Advertisement

The Profit Motive in Kant and Hegel

  • Klaus Hartmann
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 38)

Abstract

The topic addressed in this paper may seem academic and far-fetched; its relevance though becomes apparent once we focus on the changes taking place on the medical scene today. Hitherto, medical service has been subject to several ethical considerations. One is the view that physicians have a duty to help their patients (in the sense of being ready to provide service and to provide competent service).1 Another ethical consideration is the presumed duty on the part of third parties to ensure medical standards and the readiness on the part of physicians to provide service -such third parties normally being medical associations enjoining an ethos among their members, or the state enjoining a certain behaviour on the part of physicians, either directly or, more likely, indirectly via an authorization of the medical associations as ethos keepers. A final ethical consideration pinpoints just allocation of, and access to, treatment.

Keywords

Civil Society Categorical Imperative Ethical Effect Profit Motive Imperfect Duty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dürig, G.: 1956, ‘Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde’, Archiv für öffentliches Recht 81, 117–157.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engelhardt, H.T. Jr.: 1986, The Foundations of Bioethics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Findlay, J.N.: 1961, Values and Intentions, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartmann, K.: ‘Reiner Begriff und tätiges Leben’, in R. Schnur (ed.) Stoat und Gesellschaft. Studien über Lorenz von Stein, Duncker und Humblot, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hegel, G.W.F.: 1977, Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hegel, G.W.F.: 1962, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. T.M. Knox, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hegel, G.W.F.: 1983, Die Philosophic des Rechts. Die Mitschriften Wannenmann und Homeyer, ed. K.-M. Ilting, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hegel, G.W.F.: 1983, Philosophie des Rechts. Die Vorlesung von 1819 in einer Nachschrift, ed. D. Henrich, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hegel, G.W.F.: 1968, Philosophische Propaedeutik, Hegel Studienausgabe, Vol. 3, Fischer Bücherei, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kant, I.: 1957, Conflict of the Faculties, tr. M.J. Gregor, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kant, I.: 1964, The Doctrine of Virtue, tr. M.J. Gregor, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kant, I.: 1986, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, tr. T.K. Abbott, 18th printing, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kant, I.: 1965, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, tr. J. Ladd, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koslowski, P.: 1985, Staat und Gesellschaft bei Kant, Verlag J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorenz von Stein: 1972, Gesellschaft-Staat-Recht, ed. E. Forsthoff, Propylaeen, Frankfurt.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Hartmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Tübingen UniversityTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations