The role of philosophy in public debate - A content analysis of the debate on the "sorting society" in Norway in 2017

被引:1
|
作者
Hofmann, Bjorn [1 ,2 ]
Carson, Siri Granum [3 ]
机构
[1] NTNU Norges Tekn Nat Vitenskapelige Univ, Inst Helsevitenskap, Gjovik, Norway
[2] Univ Oslo, Senter Med Etikk, Inst Helse & Samfunn, Oslo, Norway
[3] NTNU Norges Tekn Nat Vitenskapelige Univ, Program Anvendt Etikk, Gjovik, Norway
来源
ETIKK I PRAKSIS | 2018年 / 12卷 / 02期
关键词
Philosophical argumentation; public debate; discrimination; Down's syndrome; consequentialism; DOWN-SYNDROME; COST;
D O I
10.5324/eip.v12i2.2517
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Philosophy and ethics has recently gained increased attention in Norway. During 2017 philosophers hit the headlines in Norwegian media. One of the issues that gained most attention was the debate on "the differentiation/sorting society" (sorteringssamfunnet). The debate was sparked by Aksel Braanen Sterri's statement that persons with Downs's syndrome cannot live full lives related to the issue of introducing non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT). While the debate is interesting in terms of its content, we will in this article focus on in what way the debate in 2017 has affected the relationship between philosophy and society, in particular the role and reputation of philosophy in public debates. To analyse the debate we apply traditional quality criteria within philosophy such as consistency, clear premises and the ability to clarify concepts, present counter-arguments and limitations. We find that the debate about "the sorting society" undoubtedly has given philosophy more public attention, and that philosophers can help raise covert or forgotten issues and explicate unspoken intuitions, as well as stimulate improved argumentation. This should be welcomed. At the same time, we find that philosophy's adaptation to the media discourse eliminates academic reservations and nuances. If hidden assumptions, lack of consistency, conceptual and evaluative uncertainties, as well as ignorance of empirical premises, counter-arguments, and important implications become widespread, the result could be a poorer public debate, an impoverished society, and a weakened reputation for philosophy. One solution is that we as professionals are willing to make our claims, perspectives, arguments, and conclusions clear and comprehensible, and that we are willing to revise or withdraw them if we are not able to do so. Otherwise, philosophy may become a form of "art of deception" - a new form of sophism - and an easy target for Platonic criticism.
引用
收藏
页码:87 / 103
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条