苏格拉底论欺骗、偷窃和暴力:走向情境伦理?

Q3 Arts and Humanities
A. Kalaš, František Škvrnda
{"title":"苏格拉底论欺骗、偷窃和暴力:走向情境伦理?","authors":"A. Kalaš, František Škvrnda","doi":"10.5817/glb2019-2-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following paper examines special groups of testimony from the Socratic literature on Socrates’ attitude towards unethical forms of behaviour. The first group of texts consists of reflections on the problem of deception and the dilemma of whether it is always right to speak the truth. The next group reflects how various writers of Socratica (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Antisthenes) interpreted the moral value of thievery. The third group describes Socratic argumentation with regard to violent modes of conduct, such as slavery and beating. It reveals that our extant ancient sources depict Socrates’ positive evaluation of certain forms of lying, stealing, swearing and even beating and that Socrates was a moral relativist in a sense, judging in light of the situational context, which constitutes the moral value of action.","PeriodicalId":38376,"journal":{"name":"Graeco-Latina Brunensia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Socrates on deception, thievery and violence: towards situational ethics?\",\"authors\":\"A. Kalaš, František Škvrnda\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/glb2019-2-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The following paper examines special groups of testimony from the Socratic literature on Socrates’ attitude towards unethical forms of behaviour. The first group of texts consists of reflections on the problem of deception and the dilemma of whether it is always right to speak the truth. The next group reflects how various writers of Socratica (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Antisthenes) interpreted the moral value of thievery. The third group describes Socratic argumentation with regard to violent modes of conduct, such as slavery and beating. It reveals that our extant ancient sources depict Socrates’ positive evaluation of certain forms of lying, stealing, swearing and even beating and that Socrates was a moral relativist in a sense, judging in light of the situational context, which constitutes the moral value of action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Graeco-Latina Brunensia\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Graeco-Latina Brunensia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/glb2019-2-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graeco-Latina Brunensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/glb2019-2-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

下面的论文考察了苏格拉底文献中关于苏格拉底对不道德行为的态度的特殊群体的证词。第一组文本包括对欺骗问题的思考,以及是否总是说真话的困境。下一组反映了苏格拉底的不同作家(阿里斯托芬,色诺芬,柏拉图,安提斯尼)如何解释盗窃的道德价值。第三组描述了苏格拉底关于暴力行为模式的论证,比如奴隶制和殴打。它揭示了我们现存的古代资料描述了苏格拉底对某些形式的撒谎、偷窃、咒骂甚至殴打的积极评价,苏格拉底在某种意义上是一个道德相对主义者,根据情境语境进行判断,这构成了行为的道德价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Socrates on deception, thievery and violence: towards situational ethics?
The following paper examines special groups of testimony from the Socratic literature on Socrates’ attitude towards unethical forms of behaviour. The first group of texts consists of reflections on the problem of deception and the dilemma of whether it is always right to speak the truth. The next group reflects how various writers of Socratica (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Antisthenes) interpreted the moral value of thievery. The third group describes Socratic argumentation with regard to violent modes of conduct, such as slavery and beating. It reveals that our extant ancient sources depict Socrates’ positive evaluation of certain forms of lying, stealing, swearing and even beating and that Socrates was a moral relativist in a sense, judging in light of the situational context, which constitutes the moral value of action.
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
Graeco-Latina Brunensia
Graeco-Latina Brunensia Arts and Humanities-Classics
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
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