This paper provides an exposition and critical assessment of a fundamental disagreement between Løgstrup’s and Levinas’s otherwise closely aligned ethical phenomenologies. The disagreement concerns the putative compatibility of ethics and ontology, where in stark contrast to Levinas’s ethics, which proceeds from a critique of the ‘primacy of ontology’ in Western thought, Løgstrup brands his own ethical project as ‘ontological ethics’. First, I provide an interpretation of Løgstrup’s ontological ethics, clarifying in particular the influence of hermeneutic and existential analysis on Løgstrup’s (...) methodology. Second, I bring Løgstrup’s ontological ethics into critical dialogue with Levinas’s thought. Here, I home in on two Levinas-style worries that appear to have traction against Løgstrup’s ontological ethics. However, ultimately, I argue that both can be defused. (shrink)

The article looks at general problems associated with the explication of the concept of human dignity, then looks specifically at this in relation to bioethics and suggests possible solutions. The author explores the intellectual history of the concept and responds to the radical criticism that the concept of human dignity is useless and redundant in bioethical discourse scientific image of the world). He argues 1) that the ambiguity and relativity of the concept can be solved by precisely identifying the content (...) and performing a classification analysis and shows that the concept does have cognitive content that is irreducible to other concepts; 2) that the need to elaborate the concept of human dignity is pre-Christian in origin and that the idea of a personal God and the Holy Trinity are not prerequisite to the concept; and 3) that the idea of human dignity as otherness could prevent anthropocentric speciesism and the naturalistic abolition of human self-identity. (shrink)

The changes that happen to healthcare services after the implementation of new assistive healthcare technologies (also called ‘welfare technology’ in the Nordic countries) concern more than increased efficiency and reducing healthcare expenditure. Of particular interest from an ethical point of view are the manners in which technologies shape the roles and identities of care receivers and healthcare personnel. The notion of ‘patienthood’ is explored in this paper as something that is both challenged by new technologies, and as something that is (...) opened up for active and potentially positive reshaping when care receivers support their illness or frailty with assistive healthcare technologies. This dual effect of technologies (as both challenge and opportunity) requires a rethinking of ethics of technologies, which for most part have been preoccupied with ethical issues prior to the implementation of a new technology into a healthcare service. Ethics of technology should also contribute to the concrete efforts of care receivers to establish something approximating a ‘good patienthood’ in relation to a new technology, making it opportune to dub it, instead, an ethics with technology. This paper explores how assistive healthcare technologies impact on care receivers and the care situation, and in relation to the notion of patienthood, before turning to what this implies for an ethics that has as its goal to support care receivers to reach a life with the technology that is in line with their own notions of well‐being and a good life. (shrink)