Keeping the Moral Score

Q2 Social Sciences
D. Heyd
{"title":"Keeping the Moral Score","authors":"D. Heyd","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2018.1499699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Love and generosity are by their nature boundless, free from calculation. However, much of human interaction and particularly relations of justice are based on keeping score. Keeping score is by definition backward-looking. Like in sport, it is constituted by recording past events and retaining them in memory for some future use. Even forgiveness, as will be argued below, is characterized by some element of retention of past events since, as most analysts of the concept agree, forgiveness does not simply mean forgetting the offense. Justice, from Anaximander, through Plato, to the emblem of the blindfolded goddess holding a pair of scales, is a concept of balancing. Neither desert nor punishment, neither gratitude nor revenge, can be dispensed without keeping score. In her impressively rich book on anger and forgiveness, Martha Nussbaum provides a broad and deep critique of score-keeping in general and of moral and legal score-keeping in particular. Her starting point is the detailed examination of anger, that universal emotion which was studied by ethical theories of the past but which has been ignored by modern moral philosophy. The book then presents an argument for forgiveness as one way of overcoming the dangers of anger and specifically argues for unconditional forgiveness. But since forgiveness is only a second-best solution to the drawbacks of anger, Nussbaum proposes the attitudes of love and generosity as the normative ideal. Settling accounts is anathema to Nussbaum in both personal relations and in the impersonal realm of justice. It is harmful to both the individual’s psychological health ∗David Heyd is the Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Email: david.heyd@mail.huji.ac.il Criminal Justice Ethics, 2018 Vol. 37, No. 2, 189–200, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1499699","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1499699","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1499699","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Love and generosity are by their nature boundless, free from calculation. However, much of human interaction and particularly relations of justice are based on keeping score. Keeping score is by definition backward-looking. Like in sport, it is constituted by recording past events and retaining them in memory for some future use. Even forgiveness, as will be argued below, is characterized by some element of retention of past events since, as most analysts of the concept agree, forgiveness does not simply mean forgetting the offense. Justice, from Anaximander, through Plato, to the emblem of the blindfolded goddess holding a pair of scales, is a concept of balancing. Neither desert nor punishment, neither gratitude nor revenge, can be dispensed without keeping score. In her impressively rich book on anger and forgiveness, Martha Nussbaum provides a broad and deep critique of score-keeping in general and of moral and legal score-keeping in particular. Her starting point is the detailed examination of anger, that universal emotion which was studied by ethical theories of the past but which has been ignored by modern moral philosophy. The book then presents an argument for forgiveness as one way of overcoming the dangers of anger and specifically argues for unconditional forgiveness. But since forgiveness is only a second-best solution to the drawbacks of anger, Nussbaum proposes the attitudes of love and generosity as the normative ideal. Settling accounts is anathema to Nussbaum in both personal relations and in the impersonal realm of justice. It is harmful to both the individual’s psychological health ∗David Heyd is the Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Email: david.heyd@mail.huji.ac.il Criminal Justice Ethics, 2018 Vol. 37, No. 2, 189–200, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1499699
保持道德分数
爱和慷慨本质上是无限的,没有计算。然而,许多人与人之间的互动,尤其是正义关系,都是建立在记分的基础上的。根据定义,保持分数是向后看的。就像在体育运动中一样,它是通过记录过去的事件并将其保存在记忆中以备将来使用而构成的。即使是宽恕,正如下面将要讨论的那样,也有一些保留过去事件的因素,因为正如大多数概念分析人士所同意的那样,宽恕不仅仅意味着忘记罪行。正义,从阿那克西曼德,到柏拉图,再到蒙着眼睛的女神手持天平的象征,都是一个平衡的概念。无论是沙漠还是惩罚,无论是感激还是报复,都不可能在不记分的情况下免除。玛莎·努斯鲍姆(Martha Nussbaum)在其关于愤怒和宽恕的丰富著作中,对一般的记分,特别是道德和法律记分进行了广泛而深刻的批评。她的出发点是对愤怒的详细考察,这种普遍的情绪在过去的伦理理论中被研究过,但在现代道德哲学中却被忽视了。然后,这本书提出了一个论点,认为宽恕是克服愤怒危险的一种方式,并特别主张无条件的宽恕。但是,由于宽恕只是解决愤怒弊端的第二好方法,努斯鲍姆提出将爱和慷慨的态度作为规范的理想。无论是在个人关系还是在非个人的正义领域,和解都是努斯鲍姆的诅咒。它对个人的心理健康都有害*David Heyd是以色列耶路撒冷希伯来大学哲学系哲学教授。电子邮件:david.heyd@mail.huji.ac.il《刑事司法伦理》,2018年第37卷,第2期,189-200,https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1499699
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
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Ethics Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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