责任

B. Williams
{"title":"责任","authors":"B. Williams","doi":"10.7551/mitpress/11671.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"?2.25 45s Philosophical discussions of responsibility , freedom of the will and such subjects seem often to stand at an enormous distance from the more immediate problems of psychiatry and the law. That they should stand at some distance is inevitable and no bad thing, but to keep them too far apart for too long has, among other bad effects, the rather paradoxical one of making both parties conservative: the philosophy tends to restrict its raw material to the offerings of a Tairly liberal common-sense, while the thought about penal and similar issues lacks the benefit of a sharp philosophical critique.","PeriodicalId":94140,"journal":{"name":"Mental health science","volume":"11 1","pages":"21 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"325","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responsibility\",\"authors\":\"B. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.7551/mitpress/11671.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"?2.25 45s Philosophical discussions of responsibility , freedom of the will and such subjects seem often to stand at an enormous distance from the more immediate problems of psychiatry and the law. That they should stand at some distance is inevitable and no bad thing, but to keep them too far apart for too long has, among other bad effects, the rather paradoxical one of making both parties conservative: the philosophy tends to restrict its raw material to the offerings of a Tairly liberal common-sense, while the thought about penal and similar issues lacks the benefit of a sharp philosophical critique.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental health science\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"21 - 22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"325\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental health science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11671.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental health science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11671.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 325

摘要

[2.25 45]哲学上关于责任、意志自由等主题的讨论,似乎往往与精神病学和法律等更为直接的问题相距甚远。他们应该保持一定距离,这是不可避免的,也不是坏事,但将他们分开太久,除了其他不良影响外,还有一个相当矛盾的影响,即使双方都变得保守:哲学倾向于将其原材料限制在提供相当自由的常识上,而关于刑罚和类似问题的思想缺乏尖锐的哲学批判的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Responsibility
?2.25 45s Philosophical discussions of responsibility , freedom of the will and such subjects seem often to stand at an enormous distance from the more immediate problems of psychiatry and the law. That they should stand at some distance is inevitable and no bad thing, but to keep them too far apart for too long has, among other bad effects, the rather paradoxical one of making both parties conservative: the philosophy tends to restrict its raw material to the offerings of a Tairly liberal common-sense, while the thought about penal and similar issues lacks the benefit of a sharp philosophical critique.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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