Везде
Human protection principle (anthroprostasia) and current value conflicts
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Human protection principle (anthroprostasia) and current value conflicts
Annotation
PII
S023620070003023-2-
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Nikolai S. Rozov 
ORCID: 0000-0003-2362-541X
Occupation: Chief Research Fellow
Affiliation: Institute for Philosophy and Law, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: 8, Nikolayeva Str., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russian Federation
Edition
Volume 30 Issue 2
Pages
176-190
Abstract

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..

Keywords
anthroprostasia, human protection, value conflict, generally significant values, euthanasia, the right to die, prohibition of abortion, artificial pregnancy, ‘rights of embryos’
Received
29.03.2019
Date of publication
29.01.2019
Number of purchasers
90
Views
2088
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Previous versions
S023620070003023-2-1 Дата внесения правок в статью - 10.12.2018
Cite   Download pdf

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

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate