII, p. 238). On the connection of this distinction to the current context see L. Honnefelder, op. cit., p. 255.Google Scholar
7.Eser, A. et al. , Klonierung beim Menschen. Biologische Grundlagen und ethisch-rechtliche Bewertung. Stellungnahme für den Rat für Forschung, Technologie und Innovation (Bonn), p. 11.Google Scholar
8.Kant, I. (1785) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In: I. Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, Königlich-Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (zu Berlin) (Berlin: Reimer) 1902ff., IV, p. 429.Google Scholar
9. See Gethmann, C. F. (1998) ‘Ethische Argumente gegen das Klonieren von Menschen’, Europäische Akademie zur Erforschung von Folgen wissenschaftlich-technischer Entwicklungen, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler GmbH, Academy Letter No. 9(4), p. 2.Google Scholar
10. See Birnbacher, D. (1998) ‘Die Fortpflanzung hat ihre Unschuld verloren’. Ein Gespräch, Information Philosophie 3, p. 114.Google Scholar
11.Gethmann, C. F., loc cit.Google Scholar
12. See Irrgang, B. (1996) ‘Bioethik’. In: Angewandte Ethik. Die Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische Fundierung. Ein Handbuch, Nida-Rümelin, J. (Ed.) (Stuttgart: Kröner), 516ff.Google Scholar
13.Altner, G. (1991) Naturvergessenheit. Grundlagen einer umfassenden Bioethik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), p. 214.Google Scholar
14.Altner, G., op cit., p. 217.Google Scholar
15.Meyer-Abich, K. M. (1984) Wege zum Frieden mit der Natur. Praktische Naturphilosophie für die Umweltpolitik (Munich: Hauser).Google Scholar
16.Taylor, P. W. (1986) Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 99f. For clear distinctions see the presentation in A. Krebs (1996) ‘Ökologische Ethik I: Grundlagen und Grundbegriffe’. In: Angewandte Ethik, J. Nida-Römelin (Ed.) (Stuttgart: Kröner), pp. 346–385.Google Scholar
17. See Wolters, G. (1998) ‘Evolution/Evolutionstheorie(n) 2.2’. In: Lexikon der Bioethik I, Korff, W. et al. (Eds) (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus), pp. 714–717; also M. Vogt, ‘Evolution/Evolutionstheorie(n) 2.3’. In: Lexikon der Bioethik I, W. Kemff et al. (Eds) (1998), pp. 717–721.Google Scholar
18.Mayr, E. (1988) Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Observations of an Evolutionist (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press), p. 89.Google Scholar