Band 14, Heft 1

Non-available common goods or: private non-availability of merit common goods The traditional emphasis on the individualistic concept of property stressed and analyzed by Locke and Kant led to a devaluation in philosophy and economy of traditionally usual forms of collective property, in particular of land, e. g., in form of the so-called "commons". Under the auspices of successful liberal and social market economy - though at times with the emphasis on "property obliges the owner" - private capitalism as the dominant economy and a certain kind of value-neutral conception - and thus free availability - of nature consequently implied that the merit character of collective goods pertaining to nature and natural landscapes etc. was not taken seriously anymore (including the common interest in avoiding depletion, deterioration, erosion, pollution etc.) New developments in jurisprudence and economy however show that even in principle a total private allocation of collective goods like the environment is neither possible nor meaningful, e. g. as regards the protection of the environment as an extremely important orientation at the common weal, in particular with respect to succeeding generations. In media coverage regarding environment problems, external effects and social traps should be taken into consideration regarding the aspect of a collective good including the necessary evaluation under common interests, i. e. the merit aspect should be more explicitly taken into account than hitherto. Das positive gesetzte Recht, in der Gesetzgebung festgelegt, ist weitgehend - zumindest was die Menschen- und Grundrechte angeht - von allgemeinen sittlichen Werten geprägt (Zweckmäßigkeitsüberlegungen sind eher bei der Spezialgesetzgebung einschlägig). So ist das Prinzip der Gerechtigkeit ethischer Maßstab des positiven Rechts und findet als Gebot der Gleichbehandlung Eingang in die Verfassung (z.B. Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Art. 3). Ethische Normen werden soziokulturell relativ sanktioniert; es sind soziokulturell relative Aussagen, die jedoch mit dem Anspruch auf allgemeine Geltung und Verbindlichkeit formuliert werden. Auch das Recht als Teil der Kultur ist sozial konventionalisiertes Menschenprodukt, obgleich doch jeder einzelne davon (mit)geprägt ist.

Are Scientists responsible for the usage of the results of their research? Scientists belong to the most favourite group of people who are declared to be responsible for many various things. On the other hand, there is severe disagreement with regard to the question what it is that scientists are responsible for. According to some people, scientific responsibility essentially covers the correct acquisition, processing and publication of information, whereas others make scientists responsible for almost all consequences of their research, even if they cannot influence them. This disagreement is exemplified by the attitudes towards Otto Hahn’s research on nuclear fission which range from blaming him for the development of the nuclear bomb to acquitting him from any responsibility because of the (alleged) lack of knowledge on the possible consequences of his research. In order to (dis-) solve this problem it is necessary to formulate clearly the conditions for ascribing responsibility to someone. By doing so, it is shown in the present paper, (i) that it is indeed possible to ascribe to scientists responsibility for certain consequences of their research (including the usage of its results), and (ii) that, as a matter of fact, it is implausible to make Hahn responsible for the nuclear bomb, but that it isn’t justified either to regard him as a kind of “naive country scientist”, because there is a lot of information he could and should have had as a (responsible) scientist.

To obtain reliable results, some psychological experiments need to involve the deception of human subjects. This contradicts the ethical principle of autonomy and the process of informed consent that is required to ensure the subjects’ autonomy. Some solutions to this dilemma have been proposed, but all of them have drawbacks. As solution I propose a procedure that combines proxy consent and prior consent.