On the Problematic Dimensions of Bioethics and the Pre-Conditions of Natural Right

Sorenson, Leonard R.

doi:10.1017/s0730938400003312

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to have a nonarbitrary ranking of species we would need to know that the feature with which we arranged our hierarchy was itself nonarbitrary. We would need to know that complexity was in some relevant sense "higher" or more important than other possible features (Sorenson 1988). Current evolutionist theory has not offered any evidence to support this claim.…”

Section: Gastritis and The Goodmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ulcers, Baseball, and the New Ethical Naturalism

Moran¹

2022

Com

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Those involved in the current revival of ethical naturalism claim that this approach offers an escape from the inadequacy of moral relativism, especially the nihilism entailed in its denial of objective standards for our normative discourse. From this perspective, nature becomes the foundation of our moral claims. The following discussion generally ignores the logical and ideological issues involved in using nature in this way and instead shows that far from replacing moral relativism an ethics based on current evolutionist theory will ultimately lead to something like the relativist position. I then draw on the rules of baseball and their ability to govern behavior on the field to argue that we ought not necessarily despair our failure to locate an objective basis for our moral theories. Politics and our polilical institutions function in much the same capacity as the baseball establishment: they provide the rules by which the game should be played and the power to enforce compliance.

show abstract

Section: Gastritis and The Goodmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ulcers, Baseball, and the New Ethical Naturalism

Moran¹

2022

Com

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And yet, having criticized cultural relativism, it might seem that I have just introduced a relativism of my own (Sorenson, 1988). If the good is the desirable, and the desirable varies according to the natural needs of each species, the good differs from one species to another: what is good for human beings is not necessarily good for other species and is therefore not simply good.…”

Section: Sexual Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sociobiological Defense of Aristotle's Sexual Politics

Arnhart¹

1994

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article defends Aristotle and sociobiology against their feminist critics by arguing that a biological conception of human nature rightly understood can support feminism. Aristotle's telelogical biology is not sexist. On the contrary, his biology suggests lines of argument that could vindicate feminism in some form. By arguing for marital friendship as the standard for judging spousal relationships, and by defending family life, and particularly maternal caregiving, as the natural root of all sociality and politics, Aristotle elevates the claims of women and suggests that the fullest human excellence would combine masculine and feminine inclinations.Aristotle's functional teleology sustains a conception of natural human needs and powers as universal despite the variability of cultures. Without such an understanding of a universal human nature, feminists are tempted to adopt a cultural relativism that renders their critique of patriarchy incoherent. Furthermore, this defense of Aristotle applies as well to sociobiological accounts of human sexual nature.What do feminists mean when they speak about the patriarchal exploitation of women? Do they mean that women have needs and capacities that are denied in societies dominated by men? Do they mean that treating women as morally and intellectually inferior to men is contrary to the nature of women? Do they assume that women must liberate themselves from patriarchal authority to express their natural potentialities? If this is the meaning of the feminist critique of patriarchy, then the case for feminism requires a functional or teleological argument: since human beings have ends or goals, needs or desires, that specify their nature as human beings, and since human beings pursue their happiness through the fulfillment of their natural ends, to deny women the freedom to express these human inclinations is contrary to their nature as human beings. It is surprising, therefore, that the philosopher who most fully developed this kind of reasoning at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on February 6, 2015 ips.sagepub.com Downloaded from

show abstract

Biopolitics in 1988: Year of the Newcomer

Somit

Peterson

1989

Politics and the Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Problematic Dimensions of Bioethics and the Pre-Conditions of Natural Right

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Ulcers, Baseball, and the New Ethical Naturalism

Ulcers, Baseball, and the New Ethical Naturalism

A Sociobiological Defense of Aristotle's Sexual Politics

Biopolitics in 1988: Year of the Newcomer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About