AI robots, deadly poisons and the relevance of counterexamples: reply to critics
Samenvatting
AI robots, deadly poisons and the relevance of counterexamples: reply to critics. I thank the commentators for their attention to my article and the Journal of Medical Ethics for the opportunity to respond. My goal is to make sound arguments, not to increase donation rates.1 I do not know what social value, if any, these arguments have.2 I am motivated to present them because using false principles and unsound arguments to defend the dead donor rule (DDR) makes it easier for those who deny an egalitarian view of moral status to promote euthanasia and other offences against human life. True principles can survive rational scrutiny, including the kind of contrived counterexamples that are common in analytic philosophy. I lack the ‘rich contextual knowledge and perceptual sophistication’ that Butorovic describes, so I rely on rational arguments, perhaps ‘Frege-Geach syllogisms’.3 For example, I use the non-lethal hepatectomy case to challenge one version of the do-no-harm principle. Omelianchuk...
Waarom dit ertoe doet
De kwaliteit en veiligheid van zorg kunnen beïnvloed worden door deze ontwikkeling.
Context (AI-duiding)
Klik op “Toon context” om AI-duiding op te halen.
Scores
De mate waarin dit signaal de Nederlandse gezondheidszorg kan beïnvloeden (1 = minimaal, 5 = transformatief).
Hoe snel actie of aandacht nodig is (1 = kan wachten, 5 = onmiddellijke aandacht vereist).
De mate van onzekerheid over de uitkomst of timing (1 = zeer voorspelbaar, 5 = zeer onzeker).
Tags
Bronnen
- AI robots, deadly poisons and the relevance of counterexamples: reply to criticsJournal of Medical Ethics —
Pipeline versie: 0.2.0 | Gegenereerd door: pipeline