Naturalism about health and disease: adding nuance for progress

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Medicine
• Bioethics
• Conceptual Analysis

Background:

• The literature on health and disease often presents a dichotomy between naturalism and normativism.
• This binary opposition is frequently oversimplified and does not capture the complexity of the concepts.

Purpose of the Study:

• To challenge the simplistic view of naturalism versus normativism in health and disease.
• To distinguish multiple, nuanced oppositions between naturalist and normativist claims across different domains.
• To offer a more sophisticated framework for understanding the role of values in defining health and disease.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the conceptual opposition between naturalism and normativism.
• Distinction of four key domains where naturalist and normativist claims can be contrasted: ordinary usage, conceptual clarity, operationalization of dysfunction, and justification of operationalization.
• Engagement with existing philosophical arguments (Schwartz, Hausman, Kingma).

Main Results:

• Identified four distinct domains of naturalism/normativism contrast in health and disease: ordinary usage, conceptual definitions, operationalization of dysfunction, and justification for operationalization.
• Demonstrated a link between arguments by Schwartz (2007) and Kingma (2010).
• Presented new arguments responding to Schwartz (2007) and Hausman (2012).

Conclusions:

• The simplistic naturalism/normativism opposition in health and disease is inadequate.
• Recognizing multiple, domain-specific oppositions allows for more nuanced positions on values in health and disease.
• This approach helps address concerns about the value-ladenness and potential relativism in defining health and disease.