Hegel scholars have been waiting two decades and a half for this book to appear. It contains the historico-critical edition of all unpublished papers written by Hegel from the end of the Frankfort to the end of the Bamberg period. Most importantly, it contains the first edition of two sets of until now unpublished manuscripts referring to the lectures given by Hegel at Jena on “Introduction to Philosophy” and “Logic and Metaphysics” in the 1801/02 Winter Term, and on the “Philosophy (...) of Spirit” in the 1803 Summer Term that had been discovered by Eva Ziesche in the early 1970s. These fragments are a very important piece in the rather complicated history of Hegel’s development because they document the state of Hegel’s thought after the nonsystematic essays of the Frankfort period and before the turn toward subjectivity beginning with the Jenese lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit of the 1803/04 Winter Term. In those years Hegel was working at a metaphysics of substance that he was to give up as soon as he became aware that the foundation of dialectic lies in the subjective structure of the self. The fragments had been last accounted for by Karl Rosenkranz in his Hegel’s Leben, and were misplaced in the manuscript section of the Berlin State Library sometime afterward. The rediscovery of the fragments was made public by Eva Ziesche in 1975 in the Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung; and some passages of the fragments were reported in a seminal paper by Baum and Meist that appeared in 1977 in the Hegel-Studien under the title “Durch Philosophie leben lernen,” that is, to learn to live through philosophy. Unfortunately, for twenty-two long years the paper by Baum and Meist has remained the only source to inform about the content of this crucial stage of Hegelian thought; and this is too bad, because a lot of good research might have been produced had this edition appeared more timely. (shrink)

Hegel scholars have been waiting two and a half decades for this book to appear. It contains the historicocritical edition of all unpublished papers written by Hegel from the end of the Frankfort period through to the end of the Bamberg period. Most importantly, it contains the first edition of two sets of until now unpublished manuscripts that had been discovered by Eva Ziesche in the early seventies referring to the lectures given by Hegel at Jena on “Introduction to (...) Philosophy” and “Logic and Metaphysics,” in the 1801/02 Winter Term, and on “Philosophy of Spirit” in the 1803 Summer Term. These fragments are a very important piece in the rather complicated history of Hegel’s development, because they document the state of Hegel’s thought after the nonsystematic essays of the Frankfurt period and before the turn toward subjectivity beginning with the Jenese lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit of the 1803/04 Winter Term. In those years Hegel was working on a metaphysics of substance that he was to give up as soon as he became aware that the foundation of dialectic lies in the subjective structure of the self. The fragments had been last accounted for by Karl Rosenkranz in his Hegel’s Leben, and were misplaced in the manuscript section of the Berlin State Library sometime afterwards. The rediscovery of the fragments was made public by Eva Ziesche in 1975 in the Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung; and some passages of the fragments were reported in a seminal paper by Baum and Meist which appeared in 1977 in the Hegel-Studien under the title “Durch Philosophie leben lernen,” that is, to learn to live through philosophy. Unfortunately, for twenty-two long years the paper by Baum and Meist has remained the only source of information about the content of this crucial stage of Hegelian thought; and this is too bad, because a lot of good research might have been produced had this edition appeared earlier. (shrink)

Contrary to the widespread concern about over-treatment at the end of life, today, patient preferences for palliative care at the end of life are frequently respected. However, ethically challenging situations in the current healthcare climate are, instead, situations in which a competent patient requests active treatment with the goal of life-prolongation while the physician suggests best supportive care only. The argument of futility has often been used to justify unilateral decisions made by physicians to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, (...) we argue that neither the concept of futility nor that of patient autonomy alone is apt for resolving situations in which physicians are confronted with patients' requests for active treatment. Instead, we integrate the relevant arguments that have been put forward in the academic discussion about ‘futile’ treatment into an ethical algorithm with five guiding questions: (1) Is there a chance that medical intervention will be effective in achieving the patient's treatment goal? (2) How does the physician evaluate the expected benefit and the potential harm of the treatment? (3) Does the patient understand his or her medical situation? (4) Does the patient prefer receiving treatment after evaluating the benefit-harm ratio and the costs? (5) Does the treatment require many resources? This algorithm shall facilitate approaching patients' requests for treatments deemed futile by the physician in a systematic way, and responding to these requests in an ethically appropriate manner. It thereby adds substantive considerations to the current procedural approaches of conflict resolution in order to improve decision making among physicians, patients and families. (shrink)

Die Entscheidung für oder gegen lebensverlängernde Behandlungsmaßnahmen geht inzwischen der Hälfte aller Todesfälle in Europa voraus. Sie wird im klinischen Alltag häufig als ethische Herausforderung wahrgenommen, zudem sind unter Klinikern juristische Unsicherheiten und Fragen der korrekten Vorgehensweise verbreitet. Die hier vorgestellte Münchner Leitlinie zu Entscheidungen am Lebensende soll rechtliche Unsicherheit reduzieren, Klinikumsmitarbeiter für die ethische Dimension von Therapieentscheidungen am Lebensende sensibilisieren und ethisch begründete Entscheidungen fördern. Aus organisationsethischer Perspektive soll mit der Leitlinie eine Reflexion und Meinungsbildung zu einem ethisch relevanten (...) Themenbereich erfolgen und ein Beitrag zur Qualitätssicherung der Patientenversorgung und damit auch zur Patientenzufriedenheit geleistet werden. Die Prozesse der Leitlinienentwicklung, -aktualisierung und -implementierung werden vorgestellt. Die wesentlichen inhaltlichen Elemente der Leitlinie mit Darstellung der Rechtslage, der Definition zentraler Begriffe und Klärung medizinischer Entscheidungskriterien werden an Hand eines Entscheidungsalgorithmus dargestellt. Inhalt und Prozess der Leitlinienentwicklung werden auf die folgenden organisationsethischen Qualitätskriterien hin überprüft: deliberativer Prozess, inhaltliche Transparenz, repräsentative Zusammensetzung der Arbeitsgruppe, Implementierung und Evaluation der Leitlinie. Institutionen, die diese Leitlinie übernehmen wollen, sollten diese von einem autorisierten Gremium überprüfen lassen und auf die spezifischen Bedürfnisse ihrer Institution adaptieren. Hierfür ist eine vorgeschaltete Bedarfserhebung hilfreich. In dem Gremium sollten all diejenigen vertreten sein, die in der Folge mit der Leitlinie arbeiten werden. (shrink)

In recent years, philosophers influenced by Peirce's pragmatism have contributed to the democracy debate by offering not simply a justification of democracy that relies on epistemic as well as moral presumptions, but a justification on purely epistemic grounds, that is, without recourse to any moral values or principles. In a nutshell, this pragmatist epistemic argument takes as its starting-point a few fundamental epistemic principles we cannot reasonably deny, and goes on to claim that a number of interpersonal epistemic commitments follow, (...) which in turn justify democracy in a fullfledged, deliberative sense. In light of the fact of reasonable pluralism, this freestanding epistemic justification of democracy is allegedly superior to the mainstream, morally anchored liberal alternatives, because epistemic principles are universally shared despite moral disagreement. The pragmatist epistemic approach has been praised for being a valuable contribution to democratic theory, but few attempts have so far been made to systematically scrutinize the argument as a whole. The present paper sets out to do that. In particular, our investigation focuses on the underappreciated but central coherence form of the pragmatist epistemic argument: the central claim that in order to be an internally coherent believer, one must accept democracy. While we endorse the fundamental premise for the sake of argument, our analysis shows that the argument fails in both of the two further steps, and. More specifically, the epistemic principles are too weak to entail the suggested interpersonal epistemic commitments; and even if these epistemic commitments are granted, they are insufficient to ground democracy. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to connect the traditional epistemological issue of justification with what one might call the “new reasons paradigm” coming from the philosophy of action and metaethics. More specifically, I will show that Conee and Feldman’s mentalism, a version of internalism about justification, can profitably be spelled out in terms of subjective normative reasons. On the way to achieving this aim, I will argue that it is important to ask not just the oft-discussed ontological question about (...) epistemic reasons—what kind of entities are they?—but also: Reasons in which sense are fundamental to justification? (shrink)

Die rasanten technischen Fortschritte in der Genomforschung ermöglichen heute schon die Sequenzierung des einzelnen menschlichen Genoms in wenigen Tagen und zu vertretbaren Kosten. In der Krebsforschung ermöglicht die genetische Sequenzanalyse, zunehmend die Defekte zu identifizieren, die für das Tumorwachstum bei jedem einzelnen Patienten verantwortlich sind. Auf dieser Basis können zielgerichteter Therapien entwickelt werden. Diese Forschung wirft jedoch auch neue, ethische Fragen auf. Diesen normativen Fragen widmet sich in Heidelberg das interdisziplinäre EURAT Projekt mit dem Ziel, ethisch und rechtlich informierte Lösungen (...) zu formulieren und zu etablieren.Dieser Beitrag gibt zum einen einen Überblick über die ethischen und klinischen Fragen, die für den Aufklärungs- und Einwilligungsprozess in die biobankbasierte Genomforschung relevant sind. Zum anderen wird als organisationsethische Antwort auf die Frage, wie eine Forschungsinstitution den verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit genetischen Informationen in Biobanken über die verschiedenen Berufsgruppen und beteiligten Institute hinweg sichern kann, ein Verhaltenskodex vorgestellt. Eine gut begründete, informierte Zustimmung und ein Verhaltenskodex sind beides Elemente einer „Best Practice Leitlinie“ und sollen den verantwortlichen Umgang aller beteiligten Mitarbeiter mit sensiblen genetischen Daten prägen. (shrink)

Post- and decolonial theory have contested the idea of historical progress as a Eurocentric, hegemonic, or neocolonialist misconception. Does this imply that we should give up any idea of moral progress? This paper critically examines Allen Buchanan’s and Russell Powell’s book The Evolution of Moral Progress and their claim that there is still a need for a theory of moral progress. For Buchanan and Powell, such theory should allow and guide a better understanding of what moral progress consists of. Even (...) though they do not claim to already provide us with such a comprehensive theory of moral progress they aim to work out whether and how certain types of moral progress are possible and assess their limits. In doing so they mainly focus on improvements in terms of social participation as an uncontroversial type of moral progress. In the following, I will first discuss the characteristics of the authors’ notion of progress and then raise some critical concerns about the example they have chosen of the history of human rights as a history of progress and, particularly, about the history of the rights of people with disabilities. (shrink)

SummaryThis introductory article sketches out the evolution of the concept of sociability in moral and political debates from Grotius to the German Romantics, so as to elucidate the range and scope of the contributions to this special issue. The article argues that the concept of sociability serves as a bridge between moral theory, domestic politics and international relations, just as it also connects the jurisprudential mode of enquiry to subsequent Enlightenment enquiries into political economy, aesthetics, individual and collective moral psychology, (...) forms of government and philosophical history. Particular attention is paid to sociability's relationship to moral scepticism, and to its position between morality and anthropology. The article highlights the central role of Rousseau in radically reformulating the debate and in sparking new controversies up to the nineteenth century. (shrink)