z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
哈貝馬斯與莊子的共同陣線?
Author(s) -
Aiqin Wang
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
zhong wai yixue zhe xue
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1386-6354
DOI - 10.24112/ijccpm.141621
Subject(s) - eugenics , interpretation (philosophy) , sociology , epistemology , natural (archaeology) , philosophy , law , political science , history , linguistics , archaeology
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Chai attempts to demonstrate how Zhuangzi can be used to supplement Habermas’s arguments against liberal eugenics. He argues that both Habermas and Zhuangzi would view liberal eugenics as falling on the wrong side of the natural/artificial divide. It is debatable whether his interpretation of Zhuangzi as both fatalist and epistemically modest suits this conclusion. In particular, it is doubtful that someone who is suspicious of whether humans can ever have knowledge of nature would be entitled to assert that liberal eugenics is unnatural. Even if this position is possible, it would be one that equally rejects Habermas. Habermas attempts to isolate genetic engineering from acceptable interventions in a person’s life. Daoism, to the extent that it rejects liberal eugenics, would equally view the latter kinds of interventions as misguided. Chai’s Daoist ethics of human enhancement, therefore, could hardly be used to supplement Habermas’s position.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 54 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here