Dewey’s Independent Factors in Moral Action

Steven H. Fesmire
{"title":"Dewey’s Independent Factors in Moral Action","authors":"Steven H. Fesmire","doi":"10.4324/9780429259869-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on unpublished and published sources from 1926 to 1932, this chapter analyzes “Three Independent Factors in Morals” (1930) as a blueprint to Dewey’s chapters in the 1932 Ethics . The 1930 presentation is Dewey’s most concise and sophisticated critique of the quest in ethical theory for the central and basic source of normative justification. He argued that moral situations are heterogeneous in their origins and operations. They elude full predictability and are not controllable by the impositions of any abstract monistic principle. Moral life instead has at least three distinct experiential roots that cannot be encompassed in one ideal way to proceed. More specifically, Dewey hypothesized that each of the primary Western ethical systems (represented for him by Aristotle, Kant, and the British moralists) represents a basic, non-arbitrary force, or factor of moral life: aspiration, obligation, and approbation, respectively. Each factor is expressed in that system’s leading fundamental concept: good, duty, and virtue, respectively. Yet he contended that aspirations, obligations, and approbations are distinctive phenomena that cannot be blanketed by a single covering concept. By exposing Dewey’s own generalizations to scrutiny, the promises and limitations of his approach can be critically evaluated.","PeriodicalId":199034,"journal":{"name":"John Dewey’s Ethical Theory","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"John Dewey’s Ethical Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259869-3","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

Drawing on unpublished and published sources from 1926 to 1932, this chapter analyzes “Three Independent Factors in Morals” (1930) as a blueprint to Dewey’s chapters in the 1932 Ethics . The 1930 presentation is Dewey’s most concise and sophisticated critique of the quest in ethical theory for the central and basic source of normative justification. He argued that moral situations are heterogeneous in their origins and operations. They elude full predictability and are not controllable by the impositions of any abstract monistic principle. Moral life instead has at least three distinct experiential roots that cannot be encompassed in one ideal way to proceed. More specifically, Dewey hypothesized that each of the primary Western ethical systems (represented for him by Aristotle, Kant, and the British moralists) represents a basic, non-arbitrary force, or factor of moral life: aspiration, obligation, and approbation, respectively. Each factor is expressed in that system’s leading fundamental concept: good, duty, and virtue, respectively. Yet he contended that aspirations, obligations, and approbations are distinctive phenomena that cannot be blanketed by a single covering concept. By exposing Dewey’s own generalizations to scrutiny, the promises and limitations of his approach can be critically evaluated.
杜威道德行为中的独立因素
根据1926年至1932年未发表和已发表的资料,本章分析了“道德中的三个独立因素”(1930),作为杜威1932年《伦理学》章节的蓝图。1930年的演讲是杜威对伦理理论中对规范性论证的中心和基本来源的追求最简洁和复杂的批评。他认为道德情境在其起源和运作上是异质的。它们无法完全预测,也无法通过任何抽象的一元论原则加以控制。相反,道德生活至少有三个不同的经验根源,不能以一种理想的方式进行。更具体地说,杜威假设,每一种主要的西方伦理体系(以亚里士多德、康德和英国道德家为代表)都代表了一种基本的、非武断的力量,或道德生活的因素:分别是愿望、义务和认可。每个因素都分别体现在该体系的主要基本概念中:善、责任和美德。然而,他认为,愿望、义务和认可是不同的现象,不能被单一的概念所覆盖。通过对杜威自己的概括进行仔细审查,可以批判性地评估他的方法的承诺和局限性。
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