Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:06:18.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Métaphysique et éthique de la reproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2017

LYNDA GAUDEMARD
LYNDA GAUDEMARD*
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille Université
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I examine the standard assumption that ethical disagreements on abortion and human embryonic stem cells research are grounded on metaphysical claims that underlie these ethical issues. Contrary to what some philosophers have claimed, I argue that, although the bioethical positions about the human embryo’s moral status are partly grounded on metaphysical claims, incorporating metaphysical arguments in the debates about the ethics of reproduction will not resolve this issue.

Dans cet article, j’examine la thèse classique selon laquelle les désaccords au sujet de l’avortement et de la recherche sur les cellules souches embryonnaires relèvent d’un désaccord plus fondamental relatif à des théories métaphysiques qui fondent ces positions éthiques. Je montrerai que si les positions au sujet du statut moral de l’embryon sont en partie motivées par des conceptions métaphysiques, introduire des arguments métaphysiques dans les débats relatifs à l’éthique de la reproduction ne permet pas de résoudre ce problème.

Keywords

métaphysiqueéthique de la reproductionbioéthiqueembryonpotentialitéidentité personnelleavortement
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références bibliographiques

Alvarez Manninen, Bertha 2009 «The Metaphysical Foundations of Reproductive Ethics», Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 26, no 2, p. 191–214.Google Scholar
Annis, David B. 1984 «Abortion and the Potentiality Principle», The Southern Journal of Philosohy, vol. 22, no 2, p. 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baertschi, Bernard 2008 «The Question of the Embryo’s Moral Status», Focus, vol. 1, no 2, p. 76–79.Google Scholar
Baertschi, Bernard et Mauron, Alexandre 2010 «Moral Status Revisited: the Challenge of Reversed Potency», Bioethics, vol. 24, no 2, p. 96–103.Google Scholar
Benn, Stanley 1973 «Abortion, Infanticide, and Respect for Persons», dans Feinberg, Joel, dir., The Problem of Abortion, Belmont (CA), Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Benovsky, Jiri 2016 Meta-metaphysics. On Metaphysical Equivalence, Primitiveness, and Theory choice, Bâle, Springer.Google Scholar
Brendel, Elke 2009 «The Epistemic Function of Virtuous Dispositions», dans Damschen, Gregor, Schnepf, Robert et Stüber, Karsten, dir., Debating Dispositions: Issues in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind, Berlin/New York (NY), De Gruyter, p. 320–340.Google Scholar
Buckle, Stephen 1988 «Arguing from Potential», Bioethics, vol. 2, no 3, p. 226–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Timothy 2000 «The Relevance of Metaphysics to Bioethics: a Reply to Earl Conee», Mind, vol. 109, no 434, p. 275–279.Google Scholar
Charnet, Marie-Pierre 2002 «Notes pour une philosophie de l’embryon», Études, vol. 396, no 3, p. 323–334.Google Scholar
Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique pour les sciences de la vie 1984 Avis numéro 1 sur les prélèvements de tissus d’embryons et de fœtus humains morts, à des fins thérapeutiques, diagnostiques et scientifiques. Rapport du 22 mai 1984.Google Scholar
Condic, Maureen L. 2014 «Totipotency: What It Is and What It Is Not», Stem Cells and Development, vol. 23, no 8, p. 796–812.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl 1999 «Metaphysics and the Morality of Abortion», Mind, vol. 108, no 432, p. 619–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covey, Edward 1991 «Physical Possibility and Potentiality in Ethics», American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 28, no 3, p. 237–244.Google Scholar
DeGrazia, David 2005 Human Identity and Bioethics, New York (NY), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dufner, Annette 2013 «Potentiality Arguments and the Definition of “Human Organisms”», The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 13, no 1, p. 33–34.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Tristram 1996 The Foundations of Bioethics, New York (NY), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel 1980 «Abortion», dans Beauchamp, Tom L. et Regan, Tom, dir., Matters of Life and Death, New York (NY), Random House, p. 183–216.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, William J. 2004 «Totipotency and the Moral Status of Embryos: New Problems for an Old Argument», Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 35, no 1, p. 108–122.Google Scholar
Ford, Norman 1998 When Did I Begin? Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science, New York (NY), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giubilini, Alberto et Minerva, Francesca 2013 «After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?» Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 39, n° 5, p. 261–263.Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter M.S. 2007 Human Nature: The Categorial Framework, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hare, Richard M. 1975 «Abortion and the Golden Rule», Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 4, no 3, p. 201–222.Google Scholar
Harris, John 1985 The Value of Life: an Introduction to Medical Ethics, Londres, Routledge et Kegan Paul, p. 11–12.Google Scholar
Heller, Mark 1984 «Temporal Parts of Four Dimensional Objects», Philosophical Studies, vol. 46, p. 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershenov, David B. et Koch, Rose J. À paraître «Morally Relevant Potential», Journal of Medical Ethics.Google Scholar
Kuhse, Helge et Singer, Peter 1985 Should the Baby live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David 1976 «Survival and Identity», dans Oksenberg-Rorty, Amelie, dir., The Identities of Persons, Berkeley (CA), University of California Press, p. 17–40.Google Scholar
Lizza, John P. 2005 «Potentiality, Irreversibility, and Death», Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 30, no 1, p. 45–64.Google Scholar
Locke, John 2009 Essai sur l’entendement humain, Paris, Le livre de poche (coll. «Classiques de la philosophie»).Google Scholar
Marquis, Don 1989 «Why Abortion is Immoral», The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 86, no 4, p. 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McInerney, Peter K. 1999 «Does a Fœtus Already Have a Future-Like-Ours?» The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 87, no 5, p. 264–268.Google Scholar
McKitrick, Jenifer 2014 «Dispositions and Potentialities», dans Lizza, John P., dir., Potentiality: Metaphysical and Biomedical Dimensions, Baltimore (MD), Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 49–68.Google Scholar
McMahan, Jeff 2002 The Ethics of Killing: Problems of the Margins of Life, New York (NY), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Kristie 2005a «What is Metaphysical Equivalence?» Philosophical Papers, vol. 34, no 1, p. 45–74.Google Scholar
Miller, Kristie 2005b «The Metaphysical Equivalence of Three and Four Dimensionalism», Erkenntnis, vol. 62, no 1, p. 91–117.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric T. 1997a «Was I Ever a Fetus?» Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 57, no 1, p. 95–110.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric T. 1997b The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology, New York (NY), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric T. 2003 «An Argument for Animalism», dans Martin, Raymond et Barreisi, John, dir., Personal Identity, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 318–334.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek 1990 Reasons and Persons, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Patterson, Francine et Gordon, Wendy 1993 «The Case for the Personhood of Gorillas», dans Cavalieri, Paola et Singer, Peter, dir., The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond Humanity, Londres, Fourth Estate, p. 58–77.Google Scholar
Perrett, Roy W. 2000 «Taking Life and the Argument from Potentiality», Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 24, no 1, p. 186–197.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, David 2009 «The Insignificance of Personal Identity for Bioethics», Bioethics, vol. 24, no 9, p. 481–489.Google Scholar
Shinagawa, Toshie, et al. 2014 «Histone Variants Enriched in Oocytes Enhance Reprogramming to Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells», Cell Stem Cell, vol. 14, no 2, p. 217–227.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore 2005 Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter 1993 Practical Ethics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter et Warren, Mary Anne 1977 «Do Potential People Have Moral Rights?» Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 7, no 2, p. 275–289.Google Scholar
Steinbock, Bonnie 2011 Life Before Birth. The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses, New York (NY), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stier, Marco et Schoene-Seifert, Bettina 2013 «The Argument from Potentiality in the Embryo Protection Debate: Finally “Depotentialized”?», The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 13, no 1, p. 19–27.Google Scholar
Stone, Jim 1987 «Why Potentiality Matters?» Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 24, no 2, p. 815–830.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Kazutoshi et Yamanaka, Shinya 2006 «Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors», Cell, vol. 126, no 4, p. 663–676.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael 1983 Abortion and Infanticide, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Unger, Peter 1992 Identity, Consciousness, and Value, New York (NY), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard 1973 Problems of the Self, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar