Why Normative Behaviourism Fails
Why Normative Behaviourism Fails
复制标题
为什么规范行为主义会失败
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
David Miller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David Miller
从乔纳森弗洛伊德的“心灵主义”和“行为主义”之间的对比，我认为，一般来说，我们不能理解一个人的行为，而不了解背后的思想。弗洛伊德声称，“心灵主义”的政治哲学是削弱了不一致和分歧，在人们的政治判断，但证据表明，否则。公众不像哲学家那样分成对立的阵营，而是大多数价值多元主义者。相反，我们也不清楚弗洛伊德所指出的那些被观察到的行为--叛乱和犯罪--究竟扮演了什么样的辩护角色。不能抵制一种政治制度并不能告诉我们人们是否赞同它所体现的原则。因此，弗洛伊德希望捍卫的制度--“社会自由民主”--不能仅仅通过提供证据证明它比过去和现在的其他制度引起的阻力更小而被证明是“人民的选择”。
Starting from Jonathan Floyd’s contrast between ‘mentalism’ and ‘behaviourism’, I argue that, in general, we cannot make sense of a person’s behaviour without also understanding the thinking behind it. Floyd claims that ‘mentalist’ political philosophy is undercut by inconsistency and disagreement in people’s political judgements, but the evidence suggests otherwise. The public does not divide up into rival camps as philosophers do, but instead are mostly value pluralists. Conversely, it is unclear what justificatory role is played by the kinds of observed behaviour – insurrection and crime – singled out by Floyd. Failure to resist a political system cannot tell us whether people endorse the principles it embodies. So the system Floyd wishes to defend – ‘social-liberal-democracy’ – cannot be vindicated as ‘the people’s choice’ simply by producing evidence that it provokes less resistance than alternative systems, past and present.