| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.49 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A presente dissertação propõe uma reflexão sobre a ciência da Bioética. Defende-se
que os problemas bioéticos são inseparáveis de problemas antropológicos fundamentais
como os da finitude e da vulnerabilidade. Considera-se que o discurso bioético tende a
simplificar a natureza e as experiências humanas adotando um ponto de vista claramente
influenciado pelas ciências e pela tecnologia. A finitude da existência humana implica quer
uma alteração do sentido da expressão do reconhecimento ou alteridade, quer o poder de fazer
aparecer o ethos nas suas estruturas constitutivas. A finitude é limite inultrapassável da vida
porque é trespassada pelo cuidado, pelo compromisso político-social com o outro, fazendo
do ser situado um instante entre o nascimento e da morte. É porque o conceito existencial de
“fim” contém mais do que o conceito epistemológico de “limite”, a compreensão da finitude
não pode ser extraída dos saberes “positivos” sobre o corpo, nem da análise do valor
epistemológico-cognitivo do corpo. Essa compreensão precede toda a biologia e ontologia
da vida: existência, facticidade, perda, luto, festa, caracterizam a finitude, e são constitutivos
dos conceitos existenciais de saúde, contingência, doença, morte, sofrimento,
de responsabilidade relacional. Neste âmbito, defende-se que uma das finalidades da
Bioética será a de questionar as soluções encontradas pelos atuais paradigmas que tutelam a
novel área de reflexão. Denuncia-se a falta deste questionamento, e o acantonamento do
debate bioético contemporâneo a uma simplificação de prós e de contras, simplificação
dominante no discurso anglo-saxónico. Depois da denúncia da limitação filosófica do escopo
do debate, propõe-se como alternativa uma Bioética da Finitude, só compreensível à luz de
uma ética do cuidado. Neste contexto, articula-se a teoria do reconhecimento de tradição
hegeliana e os conceitos de experiência de alteridade, finitude, facticidade, falibilidade,
vulnerabilidade e responsabilidade relacional. Esta tradição de pensamento é confrontada
com o niilismo ínsito dos modelos antropológicos contemporâneos. Ao contrário da
instrumentalização biotecnológica nas sucessivas reconfigurações dos modelos pós-humano,
inumano e transumano, com pretensões aprioristas e universais absolutos, a Bioética
necessita de uma viragem quântica. Propõe-se que esta se venha a situar num novo modo de
pensar a diferencialidade corpórea, os problemas de saúde pública e ambientais, a
imortalidade, para além do saber epistémico e da desvalorização do sofrimento enquanto
conhecimento encarnado.
The present dissertation proposes a reflection on the science of Bioethics. It is argued that bioethical problems are inseparable from fundamental anthropological problems such as those of finitude and vulnerability. It is considered that bioethical discourse tends to simplify nature and human experiences by adopting a point of view clearly influenced by science and technology. The finitude of human existence implies either a change in the meaning of the expression of recognition or alterity, or the power to bring ethos into its constitutive structures. Finitude is an insurmountable limit of life because it is pierced by care, by political-social commitment to the other, making it something that is situated between an instant of birth and death. It is because the existential concept of “end” contains more than the epistemological concept of “limit”, the understanding of finitude cannot be extracted from the “positive” knowledge about the body, nor from the analysis of the epistemological-cognitive value of the body. This understanding precedes all the biology and ontology of life: existence, facticity, loss, mourning, celebration, characterize finitude, and are constitutive of existential concepts of health, contingency, illness, death, suffering, relational responsibility. In this context, it is argued that one of the aims of Bioethics will be to question the solutions found by the current paradigms that protect the novel area of reflection. The absence of this questioning is heavily denounced, and the same is done to the cantonment of the contemporary bioethical debate to a simplification of pros and cons, a simplification that is rampant in the Anglo-Saxon discourse. After denouncing the philosophical limitation of the scope of the debate, it is proposed as an alternative a Bioethics of Finitude, only comprehensible in the light of an ethics of care. In this context, the theory of recognition of Hegelian tradition and the concepts of experience of alterity, finitude, facticity, fallibility, vulnerability and relational liability are articulated. This rich tradition of thought is confronted with the pervasive nihilism of contemporary anthropological models. Unlike the biotechnological instrumentalization in the successive reconfigurations of the posthuman, inhuman and transhuman, with absolute a priori and universal pretensions, Bioethics needs a quantum leap. It is proposed that this situation should be envisioned according to a new way of thinking the corporeal differentiality, the problems of public and environmental health, and immortality, beyond the sheer constrains of epistemic knowledge and the devaluation of suffering as incarnate knowledge.
The present dissertation proposes a reflection on the science of Bioethics. It is argued that bioethical problems are inseparable from fundamental anthropological problems such as those of finitude and vulnerability. It is considered that bioethical discourse tends to simplify nature and human experiences by adopting a point of view clearly influenced by science and technology. The finitude of human existence implies either a change in the meaning of the expression of recognition or alterity, or the power to bring ethos into its constitutive structures. Finitude is an insurmountable limit of life because it is pierced by care, by political-social commitment to the other, making it something that is situated between an instant of birth and death. It is because the existential concept of “end” contains more than the epistemological concept of “limit”, the understanding of finitude cannot be extracted from the “positive” knowledge about the body, nor from the analysis of the epistemological-cognitive value of the body. This understanding precedes all the biology and ontology of life: existence, facticity, loss, mourning, celebration, characterize finitude, and are constitutive of existential concepts of health, contingency, illness, death, suffering, relational responsibility. In this context, it is argued that one of the aims of Bioethics will be to question the solutions found by the current paradigms that protect the novel area of reflection. The absence of this questioning is heavily denounced, and the same is done to the cantonment of the contemporary bioethical debate to a simplification of pros and cons, a simplification that is rampant in the Anglo-Saxon discourse. After denouncing the philosophical limitation of the scope of the debate, it is proposed as an alternative a Bioethics of Finitude, only comprehensible in the light of an ethics of care. In this context, the theory of recognition of Hegelian tradition and the concepts of experience of alterity, finitude, facticity, fallibility, vulnerability and relational liability are articulated. This rich tradition of thought is confronted with the pervasive nihilism of contemporary anthropological models. Unlike the biotechnological instrumentalization in the successive reconfigurations of the posthuman, inhuman and transhuman, with absolute a priori and universal pretensions, Bioethics needs a quantum leap. It is proposed that this situation should be envisioned according to a new way of thinking the corporeal differentiality, the problems of public and environmental health, and immortality, beyond the sheer constrains of epistemic knowledge and the devaluation of suffering as incarnate knowledge.
Description
Keywords
Bioética da finitude Responsabilidade relacional Ethos Vulnerabilidade Bioethics of finitude Relational responsibility Vulnerability