A STUDY ON MORAL THEORY AS INTERNAL REALISM AND THE REALITY OF FREEDOM

在主观主义的现代倾向中，天真的道德现实主义难以维系。人们开始意识到理性的局限性和文化的相对性，并开始不再从上帝的角度而是从真人大小的角度来谈论人性和人的目的，这是现代社会的一个特殊特征。在这种情况下，人们应该追求的目的只取决于个人的利益，而不是道德理论所要求的，而现代道德理论只关注社会行为规则和分配原则。但是，现代伦理学所推演的原则，在许多实际的道德问题上带来了无休止的分歧。此外，它们几乎没有证明在任何实际情况下对认知或传导反应的任何有效性。正因为如此，估计价值的风俗和现实的美德伦理学和道德现实主义最近引起了我们的关注。然而，恢复德性伦理和道德现实主义可能会导致不加批判的保守主义或特权专家伦理学。因此，另一种符合现代多元价值的道德实在论的可能性是我们关注的问题，我们发现，普特南的内在实在论和康德的经验实在论作为先验唯心主义将有助于实现这一点。而关于内在现实主义，我们认为：1.通过接受内在现实主义，我们可以认同多元价值的现实性，但在现代伦理情境中，最重要的问题是我们如何让自由具有现实性。让自由实实在在地存在，意味着我们应该从实质上保证自由，使每个人都有可能站稳脚跟。答：森的能力方法对于实质自由的保证是有用的，但要培养对自由的认知能力，就必须从另一个角度来对待(例如。责任)。

In the modern tendency toward subjectivism, it is difficult to maintain the naive moral realism. It was a specific character of the modern period that people became aware of the limitation of reason and of the relativity of culture, and also that people began to talk about the human nature and human purpose not from a God's point of view but from a life-sized viewpoint. In these situation, the purpose what one should pursuit depended on only the interests of individuals, not on what moral theory requires, whereas modern moral theory was concerned only with the rules for social behavior and the principles for distribution. But the principles which modern ethics have deduced, brought about many aspects of interminable disagreements on practical moral issues. Furthermore they proved scarcely any effectiveness on cognitive or conductive response required on any practical situation. For that reason, virtue ethics and moral realism, which estimate custom and reality of value, have lately attracted our concern. Restoration of virtue ethics and moral realism, however, might cause the uncritical conservatism or the privileged expert ethics. So the possibility of another type of moral realism, which could conform to the modern multiple values, is our concern and it was found that the Putnam's internal realism and Kant's empirical realism as transcendental idealism would make for it. And upon the internal realism, we argued as follows ;1. By adopting the internal realism, we could approve the reality of multiple values, but in the modern ethical situation, the most important issue is how we can let freedom have reality.2. To let freedom have realty means that we ought to assure the freedom substantially which make possible each one to stand one's own feet.3. A.Sen's capability approach would be useful for the assurance of substantial freedom, But to bring up the cognitive ability on freedom, it is necessary to approach from another perspectives (ex. responsibility).