道德语境、道德共犯与伦理理论

Q2 Arts and Humanities
SATS Pub Date : 2020-11-01 DOI:10.1515/sats-2020-2011
Daniel F. Hartner
{"title":"道德语境、道德共犯与伦理理论","authors":"Daniel F. Hartner","doi":"10.1515/sats-2020-2011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the dominant traditions in normative ethics is characterised by the attempt to develop a comprehensive moral theory that can distinguish right from wrong in a range of cases by drawing on a philosophical account of the good. Familiar versions of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics have emerged from this tradition. Yet such theories often seem to lack the resources needed to evaluate the broader contexts in which moral dilemmas arise, which may cause them to encourage moral complicity. Context-insensitive complicity of this sort receives surprisingly little direct philosophical attention, despite its being a ubiquitous concern for ordinary moral agents and despite the threat it poses to this form of ethical theorising. The present paper sketches the problem more formally and canvasses some leading responses before locating its source in the implicit distinction between moral and non-moral domains at the root of much traditional normative theorising.","PeriodicalId":38824,"journal":{"name":"SATS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moral Context, Moral Complicity And Ethical Theory\",\"authors\":\"Daniel F. Hartner\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sats-2020-2011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract One of the dominant traditions in normative ethics is characterised by the attempt to develop a comprehensive moral theory that can distinguish right from wrong in a range of cases by drawing on a philosophical account of the good. Familiar versions of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics have emerged from this tradition. Yet such theories often seem to lack the resources needed to evaluate the broader contexts in which moral dilemmas arise, which may cause them to encourage moral complicity. Context-insensitive complicity of this sort receives surprisingly little direct philosophical attention, despite its being a ubiquitous concern for ordinary moral agents and despite the threat it poses to this form of ethical theorising. The present paper sketches the problem more formally and canvasses some leading responses before locating its source in the implicit distinction between moral and non-moral domains at the root of much traditional normative theorising.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38824,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SATS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SATS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2020-2011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SATS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2020-2011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

规范伦理学中占主导地位的传统之一,其特点是试图发展一种全面的道德理论,通过对善的哲学解释,在一系列情况下区分是非。我们熟悉的结果主义、义务论和美德伦理学都是从这一传统中产生的。然而,这些理论似乎往往缺乏评估道德困境产生的更广泛背景所需的资源,这可能导致它们鼓励道德共谋。令人惊讶的是,这种对环境不敏感的共谋几乎没有得到哲学上的直接关注,尽管它是普通道德行为者普遍关注的问题,尽管它对这种形式的伦理理论化构成了威胁。本文更正式地概述了这个问题,并仔细研究了一些主要的回应,然后在许多传统规范理论化的根源上找到了道德和非道德领域之间的隐含区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moral Context, Moral Complicity And Ethical Theory
Abstract One of the dominant traditions in normative ethics is characterised by the attempt to develop a comprehensive moral theory that can distinguish right from wrong in a range of cases by drawing on a philosophical account of the good. Familiar versions of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics have emerged from this tradition. Yet such theories often seem to lack the resources needed to evaluate the broader contexts in which moral dilemmas arise, which may cause them to encourage moral complicity. Context-insensitive complicity of this sort receives surprisingly little direct philosophical attention, despite its being a ubiquitous concern for ordinary moral agents and despite the threat it poses to this form of ethical theorising. The present paper sketches the problem more formally and canvasses some leading responses before locating its source in the implicit distinction between moral and non-moral domains at the root of much traditional normative theorising.
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
SATS
SATS Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
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