天下体系与比较战争伦理学的共通之处

IF 0.1 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Edmund Frettingham, Yih-Jye Hwang
{"title":"天下体系与比较战争伦理学的共通之处","authors":"Edmund Frettingham, Yih-Jye Hwang","doi":"10.14731/KJIS.2018.08.16.2.143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the conclusions of recent research on the ethics of war in Chinese traditional political thought, asking how they have been shaped by understandings of the nature, meaning and significance of global ethical diversity. After outlining the major contours of Chinese traditional ethics of war, we propose that the significance of this material has been understood within the terms of both liberal and communitarian meta-ethical assumptions. These assumptions have shaped how the relationship between Chinese and Western traditions has been understood, limiting this research in unhelpful ways. While liberal assumptions lead to authors discounting the distinctiveness of Chinese traditions, communitarian approaches seek to find common ground between traditions to mitigate the danger of intercultural conflict. The common ground solution is ultimately undermined by the communitarian assumptions that made it seem urgent. In response to these problems, we propose that a more radically communitarian mode of engagement should guide the comparative dimension of research into non-Western ethics of war.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":"45 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Tianxia System and the Search for a Common Ground in the Comparative Ethics of War\",\"authors\":\"Edmund Frettingham, Yih-Jye Hwang\",\"doi\":\"10.14731/KJIS.2018.08.16.2.143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores the conclusions of recent research on the ethics of war in Chinese traditional political thought, asking how they have been shaped by understandings of the nature, meaning and significance of global ethical diversity. After outlining the major contours of Chinese traditional ethics of war, we propose that the significance of this material has been understood within the terms of both liberal and communitarian meta-ethical assumptions. These assumptions have shaped how the relationship between Chinese and Western traditions has been understood, limiting this research in unhelpful ways. While liberal assumptions lead to authors discounting the distinctiveness of Chinese traditions, communitarian approaches seek to find common ground between traditions to mitigate the danger of intercultural conflict. The common ground solution is ultimately undermined by the communitarian assumptions that made it seem urgent. In response to these problems, we propose that a more radically communitarian mode of engagement should guide the comparative dimension of research into non-Western ethics of war.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of International Studies\",\"volume\":\"45 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14731/KJIS.2018.08.16.2.143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14731/KJIS.2018.08.16.2.143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了中国传统政治思想中战争伦理的最新研究结论,探讨了这些结论是如何被对全球伦理多样性的性质、意义和意义的理解所塑造的。在概述了中国传统战争伦理的主要轮廓之后,我们建议在自由主义和社群主义的元伦理假设的条件下理解这些材料的意义。这些假设塑造了人们如何理解中西方传统之间的关系,以无益的方式限制了这项研究。自由主义的假设导致作者对中国传统的独特性不以为然,而社群主义的方法则寻求在传统之间找到共同点,以减轻跨文化冲突的危险。共同基础的解决方案最终被社群主义的假设所破坏,而社群主义的假设使得解决方案看起来很紧迫。针对这些问题,我们提出一种更激进的社群主义参与模式应该指导非西方战争伦理研究的比较维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Tianxia System and the Search for a Common Ground in the Comparative Ethics of War
This paper explores the conclusions of recent research on the ethics of war in Chinese traditional political thought, asking how they have been shaped by understandings of the nature, meaning and significance of global ethical diversity. After outlining the major contours of Chinese traditional ethics of war, we propose that the significance of this material has been understood within the terms of both liberal and communitarian meta-ethical assumptions. These assumptions have shaped how the relationship between Chinese and Western traditions has been understood, limiting this research in unhelpful ways. While liberal assumptions lead to authors discounting the distinctiveness of Chinese traditions, communitarian approaches seek to find common ground between traditions to mitigate the danger of intercultural conflict. The common ground solution is ultimately undermined by the communitarian assumptions that made it seem urgent. In response to these problems, we propose that a more radically communitarian mode of engagement should guide the comparative dimension of research into non-Western ethics of war.
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
Korean Journal of International Studies
Korean Journal of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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