The intellectual heritage of modernity needs rethinking. It is marked by radical humanism and implied by the ideas of Descartes and Kant above all, which introduces an unbridgeable gap between animals and human perso...The intellectual heritage of modernity needs rethinking. It is marked by radical humanism and implied by the ideas of Descartes and Kant above all, which introduces an unbridgeable gap between animals and human persons （nonhuman and human animals）. Intuitive sensibility to the question of the welfare of nonhuman animals meets a theoretical ally in the rapidly growing knowledge on their subjectivity and makes us pose a questions about their ontological status. This context arouses a possibility of a turn to personalist ethics, yet not to its anthropocentric version implied by Kant, but to personalism conceived of as an instance of value ethics as exemplified by Antonio Rosmini and Karol Wojtyta （John Paul II）.展开更多
Kant＇s Humanity Formula of the Categorical Imperative is arguably its most widely preferred formulation, having been defended as a moral principle and employed in the evaluation of particular moral problems by a numb...Kant＇s Humanity Formula of the Categorical Imperative is arguably its most widely preferred formulation, having been defended as a moral principle and employed in the evaluation of particular moral problems by a number of leading contemporary ethicists. For them and many other readers of Kant, the idea that we are not to treat persons as mere means to our own ends but are rather to respect their rational agency as intrinsically valuable holds great promise for qualifying as, in Kant＇s words, ＂the supreme principle of morality.＂ In the present paper I argue that the Humanity Formula cannot deliver on this promise. After setting forth three conditions of adequacy for any genuine supreme principle of morality, I argue that the Humanity Formula, on three textually grounded interpretations each of which has been advocated by a prominent Kantian ethicist, does not satisfy these conditions. Whichever of these textually grounded interpretations is taken, the Humanity Formula is open to compelling counterexamples.展开更多
In an era of great scientific strides and unprecedented technological progress,there is a gradual,yet consistent demystification of the once before mythological realities of the universe.Humanity’s ingenuity and ease...In an era of great scientific strides and unprecedented technological progress,there is a gradual,yet consistent demystification of the once before mythological realities of the universe.Humanity’s ingenuity and ease to manipulate the forces and powers of nature to achieve desired practical ends is quite fascinating.This move has been fathered by some“philosophical”trends.The ultimate result is the arrogance of techno-science to explain all of reality,thus denying value of genuine philosophy.In this paper we argue that science and its technological progress are not equipped to provide answers to fundamental and real human problems.Therefore,far from being opposed to each other,genuine philosophy and techno-science should play area complementary role in ensuring humanity’s qualitative presence in the world.展开更多
文摘The intellectual heritage of modernity needs rethinking. It is marked by radical humanism and implied by the ideas of Descartes and Kant above all, which introduces an unbridgeable gap between animals and human persons （nonhuman and human animals）. Intuitive sensibility to the question of the welfare of nonhuman animals meets a theoretical ally in the rapidly growing knowledge on their subjectivity and makes us pose a questions about their ontological status. This context arouses a possibility of a turn to personalist ethics, yet not to its anthropocentric version implied by Kant, but to personalism conceived of as an instance of value ethics as exemplified by Antonio Rosmini and Karol Wojtyta （John Paul II）.
文摘Kant＇s Humanity Formula of the Categorical Imperative is arguably its most widely preferred formulation, having been defended as a moral principle and employed in the evaluation of particular moral problems by a number of leading contemporary ethicists. For them and many other readers of Kant, the idea that we are not to treat persons as mere means to our own ends but are rather to respect their rational agency as intrinsically valuable holds great promise for qualifying as, in Kant＇s words, ＂the supreme principle of morality.＂ In the present paper I argue that the Humanity Formula cannot deliver on this promise. After setting forth three conditions of adequacy for any genuine supreme principle of morality, I argue that the Humanity Formula, on three textually grounded interpretations each of which has been advocated by a prominent Kantian ethicist, does not satisfy these conditions. Whichever of these textually grounded interpretations is taken, the Humanity Formula is open to compelling counterexamples.
文摘In an era of great scientific strides and unprecedented technological progress,there is a gradual,yet consistent demystification of the once before mythological realities of the universe.Humanity’s ingenuity and ease to manipulate the forces and powers of nature to achieve desired practical ends is quite fascinating.This move has been fathered by some“philosophical”trends.The ultimate result is the arrogance of techno-science to explain all of reality,thus denying value of genuine philosophy.In this paper we argue that science and its technological progress are not equipped to provide answers to fundamental and real human problems.Therefore,far from being opposed to each other,genuine philosophy and techno-science should play area complementary role in ensuring humanity’s qualitative presence in the world.
