错误的标识

C. Swanton
{"title":"错误的标识","authors":"C. Swanton","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198861676.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reasons of beneficence are at the core of ethics, and also of many of its most intractable theoretical problems, indeed paradoxes. What is needed for the resolution of these problems is an appreciation of the distinctive nature of the logos of ethics. In brief that logos is seen as an openness to a practical reality of notably reasons, for the understanding of which a familiarity with the thick ethical concepts is required. Such reasons provide direct intentional access to ethical reality. But if we attempt to gain intentional access to ethical facts through the wrong logos where the thick concepts are invisible or not central paradoxes ensue. This chapter discusses three: the paradox of supererogation, the ‘It Makes no Difference’ Paradox (e.g., that of ‘pooled beneficence’), and that of the underdetermination by reasons for action (e.g., of what charity to support).","PeriodicalId":318660,"journal":{"name":"Target Centred Virtue Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Wrong Logos\",\"authors\":\"C. Swanton\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198861676.003.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reasons of beneficence are at the core of ethics, and also of many of its most intractable theoretical problems, indeed paradoxes. What is needed for the resolution of these problems is an appreciation of the distinctive nature of the logos of ethics. In brief that logos is seen as an openness to a practical reality of notably reasons, for the understanding of which a familiarity with the thick ethical concepts is required. Such reasons provide direct intentional access to ethical reality. But if we attempt to gain intentional access to ethical facts through the wrong logos where the thick concepts are invisible or not central paradoxes ensue. This chapter discusses three: the paradox of supererogation, the ‘It Makes no Difference’ Paradox (e.g., that of ‘pooled beneficence’), and that of the underdetermination by reasons for action (e.g., of what charity to support).\",\"PeriodicalId\":318660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Target Centred Virtue Ethics\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Target Centred Virtue Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198861676.003.0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Target Centred Virtue Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198861676.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

行善的理由是伦理学的核心,也是伦理学许多最棘手的理论问题的核心,实际上是悖论。解决这些问题所需要的是对伦理学逻各斯的独特本质的理解。简而言之,逻各斯被看作是一种对实践现实的开放,它包含着显著的理由,要理解这些理由,就需要熟悉深奥的伦理概念。这些理由提供了通往伦理现实的直接途径。但是,如果我们试图通过错误的标志有意地接近伦理事实,其中厚实的概念是看不见的,或者不是中心悖论随之而来。本章讨论了三个悖论:重叠悖论,“没有区别”悖论(例如,“共同慈善”),以及行动原因的不确定性(例如,支持什么慈善机构)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Wrong Logos
Reasons of beneficence are at the core of ethics, and also of many of its most intractable theoretical problems, indeed paradoxes. What is needed for the resolution of these problems is an appreciation of the distinctive nature of the logos of ethics. In brief that logos is seen as an openness to a practical reality of notably reasons, for the understanding of which a familiarity with the thick ethical concepts is required. Such reasons provide direct intentional access to ethical reality. But if we attempt to gain intentional access to ethical facts through the wrong logos where the thick concepts are invisible or not central paradoxes ensue. This chapter discusses three: the paradox of supererogation, the ‘It Makes no Difference’ Paradox (e.g., that of ‘pooled beneficence’), and that of the underdetermination by reasons for action (e.g., of what charity to support).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信