期刊文献+

道德冷漠与实践慎思

Moral Indifference and Practical Deliberation
原文传递
导出
摘要 通常而言,实践慎思被认为具有工具理性的功能。实践慎思的要义在于人如何明智地行动并实现道德目的。但是人们对道德活动中代价与风险的权衡内蕴了道德冷漠的可能。此种冷漠既有可能是因为利己主义者将他人作为纯粹的手段,也有可能因为意志软弱导致行动理由失效。道德冷漠以“现象”的方式呈现人的慎思能力的有限、行动者可能留有的遗憾。同时,离开实践理性的导向以及人对自身价值的追求,实践慎思有可能沦为一种理性计算的方法。 In general,practical deliberation is considered to have the function of instrumental rationality.The essence of practical deliberation lies in how people act wisely and realize moral purpose.However,the tradeoff between the cost and risk of the moral activity implies the possibility of moral indifference.Such indifference may be due to the fact that egoists use others as a pure means,or their reasons for action are invalid owning to weakness of will.As a“phenomenon”,moral indifference presents the limited ability of people’s deliberation and the regret that the agent may have.Simultaneously,without the direction of practical reason and people’s pursuit of their own values,practical deliberation may become a rational approach for calculation.
作者 李金鑫 Li Jinxin
出处 《理论界》 2019年第9期35-41,79,共8页 Theory Horizon
基金 浙江省哲学社会科学规划项目“道德冷漠现象下的道德能力研究”(16NDJC158YB)的研究成果
关键词 实践慎思 道德冷漠 伦理利己主义 意志软弱 moral indifference practical deliberation ethical egoism weakness of will
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献7

  • 1[1]Thomss Hobbes.Of Liberty and Necessity[A].in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity[C] Ve-re Chappell (ed.).Cambridge.Cambridge University Press,1999.
  • 2[2]Cees Leijenhorst.Hobbes's Theory of Causality and Its Aristotelian Background[J].Monist 79 (3):426~447,1996.
  • 3[3]Bramhall.Discourse of Liberty ang Necessity[A].In Hobbes ang Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity[C].Ve-re Chappell (ed.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
  • 4[4]Vere Chappell (ed.) Hobbes ang Bramhall on Liberty ang Necessity[C].
  • 5[5]Thomas Hobbse.The Questions Concernin8 Liberty,Necssity and Chance[A].in Hobbes ang Dramhall on Liberty ang Nccessity[C].Cambridge:Cambridge U-niversity Press,1999.
  • 6[6]Thomas Hobbes.The Elements of law[A].in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
  • 7[1]关于霍布斯与布拉姆霍尔的争论的原始文献,见Vere Chappell(ed.),Hobbel and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999).对霍布斯的自由理论的一此详细论述,参见 W.von Leyden,Hobbes andLecke:The Politics of Freedom and Obligation (London:London School d Economics and Political Science,1981),especiallychapters 1~2; David van Mill.Liberty.Rationality.and Agency in Hobbes's Leviathan (New York:State University of New YorkPress,2001).也见 Leopold Damrosch,Jr.(1979)," Hobbes as Reformation Theologian:Implications for the Free-Will Con-troversy" Journal of the History Ideas40 (3):339~352; M.M.Goldsmith (1989)," Hobbes on Liberty",Hobbes Studies2:23~39; F.C.Hood (1967)," The Change in Hobbes's Definition or Liberty",Philosophical Quarterly 17 (67):150~163;J.Roland Pennock (1960)," Hobbes's Choosing Charity'-The Case of Liberty",American Political Science Review 54 (2):428~436; Quentin Skinner (1990)," Thomas Hobbes on the Proper Signification of Liberty",Transactions of the Royal Historical So-ciety 40:121~151.

共引文献1

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