康德建构主义与规范性的来源

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
J. Schaab
{"title":"康德建构主义与规范性的来源","authors":"J. Schaab","doi":"10.1515/kantyb-2022-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While it is uncontroversial that Kantian constructivism has implications for normative ethics, its status as a metaethical view has been contested. In this article, I provide a characterisation of metaethical Kantian constructivism that withstands these criticisms. I start by offering a partial defence of Sharon Street’s practical standpoint characterisation. However, I argue that this characterisation, as presented by Street, is ultimately incomplete because it fails to demonstrate that the claims of Kantian constructivism constitute a distinctive contribution to metaethics. I then try to complete the practical standpoint characterisation by elaborating on Christine Korsgaard’s suggestion that metaethical Kantian constructivism takes up a position on the source of morality’s normativity.","PeriodicalId":41181,"journal":{"name":"Kant Yearbook","volume":"14 1","pages":"97 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kantian Constructivism and the Sources of Normativity\",\"authors\":\"J. Schaab\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/kantyb-2022-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract While it is uncontroversial that Kantian constructivism has implications for normative ethics, its status as a metaethical view has been contested. In this article, I provide a characterisation of metaethical Kantian constructivism that withstands these criticisms. I start by offering a partial defence of Sharon Street’s practical standpoint characterisation. However, I argue that this characterisation, as presented by Street, is ultimately incomplete because it fails to demonstrate that the claims of Kantian constructivism constitute a distinctive contribution to metaethics. I then try to complete the practical standpoint characterisation by elaborating on Christine Korsgaard’s suggestion that metaethical Kantian constructivism takes up a position on the source of morality’s normativity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kant Yearbook\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"97 - 120\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kant Yearbook\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/kantyb-2022-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kant Yearbook","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kantyb-2022-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然康德建构主义对规范伦理学的影响是无可争议的,但其作为元伦理学观点的地位一直受到争议。在这篇文章中,我提供了一个经得起这些批评的元伦理康德建构主义的特征。首先,我为莎伦·斯特里特的实践立场特征做了部分辩护。然而,我认为斯特里特提出的这种描述最终是不完整的,因为它未能证明康德建构主义的主张构成了对元伦理学的独特贡献。然后,我试图通过详细阐述克里斯汀·科斯加德的建议来完成实践立场的特征,即元伦理的康德建构主义在道德规范性的来源上占据了一个位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kantian Constructivism and the Sources of Normativity
Abstract While it is uncontroversial that Kantian constructivism has implications for normative ethics, its status as a metaethical view has been contested. In this article, I provide a characterisation of metaethical Kantian constructivism that withstands these criticisms. I start by offering a partial defence of Sharon Street’s practical standpoint characterisation. However, I argue that this characterisation, as presented by Street, is ultimately incomplete because it fails to demonstrate that the claims of Kantian constructivism constitute a distinctive contribution to metaethics. I then try to complete the practical standpoint characterisation by elaborating on Christine Korsgaard’s suggestion that metaethical Kantian constructivism takes up a position on the source of morality’s normativity.
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
Kant Yearbook
Kant Yearbook PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Kant Yearbook is an international journal that publishes articles, historical or systematic, on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is the yearbook′s goal to intensify innovative research on Kant on the international scale. Articles are double-blind peer reviewed by an internationally renowned editorial board. Each issue is dedicated to a specific topic announced through a call for papers.
×
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