The article critiques the notion that health and disease can be defined solely through social justice, discussing three main philosophical approaches: naturalism, social constructivism, and normativism. While Quill Kukla advocates for a definition based on social justice and collective wellbeing, this article argues against this approach for its lack of clarity and potential self-defeating consequences. The author emphasizes the need to incorporate biological and normative considerations for a comprehensive understanding of health and disease concepts.
In our current discourse, defining concepts like health and disease purely through social justice is problematic, as it fails to consider biological and normative dimensions.
Kukla's perspective offers a compelling approach but lacks a clear definition of 'collective wellbeing,' leading to ambiguity in practical application.
Collection
[
|
...
]