期刊文献+

自由意志是道德责任的必要条件吗?——对一个否定论证的考察 被引量:3

下载PDF
导出
摘要 通过被称为法氏例子的思想实验,法兰克福否定了自由意志是道德责任的必要条件,这意味着决定论与道德责任相容。法兰克福的论证对不相容论者造成了巨大的挑战。魏德克以及其他一些不相容论者发展出一种主要的反驳策略,但未能切中肯綮。本文区分了本体论上的可取舍的可能性与经验上的可取舍的可能性。法氏例子实际上只涉及经验上的可取舍的可能性,而自由意志陈述的却是本体论上的可取舍的可能性。由于没有做出这样的区分,法兰克福在概念层次间做了不恰当的跨越,将由法氏例子得出的结论看作是对本体论层次上的可取舍的可能性原则的否定。因此法兰克福并未能通过法氏例子否定自由意志是道德责任的必要条件,法氏例子也不能表明决定论与道德责任相容。
作者 李恒熙
出处 《现代哲学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2009年第6期81-87,共7页 Modern Philosophy
  • 相关文献

参考文献16

  • 1Peter Van Inwagen, An Essay on Free Will , Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1983, p. 65.
  • 2H. Frankfurt, Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, in H. Frankfurt, The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 2.
  • 3H. Frankfurt, Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, in H. Frankfurt, The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p.3.
  • 4H. Frankfurt, Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, in H. Frankfurt, The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 6.
  • 5H. Frankfurt, Ahemate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, in H. Frankfurt, The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 6 -7.
  • 6H. Frankfurt, Ahemate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, in H. Frankfurt, The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp.9.
  • 7H. Frankfurt, Ahemate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, in H. Frankfurt, The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp.8.
  • 8J. Fischer, The Metaphysics of Freedom. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1994, p. 178.
  • 9J. Fischer, The Metaphysics of Freedom. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1994, p.131-159.
  • 10D. Widerker, Libertarianism and Frankfurt's Attack on the Principle of Alternative Possibilities, in L. Ekstrom, ed. , Agency and Responsibility: Essays on the Metaphysics of Freedom, Boulder, CO : Westview Press, 2001, p. 228.

同被引文献29

  • 1包连宗.略论道德责任[J].江苏社会科学,1992(1):120-124. 被引量:1
  • 2沈宗灵.对霍菲尔德法律概念学说的比较研究[J].中国社会科学,1990(1):67-77. 被引量:76
  • 3CR Sunstein,RH Thaler . Libertarian paternalism is not anoxymoron .The University of Chicago Law Review, JSTOR,2003.
  • 4R Clarke .Libertarian accounts of free will. OxfordUniversity Press, USA,2003.
  • 5D Widerker. Libertarian freedom and the avoidability ofdecisions. Faith and Philosophy, 2010.
  • 6MM Jones, R Bayer. Paternalism & its discontents :motorcycle helmet laws,libertarian values,and public health.Journal Information, 2007.
  • 7JS Kelly. Rights exercising and a Pareto -consistentlibertarian claim .Journal of Economic Theory, 1976.
  • 8T Tinker. Metaphor or reification: are radical humanistsreally libertarian anarchists. Journal of Management Studies, 2012.
  • 9HP Kitschelt. Left-libertarian parties : explaining innovationin competitive party systems. World Politics, Cambridge UnitPress, 1988.
  • 10高兆明.道德责任:规范维度与美德维度[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版),2009(1):5-10. 被引量:18

引证文献3

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部