فهرست مطالب امیرحسین خداپرست

Closed-mindedness is an intellectual vice that that degrades people intellectually and practically. Academic practice, in particular, requires an open mind which is susceptible of critical dialogue, that is, the same virtues and skills that are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Thus, if we take closed-mindedness as a vice that should be avoided by the general public, it is a devastating flaw for academics in particular that undermines the different functions of their activities. In this paper, after outlining a framework that provides an opportunity to discuss the importance and impact of moral and intellectual virtues and vices on academic activity, we turn to the main features of closed-mindedness and what makes it an intellectual vice. Then, we show how this vice misleads the three functions of academic practice and degrades them, while open-mindedness enriches these functions and helps them to be realized in the best possible way.

While the moral argument for the existence of God is a more familiar issue in philosophy of religion, recently, atheist philosophers have proposed a moral argument against the existence of God. This argument has been formulated in at least five ways: (1) from the problem of evil, (2) from the critique of alienation, (3) from autonomy, (4) from the critique of expediency, and (5) from the immoral teachings of world religions. Some of these formulations can be regarded as a theoretical moral argument against the existence of God and some of them as a practical/pragmatist moral argument against the existence of God. Theoretical moral arguments against the existence of God have concentrated on moral evidence that show there is no God and, so, theism is false, while practical moral arguments against the existence of God have concentrated on the fact that belief in God is an obstacle for fulfilled moral living and achieving the ends of moral life, or even makes our actions immoral. At the end, I conclude that none of the formulations of the moral argument against the existence of God are productive. However, there are important lessons in each of the formulations of the argument for theists if they attend to them.

Ethical discussion of genetic counseling is taken into account by the framework of genetic ethics; however, firstly, it is an applied issue rather than being a theoretical one. And there is much dependence to acquiring scientific, psychological, and communicative skills. Genetic counseling needs to pursue a comprehensive ethical strategy. In this strategy, some principles can be utilized that their frequent application for explaining and evaluating bioethical issues has made them known as “bioethical principles” including: “self-regulation”, “doing good deeds”, “avoid doing damages” and “justice”. However, application of bioethical principles in genetic counseling is not general and abstract and these principles are firstly, flexible and revisable in relation to a critical state and situation and secondly, they rely on acquiring particular and minor knowledge and skills. The thing that gives more depth and precision to application of the bioethical principles and helps the counselor to understand the situations is being dominant to technical skills in genetic counseling such as scientific and communicative ones.

Intellectual autonomy indicates how human being can preserve her epistemic agency and intellectually manage and regulate herself. This epistemic value is commonly proposed against intellectual heteronomy according to which the believer is not capable of applying her epistemic agency because of internal or external impediments. Since the early modern era, some philosophers and intellectuals have supposed, implicitly or explicitly, that religious belief violates intellectual autonomy. However, the responsibilist version of virtue epistemology shows that autonomy, as an intellectual virtue, is not epistemic self-reliance and independence from the other but prescribes a way to regulate one’s epistemic agency in intellectual interactions with the other. On this basis, a conscientious autonomous believer is capable of knowing and managing the variety of her epistemic relations with others. Intellectual autonomy in this sense is compatible with believing and maintaining religious beliefs. Religious belief can be autonomous if the believer (i) find the other’s role in her beliefs as imparting knowledge, critic, model, adherent, and authority and (ii) regulate, conscientiously and equipped with intellectual virtues, the way in which the other participates in them.

Most of moral evaluations of bio problems are made on the basis of one of the existing moral theories or on that of a combination of the said theories as a moral approach. The evaluations presuppose a rule- or principle-based attitude towards the current disputes and also the necessity of using a moral theory as the origin or context of the rules or principles. It is generally, in both theory and practice, taken for granted that moral principles can effectively help decision makers, policy makers, bioethics committee members and research project managers. Principles of bioethics have mainly formed due to the mentioned presupposition. However, the universalistic attitude to ethics has recently been challenged in various ways. In this article, epistemological and ethical aspects of principles of bioethics have been examined from both universalistic and particularistic perspectives. It seems that, though this challenge deny the traditional interpretation of the principles which ignore the concrete process of formation of them, a moderate interpretation of ethical universalism may justify application of these principles.

Reproduction is one of the basic abilities of human beings. This is often realized in a natural way، though in certain cases new methods and technologies provide infertile couples with the opportunity to realize their wish to have children. In recent years، the term “right to reproduction” has emerged، and sometimes emphasis is placed on the obligation of governments to satisfy this right. However، it seems that the ambiguity of the aforementioned term may create serious problems in our understanding of the subject matter and، in consequence، affect the manner in which it is handled in the society. In this paper، in addition to discussing the concept of rights، it is argued that the right to reproduction may be embodied both by a claim right and a liberty right، even though the latter is only a justifiable and acceptable way of representing the right to reproduction. Therefore، this right entails the freedom to bear children and to pursue provision of the requirements، including utilizing ART. As in the case of other human rights، this should be in balance and proportion with public interests، in such a way that in particular circumstances، such as problematic population situations، it may be protected or prevented by the government.

Professionals who provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) services may be approached by patients who have no chance of success of treatment, or can even be harmed during the requested futile treatment. In such cases, what is the moral duty of those who provide treatment services, in particular the physicians? Does the mere request on the part of the patient free the doctor from his/her professional moral responsibilities? On the one hand, principles of individual autonomy and beneficence require the doctor to provide the patient with necessary treatments regardless of the results and consequences. On the other hand, the principle of non-maleficence requires the physician not to impose any harm on the patient. In addition, due to the limitation of resources, doctors are obliged to allocate them to those patients who have a better chance of recovery and use them in cases in which the probability of resource waste is low. However, does this sit well with the principle of justice, especially where the patient is willing to pay all the costs of his/her treatment? Whose interest does the doctor have to prioritize, the patient’s, that of the child resulting from ART, or the society’s? Given the above points, moral training of the team providing treatment services seems necessary so that they acquire the essential skills to make the right decisions in difficult situations such as those mentioned above.

Application of modern medical and bio sciences and also that of modern biotechnologies to human life, during the last decades, have left impact on and indeed changed traditional religious and moral attitudes. Use of such sciences and technologies has given rise to unprecedented moral and religious discussions which could not be justified and fruitful without taking into consideration of foundations of moral judgments. This is more significant in Islamic societies in which religion plays a considerable role in formation of moral beliefs and legal rules. The method of this research is philosophical. The material is collected from published works such as books, articles and research reports in libraries or on the web. We have endeavoured to analyze the concepts of religion and morality and deal with the idea of the paper on the basis of a comparison between the Western and Islamic philosophies. Having taken into account recent biotechnological developments and normative problems arising from them, this paper attempts to study the relationship between religious and moral approaches and these problems, and evaluate various types of religious and moral theorizing on the bioethical problems. Moreover, upon discussing and evaluating (religious) theological and textual approaches to bioethics, it is ventured to put forth a justifiable religious approach to bioethical problems. Current religious moral injunctions on bioethical issues can be approached and evaluated in parallel with the secular ones. However, rational justification of the religious injunctions occurs at the level of moral theory and meta-ethics (moral philosophy). Jurisprudential rulings on bioethical issues may be issued on the basis of morality and justice. In this case, they would be both ethical and just and also backed by religious teachings.

Embryo donation is one of assisted reproductive technologies used in the past few decades. Application of this technology, like any other novel biomedical service, has raised certain moral, religious, legal and social concerns. This paper deals with moral / philosophical concerns involved in embryo donation technology, taking into account the “general moral challenges concerning embryo donation”, “moral problems arising during the process of donation” and “moral problems appearing after donation”, and attempts to critically evaluate them. As a preliminary conclusion, utilizing embryo donation technology could be morally justifiable provided that certain moral and professional constraints are observed and probable abuses are prevented.

Bioethics consists of human conducts that directly and particularly relate to the application of technology in his natural life. Technologies of this kind are distinguished under the title of biotechnology. Biotechnology has indirectly changed the human life through changes made in animal and vegetable lives, while directly affecting his own life too. Therefore, the moral evaluation of biotechnology is very important since the moral perspective is fundamental in light of which other perspectives, such as religious and legal ones, could be interpreted or determined. All aspects of human life – before birth, during his life and after death – fall within the scope of bioethics. These aspects include subject matters such as “infertility treatment”, “abortion”, “organ transplantation”, “human cloning”, “research on human beings”, “vegetable genetic modification”, “animal genetic manipulation”, “concept and criteria of death” and “euthanasia”. In this paper we deal with the scope of bioethics by introducing and analyzing the problems that dominate this field, present and evaluate contending viewpoints in this field, and put forth solutions for a precise approach for the analysis of the problems. Approach to bioethical problems needs to be both free of dogmatism and holistic. Moreover, it is proposed that moral judgements in this field, be presented within a justifiable moral theory whose bases are established at the meta-ethical level, in a clear, sufficient and consistent way.

Modern technology and biotechnology have provided the possibility of gamete and embryo donations to infertile couples. Consequently, one of the important questions that have arisen is that “Is there a right to know one’s biological parents?” To provide and answer this question, it is necessary, first, to determine, what one means by expressing the concept of “right”. Four meanings have been identified for the concept. They are right-claim, right-liberty, right-power and right-immunity. Right-claim and right-liberty as the strong and weak claims are applicable to the problem at hand. To choose between the two meanings requires putting forth a well-established justificatory theory of rights. Rights are to protect the very humanity of human beings. This has been a basis for two basic values of human dignity and moral agency. Not knowing one’s biological roots does not put in danger one’s humanity or the two mentioned values. Therefore, we may only defend a right-liberty of knowing one’s biological parents; a right that does not require the state and society to be active in making individuals know their biological parents. Nevertheless, in exceptional cases where the lack of that knowledge of the biological roots does endanger one’s personhood and humanity, the weak claim can turn into a strong one.

The “Six Ethical Codes for Research” in Iran includes ethical guidelines for “Genetic researches”, “Research on vulnerable groups”, “Research on animals”, “Research on gametes and embryos”, “Organ and tissue transplantation research” and “Clinical trials”. The policy-making council of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education and Tehran University of Medical Sciences’ Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center prepared the codes in 2006. The purpose of these codes is to lay down moral guidelines for conducting research in the new aforementioned medical and biotechnological fields that have given rise to ethical and legal controversies. However, certain ambiguities and deficiencies seem to exist in these codes. This paper is a critical study of the “Six Ethical Codes for Research”. A desirable ethical code is supposed to embody a general, consistent and justifiable moral theory in accordance with which precise and clear guidelines are set out for relevant problems. The “Six Codes” does not represent such a theory and, hence, lacks clarity, compre-hensiveness and precision. Moreover, certain parts of the codes deal with non-moral (e.g. legal) and scientific (Technical) issues which definitely exceed the arbitrary ethical line.