Applying ethics, placating ethics, or applying ourselves to ethics? A critical view of environmental ethics as applied ethics

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMerlo, A. S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-14T01:51:55Z
dc.date.available2020-01-14T01:51:55Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractThere is actually a pervasive tendency to consider environmental ethics and bioethics as specific cases pertaining to a supposed kind of ″applied ethics″. Application can be understood in two different meanings: a concrete sense, as in technical applications, and a psychological meaning, as when we mentally apply ourselves to a task. Ethics has been always thought as a practical knowledge, in a ″praxical″ sense and not in a ″poietic″ one. Ethics has to do with ″ends″ not with ″means″; in this sense ethics is ″useless″. Since ethics has to do with the ultimate meaning of things, ethical choices give meaning to all practical activities. In that sense ethics instead of being useless must be considered as ″over-useful″ (Maritain). Nowadays politics tend to instrumentalize ethics in order to political objectives. The consequence has been the reconceptualization of specific ethics as applied ethics. Environmental ethics and bioethics are then submitted to politics following the logic of technical applications. Environmental ethics and bioethics considered as applied ethics are at risk to becoming not only useless, but also meaningless. There is actually a pervasive tendency to consider environmental ethics and bioethics as specific cases pertaining to a supposed kind of ″applied ethics″. Application can be understood in two different meanings: a concrete sense, as in technical applications, and a psychological meaning, as when we mentally apply ourselves to a task. Ethics has been always thought as a practical knowledge, in a ″praxical″ sense and not in a ″poietic″ one. Ethics has to do with ″ends″ not with ″means″; in this sense ethics is ″useless″. Since ethics has to do with the ultimate meaning of things, ethical choices give meaning to all practical activities. In that sense ethics instead of being useless must be considered as ″over-useful″ (Maritain). Nowadays politics tend to instrumentalize ethics in order to political objectives. The consequence has been the reconceptualization of specific ethics as applied ethics. Environmental ethics and bioethics are then submitted to politics following the logic of technical applications. Environmental ethics and bioethics considered as applied ethics are at risk to becoming not only useless, but also meaningless.There is actually a pervasive tendency to consider environmental ethics and bioethics as specific cases pertaining to a supposed kind of ″applied ethics″. Application can be understood in two different meanings: a concrete sense, as in technical applications, and a psychological meaning, as when we mentally apply ourselves to a task. Ethics has been always thought as a practical knowledge, in a ″praxical″ sense and not in a ″poietic″ one. Ethics has to do with ″ends″ not with ″means″; in this sense ethics is ″useless″. Since ethics has to do with the ultimate meaning of things, ethical choices give meaning to all practical activities. In that sense ethics instead of being useless must be considered as ″over-useful″ (Maritain). Nowadays politics tend to instrumentalize ethics in order to political objectives. The consequence has been the reconceptualization of specific ethics as applied ethics. Environmental ethics and bioethics are then submitted to politics following the logic of technical applications. Environmental ethics and bioethics considered as applied ethics are at risk to becoming not only useless, but also meaningless. There is actually a pervasive tendency to consider environmental ethics and bioethics as specific cases pertaining to a supposed kind of ″applied ethics″. Application can be understood in two different meanings: a concrete sense, as in technical applications, and a psychological meaning, as when we mentally apply ourselves to a task. Ethics has been always thought as a practical knowledge, in a ″praxical″ sense and not in a ″poietic″ one. Ethics has to do with ″ends″ not with ″means″; in this sense ethics is ″useless″. Since ethics has to do with the ultimate meaning of things, ethical choices give meaning to all practical activities. In that sense ethics instead of being useless must be considered as ″over-useful″ (Maritain). Nowadays politics tend to instrumentalize ethics in order to political objectives. The consequence has been the reconceptualization of specific ethics as applied ethics. Environmental ethics and bioethics are then submitted to politics following the logic of technical applications. Environmental ethics and bioethics considered as applied ethics are at risk to becoming not only useless, but also meaningless.There is actually a pervasive tendency to consider environmental ethics and bioethics as specific cases pertaining to a supposed kind of ″applied ethics″. Application can be understood in two different meanings: a concrete sense, as in technical applications, and a psychological meaning, as when we mentally apply ourselves to a task. Ethics has been always thought as a practical knowledge, in a ″praxical″ sense and not in a ″poietic″ one. Ethics has to do with ″ends″ not with ″means″; in this sense ethics is ″useless″. Since ethics has to do with the ultimate meaning of things, ethical choices give meaning to all practical activities. In that sense ethics instead of being useless must be considered as ″over-useful″ (Maritain). Nowadays politics tend to instrumentalize ethics in order to political objectives. The consequence has been the reconceptualization of specific ethics as applied ethics. Environmental ethics and bioethics are then submitted to politics following the logic of technical applications. Environmental ethics and bioethics considered as applied ethics are at risk to becoming not only useless, but also meaningless. There is actually a pervasive tendency to consider environmental ethics and bioethics as specific cases pertaining to a supposed kind of ″applied ethics″. Application can be understood in two different meanings: a concrete sense, as in technical applications, and a psychological meaning, as when we mentally apply ourselves to a task. Ethics has been always thought as a practical knowledge, in a ″praxical″ sense and not in a ″poietic″ one. Ethics has to do with ″ends″ not with ″means″; in this sense ethics is ″useless″. Since ethics has to do with the ultimate meaning of things, ethical choices give meaning to all practical activities. In that sense ethics instead of being useless must be considered as ″over-useful″ (Maritain). Nowadays politics tend to instrumentalize ethics in order to political objectives. The consequence has been the reconceptualization of specific ethics as applied ethics. Environmental ethics and bioethics are then submitted to politics following the logic of technical applications. Environmental ethics and bioethics considered as applied ethics are at risk to becoming not only useless, but also meaningless.
dc.format.extent5
dc.fuente.origenFacultad de Medicina
dc.identifier.issn1132-1989
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/27512
dc.issue.numeroNo. 91
dc.pagina.final298
dc.pagina.inicio293
dc.revistaCuadernos De Bioeticaes_ES
dc.subjectEthicses_ES
dc.subjectEnvironmental Ethicses_ES
dc.subjectBioethicses_ES
dc.subjectApplied Ethicses_ES
dc.subjectTechniquees_ES
dc.subjectSocial Sciences - Other Topicses_ES
dc.subject.ddc170
dc.subject.deweyÉticaes_ES
dc.titleApplying ethics, placating ethics, or applying ourselves to ethics? A critical view of environmental ethics as applied ethicses_ES
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumenVol. 27
sipa.codpersvinculados99974
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Applying ethics, placating ethics, or applying ourselves to ethics? A critical view of environmental ethics as applied ethics .pdf
Size:
23.99 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Artículos de revistas