Affiliation:
1. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Abstract
Abstract
In this article, I address two objections developed by Kingma against Boorse’s (1977) bio-statistical theory of health, the objections that choice of reference classes renders the theory both circular and problematically value-laden. These objections not only apply to the bio-statistical theory of health but also to other naturalistic theories, like the dispositional theory of health. I present three rejoinders. First, I argue that the circularity objection arises from excessive methodological demands. Second, I argue that naturalists can resist the normativist claim that health and pathology are differentiated on the basis of personal or cultural values. Finally, I show that it is possible to justify choices between rival theories of health without the interference of evaluative commitments. With these rejoinders, I conclude that the bio-statistical theory, as well as other naturalistic theories of health utilizing reference classes, is not undermined by Kingma’s arguments.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Philosophy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference23 articles.
1. Disease and value: A rejection of the value-neutrality thesis;Agich,1983
2. On the distinction between disease and illness;Boorse;Philosophy and Public Affairs,1975
3. What a theory of mental health should be;Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,1976
4. Health as a theoretical concept;Philosophy of Science,1977
5. A rebuttal on health;Humber,1997
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Beyond Conceptual Analysis: Social Objectivity and Conceptual Engineering to Define Disease;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2024-02-29
2. Reference-Class Problems Are Real: Health-Adjusted Reference Classes and Low Bone Mineral Density;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2024-02-28
3. The Ends of Medicine and the Experience of Patients;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2020-03-19