权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

The Philosophy of Value and the Limits of Realism : An Inquiry into Practical Truth

价值哲学和现实主义的局限性:对实践真理的探究

基本信息

批准号：
13610010
负责人：
OKABE Tsutomu
金额：
$ 1.02万
依托单位：
Kumamoto University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
2001
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2001 至 2003
项目状态：
已结题

项目摘要

A moral realist would say moral reasoning is a kind of practical reasoning which requires flat rationality and aims at deliberative truth. He might add that this kind of practical reasoning, moral reasoning, does not exclude some types of theoretical reasoning ; and that flat rationality means the basic kind of rationality which every rational person would claim to have. He may be a Socratic layman type of rationalist and also a non-cognitivist.D.Wiggins has tried to limit the demand for convergence on deliberative truth ; and he always emphasizes the cognitive aspects of our dispositional responses to the situations we are confronted with. He seems to be assuming that each individual's cognitive abilities can be differently realized, in different degrees, according to her upbringing, experiences, cultivation, on the one hand, and his concerns, interests, occupations, and so on, on the other.B.Williams denies we can acquire knowledge of moral affairs through deliberative reflection ; but he does not deny reflective argument can play a meaningful role in our making decision of the course of action. He may not deny even that reflective argument would be a sole rationally effective way to reach conclusive decision among antagonistic parties for modernized rational people. He does deny our acquisition of moral knowledge.Now you can imagine a realist of another kind. Paul Grice's fanciful Kantotle is a remarkably sophisticated metaphysician, not in the least a layman, by comparison with whom, in the last instance, I'd like to judge the position of our Socratic layman. Kantotle is surely a possible working model for a modern moral realist.

道德实在论者认为道德推理是一种实践推理，它要求扁平理性，追求慎思真理。他可能会补充说，这种实践推理，道德推理，并不排除某些类型的理论推理;扁平理性意味着每个理性的人都会声称拥有的基本理性。他可能是苏格拉底式的门外汉类型的理性主义者，也是一个非认知主义者。D.威金斯试图限制对慎思真理的趋同要求;他总是强调我们对所面临的情境的倾向性反应的认知方面。他似乎是在假设，每个人的认知能力可以在不同的程度上得到不同的实现，一方面是根据她的教养、经历、修养，另一方面是根据他的关注、兴趣、职业等等。B.威廉姆斯否认我们可以通过深思熟虑的反思获得道德事务的知识;但他并不否认反思性论证在我们做出行动决策时可以发挥有意义的作用。他甚至不能否认，对于现代化的理性人来说，反思性的辩论是在敌对各方之间达成结论性决定的唯一合理有效的方法。他确实否认我们获得道德知识。现在你可以想象另一种现实主义者。保罗·格赖斯笔下的坎托特是一位非常老练的形而上学家，一点也不是门外汉，通过与他的比较，最后，我想判断一下我们苏格拉底式门外汉的立场。坎托特尔无疑是现代道德现实主义者的一个可能的工作模式。