美德让你快乐吗

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Inquiries Pub Date : 2019-11-05 DOI:10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I2.235
K. Nieswandt, Ulf Hlobil
{"title":"美德让你快乐吗","authors":"K. Nieswandt, Ulf Hlobil","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I2.235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We answer the title question with a qualified “No.” We arrive at this answer by spelling out what the proper place of the con- cept ‘happiness’ is in a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics: (1) Happiness in the sense of personal well-being has only a loose relation to virtue; it doesn’t deserve any prominent place in virtue ethics. (2) Happi- ness in the sense of flourishing is impossible without virtue, but that doesn’t imply that individual actions should aim at flourishing. (3) Instead, flourishing sets the standard of good practical reasoning; it is hardly ever the proper aim of a practical inference. This paper begins with a common (mis)interpretation of neo- Aristotelian virtue ethics, on which it is a form of rational egoism. We then develop our alternative understanding against this foil.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do the Virtues Make You Happy\",\"authors\":\"K. Nieswandt, Ulf Hlobil\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I2.235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We answer the title question with a qualified “No.” We arrive at this answer by spelling out what the proper place of the con- cept ‘happiness’ is in a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics: (1) Happiness in the sense of personal well-being has only a loose relation to virtue; it doesn’t deserve any prominent place in virtue ethics. (2) Happi- ness in the sense of flourishing is impossible without virtue, but that doesn’t imply that individual actions should aim at flourishing. (3) Instead, flourishing sets the standard of good practical reasoning; it is hardly ever the proper aim of a practical inference. This paper begins with a common (mis)interpretation of neo- Aristotelian virtue ethics, on which it is a form of rational egoism. We then develop our alternative understanding against this foil.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I2.235\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I2.235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们用一个限定的“不”来回答标题问题。为了得到这个答案,我们必须说明“幸福”这个概念在新亚里士多德的德性伦理学中的正确位置:(1)个人幸福意义上的幸福与德性只有一种松散的关系;它在美德伦理学中没有什么突出的地位。(2)没有美德,繁荣意义上的幸福是不可能的,但这并不意味着个人的行为应该以繁荣为目标。(3)相反,繁荣设定了良好实践推理的标准;它几乎从来不是实际推论的适当目的。本文从对新亚里士多德德性伦理学的一种常见(错误)解释开始,即它是理性利己主义的一种形式。然后,我们在这个衬托下发展我们的另一种理解。
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
Do the Virtues Make You Happy
We answer the title question with a qualified “No.” We arrive at this answer by spelling out what the proper place of the con- cept ‘happiness’ is in a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics: (1) Happiness in the sense of personal well-being has only a loose relation to virtue; it doesn’t deserve any prominent place in virtue ethics. (2) Happi- ness in the sense of flourishing is impossible without virtue, but that doesn’t imply that individual actions should aim at flourishing. (3) Instead, flourishing sets the standard of good practical reasoning; it is hardly ever the proper aim of a practical inference. This paper begins with a common (mis)interpretation of neo- Aristotelian virtue ethics, on which it is a form of rational egoism. We then develop our alternative understanding against this foil.
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
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary to B. William’s French introduction to "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" Sonic obstacles and conceptual nostalgia: Preliminary considerations on musical conceptualism and contemporary art Intergenerational aesthetics: A future-oriented approach to aesthetic theory and practice Presentism and the Pain of the Past: A Reply to Orilia “Who inspires who?” Aesthetics in front of AI art
×
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