Biological normativity: a new hope for naturalism?

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Philosophy of Science

Background:

• The objective vs. subjective nature of health and disease has been debated since Boorse (1977).
• Pure naturalist, constructivist, and normativist accounts have faced challenges, leading to hybrid approaches.
• Matthewson and Griffiths (2017) proposed Biological Normativity, a naturalist framework.

Purpose of the Study:

• To defend the concept of Biological Normativity against recent criticisms (Schwartz, 2017).
• To advocate for a revival of naturalist approaches in the philosophy of medicine.
• To contribute to the objective, value-free understanding of health and disease.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
• Defense of Biological Normativity against specific criticisms.
• Engagement with existing literature on the nature of health and disease.

Main Results:

• The defense of Biological Normativity is successful against the presented criticisms.
• The paper supports the viability of naturalist accounts in defining health and disease.
• It argues for the potential of Biological Normativity to revive objective, value-free perspectives.

Conclusions:

• Biological Normativity offers a robust naturalist framework for understanding health and disease.
• Naturalist approaches can provide objective, value-free accounts, countering subjective and value-laden interpretations.
• This work supports a renewed focus on objective, scientific definitions in the philosophy of medicine.