伦理理论和有争议的直觉

IF 0.7 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2023-05-27 DOI:10.1080/09672559.2023.2264721

Rach Cosker-Rowland

{"title":"伦理理论和有争议的直觉","authors":"Rach Cosker-Rowland","doi":"10.1080/09672559.2023.2264721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We have controversial intuitions about the rightness of retributive punishment, keeping promises for its own sake, and pushing the heavy man off of the bridge in the footbridge trolley case. How do these intuitions relate to ethical theories? Should ethical theories aim to fit with and explain them? Or are only uncontroversial intuitions relevant to explanatory ethical theorising? I argue against several views that we might hold about the relationship between controversial intuitions and ethical theories. I then propose and defend the view that ethical theories should only aim to fit with and explain the intuitions that almost all people (who minimally understand the relevant issues) share. I argue that this view has interesting and important implications for ethical theorising and theorising about justice and equality.","PeriodicalId":51828,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Theories and Controversial Intuitions\",\"authors\":\"Rach Cosker-Rowland\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09672559.2023.2264721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We have controversial intuitions about the rightness of retributive punishment, keeping promises for its own sake, and pushing the heavy man off of the bridge in the footbridge trolley case. How do these intuitions relate to ethical theories? Should ethical theories aim to fit with and explain them? Or are only uncontroversial intuitions relevant to explanatory ethical theorising? I argue against several views that we might hold about the relationship between controversial intuitions and ethical theories. I then propose and defend the view that ethical theories should only aim to fit with and explain the intuitions that almost all people (who minimally understand the relevant issues) share. I argue that this view has interesting and important implications for ethical theorising and theorising about justice and equality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2023.2264721\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2023.2264721","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

我们对报复性惩罚的正确性有争议的直觉，为了自己的利益而遵守承诺，以及在行人桥电车情况下将重物推下桥。这些直觉与伦理理论有什么关系?伦理理论是否应该以适应和解释它们为目标?或者只有无可争议的直觉与解释性伦理理论化相关?我反对我们可能持有的关于有争议的直觉和伦理理论之间关系的几种观点。然后，我提出并捍卫这样一种观点，即伦理理论应该只以符合和解释几乎所有人(对相关问题了解最少的人)的直觉为目标。我认为，这种观点对伦理理论化和正义与平等的理论化具有有趣而重要的意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Ethical Theories and Controversial Intuitions

We have controversial intuitions about the rightness of retributive punishment, keeping promises for its own sake, and pushing the heavy man off of the bridge in the footbridge trolley case. How do these intuitions relate to ethical theories? Should ethical theories aim to fit with and explain them? Or are only uncontroversial intuitions relevant to explanatory ethical theorising? I argue against several views that we might hold about the relationship between controversial intuitions and ethical theories. I then propose and defend the view that ethical theories should only aim to fit with and explain the intuitions that almost all people (who minimally understand the relevant issues) share. I argue that this view has interesting and important implications for ethical theorising and theorising about justice and equality.

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

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Philosophical Studies (IJPS) publishes academic articles of the highest quality from both analytic and continental traditions and provides a forum for publishing on a broader range of issues than is currently available in philosophical journals. IJPS also publishes annual special issues devoted to key thematic areas or to critical engagements with contemporary philosophers of note. Through its Discussion section, it provides a lively forum for exchange of ideas and encourages dialogue and mutual comprehension across all philosophical traditions. The journal also contains an extensive book review section, including occasional book symposia. It also provides Critical Notices which review major books or themes in depth.