论阿马蒂亚·森的同情概念

IF 0.3 Q4 ECONOMICS Journal of Philosophical Economics Pub Date : 2019-05-14 DOI:10.46298/jpe.10723
M. Peacock
{"title":"论阿马蒂亚·森的同情概念","authors":"M. Peacock","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines Amartya Sen's concept of sympathy and the oversimplified, ambiguous and sometimes erroneous interpretations of this concept by Sen's interpreters. In the first section, two types of sympathy can be found in Sen's 'Rational fools' essay-a contemplative and an active type of which the former has conceptual primacy. Following this, active sympathy is examined to ascertain what Sen means by 'actions based on sympathy' and why he deems these to be 'egoistic'. Sen's understanding of egoism means that sympathy is not straightforwardly assimilable to the orthodox theory of rational choice. The section after that analyses the place of altruism in Sen's work and ascertains that altruism can be aligned both with sympathy and commitment, depending on the definition one uses. The final section compares sympathy and commitment and establishes that they are to be distinguished, not according to the welfare a person expects to obtain from making choices, but according to the reason which motivates that person to make a choice.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Amartya Sen's concept of sympathy\",\"authors\":\"M. Peacock\",\"doi\":\"10.46298/jpe.10723\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines Amartya Sen's concept of sympathy and the oversimplified, ambiguous and sometimes erroneous interpretations of this concept by Sen's interpreters. In the first section, two types of sympathy can be found in Sen's 'Rational fools' essay-a contemplative and an active type of which the former has conceptual primacy. Following this, active sympathy is examined to ascertain what Sen means by 'actions based on sympathy' and why he deems these to be 'egoistic'. Sen's understanding of egoism means that sympathy is not straightforwardly assimilable to the orthodox theory of rational choice. The section after that analyses the place of altruism in Sen's work and ascertains that altruism can be aligned both with sympathy and commitment, depending on the definition one uses. The final section compares sympathy and commitment and establishes that they are to be distinguished, not according to the welfare a person expects to obtain from making choices, but according to the reason which motivates that person to make a choice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Philosophical Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Philosophical Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10723\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10723","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了阿马蒂亚·森的同情概念,以及森的翻译者对这一概念的过于简单化、模棱两可甚至有时是错误的解释。在第一节中,在森的“理性傻瓜”散文中可以找到两种类型的同情——一种是沉思型的,另一种是积极型的,前者具有概念上的首要地位。在此之后,对积极的同情进行了研究,以确定森所说的“基于同情的行为”是什么意思,以及他为什么认为这些行为是“利己主义的”。森对利己主义的理解意味着同情不能直接与正统的理性选择理论相同化。之后的部分分析了利他主义在森作品中的地位,并确定利他主义可以与同情和承诺相一致,这取决于人们使用的定义。最后一节比较了同情和承诺,并确定它们的区别,不是根据一个人期望从做出选择中获得的福利,而是根据激励他做出选择的原因。
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
On Amartya Sen's concept of sympathy
This paper examines Amartya Sen's concept of sympathy and the oversimplified, ambiguous and sometimes erroneous interpretations of this concept by Sen's interpreters. In the first section, two types of sympathy can be found in Sen's 'Rational fools' essay-a contemplative and an active type of which the former has conceptual primacy. Following this, active sympathy is examined to ascertain what Sen means by 'actions based on sympathy' and why he deems these to be 'egoistic'. Sen's understanding of egoism means that sympathy is not straightforwardly assimilable to the orthodox theory of rational choice. The section after that analyses the place of altruism in Sen's work and ascertains that altruism can be aligned both with sympathy and commitment, depending on the definition one uses. The final section compares sympathy and commitment and establishes that they are to be distinguished, not according to the welfare a person expects to obtain from making choices, but according to the reason which motivates that person to make a choice.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on interpersonal utility comparisons: an analysis of selected models Review of Jon D. Erickson, The Progress Illusion: Reclaiming Our Future from the Fairytale of Economics, Washington, DC, Island Press, 2022, xx + 252 pp., hb, ISBN 978-1-64-283252-5 Lesen und Interpretieren der Wirtschaftsphilosophie von Ibn Khaldun Review of Șerban Oana, Cultural Capital and Creative Communication: (Anti-)Modern and (Non-)Eurocentric Perspectives Scarcity Concept in the contemporary mainstream economic science: an analysis of its ontological and epistemological ambiguity
×
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