良心与算计

V. M. Ames
{"title":"良心与算计","authors":"V. M. Ames","doi":"10.1086/INTEJETHI.47.2.2989333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"HE ethical question of what an action or attitude should be depends upon the needs and interests, the values, of the persons involved. Values are vague and incalculable, but the urgency of acting with reference to them makes it a desideratum to state them in definite terms. An illusion of success in this undertaking arises from the fact that a quantitative scheme can be imposed to some extent upon the most elusive qualities. But to inflict numbers on values does not reduce them to figures; nor does the convenience of dealing with quantities avoid the ultimate inconvenience of their being derivative and deceptive. Especially dubious is the effort to be scientific in ethics, in the sense of transforming innumerable inner factors of feeling and desire into uniform integers amenable to computation. It is interesting how superficially successful the attempt can be, how much it is tacitly accepted and trusted, and how hard it is to relinquish. The alternative seems to be admission that morality is subjective, that it cannot be submitted to any objective, external criterion, that each must solve moral problems for himself by his own feeling or conscience, and grant the same privilege to everyone else-or bow to convention, authority, or some other form of arbitrary force. In practice we compromise among three ideas: that morality is a matter of private feeling, that it is acceptance of social pressure, and that it is based on a calculation of consequences to determine the greater good or the lesser evil in every puzzling situation. The advantage of putting ethics into numerical terms is that number is impartial whereas feeling and authority probably are not. The difference between a larger and a smaller number is objective; all can accept it. But this impersonal measuring stick","PeriodicalId":346392,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1937-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conscience and Calculation\",\"authors\":\"V. M. Ames\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/INTEJETHI.47.2.2989333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"HE ethical question of what an action or attitude should be depends upon the needs and interests, the values, of the persons involved. Values are vague and incalculable, but the urgency of acting with reference to them makes it a desideratum to state them in definite terms. An illusion of success in this undertaking arises from the fact that a quantitative scheme can be imposed to some extent upon the most elusive qualities. But to inflict numbers on values does not reduce them to figures; nor does the convenience of dealing with quantities avoid the ultimate inconvenience of their being derivative and deceptive. Especially dubious is the effort to be scientific in ethics, in the sense of transforming innumerable inner factors of feeling and desire into uniform integers amenable to computation. It is interesting how superficially successful the attempt can be, how much it is tacitly accepted and trusted, and how hard it is to relinquish. The alternative seems to be admission that morality is subjective, that it cannot be submitted to any objective, external criterion, that each must solve moral problems for himself by his own feeling or conscience, and grant the same privilege to everyone else-or bow to convention, authority, or some other form of arbitrary force. In practice we compromise among three ideas: that morality is a matter of private feeling, that it is acceptance of social pressure, and that it is based on a calculation of consequences to determine the greater good or the lesser evil in every puzzling situation. The advantage of putting ethics into numerical terms is that number is impartial whereas feeling and authority probably are not. The difference between a larger and a smaller number is objective; all can accept it. But this impersonal measuring stick\",\"PeriodicalId\":346392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal of Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1937-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal of Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/INTEJETHI.47.2.2989333\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/INTEJETHI.47.2.2989333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

一个行为或态度应该是什么样的道德问题取决于相关人员的需要、兴趣和价值观。价值是模糊的,无法计算的,但是根据它们采取行动的紧迫性,使我们有必要明确地说明它们。在这项工作中,一种成功的错觉来自于这样一个事实,即定量方案可以在某种程度上强加于最难以捉摸的品质。但是把数字加在价值上并不会把它们简化为数字;处理数量的便利也不能避免它们的衍生性和欺骗性的最终不便。尤其值得怀疑的是在伦理学上的科学努力,在将无数的内在情感和欲望因素转化为可计算的统一整数的意义上。有趣的是,这种尝试在表面上是多么成功,它在多大程度上被默认和信任,而放弃又是多么困难。另一种选择似乎是承认道德是主观的,它不能屈从于任何客观的、外部的标准,每个人都必须用自己的感觉或良心为自己解决道德问题,并赋予其他人同样的特权——或者屈服于习俗、权威或其他形式的专制力量。在实践中,我们在三种观念之间妥协:道德是一种私人情感,是对社会压力的接受,是基于对后果的计算,在每一个令人困惑的情况下决定更大的善或较小的恶。用数字来表达道德的好处是,数字是公正的,而感觉和权威可能不是。较大数字和较小数字之间的差别是客观的;所有人都可以接受。但是这个客观的标尺
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conscience and Calculation
HE ethical question of what an action or attitude should be depends upon the needs and interests, the values, of the persons involved. Values are vague and incalculable, but the urgency of acting with reference to them makes it a desideratum to state them in definite terms. An illusion of success in this undertaking arises from the fact that a quantitative scheme can be imposed to some extent upon the most elusive qualities. But to inflict numbers on values does not reduce them to figures; nor does the convenience of dealing with quantities avoid the ultimate inconvenience of their being derivative and deceptive. Especially dubious is the effort to be scientific in ethics, in the sense of transforming innumerable inner factors of feeling and desire into uniform integers amenable to computation. It is interesting how superficially successful the attempt can be, how much it is tacitly accepted and trusted, and how hard it is to relinquish. The alternative seems to be admission that morality is subjective, that it cannot be submitted to any objective, external criterion, that each must solve moral problems for himself by his own feeling or conscience, and grant the same privilege to everyone else-or bow to convention, authority, or some other form of arbitrary force. In practice we compromise among three ideas: that morality is a matter of private feeling, that it is acceptance of social pressure, and that it is based on a calculation of consequences to determine the greater good or the lesser evil in every puzzling situation. The advantage of putting ethics into numerical terms is that number is impartial whereas feeling and authority probably are not. The difference between a larger and a smaller number is objective; all can accept it. But this impersonal measuring stick
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信