Moralismus oder fingierte Handlungssubjektivität in komplexen historischen Prozessen

Lübbe, Hermann

doi:10.1515/9783110877403.289

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is an important area of the new genetics which increases the range of choices open to the healthcare consumer (Slowther 2008; Vallance and Ford 2003). In general, responsibility involves moral and philosophical questions of causality, control and justification (Fischer and Ravizza 1998; Jonas 1979, 1985; Feinberg 1970; Lübbe 1994), which in the context of genetic testing raise questions of respecting self-determination, discreetness, determinism and prevention (Chadwick et al 1997; Rhodes 1998; Takala and Häyry 2000; Andre et al 2000). However, most of the work done in this field concentrates on expert responsibility which is discussed from a professional and universalistic point of view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel

Raz

Schicktanz

2009

Med Health Care and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The professional and institutional responsibility for handling genetic knowledge is well discussed; less attention has been paid to how lay people and particularly people who are affected by genetic diseases perceive and frame such responsibilities. In this exploratory study we qualitatively examine the attitudes of lay people, patients and relatives of patients in Germany and Israel towards genetic testing. These attitudes are further examined in the national context of Germany and Israel, which represent opposite regulatory approaches and bioethical debates concerning genetic testing. Three major themes of responsibility emerged from the inter-group and cross-cultural comparison: self-responsibility, responsibility for kin, and responsibility of society towards its members. National contrast was apparent in the moral reasoning of lay respondents concerning, for example, the right not to know versus the duty to know (self-responsibility) and the moral conflict concerning informing kin versus the moral duty to inform (responsibility for kin). Attitudes of respondents affected by genetic diseases were, however, rather similar in both countries. We conclude by discussing how moral discourses of responsibility are embedded within cultural (national, religious) as well as phenomenological (being affected) narratives, and the role of public engagement in bioethical discourse.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel

Raz

Schicktanz

2009

Med Health Care and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this farewell has not been consistent, and many contradictions arise in the tension between ecological and socio-economic goals [52] (pp. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. Awareness of the consequences of the SDGs for everyday politics, economy, and society seems limited.…”

Section: A Paradigm Shift In the Understanding Of Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead of harmonizing and thus resolving conflicting goals, the more convenient path is often chosen: Many different goals are set up without taking into account that some of them contradict each other and thus cannot be easily fulfilled at the same time. The result is an excessive demand [54] and "declamatory overload of responsibility" [55] (p. 298). For example, the SDGs seem to initiate a renaissance of utopian thinking [56] (pp.…”

Section: The Declamatory Overload Of Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the crucial challenges for a sustainable society is that responsibility is eroded by the anonymous system logic of the modern age. In the confusion of late modern societies, it is often impossible to determine with certainty the subjects of action, the objects, and the addressees of responsibility [55] (p. 299). Familiar models of addressing, delimiting, and monitoring responsibility are often no longer applicable to the anonymous, widely ramified, and confusing networks of actors of late modern societies [21].…”

Section: The Declamatory Overload Of Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Universities in a Sustainable Society. Why Value-Free Research is Neither Possible nor Desirable

Vogt

Weber

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current climate crisis confronts us with a deep discrepancy between knowledge and action. Therefore, this article is looking for a readjustment of the relationship between science and society. The positivist self-understanding of science and its fragmented organizational form lead to a marginalization of ethical questions. Instead, sustainability calls for a re-examination of the preconditions and embedding contexts of supposedly value-free research. Faced with the increasing complexity of the modern world, ethics must spell out a new “grammar of responsibility” that addresses the prevalent “declamatory overload of responsibility”. Ethicists can fulfil this role by uncovering and regulating conflicting goals and dilemmas. Instead of playing the role of “marginal echo chambers”, universities ought to assume their social responsibility as structural policy actors. This article suggests a methodology of responsible research as a specific ethical contribution to the model of “transformative” and “catalytic” science for a “post-normal age”. True to their founding mission, academia should herald a “New Enlightenment” that is more self-reflexive regarding its own practical and ethical preconditions, foundations, and consequences. This article presents a possible practical method for fostering the dialogue between the natural sciences and the humanities and to link research, education, practice, and social communication in new ways. It is concluded that a foundation of a whole-rationality approach with a multidimensional understanding of wisdom and, respectively, rationality and sagacity is necessary for sustainable universities.

show abstract

“…Few scholarships have claimed that sustainable development goals are idealistic, contradictory and provide overloaded responsibility that creates unresolved tension between development policies and ecological goals (Lübbe, 1994; Hinkelammert, 1994 cited in Vogt and Weber, 2020). When applied to HEIs, they have to understand their social grammar of responsibility that lies with someone, for something and toward someone (Vogt and Weber, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state of the art in the incorporation of sustainable development goals in Nepalese Universities

Adhikari

Shah

2021

IJSHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to assess the state of the art of quality of education, research and governance to incorporate sustainable development goal 4 (SDG 4) in Nepalese higher education institutions (HEIs). In particular, it raises questions to initiate a discourse on HEIs to achieve SDG 4. Design/methodology/approach The idea of undertaking this research is heavily borrowed from scientific literature and policy documents. It is an exploratory study that assesses the current status of quality of education, research and governance and suggests policy measures to inculcate SDGs culture in Nepalese HEIs. This study follows a qualitative approach. The analysis is based on the opinions of 113 HEIs stakeholders and high-ranked university officials. Discussions among stakeholders have been organized using online facilities such as Zoom and Team. Findings Nepalese universities had not incorporated SDGs in their policy, planning, budget and curriculum. The research finds that even after the government’s commitment to SDGs, HEIs are not honestly involved in academic discourse on these goals. From the conversation with university officials, it appears that Universities have understood it as a government policy for development, rather than incorporating it as their sectoral responsibility to ensure the quality of education for future generations. Research limitations/implications Nepalese universities had not incorporated SDGs in their policy, planning, budget and curriculum. Even with the government’s commitment to SDGs, HEIs are not honestly involved in academic discourse to conceptualize SDGs. From the conversation with university officials, it appears that universities have conceptualized it as a government policy for development, rather than incorporating it as their sectoral responsibility to ensure the quality of education for future generations. Practical implications This paper prescribes policies to inculcate SDGs culture practically throughout the university structure and operations and opens the floor to discourse on the sectoral role to reach SDG 4. Second, this research suggests activities and policies integrated toward the common good agenda. Originality/value The paper is the first of its type in the context of a least developed country, Nepal, to raise the issue of HEIs for SDGs. This paper also represents the situation of HEIs for SDGs of similar countries.

show abstract

Moralismus oder fingierte Handlungssubjektivität in komplexen historischen Prozessen

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel

Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel

The Role of Universities in a Sustainable Society. Why Value-Free Research is Neither Possible nor Desirable

The state of the art in the incorporation of sustainable development goals in Nepalese Universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About