Login / Signup

Biological normativity: a new hope for naturalism?

Walter Veit
Published in: Medicine, health care, and philosophy (2021)
Since Boorse [Philos Sci 44(4):542-573, 1977] published his paper "Health as a theoretical concept" one of the most lively debates within philosophy of medicine has been on the question of whether health and disease are in some sense 'objective' and 'value-free' or 'subjective' and 'value-laden'. Due to the apparent 'failure' of pure naturalist, constructivist, or normativist accounts, much in the recent literature has appealed to more conciliatory approaches or so-called 'hybrid accounts' of health and disease. A recent paper by Matthewson and Griffiths [J Med Philos 42(4):447-466, 2017], however, may bear the seeds for the revival of purely naturalist approach to health and disease. In this paper, I defend their idea of Biological Normativity against recent criticism by Schwartz [J Med Philos Forum Bioethics Philos Med 42(4):485-502, 2017] and hope to help it flower into a revival of naturalist approaches in the philosophy of medicine.
Keyphrases
  • public health
  • healthcare
  • mental health
  • health information
  • systematic review
  • spinal cord injury
  • health promotion
  • depressive symptoms
  • computed tomography
  • human health
  • social media
  • diffusion weighted imaging