当心电车狂热者

Q3 Social Sciences Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas Pub Date : 2020-05-20 DOI:10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/10842
Gil Eyal
{"title":"当心电车狂热者","authors":"Gil Eyal","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/10842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay draws on Mary Douglas' theory of institutional styles of thinking to analyze the debate about how and when the Coronavirus crisis can be brought to an end. The dominant approach, I show, frames the problem in utilitarian terms, akin to what is known among philosophers as \"the trolley problem.\" I point out the pitfalls of this framing and contrast it with a counter-frame taken from the Judeo-Christian tradition of pastoral leadership. The lacunae of this institutional style of thinking are pointed out as well, in order to develop the critical distance necessary for a reasoned intervention in the crisis.","PeriodicalId":35251,"journal":{"name":"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beware the Trolley Zealots\",\"authors\":\"Gil Eyal\",\"doi\":\"10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/10842\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay draws on Mary Douglas' theory of institutional styles of thinking to analyze the debate about how and when the Coronavirus crisis can be brought to an end. The dominant approach, I show, frames the problem in utilitarian terms, akin to what is known among philosophers as \\\"the trolley problem.\\\" I point out the pitfalls of this framing and contrast it with a counter-frame taken from the Judeo-Christian tradition of pastoral leadership. The lacunae of this institutional style of thinking are pointed out as well, in order to develop the critical distance necessary for a reasoned intervention in the crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/10842\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/10842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本文借鉴了玛丽·道格拉斯的制度思维风格理论,分析了关于如何以及何时结束冠状病毒危机的争论。我发现,占主导地位的方法用功利主义的术语来界定这个问题,类似于哲学家们所说的“电车问题”。我指出了这种框架的陷阱,并将其与犹太-基督教牧师领导传统中的反框架进行了对比。还指出了这种制度思维方式的缺陷,以发展对危机进行合理干预所需的临界距离。
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
Beware the Trolley Zealots
This essay draws on Mary Douglas' theory of institutional styles of thinking to analyze the debate about how and when the Coronavirus crisis can be brought to an end. The dominant approach, I show, frames the problem in utilitarian terms, akin to what is known among philosophers as "the trolley problem." I point out the pitfalls of this framing and contrast it with a counter-frame taken from the Judeo-Christian tradition of pastoral leadership. The lacunae of this institutional style of thinking are pointed out as well, in order to develop the critical distance necessary for a reasoned intervention in the crisis.
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
Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas
Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Against Accumulation: Class Traitors Challenge Wealth and Worth Excess Profits, Taxpayer-Subsidized Philanthropy, and the Coronavirus Crisis: Charitable Giving of the Tech Elite in Response to the Pandemic Lucy Suchman in Conversation with Ana Gross Gender and wealth in the super rich: asset differences in top wealth households in the United States, 1989–2019 Risk Mismatches and Inequalities: Oil and Gas and Elite Risk-Classes in the U.S. and Canada
×
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