Beyond Conceptual Analysis: Social Objectivity and Conceptual Engineering to Define Disease

1Citations
Citations of this article
1Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In this article, I side with those who argue that the debate about the definition of “disease” should be reoriented from the question “what is disease” to the question of what it should be. However, I ground my argument on the rejection of the naturalist approach to define disease and the adoption of a normativist approach, according to which the concept of disease is normative and value-laden. Based on this normativist approach, I defend two main theses: (1) that conceptual analysis is not the right method to define disease and that conceptual engineering should be the preferred method and (2) that the method of conceptual engineering should be implemented following the principles of Alexandrova's account of social objectivity in the context of the definition of disease.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gagné-Julien, A. M. (2024). Beyond Conceptual Analysis: Social Objectivity and Conceptual Engineering to Define Disease. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (United Kingdom), 49(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhae002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free