休谟在《人性论》3.1.1中关于道德本体论的宁静主义

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Hume Studies Pub Date : 2022-05-07 DOI:10.1353/hms.2020.0002
J. Fisette
{"title":"休谟在《人性论》3.1.1中关于道德本体论的宁静主义","authors":"J. Fisette","doi":"10.1353/hms.2020.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:On a standard reading of David Hume, we know two things about his analogy of morals to secondary qualities: first, it responds to the moral rationalism of Clarke and Wollaston; second, it broadcasts Hume's realism or antirealism in ethics. I complicate that common narrative with a new intellectual contextualization of the analogy, the surprising outcome of which is that Hume's analogy is neither realist nor antirealist in spirit, but quietist. My argument has three parts. First, I reconstruct Hume's argument against rationalist moral ontology in Treatise 3.1.1, revealing his attention to the Intellectualism/Voluntarism debate in rationalism. Second, I present evidence of Hume's familiarity with the debate between Intellectualist moral realists and Voluntarist moral antirealists, notably Pufendorf. Third, I establish that Hume's analogy undermines a key assumption structuring that debate, and that the analogy consequently signals his quietist abstention from his rationalist contemporaries' realism/antirealism debate in ethics.","PeriodicalId":29761,"journal":{"name":"Hume Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"100 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hume's Quietism about Moral Ontology in Treatise 3.1.1\",\"authors\":\"J. Fisette\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/hms.2020.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:On a standard reading of David Hume, we know two things about his analogy of morals to secondary qualities: first, it responds to the moral rationalism of Clarke and Wollaston; second, it broadcasts Hume's realism or antirealism in ethics. I complicate that common narrative with a new intellectual contextualization of the analogy, the surprising outcome of which is that Hume's analogy is neither realist nor antirealist in spirit, but quietist. My argument has three parts. First, I reconstruct Hume's argument against rationalist moral ontology in Treatise 3.1.1, revealing his attention to the Intellectualism/Voluntarism debate in rationalism. Second, I present evidence of Hume's familiarity with the debate between Intellectualist moral realists and Voluntarist moral antirealists, notably Pufendorf. Third, I establish that Hume's analogy undermines a key assumption structuring that debate, and that the analogy consequently signals his quietist abstention from his rationalist contemporaries' realism/antirealism debate in ethics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hume Studies\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"100 - 57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hume Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hume Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2020.0002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:如果对休谟的作品进行标准解读,我们会发现休谟将道德比喻为次要品质有两个方面:第一,它回应了克拉克和沃拉斯顿的道德理性主义;第二,它在伦理学中传播了休谟的现实主义或反现实主义。我用一种新的知识语境化的类比,将这种常见的叙述复杂化,其令人惊讶的结果是,休谟的类比在精神上既不是现实主义,也不是反现实主义,而是宁静主义。我的论点有三个部分。首先,我重构了休谟在《人性论》3.1.1中反对理性主义道德本体论的论述,揭示了休谟对理性主义中理智论与唯意志论之争的关注。其次,我提出了休谟熟悉理智主义道德现实主义者和唯意志主义道德反现实主义者之间的争论的证据,特别是普芬多夫。第三,我确定休谟的类比破坏了构建这场辩论的一个关键假设,并且这个类比因此标志着他对他的理性主义同时代的现实主义/反现实主义伦理辩论的安静主义弃权。
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
Hume's Quietism about Moral Ontology in Treatise 3.1.1
Abstract:On a standard reading of David Hume, we know two things about his analogy of morals to secondary qualities: first, it responds to the moral rationalism of Clarke and Wollaston; second, it broadcasts Hume's realism or antirealism in ethics. I complicate that common narrative with a new intellectual contextualization of the analogy, the surprising outcome of which is that Hume's analogy is neither realist nor antirealist in spirit, but quietist. My argument has three parts. First, I reconstruct Hume's argument against rationalist moral ontology in Treatise 3.1.1, revealing his attention to the Intellectualism/Voluntarism debate in rationalism. Second, I present evidence of Hume's familiarity with the debate between Intellectualist moral realists and Voluntarist moral antirealists, notably Pufendorf. Third, I establish that Hume's analogy undermines a key assumption structuring that debate, and that the analogy consequently signals his quietist abstention from his rationalist contemporaries' realism/antirealism debate in ethics.
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt by Tim Milnes (review) Hume as Regularity Theorist—After All! Completing a Counter-Revolution Hume on Self-Government and Strength of Mind Hume beyond Theism and Atheism Hume's Theory of Moral Judgment in Light of His Explanatory Project
×
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