是否存在“道德”判断?

IF 0.7 Q4 ETHICS
David Sackris, Rasmus Larsen Rosenberg
{"title":"是否存在“道德”判断?","authors":"David Sackris, Rasmus Larsen Rosenberg","doi":"10.31820/ejap.19.2.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent contributions in moral philosophy have raised questions concerning the prevalent assumption that moral judgments are typologically discrete, and thereby distinct from ordinary and/or other types of judgments. This paper adds to this discourse, surveying how attempts at defining what makes moral judgments distinct have serious shortcomings, and it is argued that any typological definition is likely to fail due to certain questionable assumptions about the nature of judgment itself. The paper concludes by raising questions for future investigations into the nature of moral judgment.","PeriodicalId":32823,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Analytic Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are there “Moral” Judgments?\",\"authors\":\"David Sackris, Rasmus Larsen Rosenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.31820/ejap.19.2.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent contributions in moral philosophy have raised questions concerning the prevalent assumption that moral judgments are typologically discrete, and thereby distinct from ordinary and/or other types of judgments. This paper adds to this discourse, surveying how attempts at defining what makes moral judgments distinct have serious shortcomings, and it is argued that any typological definition is likely to fail due to certain questionable assumptions about the nature of judgment itself. The paper concludes by raising questions for future investigations into the nature of moral judgment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.19.2.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.19.2.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

道德哲学最近的贡献提出了关于普遍假设的问题,即道德判断在类型学上是离散的,因此与普通和/或其他类型的判断不同。本文补充了这一论述,调查了如何试图定义使道德判断与众不同的东西有严重的缺点,并且认为任何类型的定义都可能失败,因为某些关于判断本身性质的可疑假设。最后,本文提出了对道德判断本质的未来研究的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are there “Moral” Judgments?
Recent contributions in moral philosophy have raised questions concerning the prevalent assumption that moral judgments are typologically discrete, and thereby distinct from ordinary and/or other types of judgments. This paper adds to this discourse, surveying how attempts at defining what makes moral judgments distinct have serious shortcomings, and it is argued that any typological definition is likely to fail due to certain questionable assumptions about the nature of judgment itself. The paper concludes by raising questions for future investigations into the nature of moral judgment.
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
European Journal of Analytic Philosophy
European Journal of Analytic Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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