Intentionalism and Deontology in the Early Stoic Ethics

Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.21638/spbu20.2022.103
A. Seregin
{"title":"Intentionalism and Deontology in the Early Stoic Ethics","authors":"A. Seregin","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I demonstrate that the early Stoics adhered to a normative theory that may be called intentionalist: the moral significance of any action is not determined by its material content, but by the virtuous or vicious disposition of the agent’s soul and the intentions arising from this disposition. Since according to Stoics all people are divided into virtuous sages and vicious non-sages, all the actions of the former are morally right (κατορθώματα), whereas those of the latter are morally wrong (ἁμαρτήματα), even if they are materially identical. On the other hand, some statements in the Stoic fragments can rather be characterized as deontological: in this case, certain materially defined types of action (stealing, lying, adultery, etc.) seem to be presented as morally wrong in themselves. The paper’s central thesis is that such statements do not contradict the basic Stoic intentionalism but can be interpreted as consistent with it. Such an interpretation becomes possible under two conditions: firstly, if one takes into account how exactly the notions of κατόρθωμα and ἁμάρτημα relate to the Stoic notions of appropriate and inappropriate action (καθῆκον and παρὰ τὸκαθῆκον), and, secondly, if one examines the Stoic position on the moral status of lying, which is very revealing in this respect.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this paper, I demonstrate that the early Stoics adhered to a normative theory that may be called intentionalist: the moral significance of any action is not determined by its material content, but by the virtuous or vicious disposition of the agent’s soul and the intentions arising from this disposition. Since according to Stoics all people are divided into virtuous sages and vicious non-sages, all the actions of the former are morally right (κατορθώματα), whereas those of the latter are morally wrong (ἁμαρτήματα), even if they are materially identical. On the other hand, some statements in the Stoic fragments can rather be characterized as deontological: in this case, certain materially defined types of action (stealing, lying, adultery, etc.) seem to be presented as morally wrong in themselves. The paper’s central thesis is that such statements do not contradict the basic Stoic intentionalism but can be interpreted as consistent with it. Such an interpretation becomes possible under two conditions: firstly, if one takes into account how exactly the notions of κατόρθωμα and ἁμάρτημα relate to the Stoic notions of appropriate and inappropriate action (καθῆκον and παρὰ τὸκαθῆκον), and, secondly, if one examines the Stoic position on the moral status of lying, which is very revealing in this respect.
分享
查看原文
早期斯多葛派伦理学中的意志主义和义务论
在本文中,我论证了早期斯多葛学派坚持一种可以被称为意图主义的规范理论:任何行为的道德意义不是由其物质内容决定的,而是由行为人灵魂的善良或邪恶的倾向以及由这种倾向产生的意图决定的。因为根据斯多噶学派,所有的人都被分为有德的圣人和邪恶的非圣人,前者的所有行为在道德上都是正确的(κατορθώματα),而后者的所有行为在道德上都是错误的(ο μαρτ ματα),即使它们在物质上是相同的。另一方面,斯多葛主义片段中的一些陈述可以被描述为义务论:在这种情况下,某些物质上定义的行为类型(偷窃,撒谎,通奸等)似乎本身就被认为是道德上错误的。本文的中心论点是,这些陈述并不与斯多葛派的基本意图主义相矛盾,但可以被解释为与之一致。这样的解释在两个条件下是可能的:首先,如果考虑到κατ ο ρ ωμα和ο μα ρτημα的概念与斯多葛派关于适当和不适当行为的概念(καθ τ κον和παρ ο τ τ κ καθ τ ον)的确切关系,其次,如果考察斯多葛派关于说谎的道德地位的立场,这在这方面是很有启示的。
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
×
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