进化与公正。

IF 4.6 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Ethics Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.1086/673433
Guy Kahane
{"title":"进化与公正。","authors":"Guy Kahane","doi":"10.1086/673433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lazari-Radek and Singer argue that evolutionary considerations can resolve Sidgwick's dualism of practical reason, because such considerations debunk moral views that give weight to self-interested or partial considerations, but cannot threaten the principle Universal Benevolence. I argue that <i>even</i> if we grant these claims, this appeal to evolution is ultimately self-defeating. Lazari-Radek and Singer face a dilemma. Either their evolutionary argument against partial morality succeeds, but then we need to also give up our conviction that suffering is bad; or there is a way to defend this conviction, but then their argument against partiality fails. Utilitarians, I suggest, should resist the temptation to appeal to evolutionary debunking arguments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48118,"journal":{"name":"Ethics","volume":"124 2","pages":"327-341"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/673433","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolution and Impartiality.\",\"authors\":\"Guy Kahane\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/673433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Lazari-Radek and Singer argue that evolutionary considerations can resolve Sidgwick's dualism of practical reason, because such considerations debunk moral views that give weight to self-interested or partial considerations, but cannot threaten the principle Universal Benevolence. I argue that <i>even</i> if we grant these claims, this appeal to evolution is ultimately self-defeating. Lazari-Radek and Singer face a dilemma. Either their evolutionary argument against partial morality succeeds, but then we need to also give up our conviction that suffering is bad; or there is a way to defend this conviction, but then their argument against partiality fails. Utilitarians, I suggest, should resist the temptation to appeal to evolutionary debunking arguments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics\",\"volume\":\"124 2\",\"pages\":\"327-341\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/673433\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/673433\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/673433","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

拉扎里-拉狄克和辛格认为,进化的考虑可以解决西季威克的实践理性二元论,因为这种考虑揭穿了道德观点,道德观点强调了自我利益或部分考虑,但不会威胁到普遍仁慈的原则。我认为,即使我们承认这些说法,这种对进化论的诉求最终也会弄巧成拙。拉扎里-拉狄克和辛格面临两难境地。要么他们反对部分道德的进化论论点成功,但我们也需要放弃痛苦是坏事的信念;或者有一种方法可以为这种信念辩护,但他们反对偏袒的论点失败了。我建议,功利主义者应该抵制诱惑,不要诉诸于进化论的反驳论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evolution and Impartiality.

Lazari-Radek and Singer argue that evolutionary considerations can resolve Sidgwick's dualism of practical reason, because such considerations debunk moral views that give weight to self-interested or partial considerations, but cannot threaten the principle Universal Benevolence. I argue that even if we grant these claims, this appeal to evolution is ultimately self-defeating. Lazari-Radek and Singer face a dilemma. Either their evolutionary argument against partial morality succeeds, but then we need to also give up our conviction that suffering is bad; or there is a way to defend this conviction, but then their argument against partiality fails. Utilitarians, I suggest, should resist the temptation to appeal to evolutionary debunking arguments.

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
Ethics
Ethics Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
1.90%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Ethics is a scholarly journal that covers a range of topics pertaining to moral, political, and legal philosophy. It includes articles from various intellectual perspectives, such as social and political theory, law, and economics. The journal presents new theories, applies theory to contemporary moral issues, and focuses on historical works that have significant implications for contemporary theory. In addition to major articles, Ethics also publishes critical discussions, symposia, review essays, and book reviews. Articles published in Ethics are indexed in several abstracting and indexing services, including Ulrich's Periodicals Directory (Print), Ulrichsweb (Online), J-Gate, HINARI, Clarivate Analytics, De Gruyter Saur, EBSCOhost, Elsevier BV, PubMed, ProQuest, and others.
期刊最新文献
Notes on Contributors Charlotte Witt, Social Goodness: The Ontology of Social Norms Nicholas Vrousalis, Exploitation as Domination: What Makes Capitalism Unjust Theron Pummer, The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance, and Effective Altruism Fabienne Peter, The Grounds of Political Legitimacy
×
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