Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the nec...Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the necessity of principles in decision making process, and claim that the rationality of moral thought depends on the provision of a suitable supply ofmoral principles. In contrast, particularists have rejected, or at least doubted, the existence of moral principles, and believe that the rationality of moral thought depends on recognizing special features of a case and relevant conditions. This is why, unlike generalists, they use case study method rather than syllogism in decision making process and moral judgment. Consequently, to support their view, particularists commonly resort to holism in the theory of reasons, while atomism is in support of generalism. To evaluate these two attitudes, this study surveys some arguments that particularists and generalists proposed to justify their view and criticize the rival＇s one, and also explains their positions concerning the epistemological and metaphysical role of moral principles and reasons. Finally, after evaluating their claims, the importance of both approaches in meta-ethics is stressed.展开更多
针对学界普遍认为康德不区分伦理与道德、甚至黑格尔对康德所做的众所周知的批评:在康德伦理学中只有道德而无伦理的观点,通过详细考察康德在其《伦理形而上学探本》(Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten)一书中关于“伦理”(Sitte)...针对学界普遍认为康德不区分伦理与道德、甚至黑格尔对康德所做的众所周知的批评:在康德伦理学中只有道德而无伦理的观点,通过详细考察康德在其《伦理形而上学探本》(Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten)一书中关于“伦理”(Sitte)和“道德”(Moral)、“伦理性”(Sittlichkeit)和“道德性”(Moralitat)以及“伦理法则(Sittengesetz)“道德的法则”(das moralische Gesetz)的具体使用语境,以此证明康德在其著作中实际上已经对“伦理”和“道德”作出了比较严格的区分。基于康德的区分,我们才能清楚地知道,“伦理法则”是“先天立法”的,是在“理念”中为一切规范奠定自由的根据,从而是“自由的法则”;而“道德的法则”是对“伦理法则”的评价性表述,“道德的”(moralisch)作为形容词使用,不具有主体意义,“伦理法则”才是康德伦理学的主词。康德哲学中有两种“伦理学”(Ethik)概念,一种是与“物理学”(Physik)或“自然学”(Naturlehre)相对的伦理学(Sittenlehre),可称之为“大伦理学”,它探求与“自然法则”相对的“自由法则”,“伦理法则”作为“自由法则”,其“伦理性”具有普遍性、客观性和绝对性之含义;一种是与“法权学说”(ius;Rechtslehre)相对的伦理学,它不为“行动本身”立法而只为行动的“主观准则”立法,因而是作为“德性学说”(Tugenslehre)的“伦理学”(ethica)。在为“主观准则”立法的“德性论”意义上,康德确立了其“道德性”(Moralitat)概念,它与先天立法的“伦理性”相区别,是单一个体在“行动”发生之前为考虑该行动“该不该发生”“该如何发生”的“先行立法”,它涉及这样一种行为原则:永远都要将“普遍的法则”当作自己行动的“主观准则”,因而它只是在行动者的个人意志中所确立,而不像先天立法的伦理法则那样,是被给予的(gegeben)。康德的Metaphysik der Sitten严格按照康德的语义学,只能翻译为“伦理形而上学”,它区别于作为“通俗的伦理处世智慧”的“道德哲学”(Moralphilosphie),但恰恰又是要将它提升到“伦理形而上学”,以便把具有“先天立法”能力的“伦理法则”作为个人主观意志立法(道德性)的普遍、必然的标准。依据康德这样的“伦理”与“道德”的区别,黑格尔对康德的批判,故意的误解多于可接受的事实,是早该抛弃的成见。展开更多
文摘Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the necessity of principles in decision making process, and claim that the rationality of moral thought depends on the provision of a suitable supply ofmoral principles. In contrast, particularists have rejected, or at least doubted, the existence of moral principles, and believe that the rationality of moral thought depends on recognizing special features of a case and relevant conditions. This is why, unlike generalists, they use case study method rather than syllogism in decision making process and moral judgment. Consequently, to support their view, particularists commonly resort to holism in the theory of reasons, while atomism is in support of generalism. To evaluate these two attitudes, this study surveys some arguments that particularists and generalists proposed to justify their view and criticize the rival＇s one, and also explains their positions concerning the epistemological and metaphysical role of moral principles and reasons. Finally, after evaluating their claims, the importance of both approaches in meta-ethics is stressed.
文摘针对学界普遍认为康德不区分伦理与道德、甚至黑格尔对康德所做的众所周知的批评:在康德伦理学中只有道德而无伦理的观点,通过详细考察康德在其《伦理形而上学探本》(Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten)一书中关于“伦理”(Sitte)和“道德”(Moral)、“伦理性”(Sittlichkeit)和“道德性”(Moralitat)以及“伦理法则(Sittengesetz)“道德的法则”(das moralische Gesetz)的具体使用语境,以此证明康德在其著作中实际上已经对“伦理”和“道德”作出了比较严格的区分。基于康德的区分,我们才能清楚地知道,“伦理法则”是“先天立法”的,是在“理念”中为一切规范奠定自由的根据,从而是“自由的法则”;而“道德的法则”是对“伦理法则”的评价性表述,“道德的”(moralisch)作为形容词使用,不具有主体意义,“伦理法则”才是康德伦理学的主词。康德哲学中有两种“伦理学”(Ethik)概念,一种是与“物理学”(Physik)或“自然学”(Naturlehre)相对的伦理学(Sittenlehre),可称之为“大伦理学”,它探求与“自然法则”相对的“自由法则”,“伦理法则”作为“自由法则”,其“伦理性”具有普遍性、客观性和绝对性之含义;一种是与“法权学说”(ius;Rechtslehre)相对的伦理学,它不为“行动本身”立法而只为行动的“主观准则”立法,因而是作为“德性学说”(Tugenslehre)的“伦理学”(ethica)。在为“主观准则”立法的“德性论”意义上,康德确立了其“道德性”(Moralitat)概念,它与先天立法的“伦理性”相区别,是单一个体在“行动”发生之前为考虑该行动“该不该发生”“该如何发生”的“先行立法”,它涉及这样一种行为原则:永远都要将“普遍的法则”当作自己行动的“主观准则”,因而它只是在行动者的个人意志中所确立,而不像先天立法的伦理法则那样,是被给予的(gegeben)。康德的Metaphysik der Sitten严格按照康德的语义学,只能翻译为“伦理形而上学”,它区别于作为“通俗的伦理处世智慧”的“道德哲学”(Moralphilosphie),但恰恰又是要将它提升到“伦理形而上学”,以便把具有“先天立法”能力的“伦理法则”作为个人主观意志立法(道德性)的普遍、必然的标准。依据康德这样的“伦理”与“道德”的区别,黑格尔对康德的批判,故意的误解多于可接受的事实,是早该抛弃的成见。
