Journal
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 447-466Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhx004
Keywords
biological function; biological normativity; disease; pathology
Categories
Funding
- Australian Research Council [DP130101774]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
We defend a view of the distinction between the normal and the pathological according to which that distinction has an objective, biological component. We accept that there is a normative component to the concept of disease, especially as applied to human beings. Nevertheless, an organism cannot be in a pathological state unless something has gone wrong for that organism from a purely biological point of view. Biology, we argue, recognises two sources of biological normativity, which jointly generate four ways of going wrong from a biological perspective. These findings show why previous attempts to provide objective criteria for pathology have fallen short: Biological science recognizes a broader range of ways in which living things can do better or worse than has previously been recognized in the philosophy of medicine.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available