18.97.9.171
Human protection principle (anthroprostasia) and current value conflicts
Human protection principle (anthroprostasia) and current value conflicts
Annotation

The principle of anthropostasy (human protection) is developed. It prohibits violation of universally accepted values (basic rights and freedoms of the individual) and prescribes to take care of the conditions for a full life (free, decent and meaningful) for everyone. Anthropostasy has a special place among the most significant types of ethical theories and approaches. The principle of anthropastasy has been tested on several actual moral dilemmas: permission/prohibition of voluntary active euthanasia, permission/prohibition of abortion, permission/prohibition of soft drugs sale. Each of these dilemmas is based on a value conflict since actions that pursue some values are detrimental to some others. In some cases, a general decision was made and substantiated; in other cases a boundary was drawn, in the third type of cases local decisions based on approbation, experience, democratic procedures were found acceptable, finally, for the most difficult cases (when any decision leads to someone’s death), it is shown that there can be no general rule, and any choice shall entail the full-fledged responsibility for its agent..

About authors
Nikolai S. Rozov
Chief Researcher in the Institute for Philosophy and Law, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Head of Department for Social Philosophy and Political Sciences of Novosibirsk State University; Professor of Department for International Affairs an
Institute for Philosophy and Law, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Novosibirsk State University; Novosibirsk State Technical University
References

1. Apressyan R.G. Etika [Ethics]. Moscow: Knorus Publ., 2017.

2. Kozhevnikova M. Moya “krioshka”: problema “lishnix” embrionov v VRT [My ‘kryshka’: the problem of “spare” embryos in VRT]. Chelovek pered vyborom v sovremennom mire: problemy, vozmozhnosti, resheniya. Materialy Vserossijskoj nauchnoj konferencii 27–28 oktyabrya 2015 goda, IF RAN (Moskva), Otv. red. M.S. Kiseleva [Human choice in the modern world: challenges, opportunities, solutions. Proceedings of the scientific conference on October 27–28, 2015, IPH RAS (Moscow), ed. by M.S. Kiseleva]. Moscow: Nauchnaya mysl` Publ., 2015. Vol. 3. P. 100–107.

3. Rozov N.S. Cennosti v problemnom mire. Filosofskie osnovaniya i social`nye prilozheniya konstruktivnoi aksiologii [Values in a troubled world. Philosophical foundations and social applications of constructive axiology]. Novosibirsk: NGU Publ., 1998.

4. Marquis D. Why Abortion is Immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 1989. Vol. 86. N 4. P. 183–202.

5. Nowotny H., Testa G. Naked Genes Reinventing the Human in the Molecular Age. MIT press, 2010.

6. Thomson J.J. A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971. Vol. 1. N 1. P. 47–66. URL: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Полная версия доступна только подписчикам
Подпишитесь прямо сейчас