China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Professionalisation and aesthetic values
Published in Stephen Pattison, Roisin Pill, Values in Professional Practice: lessons for health, social care and other professionals, 2020
It is, therefore, legitimate to ask after the fundamental aesthetic values that determine this process of selection and evaluation. Reynolds himself in fact debates at length who should be included and why (Reynolds 1975: 83-90). In principle, the debate might be resolved by appeal to the universal standard of taste. It is, however, precisely such a rational justification of the canon that can lead to the return of Blake's impoliteness. On the one hand, Reynolds has already been seen to emphasise that mere imitation is not of value to the artist. Appeal to nature and the canon alike presupposes the application of reason to assess the defects that inevitably lie in the model. This appeal to the universality of reason serves as a further justification of painting as a profession, for the canonical history of painting may be seen as the objective progress of the art to its present degree of perfection.
Can nature serve as a criterium for the use of reproductive technologies?
Published in Elisabeth Hildt, Dietmar Mieth, In Vitro Fertilisation in the 1990s, 2018
As a rule, the appeal to nature is not regarded as a convincing argument in contemporary bioethics. Rather, it is claimed that everything medicine does must be considered unnatural, that human self-determination ought to prevail over natural restrictions, and that mere biological facts can never be regarded as plausible arguments in a secular ethical debate. At times, it is even demanded that the concept of nature be excluded from the vocabulary of ethics. I agree that the debate triggered by the claim that menopausal IVF must be regarded as unnatural, was confused and unsatisfactory from the outset, due to conceptual obscurities surrounding the moral significance of nature. We no longer seem to know what nature is. Still, I am convinced that the exclusion of nature as a concept from our moral vocabulary would entail a deplorable impoverishment of moral language, thereby reducing our ability to articulate important aspects of moral experience. In order to become employable, the concept of nature is in need of thorough philosophical reconsideration. Most notably, we must be aware of the fact that in the course of history several incompatible models of understanding nature, several incompatible possibilities of experiencing nature have emerged. These models have profoundly influenced moral reflection on the relationship between medicine and nature up to the present. They are bound to interpret arguments concerning nature in heterogeneous and divergent ways. In my paper, two models will be introduced, an ancient and a modern one. Moreover, the present ignorance of nature with regard to assisted procreation will be compared to a rather similar experience in the nineteenth century. Finally, I will argue that, rather than unequivocally enhancing human liberation, the on-going eclipse of nature will produce unprecedented forms of dependence and restriction of its own.
Raw veganism
Published in Carlo Alvaro, Raw Veganism, 2020
I predict resistance here. It may be disputed that fruit is the only factor that promoted encephalization and that it is humans’ optimal food. In addition, one may also feel that my conclusion seems too hasty. First, I would like to point out that fruit was not the only factor that promoted encephalization. As I mentioned previously, during evolution, humans developed certain physiological mechanisms that improved nutrients absorption, especially glucose transporters. Also, there is the contribution of foraging and toolmaking. My point is that the studies discussed earlier on present compelling evidence showing that, to use the title of a key study, “Human Brain Expansion During Evolution Is Independent of Fire Control and Cooking.” Second, my argument does not commit the appeal to nature fallacy. That is, it does not move from the premise that fruit is natural to the conclusion that it must be morally acceptable or that we ought to eat fruit. Rather, to support my conclusion, I present a cumulative case: There is compelling evidence that human encephalization occurred prior to—and independently of—cooking in general and the preparation of foods from animal origins in particular. And since humans have not undergone significant biological change in the last 40,000 or 50,000 years. It follows that humans are adapted to thrive on raw diets. The importance of raw diets, especially the role of fruit in providing optimal nutrition, is so important that cannot be dismissed by the alleged charge of an appeal to nature.The scientific literature clearly shows that raw diets, especially plant-based raw diets, provide optimal nutrition and are beneficial in the prevention of diseases. On the other hand, it has become evident that animal-based food is not necessarily conducive to good health and in many case it is deleterious to human health.Animal-based food produces negative aesthetic externalities, including violence and environmental degradation. Since these are not desirable, we should avoid animal-based food whenever and wherever possible.
Tanning benefits, seasonal effects, and concerns about sunscreen: Measuring health beliefs about UV among college students
Published in Journal of American College Health, 2020
Anne K. Julian, Sheryl Thorburn, G. John Geldhof
In addition to the revised HBAU items, we measured indoor and outdoor tanning behavior (ever/never) and recent tanning (tanning in the past 12 months), as in the pilot study. We also measured sex, year in school, parental educational attainment, and Fitzpatrick skin type.47 We measured preferred formula of sunscreen, with the following response options: physical (eg, zinc, titanium dioxide), chemical (eg, avobenzone, oxybenzone), I don’t use sunscreen, and I don’t know. Trust in the effectiveness of the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of sunscreen was assessed by measuring agreement with the statement: “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does a good job of protecting consumers.” We measured bias toward natural or naturally derived products and processes with three items adapted from Levy and Maguire’s Appeal to Nature Inventory, measuring agreement with statements such as “I avoid purchasing products with artificial ingredients.” Responses ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating a stronger bias toward natural things.
An Experimental Ethics, but an Ethical Experiment? Anthropological Perspectives on Using Unproven Vaccines on Endangered Primates
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2018
Courtney Addison, Nicholas Malone
We should also consider how social context contours Ebola. The authors suggest NHPs’ “natural exposure to Ebola” makes them convenient candidates for experimental trials; using already-affected organisms spares lab animals that would otherwise be infected for research. But this appeal to nature overlooks that Ebola’s impacts are partially a human achievement, influenced by such diverse factors as subsistence patterns and livestock (Atherstone et al. 2017), population growth, and broader economics (Bausch and Schwarz 2014). Viewing biology as co-produced with social factors offers more traction for understanding Ebola.
Legal Admissibility of the Rorschach and R-PAS: A Review of Research, Practice, and Case Law
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2022
Donald J. Viglione, Corine de Ruiter, Christopher M. King, Gregory J. Meyer, Aaron J. Kivisto, Benjamin A. Rubin, John Hunsley
Attorneys may sometimes prove successful when challenging mental examination motions involving the Rorschach or the admissibility or weight of Rorschach evidence. For instance, one judge was persuaded that psychological tests, including the Rorschach, were not sufficiently validated for use in workplace litigation specifically (Fullwiley v. Union Pacific Corporation, 2005). This argument is similar to challenges to the use of the PCL-R for appraising violence risk among capital defendants specifically (DeMatteo et al., 2020). The success of such challenges seems dependent on contextual factors, including the procedural stage of the case (e.g., pretrial, trial, appeal); the nature of the case (e.g., an allegedly vulnerable civil litigant); and the functioning of the experts involved (e.g., the range of assessment methods used and the psycholegal questions they address). Most of the minority of successful challenges, direct and indirect, involved what Neal et al. (2019) described as challenges to fit (relevance or validity in context), validity (testability/error rates and general acceptance), and unhelpfulness or prejudicial impact, or their alternative typology of challenges to the substance and methodology of framework evidence, which is general and group-based, and the substance and methodology of diagnostic evidence, which is individual and case-specific. The results of our case law review suggest that attorneys may be more successful in challenging questionable use of the Rorschach (e.g., as profiling evidence), insufficient expert explanations of how Rorschach results are relevant (e.g., in terms of corroborative or incremental utility) to functional legal capacities, and experts who are unprepared to discuss the science of the Rorschach. Additionally, the weight assigned to Rorschach evidence, rather than its general inadmissibility for all legal purposes, is sometimes challenged.