1 / 14

Some points to consider

Some points to consider. Thomas Potthast Interdepartmental Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities (IZEW) Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Workshop “Seeking an Agenda: Environmental and technology ethics – Relevant research themes ASFPG Hamburg, 27.-29. June 2005.

lyle
Download Presentation

Some points to consider

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Some points to consider Thomas Potthast Interdepartmental Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities (IZEW) Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Workshop “Seeking an Agenda: Environmental and technology ethics – Relevant research themes ASFPG Hamburg, 27.-29. June 2005

  2. The Tübingen Program of “Ethik in den Wissenschaften” and some problems • Precautionary Science and/vs Relativism • Epistemic-Moral Hybrids • Inclusive Environmental Ethics

  3. The Tübingen Program of “Ethik in den Wissenschaften” • ‘Ethik in den Wissenschaften’ relating to Sciences and Humanities! However: Focus on biomedical and environmental sciences for contingent reasons • Discussing ethical issues of science and technology already in the process of research, not only when it comes to “application” • Discussion among scientists and ethicists on scientific and ethical and political issues of the problem(s): Interdepartmental and interdisciplinary • Ethicist are not the born experts for moral decisions

  4. The Tübingen Program of “Ethik in den Wissenschaften” and some problems • Driven by priority of sciences/ technology, not by societal problems - “GMOs are the answer but what was the question?” (Christine von Weizsäcker) • Not possible asking the tough questions: Legitimacy of whole fields of research (Agro-GM, Theology?) • Priorities: First getting the facts straight (who decides?), then doing an evaluation (by whom?) • Explication of implicit values within science and technology • Interdisciplinarity between participants and/or within one researcher? => both needed

  5. Precautionary Sciences and/vs Relativism • Precautionary Principle as ethical, political and legal principle, more than just heuristic of fear (Jonas) • Multitudes of “uncertainties”, multitude of sciences shaping background information of PP => New post-normal Expertocracy? • How to deal with it in world not only of scientific uncertainty but of plural moral norms • just returning to general prudence and thereby • loosing societal perspective of good life and justice issues?

  6. Ambivalent structure of environmental and technology ethics (and bioethics) • Combining empirical scientific and moral Aspects – as both causeandresolution/ remedy of a problem: • New and old moral questions facing new technologies/scientific practices (GMO, …) • Scientific theories as background of moral judgements and ethical theories (ecological non-equilibria; behavioural ecology; climate models, …)

  7. Epistemic-moral Hybrids Specific Conjunction of: • Scientific Concepts/Theories • Scientific Practices • Ethically normative Judgements • Ethical Implications/Norms for Action

  8. Epistemic-moral Hybrids • „Hybrid“ presupposes (analytically, ex post) separable „original” tokens • Not necessarily in the form of Is-ought or Naturalistic Fallacy • Not often in the form of hypothetical sentences: „If E and N are given, then M should be done“ as „mixed judgements” • Often only implicit and application oriented

  9. Epistemic-moral Hybrids Agenda: • Explication of the implicit • Transformation of fallacious judgements into hypothetical „If E and N are given, then M should be done“ • Analysing and critically evaluating different ethos (ethoi?) and normative powers of the context(s)

  10. Environmental Values: a conceptual mess • Inherent Value = Selbstwert = Member of moral community: => Value lies within the object (other terms: intrinsic value, Eigenwert) • Intrinsic Value = (anthroporelational Value) Eigenwert:=> externally designated (by humans) (other terms: extrinsic value, inherent value)

  11. Environmental Values: False alternatives • Either Physiocentric or • Anthropocentric Valueas a false alternative • Interaction between humans and nature as a value-generating process inclusing both (cf. Friedrich Engels: Dialectic of Nature)

  12. Environmental Ethics: Beyond Axiology • Value Theories pushing both deontological and virtue ethics approaches on the side • Deontological ethics: Precautionary principle, environmental justice issues etc. • Virtue Ethics: getting beyond only external obligations, recognizing good life and environment

  13. 2 Zur Natur der UngewissheitAllgemein • Abwesenheit der Möglichkeit „sicheren Wissens“ im Sinne eines eindeutigen Für-wahr-Haltens • Bezug auf - Vergangenes (Kausalerklärungen) - Aktuelles (Geltung und Gültigkeit) - Zukünftiges (Prognosen) • Jeder Wahrscheinlichkeitswert p < 1

  14. 2 Zur Natur der Ungewissheit Ebenen der Ungewissheit • Ontologische Ebene: Kein Prozess in der Welt ist vollständig gewiss= determiniert, Zukunft ist immer (auch) ungewiss • Epistemologische Ebene: Wissen kann – im Gegensatz zu Glaubenssätzen – prinzipiell nicht gewiss sein, Erkenntnis ist fallibel (Popper) bzw. historisch situiert (Adorno, Kuhn) • Stochastische bzw. individuelle Ebene: Selbst bei sicherem statistischem Wissen ist das Einzelereignis ungewiss, z.B. radioaktiver Zerfall

More Related