Are the later Mohists preference-satisfaction consequentialists? A discussion of Daniel Stephens’ “Later Mohist ethics and philosophical progress in ancient China”

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY British Journal for the History of Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1080/09608788.2023.2272767
Bradford Jean-Hyuk Kim
{"title":"Are the later Mohists preference-satisfaction consequentialists? A discussion of Daniel Stephens’ “Later Mohist ethics and philosophical progress in ancient China”","authors":"Bradford Jean-Hyuk Kim","doi":"10.1080/09608788.2023.2272767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Mohists may have been the first consequentialists on earth. Their most important principles are that right action is what benefits the world and that the underlying outlook for benefiting the world is inclusive care, whereby each person receives equal consideration. The early Mohists are clearly objective-list consequentialists, whereby benefiting the world amounts to promoting the most basic goods. Stephens argues that the later Mohists shift to a preference-satisfaction consequentialism whereby benefiting the world amounts to promoting what happens to please individual people. Stephens argues that while the direct texts are ambiguous between an objective-list interpretation and a preference-satisfaction interpretation, the latter better explains later Mohist engagement with opponents. I argue that the direct texts actually preclude Stephens’ preference-satisfaction interpretation, which moreover has the later Mohists concede an implausible amount to their opponents.","PeriodicalId":51792,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Philosophy","volume":"40 1","pages":"218 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2023.2272767","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Mohists may have been the first consequentialists on earth. Their most important principles are that right action is what benefits the world and that the underlying outlook for benefiting the world is inclusive care, whereby each person receives equal consideration. The early Mohists are clearly objective-list consequentialists, whereby benefiting the world amounts to promoting the most basic goods. Stephens argues that the later Mohists shift to a preference-satisfaction consequentialism whereby benefiting the world amounts to promoting what happens to please individual people. Stephens argues that while the direct texts are ambiguous between an objective-list interpretation and a preference-satisfaction interpretation, the latter better explains later Mohist engagement with opponents. I argue that the direct texts actually preclude Stephens’ preference-satisfaction interpretation, which moreover has the later Mohists concede an implausible amount to their opponents.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后期墨家是偏好满足后果论者吗?讨论丹尼尔-斯蒂芬斯的 "后期墨家伦理学与中国古代哲学的进步"
摘要 墨家可能是世界上最早的结果论者。他们最重要的原则是,正确的行为是造福天下的行为,而造福天下的基本观点是包容性关怀,即每个人都得到平等的考虑。早期墨家显然是客观清单结果论者,即造福世界等同于促进最基本的物品。斯蒂芬斯认为,后来的墨家转向了偏好满足的结果论,即造福天下等同于促进个人喜闻乐见的事物。斯蒂芬斯认为,虽然直接文本在客观清单解释和偏好满足解释之间存在歧义,但后者更能解释后来墨家与反对者的交往。我认为,直接文本实际上排除了斯蒂芬斯的偏好-满足解释,而且这种解释让后来的墨家向他们的反对者做出了难以置信的让步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: BJHP publishes articles and reviews on the history of philosophy and related intellectual history from the ancient world to the end of the 20th Century. The journal is designed to foster understanding of the history of philosophy through studying the texts of past philosophers in the context - intellectual, political and social - in which the text was created. Although focusing on the recognized classics, a feature of the journal is to give attention to less major figures and to disciplines other than philosophy which impinge on the history of philosophy including political theory, religion and the natural sciences in so far as they illuminate the history of philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Peter of Mantua and the ‘piecemeal’ conception of substantial change* A taxonomy of divisibilism and Gregory of Rimini’s place Helen Knight and Margaret Macdonald on the meaning of ‘good’ Du Châtelet's causal idealism A resolute reading of Iris Murdoch’s Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1