我们如何做出正确的道德选择,做道德上正确的事?

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestiones Disputatae Pub Date : 2015-04-19 DOI:10.5840/QD20155219
W. May
{"title":"我们如何做出正确的道德选择,做道德上正确的事?","authors":"W. May","doi":"10.5840/QD20155219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Every day each of us has to decide what we are going to do; we are faced with choices. Should I, on coming to a stop light showing yellow, drive through the intersection if I am in a hurry to meet an important person in a company I want to work for? If I am filling out my income tax or expense report for my employer, should I “pad” it by claiming thirty charitable contributions under $50.00 for my tax report—they do not require written proof—and by claiming as business expenses meals and car rentals that were primarily for personal—not business—use even though one of ten meals was with a business client? To choose the morally good alternative and carry it out in act we need a criterion to distinguish morally good from morally bad alternatives of choice. We can exclude different types of consequentialism such as utilitarianism because consequentialism in all its forms holds as morally good those actions that bring about more benefits for people than would an alternative choice, irrespective of the means elected to produce the benefit. Their motto is “The most good for the most number of people,” even if this choice necessarily includes bringing harm, even death, on a smaller number of people. Consequentialists of all stripes (i.e., act and rule utilitarians, proportionalists, etc.) forget, however, that human acts—ones that we freely choose and are not chosen because our heredity and/or environment determines us to choose—not only “get things done,” (i.e., bring about results or consequences), but also—and more importantly—“get things said.” People recognize this because we commonly say that ‘actions speak louder than words.’ Expressed more technically, human acts are self-reflexive, abiding in the agent as dispositions to engage in similar acts of the same kind. We can indeed truly say that we make ourselves to be the kind of persons we are—selfish or self-giving, turned in on ourselves, or receptive of others—in, and through, the deeds we freely choose to do every day. So true is this that we can say that our integral, existential character as moral persons is shaped by our everyday freely chosen deeds, good and bad. We make ourselves to be the persons we are in, and through, the choices, good and bad, we make each day of our lives.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Are We To Make Good Moral Choices and Do What Is Morally Good?\",\"authors\":\"W. May\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/QD20155219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Every day each of us has to decide what we are going to do; we are faced with choices. Should I, on coming to a stop light showing yellow, drive through the intersection if I am in a hurry to meet an important person in a company I want to work for? If I am filling out my income tax or expense report for my employer, should I “pad” it by claiming thirty charitable contributions under $50.00 for my tax report—they do not require written proof—and by claiming as business expenses meals and car rentals that were primarily for personal—not business—use even though one of ten meals was with a business client? To choose the morally good alternative and carry it out in act we need a criterion to distinguish morally good from morally bad alternatives of choice. We can exclude different types of consequentialism such as utilitarianism because consequentialism in all its forms holds as morally good those actions that bring about more benefits for people than would an alternative choice, irrespective of the means elected to produce the benefit. Their motto is “The most good for the most number of people,” even if this choice necessarily includes bringing harm, even death, on a smaller number of people. Consequentialists of all stripes (i.e., act and rule utilitarians, proportionalists, etc.) forget, however, that human acts—ones that we freely choose and are not chosen because our heredity and/or environment determines us to choose—not only “get things done,” (i.e., bring about results or consequences), but also—and more importantly—“get things said.” People recognize this because we commonly say that ‘actions speak louder than words.’ Expressed more technically, human acts are self-reflexive, abiding in the agent as dispositions to engage in similar acts of the same kind. We can indeed truly say that we make ourselves to be the kind of persons we are—selfish or self-giving, turned in on ourselves, or receptive of others—in, and through, the deeds we freely choose to do every day. So true is this that we can say that our integral, existential character as moral persons is shaped by our everyday freely chosen deeds, good and bad. We make ourselves to be the persons we are in, and through, the choices, good and bad, we make each day of our lives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quaestiones Disputatae\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quaestiones Disputatae\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD20155219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestiones Disputatae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD20155219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

每天我们每个人都要决定我们要做什么;我们面临着选择。如果我急着去见我想去的公司里的重要人物,我是否应该在遇到黄色交通灯时穿过十字路口?如果我正在为我的雇主填写我的所得税或费用报告,我是否应该在我的税务报告中申报30笔50美元以下的慈善捐款(它们不需要书面证明),并将主要用于个人而非商业用途的餐费和租车费用申报为业务费用,即使其中10次餐费中有一次是与商业客户一起用餐的?为了选择道德上好的选择并在行动中实施,我们需要一个标准来区分道德上好的选择和道德上坏的选择。我们可以排除不同类型的结果主义,比如功利主义因为所有形式的结果主义都认为那些给人们带来更多利益的行为都是道德上的善,而不管人们选择了什么方式来产生利益。他们的座右铭是“为大多数人争取最大利益”,即使这种选择必然会给少数人带来伤害,甚至死亡。然而,形形色色的结果主义者(即行为和规则功利主义者、比例主义者等)忘记了,人类的行为——我们自由选择的行为,而不是因为我们的遗传和/或环境决定我们选择的行为——不仅是“把事情做完”(即带来结果或后果),而且更重要的是——“把事情说出来”。人们认识到这一点,因为我们常说“行动胜于语言”。更专业地说,人类的行为是自我反射的,作为参与同类类似行为的倾向存在于行为主体中。我们确实可以说,是我们通过每天自由选择的行为,把自己塑造成我们本来的样子——自私或自我奉献,自我封闭,或接纳他人。因此,我们可以说,我们作为道德人的完整的,存在的性格是由我们每天自由选择的行为塑造的,不管是好是坏。我们让自己成为我们自己,通过我们每天所做的选择,无论是好是坏。
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
How Are We To Make Good Moral Choices and Do What Is Morally Good?
Every day each of us has to decide what we are going to do; we are faced with choices. Should I, on coming to a stop light showing yellow, drive through the intersection if I am in a hurry to meet an important person in a company I want to work for? If I am filling out my income tax or expense report for my employer, should I “pad” it by claiming thirty charitable contributions under $50.00 for my tax report—they do not require written proof—and by claiming as business expenses meals and car rentals that were primarily for personal—not business—use even though one of ten meals was with a business client? To choose the morally good alternative and carry it out in act we need a criterion to distinguish morally good from morally bad alternatives of choice. We can exclude different types of consequentialism such as utilitarianism because consequentialism in all its forms holds as morally good those actions that bring about more benefits for people than would an alternative choice, irrespective of the means elected to produce the benefit. Their motto is “The most good for the most number of people,” even if this choice necessarily includes bringing harm, even death, on a smaller number of people. Consequentialists of all stripes (i.e., act and rule utilitarians, proportionalists, etc.) forget, however, that human acts—ones that we freely choose and are not chosen because our heredity and/or environment determines us to choose—not only “get things done,” (i.e., bring about results or consequences), but also—and more importantly—“get things said.” People recognize this because we commonly say that ‘actions speak louder than words.’ Expressed more technically, human acts are self-reflexive, abiding in the agent as dispositions to engage in similar acts of the same kind. We can indeed truly say that we make ourselves to be the kind of persons we are—selfish or self-giving, turned in on ourselves, or receptive of others—in, and through, the deeds we freely choose to do every day. So true is this that we can say that our integral, existential character as moral persons is shaped by our everyday freely chosen deeds, good and bad. We make ourselves to be the persons we are in, and through, the choices, good and bad, we make each day of our lives.
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
Quaestiones Disputatae
Quaestiones Disputatae HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Remnants of Substances: A Neo-Aristotelian Resolution of the Puzzles After Survivalism and Corruptionism: Separated Souls as Incomplete Persons Evaluating Hylomorphism as a Hybrid Account of Personal Identity Editor’s Introduction Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Too-Many-Thinkers Problem
×
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