Biological normativity: a new hope for naturalism?

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 24 (2):291-301 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Since Boorse [Philos Sci 44:542–573, 1977] published his paper “Health as a theoretical concept” one of the most lively debates within philosophy of medicine has been on the question of whether health and disease are in some sense ‘objective’ and ‘value-free’ or ‘subjective’ and ‘value-laden’. Due to the apparent ‘failure’ of pure naturalist, constructivist, or normativist accounts, much in the recent literature has appealed to more conciliatory approaches or so-called ‘hybrid accounts’ of health and disease. A recent paper by Matthewson and Griffiths [J Med Philos 42:447–466, 2017], however, may bear the seeds for the revival of purely naturalist approach to health and disease. In this paper, I defend their idea of Biological Normativity against recent criticism by Schwartz [J Med Philos Forum Bioethics Philos Med 42:485–502, 2017] and hope to help it flower into a revival of naturalist approaches in the philosophy of medicine.

Author's Profile

Walter Veit
University of Bristol

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-05

Downloads
282 (#29,949)

6 months
139 (#4,022)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?