{"title":"不情愿的祸害:乔治·艾略特论规范的来源","authors":"P. Fessenbecker","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a notebook of 1877, George Eliot at one point muses on moral philosophy, asking “Of what stuff is virtue made?” and ending with the dramatic “What is the scourge of the unwilling?” Such questions show Eliot engaging one of the great questions of nineteenth-century moral philosophy: where does the obligatoriness of moral obligations come from? Or, more simply, why should one care about morality? Henry Sidgwick’s magisterial 1874 treatise The Methods of Ethics ultimately conceded defeat on this issue, concluding that there was no way to show the rational egoist that altruistic behavior was more rational than self-interested action. Eliot’s own attempts to answer this question, reflected in the narratives of Esther Lyon, Fred Vincy, and ultimately Gwendolen Harleth, depend on the role of shame in moral psychology, and in particular on the conditions necessary for maintaining the self-approval necessary for internal coherence and autonomy.","PeriodicalId":312864,"journal":{"name":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Scourge of the Unwilling: George Eliot on the Sources of Normativity\",\"authors\":\"P. Fessenbecker\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a notebook of 1877, George Eliot at one point muses on moral philosophy, asking “Of what stuff is virtue made?” and ending with the dramatic “What is the scourge of the unwilling?” Such questions show Eliot engaging one of the great questions of nineteenth-century moral philosophy: where does the obligatoriness of moral obligations come from? Or, more simply, why should one care about morality? Henry Sidgwick’s magisterial 1874 treatise The Methods of Ethics ultimately conceded defeat on this issue, concluding that there was no way to show the rational egoist that altruistic behavior was more rational than self-interested action. Eliot’s own attempts to answer this question, reflected in the narratives of Esther Lyon, Fred Vincy, and ultimately Gwendolen Harleth, depend on the role of shame in moral psychology, and in particular on the conditions necessary for maintaining the self-approval necessary for internal coherence and autonomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":312864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474460606.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
在1877年的一本笔记本中,乔治·艾略特一度沉思道德哲学,问道:“美德是由什么构成的?”并以戏剧性的“不情愿的祸害是什么?”结尾。这些问题表明艾略特正在着手解决19世纪道德哲学中的一个重大问题:道德义务的强制性从何而来?或者,更简单地说,为什么要关心道德?亨利·西季威克(Henry Sidgwick)在1874年的权威论文《伦理学方法》(The Methods of Ethics)最终承认在这个问题上失败了,他得出的结论是,没有办法向理性的利己主义者证明,利他行为比自利行为更理性。艾略特自己试图回答这个问题,反映在埃丝特·里昂、弗雷德·文西和格温多伦·哈勒斯的叙述中,这取决于羞耻在道德心理学中的作用,尤其是维持内部一致性和自主性所必需的自我认可的必要条件。
The Scourge of the Unwilling: George Eliot on the Sources of Normativity
In a notebook of 1877, George Eliot at one point muses on moral philosophy, asking “Of what stuff is virtue made?” and ending with the dramatic “What is the scourge of the unwilling?” Such questions show Eliot engaging one of the great questions of nineteenth-century moral philosophy: where does the obligatoriness of moral obligations come from? Or, more simply, why should one care about morality? Henry Sidgwick’s magisterial 1874 treatise The Methods of Ethics ultimately conceded defeat on this issue, concluding that there was no way to show the rational egoist that altruistic behavior was more rational than self-interested action. Eliot’s own attempts to answer this question, reflected in the narratives of Esther Lyon, Fred Vincy, and ultimately Gwendolen Harleth, depend on the role of shame in moral psychology, and in particular on the conditions necessary for maintaining the self-approval necessary for internal coherence and autonomy.