UNDA Affiliation

yes

Abstract

Philosophical discussions of health and disease have traditionally been dominated by a debate between normativists, who hold that health is an inescapably value-laded concept and naturalists, such as Christopher Boorse, who believe that it is possible to derive a purely descriptive or theoretical definition of health based upon biological function. In this paper I defend a distinctive view which traces its origins in Aristotle's naturalistic ethics. An Arisotelian would agree with Boorse that health and disease are ubiquitous features of the natural world and thus not mere projections of human interests and values. She would differ from him in rejecting the idea that value is a non-natural quality. I conclude my discussion with some comments of the normative character of living systems.

Keywords

Peer-reviewed, Christopher Boorse, health, naturalism, normativism, teleology

Comments

Due to copyright restrictions the published version of this article is unavailable for download. The author's final version is available for download.

Staff and Students of the University of Notre Dame Australia may access the full text of this article here

This article may be accessed from the publisher here

The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice may be accessed from the National Library of Australia here

Share

COinS
 

Link to Publisher Version (DOI)

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01393.x