“应该”与“可以”的关联:宗教者选择的道德层面

E. Koval
{"title":"“应该”与“可以”的关联:宗教者选择的道德层面","authors":"E. Koval","doi":"10.21146/2074-4870-2022-22-2-21-33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paradoxically, the choice of a variant of behavior, as well as the norm that should be fol­lowed in a particular case, is the more difficult, the more variations of normative prescrip­tions a person has. This article is devoted to the peculiarities of the moral aspects of choos­ing by a religious person in problematic life situations (moral choice of an Orthodox Chris­tian belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church is used as an example). In particular, the situation associated with such an ambiguous phenomenon as divorce is considered. A re­ligious person in such a situation is presented with norms that contain a different amount of requirements. Canons prohibit divorce (there is only one exception – the betrayal of one of the spouses). Norms formulated by modern church authorities prohibit divorce, but allow it in the presence of one of eleven reasons. A complex dilemma arises when choosing between the canons and the new norms. If such a choice is made by a competent cleric (bishop, clergyman), the principles of oikonomia (indulgence) or akribeia (literal adherence to the canon) are used. If a layman makes a choice in a particular life situation, in order to formulate a moral assessment or self-assessment adequate to the case, one of two formula­tions of a well-known moral principle can be useful: a normative formulation “ought implies can”, that expands responsibility, or a formulation “without ‘can’ there is no ‘ought’”. The latter wording serves as the basis for limiting liability for the choice.","PeriodicalId":360102,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Thought","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correlation Between “Ought” and “Can”: Moral Aspects of the Choice of Religious Person\",\"authors\":\"E. Koval\",\"doi\":\"10.21146/2074-4870-2022-22-2-21-33\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Paradoxically, the choice of a variant of behavior, as well as the norm that should be fol­lowed in a particular case, is the more difficult, the more variations of normative prescrip­tions a person has. This article is devoted to the peculiarities of the moral aspects of choos­ing by a religious person in problematic life situations (moral choice of an Orthodox Chris­tian belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church is used as an example). In particular, the situation associated with such an ambiguous phenomenon as divorce is considered. A re­ligious person in such a situation is presented with norms that contain a different amount of requirements. Canons prohibit divorce (there is only one exception – the betrayal of one of the spouses). Norms formulated by modern church authorities prohibit divorce, but allow it in the presence of one of eleven reasons. A complex dilemma arises when choosing between the canons and the new norms. If such a choice is made by a competent cleric (bishop, clergyman), the principles of oikonomia (indulgence) or akribeia (literal adherence to the canon) are used. If a layman makes a choice in a particular life situation, in order to formulate a moral assessment or self-assessment adequate to the case, one of two formula­tions of a well-known moral principle can be useful: a normative formulation “ought implies can”, that expands responsibility, or a formulation “without ‘can’ there is no ‘ought’”. The latter wording serves as the basis for limiting liability for the choice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":360102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethical Thought\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethical Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2022-22-2-21-33\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2022-22-2-21-33","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

矛盾的是,行为变体的选择,以及在特定情况下应该遵循的规范,一个人拥有的规范性处方越多,就越困难。这篇文章专门讨论了宗教人士在有问题的生活情境中做出道德选择的特殊性(以俄罗斯东正教会的东正教基督徒的道德选择为例)。特别是,与离婚这种模棱两可的现象有关的情况被考虑。在这种情况下,宗教人士面临的规范包含不同数量的要求。教规禁止离婚(只有一个例外——背叛配偶中的一方)。现代教会当局制定的规范禁止离婚,但允许在11个理由之一的情况下离婚。在规范和新规范之间做出选择时,会出现一个复杂的两难局面。如果这样的选择是由一个称职的神职人员(主教、牧师)做出的,那么就使用oikonomia(放纵)或akribeia(字面上遵守正典)的原则。如果一个外行在一个特定的生活情境中做出选择,为了形成一个适当的道德评估或自我评估,一个众所周知的道德原则的两个公式之一可能是有用的:一个规范的公式“应该意味着可以”,这扩大了责任,或者一个公式“没有‘可以’就没有‘应该’”。后一种措词作为限制选择责任的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Correlation Between “Ought” and “Can”: Moral Aspects of the Choice of Religious Person
Paradoxically, the choice of a variant of behavior, as well as the norm that should be fol­lowed in a particular case, is the more difficult, the more variations of normative prescrip­tions a person has. This article is devoted to the peculiarities of the moral aspects of choos­ing by a religious person in problematic life situations (moral choice of an Orthodox Chris­tian belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church is used as an example). In particular, the situation associated with such an ambiguous phenomenon as divorce is considered. A re­ligious person in such a situation is presented with norms that contain a different amount of requirements. Canons prohibit divorce (there is only one exception – the betrayal of one of the spouses). Norms formulated by modern church authorities prohibit divorce, but allow it in the presence of one of eleven reasons. A complex dilemma arises when choosing between the canons and the new norms. If such a choice is made by a competent cleric (bishop, clergyman), the principles of oikonomia (indulgence) or akribeia (literal adherence to the canon) are used. If a layman makes a choice in a particular life situation, in order to formulate a moral assessment or self-assessment adequate to the case, one of two formula­tions of a well-known moral principle can be useful: a normative formulation “ought implies can”, that expands responsibility, or a formulation “without ‘can’ there is no ‘ought’”. The latter wording serves as the basis for limiting liability for the choice.
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
CiteScore
0.20
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