Editor bans religious arguments from bioethics journal
by Michael Cook | 30 Sep 2018 |
The editor of Developing World Bioethics, Udo Schüklenk, has decided to ban from his journal any articles whose assumptions are religious. “After much thought we have decided to more significantly limit exclusively religious contributions.”
Why? It’s not out of an anti-religious bias but because “Religion based arguments are, by definition, arguments that do not fall into the category of public‐reason based arguments.”
They rely on premises involving the existence of unobservable supernatural powers giving us direction in terms of how we must live our lives. Typically their guidance is provided in religious documents the content of which is credited to said unobservable supernatural powers...Secular societies cannot possibly function as arbiters of the truth or otherwise of their diverse citizenries religious beliefs. The reasons for this are well‐known and reflected in myriad highest courts’ judgments delivered across liberal societies’ jurisdictions. As a consequence of this, while debates in such societies will countenance in varied ways religious arguments, ultimately only views that can be defended within the analytical frameworks of public‐reason based arguments can succeed in secular societies.
Schuklenk makes an interesting summary of the argument for secularism:
Secular societies cannot possibly function as arbiters of the truth or otherwise of their diverse citizenries religious beliefs. The reasons for this are well‐known and reflected in myriad highest courts’ judgments delivered across liberal societies’ jurisdictions. As a consequence of this, while debates in such societies will countenance in varied ways religious arguments, ultimately only views that can be defended within the analytical frameworks of public‐reason based arguments can succeed in secular societies.
Developing World Bioethics is a companion journal to Bioethics, of which Schüklenk is a co-editor.
Monday, October 1, 2018
It has been a dreadful weekend. On Saturday Collingwood lost the AFL Grand Final to the West Coast Eagles – in the last five minutes. It has taken me a while to get over this. On the brighter side, today the Roosters beat Melbourne Storm convincingly, 21-6, in the Rugby League Grand Final in Sydney. I just thought that our international readers might like to keep in touch with the world’s greatest sports.
These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.
In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.
It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”
What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?
As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.
These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.
In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.
It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”
What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?
As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
Have you ever considered a black market in uteruses?by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
What if the publication of research could be dangerous?by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
Only public-reason-based arguments cut the mustardby Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
A public inquiry has begun into the use of contaminated blood for patients with bleeding disorders.by Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
HHS is conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue.by Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
The Indian government will be restricted in its use of the system's databy Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
The report recommends palliative sedation as a legal alternative.IN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Cesar R. Torres and Francisco Javier López Frías | Sep 29, 2018
It is not inherent violence but a culture of violence around the sport that is troublingBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario