Peter Schaber

ZusammenfassungIm Blick auf ein Recht auf assistierten Suizid ist nicht nur umstritten, ob es ein solches Recht gibt, es ist auch umstritten, worauf ein solches Recht denn ein Recht wäre. Der vorliegende Artikel versucht deutlich zu machen, dass das, worum es in dieser Diskussion um den selbstbestimmten Suizid geht, die Frage ist, was Entscheidungen von Menschen achtungswürdig macht. Der Artikel plädiert für eine Idee von Achtungswürdigkeit, für welche die selbstbestimmte Ausübung von Rechten über sich selbst leitend ist, eine Idee, die auch in unserer Rechtspraxis wirksam ist. Dabei legen achtungswürdige Entscheidungen fest, was getan werden darf, nicht aber was getan werden soll.

Consent makes acts permissible that would otherwise be impermissible. But how is this done by consent? And can any act be made permissible, or are there acts that are morally wrong even if affected persons have given their consent? These two questions are related – only by answering how consent makes acts permissible in general will we be able to answer questions about the possible limits of consent. Consent, it will be argued, does not make acts permissible by excluding reasons speaking against them. Consent rather makes acts permissible by eliminating the wrong-making property of the acts. And it can only do this in cases where the wrong-making property of the act is simply the fact that consent has not been given.

Bittner argues in his paper that the idea of a general duty to respect persons is of much less importance than some moral philosophers think. If respect plays a role in our lives it is mainly appriciation respect persons have to merit. Respecting persons as such is, Bittner thinks, not just irrelevant, but also incompatibel with personal relations. Against this it is argued that respect for persons should be seen as the basic moral duty we have towards persons. And in addition, it is argued, that you can only be a proper friend of someone, if the relation to her or him is based on moral respect.

The 1992 incorporation of an article by referendum in the SwissConstitution mandating that the federal government issue regulations onthe use of genetic material that take into account the dignity ofnonhuman organism raises philosophical questions about how we shouldunderstand what is meant by ``the dignity of nonhuman animals,'' andabout what sort of moral demands arise from recognizing this dignitywith respect to their genetic engineering. The first step in determiningwhat is meant is to clarify the difference between dignity when appliedto humans and when applied to nonhumans. Several conceptions of humandignity should be rejected in favor of a fourth conception: the rightnot to be degraded. This right implies that those who have it have thecognitive capacities that are prerequisite for self-respect. In the caseof nonhuman organisms that lack this capacity, respecting their dignityrequires the recognition that their inherent value, which is tied totheir abilities to pursue their own good, be respected. This value isnot absolute, as it is in the case of humans, so it does not prohibitbreeding manipulations that make organisms more useful to humans. But itdoes restrict morally how sentient animals can be used. In regard togenetic engineering, this conception requires that animals be allowedthe uninhibited development of species specific functions, a positionshared by Holland and Attfield, as opposed to the Original Purposeconception proposed by Fox and the Integrity of the Genetic Make-upposition proposed by Rolston. The inherent value conception of dignity,as here defended, is what is meant in the Swiss Constitution article.

Es geht in diesem Aufsatz um die Frage, was es heißt, eine andere Person zu achten. Im Zentrum steht dabei die moralische Achtung, nicht die Achtung im Sinne der Wertschätzung einer anderen Person. Ein wohlfahrts- und ein autonomietheoretisches Verständnis moralischer Achtung werden dargestellt und zurückgewiesen. Es wird für ein Verständnis moralischer Achtung argumentiert, wonach eine Person genau dann geachtet wird, wenn ihr authentischer Wille ernst genommen wird. Die Achtung schulden wir dabei der Würde der Person. Achtung vor der Würde der Person ist Achtung vor dem, was die Selbstachtung von Personen ermöglicht. Die Würde von Personen ist unantastbar sowohl in der anderen wie auch in der eigenen Person. Der authentische Wille von Personen darf entsprechend bloß dann geachtet werden, wenn er mit dieser Würde sich verträgt

To respect the autonomous choices of persons is an important moral principle. There is, however, little agreement about its nature and its normative importance. This is due to the fact that the concept of autonomy as well as the moral relevance of autonomy are contested. It is argued in this paper that the debate about autonomy is at its core a debate about the reasons for respecting decisions. Decisions of persons are to be respected as their decisions, and they have to be respected as determining the deontic properties of situations. This, however, can only be understood against the background of persons having rights over themselves. Their decisions determine the deontic properties as exercises of their rights. Thus, respect for the autonomous choice of persons turns out to be respect for their rights.

The so-called resource curse raises moral issues. Who, if anyone, is morally responsible for it? This article argues that this question amounts to: who is blameworthy for the violations of people's property rights? The international oil companies are blameworthy for the violations of property rights only in the case of complicity, not in the normal purchase case. Yet the international community has to take action against massive violations of property rights. The article discusses different measures, and criticizes voluntary initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative for not making the states accountable to their people. In this line of thought, it argues for an extension of the mandate of the International Criminal Court: massive violations of property rights should be prosecuted at the international level.

While the importance of Consent has been discussed widely over the last few decades, interest in its study has received renewed attention in recent years, particularly regarding medical treatment, clinical research and sexual acts. The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent is an outstanding reference source to this exciting subject and the first collection of its kind. Comprising over thirty chapters by a team of international contributors the Handbook is divided into five main parts: General Questions Normative Ethics Legal Theory Medical Ethics Political Philosophy ¿ Within these sections central issues, debates and problems are examined, including: the nature and normative importance of consent, paternalism, exploitation and coercion, privacy, sexual consent, consent and criminal law, informed consent, organ donation, clinical research, and consent theory of political obligation and authority. ¿ The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent is essential reading for students and researchers in moral theory, applied ethics, medical ethics, philosophy of law and political philosophy. This volume will also be very useful for those in related fields, such as political science, law, medicine and social science.

According to Doris Schroeder, the view that human rights derive from human dignity should be rejected. She thinks that this is the case for three different reasons: the first has to do with the fact that the dominant concept of dignity is based on religious beliefs which will do no justificatory work in a secular society; the second is that the dominant secular view of dignity, which is the Kantian view, does not provide us with a justification of human rights, i.e. rights all humans have; and the third reason has to do with the fact that dignity is understood in too many different ways to provide us with a justification of human rights. It is argued in this paper that none of these reasons for separating human rights from human dignity is convincing. It is true, it will be argued, that some accounts of dignity will not be successful in justifying human rights. But there is no reason to assume that no account of human dignity is capable of doing this. In the final part of the paper a concept of human dignity is presented that could indeed provide us with a justificatory basis for human rights