墨家与功利主义之比较

Xiaofei Ma
{"title":"墨家与功利主义之比较","authors":"Xiaofei Ma","doi":"10.3968/12006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mohism is not a form of utilitarianism. First of all, neither of the two is ego-oriented. Besides, utilitarianism is based on individual interest, and the interest of community is simply the sum up of every individual interest; while Mohism does not put self-interest or individual interest first, but rather treat interest of community as primary consideration, which sometimes requires individuals to satisfy their own interest to make the public interest possible. The comparison between Mohism and utilitarianism illustrates the danger of employing western philosophical ideas to interpret ancient Chinese terms.","PeriodicalId":335707,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Social Science","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison between Mohism and Utilitarianism\",\"authors\":\"Xiaofei Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.3968/12006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mohism is not a form of utilitarianism. First of all, neither of the two is ego-oriented. Besides, utilitarianism is based on individual interest, and the interest of community is simply the sum up of every individual interest; while Mohism does not put self-interest or individual interest first, but rather treat interest of community as primary consideration, which sometimes requires individuals to satisfy their own interest to make the public interest possible. The comparison between Mohism and utilitarianism illustrates the danger of employing western philosophical ideas to interpret ancient Chinese terms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":335707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Social Science\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3968/12006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3968/12006","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

墨家不是一种功利主义。首先,两者都不是以自我为导向的。此外,功利主义是以个人利益为基础的,而共同体的利益只是每一个个人利益的总和;而墨家则不把自身利益或个人利益放在首位,而是以共同体利益为首要考虑,有时要求个人以满足自身利益为前提,使公共利益成为可能。墨家学说与功利主义的比较说明了用西方哲学思想来解释中国古代术语的危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison between Mohism and Utilitarianism
Mohism is not a form of utilitarianism. First of all, neither of the two is ego-oriented. Besides, utilitarianism is based on individual interest, and the interest of community is simply the sum up of every individual interest; while Mohism does not put self-interest or individual interest first, but rather treat interest of community as primary consideration, which sometimes requires individuals to satisfy their own interest to make the public interest possible. The comparison between Mohism and utilitarianism illustrates the danger of employing western philosophical ideas to interpret ancient Chinese terms.
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