亲属关系和亲密关系

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
H. Lafollette
{"title":"亲属关系和亲密关系","authors":"H. Lafollette","doi":"10.5324/eip.v11i1.2244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We think about personal relationships in two distinct ways. The first focuses on relationships between blood relatives: parents and their children, siblings, and perhaps first cousins. The second focuses on intimacy: relationships where each individual is honest to and trusting of the other; each cares for the other and seeks the other’s company. In this article I ask how these two conceptions are, can be, or should be linked. Should we strive to make all relationships with kin intimate?  Even if the answer is a qualified “No,” does that mean relationships with kin are not valuable?  I offer some tentative answers to these questions. Despite its limitations, I hope this provides a framework from which future exploration of these issues might profitably begin.","PeriodicalId":42362,"journal":{"name":"Etikk I Praksis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kinship and intimacy\",\"authors\":\"H. Lafollette\",\"doi\":\"10.5324/eip.v11i1.2244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We think about personal relationships in two distinct ways. The first focuses on relationships between blood relatives: parents and their children, siblings, and perhaps first cousins. The second focuses on intimacy: relationships where each individual is honest to and trusting of the other; each cares for the other and seeks the other’s company. In this article I ask how these two conceptions are, can be, or should be linked. Should we strive to make all relationships with kin intimate?  Even if the answer is a qualified “No,” does that mean relationships with kin are not valuable?  I offer some tentative answers to these questions. Despite its limitations, I hope this provides a framework from which future exploration of these issues might profitably begin.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v11i1.2244\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etikk I Praksis","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v11i1.2244","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们用两种不同的方式来看待个人关系。第一个关注的是血亲之间的关系:父母和他们的孩子,兄弟姐妹,也许还有表亲。第二种关注亲密关系:每个人都对对方诚实和信任的关系;每个人都关心对方,寻求对方的陪伴。在这篇文章中,我问这两个概念是如何联系在一起的,可以联系在一起,或者应该联系在一起。我们应该努力让所有与亲人的关系变得亲密吗?即使答案是合格的“不”,这是否意味着与亲属的关系没有价值?我对这些问题提出一些初步的答案。尽管存在局限性,但我希望这能提供一个框架,让未来对这些问题的探索能够从中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kinship and intimacy
We think about personal relationships in two distinct ways. The first focuses on relationships between blood relatives: parents and their children, siblings, and perhaps first cousins. The second focuses on intimacy: relationships where each individual is honest to and trusting of the other; each cares for the other and seeks the other’s company. In this article I ask how these two conceptions are, can be, or should be linked. Should we strive to make all relationships with kin intimate?  Even if the answer is a qualified “No,” does that mean relationships with kin are not valuable?  I offer some tentative answers to these questions. Despite its limitations, I hope this provides a framework from which future exploration of these issues might profitably begin.
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
Etikk I Praksis
Etikk I Praksis Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 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