Normativity as Natural Law

R. Stern
{"title":"Normativity as Natural Law","authors":"R. Stern","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198829027.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that Løgstrup’s position on the question of moral obligation is closest to a natural law outlook, not only in The Ethical Demand but also in later works when he speaks of his ‘ontological ethics’ and ‘the sovereign expressions of life’ (§7.1). Alasdair MacIntyre’s claim that Løgstrup is not a natural law theorist (§7.2), and also Stephen Darwall’s claim that in this earlier work Løgstrup was a divine command theorist (§7.3), are both considered and rejected. The next section argues that the natural law theory Løgstrup adopted is non-theistic rather than theistic (§7.4). Finally, this account of Løgstrup as a natural law theorist is connected to subsequent chapters, where it will be suggested that this approach underpins his critique of Kant and Kierkegaard, as well as setting him at odds with Levinas and Darwall (§7.5).","PeriodicalId":184927,"journal":{"name":"The Radical Demand in Løgstrup's Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Radical Demand in Løgstrup's Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198829027.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter argues that Løgstrup’s position on the question of moral obligation is closest to a natural law outlook, not only in The Ethical Demand but also in later works when he speaks of his ‘ontological ethics’ and ‘the sovereign expressions of life’ (§7.1). Alasdair MacIntyre’s claim that Løgstrup is not a natural law theorist (§7.2), and also Stephen Darwall’s claim that in this earlier work Løgstrup was a divine command theorist (§7.3), are both considered and rejected. The next section argues that the natural law theory Løgstrup adopted is non-theistic rather than theistic (§7.4). Finally, this account of Løgstrup as a natural law theorist is connected to subsequent chapters, where it will be suggested that this approach underpins his critique of Kant and Kierkegaard, as well as setting him at odds with Levinas and Darwall (§7.5).
规范性作为自然法
本章论证洛格斯特鲁普在道德义务问题上的立场,不仅在《伦理要求》中,而且在他后来的著作中,当他谈到他的“本体论伦理学”和“生命的主权表达”(§7.1)时,都是最接近自然法观点的。Alasdair MacIntyre关于Løgstrup不是自然法理论家的主张(§7.2)和Stephen Darwall关于Løgstrup是神谕理论家的主张(§7.3)都被考虑和拒绝了。下一节论证了Løgstrup所采用的自然法理论是非有神论的,而不是有神论的(§7.4)。最后,关于洛格斯特鲁普作为自然法理论家的叙述,将与后面的章节联系起来。在后面的章节中,我们将提出,这种方法是他对康德和克尔凯郭尔的批判的基础,同时也使他与列维纳斯和达沃尔产生分歧(§7.5)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信