Abstract
Abstract In this thesis I investigate the conception of “disease”. What is the nature of the conception of “disease” ? Is the conception of “disease” value-free or value-laden? Christopher Boorse is a naturalist. Boorse thinks that the conception of “disease” is a purely theoretical, descriptive conception. Consequently, Boorse has taken the theoretical approach to analyzing the concept of “disease”. One who takes the theoretical approach focuses on the theoretical aspect of the conception of “disease”. In contrast, George J. Agich adopts a pragmatic approach to the conception of “disease”. Agich claims that the conception of “disease” is in its nature a practical concept and thus value-laden. Agich thinks the conception of “disease” is directly related to the practical concepts of “illness” and “sickness”. The conception of “disease” is cultivated in practice. Thus, we should use a pragmatic approach to the conception of “disease”. There are apparent conflicts between Boorse’s and Agich’s theories. However, once Boorse’s conception of “disease” and Agich’s conception of “disease” are placed on two different levels, the apparent conflicts will disappear. Agich’s pragmatic conception of “disease” should be the basis. Within the framework of the pragmatic conception of “disease”, a variety of descriptive notions of disease concepts can be developed. Boorse’s conception of “disease” is one of such descriptive concepts. The conception of “disease” in alternative medicine which Mark B. Woodhouse explores is another descriptive conception of “disease”. Woodhouse argues that the conception of “disease” in alternative medicine is an extension of the conception of “disease” in biomedical medicine. However, as far as I know, some of the physical states biomedical doctors regard as diseases are not diseases at all from the point of view of traditional Chinese medicine.