伦理学复习资料(双语)

伦理学复习资料(双语) 第一章 1、哲学:Philosophy is concerned basically with three areas: epistemology (认识论)(the study of knowledge), metaphysics(形而上学) (the study of the nature of reality), and ethics(伦理学) (the study of morality)。 Ethics, our main concern, deals with what is right or wrong in human behavior and conduct. It asks such questions as what constitutes(组成) any person or action being good, bad, right, or wrong, and how do we know (epistemology)? What part does self-interest or the interests of others play in the making of moral decisions and judgments? What theories of conduct are valid(正当 的) or invalid, and why? Should we use principles or rules or laws, or should we let each situation decide our morality? Are killing, lying, cheating, stealing, and sexual acts right or wrong, and why or why not? 2.Key Terms (1)In philosophy, the term ethics(学术上的伦理学) also is used to refer to a specific area of study: the area of morality, which concentrates on human conduct(行为) and human values(价值). 伦理和道德的细微差别 Ethics comes from the Greek ethos, meaning character. Morality comes from the Latin moralis, meaning customs or manners. Morality, then, seems to pertain(适合) to the individual character of a person or persons, whereas Ethics seems to point to the relationships between human beings. 伦理主要指客观的道德法则，具有社会性和客观性;而道德是客观见之于主观的法，主要指 称个人的道德修养及其结果。以伦理和道德为研究对象的伦理学既要研究客观的道德法则， 又要关注个体的道德修养，但后者当是以前者为基础的。 (2)Characteristics of Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Happiness, or Pleasure. (1)good involves at least some pleasure or happiness, and whatever is bad involves some pain or unhappiness. (2)One element(元素) involved in the achievement of happiness is the necessity of taking the long (长远上的幸福)rather than the short-range view. People may undergo some pain or unhappiness in order to attain some pleasure or happiness in the long run.(成就产生的快感，重 点在于长久而不是短期内的，人们为了获得长久的快乐可以经历短期的不快或者是痛苦) (3)Furthermore, the term good should be defined(明确) in the context(在背景下) of human experience and human relationships rather than in an abstract sense only. (4)Our original statement was that everything that is good will bring some person satisfaction, pleasure, or happiness of some kind, but this statement does not necessarily work in the reverse(倒过来)--that everything that brings someone Satisfaction is necessarily good.(让一个人快 乐就必然是好的) (3)In your own words, define the following terms: moral, immoral, amoral, and nonmoral Morality: A Working Definition morality deals basically with humans and how they relate to other beings, both human and nonhuman. It deals with how humans treat other beings so as to promote mutual welfare, growth, creativity, and meaning and to strive for what is good over what is bad and what is right over what is wrong. Amoral Amoral means having no moral sense, or being indifferent to right and wrong. These tend to be found among certain criminal types who can?t seem to realize they?ve done anything wrong. They tend not to have any remorse(懊悔、自责), regret, or concern for what they have done. It is defined(规定) as “a person characterized by emotional instability, lack of sound judgment, perverse(不正当的) and impulsive(冲动的、任性的) (often criminal) behavior, inability to learn from experience, amoral and asocial(缺乏社交性的，自私的) feelings, and other serious personality defects.” All of this doesn?t mean that amoral criminals should not be morally blamed and punished for their wrongdoings(不道德行为). In fact, such people are even more dangerous to society than those who can distinguish right from wrong because usually they are morally uneducable. Society, therefore, needs even more protection from such criminals. Nonmoral The word nonmoral means out of the realm of morality altogether(整个、完全的) In summary, then, the immoral person knowingly violates human moral standards by doing something wrong or by being bad. The amoral person may also violate moral standards because he or she has no moral sense. Something that is nonmoral can neither be good nor bad nor do anything right or wrong simply because it does not fall within(属于) the scope (范围) of morality. 3.Approaches to the Study of Morality What is the difference between descriptive and normative (or prescriptive) ethics? (1) Scientific or Descriptive Approach There are two major approaches to the study of morality. The first is scientific, or descriptive. This approach most often is used in the social sciences and, like ethics, deals with human behavior and conduct. The emphasis(重点) here, however, is empirical(经验主义); that is, social scientists observe and collect data about human behavior and conduct and then draw certain conclusions. (观察并 收集资料在得出一个确定的结论) However, they make no value judgments as to what is morally right or wrong, nor do they prescribe(规定、给开处方) how humans ought to behave. (2)Philosophical Approach The second major approach to the study of morality is called the philosophical approach, and it consists of two parts. Normative, or Prescriptive, Ethics( 规范 编程规范下载gsp规范下载钢格栅规范下载警徽规范下载建设厅规范下载 伦理学). The first part of the philosophical approach deals with norms (or standards) and prescriptions. normative (规范性的，标准的)ethical philosophers would go beyond the description and conclusion of the psychologists and would want to know whether human beings should or ought to act in their own self-interest. They might even go further and come up with a definite conclusion; Another aspect of normative, or prescriptive, ethics is that it encompasses(包含) the making of moral value (价值观念)judgments rather than just the presentation or description of facts or data. (3)What is metaethics (or analytic ethics) and how does it differ from descriptive and normative (or prescriptive) ethics? Metaethics(元伦理学), or Analytic Ethics(分析伦理学). The second part of the philosophical approach to the study of ethics is called metaethics or, sometimes, analytic ethics. Rather than being descriptive or prescriptive, this approach is analytic in two ways. First, metaethicists analyze ethical language (for example, what we mean when we use the word good). Second, they analyze the rational foundations of ethical systems, or the logic and reasoning of various ethicists. Metaethicists do not prescribe anything, nor do they deal directly with normative systems. Instead they “go beyond” (a key meaning of the Greek prefix meta-), concerning(关于) themselves only indirectly with normative ethical systems by concentrating on reasoning, logical structures, and language rather than on content(内容). (4)Synthesis of Approaches Synthesis mean a uniting(合并) of opposing(反对的) positions into a whole in which neither position loses itself completely, but the best or most useful parts of both are brought out through a basic principle that will apply to both. There are, of course, conflicts that cannot be synthesized--but many can be. 总结 初级经济法重点总结下载党员个人总结TXt高中句型全总结.doc高中句型全总结.doc理论力学知识点总结pdf 性的话(结合但是有所侧重) The point, however, is that a complete study of ethics demands use of the descriptive, the normative, and the metaethical approaches. It is important for ethicists to draw on any and all data and on valid results of experiments from the natural, physical, and social sciences. They also must examine their language, logic, and foundations. But it is even more crucial(重要) for ethicists to contribute something toward helping all human beings live with each other more meaningfully and more ethically. Our commitment(保证), then, is to a synthesis of descriptive, normative, and analytic ethics, with a heavy emphasis being placed on putting ethics to use in the human community; that means, in effect, placing a heavier emphasis on the normative(规范的). 4.Morality and Its Applications A. In the course of determining what morality is, some distinctions must be made. (1) There is a difference between ethics and aesthetics. a. Ethics is the study of morality, or of what is good, bad, right, or wrong in a moral sense. b. Aesthetics is the study of art and the artistic, or of what is good, bad, right, or wrong in art and what constitutes the beautiful in our lives. (2) The terms good, bad, right, and wrong can also be used in a nonmoral sense, usually in reference to how someone or something functions. (3) Manners, or etiquette, differs from morality even though the two are related, in that manners is concerned with certain types of social behavior dealing with taste, whereas morality is concerned with ethical behavior. B. There are four main aspects related to the application of morality. (1) Religious morality is concerned with human beings in relationship to a super natural being or beings. (2) Morality and nature are concerned with human beings in relationship to nature. (3) Individual morality is concerned with human beings in relationship to themselves. (4) Social morality is concerned with human beings in relationship to other human beings. This is the most important category of all. C. Evidence exists to help us determine who is morally or ethically responsible. (1)Recent experimentation with communication with certain animals reveals that in the future animals could conceivably be taught to be moral. (2) At the present time, however, humans and only humans can be considered to be moral or immoral, and therefore only they should be considered morally responsible (2)Morals and Manners(礼貌), or Etiquette(礼节). Manners, or etiquette, is another area of human behavior closely allied(与结盟) with ethics and morals, but careful distinctions must be made between the two spheres. There is no doubt that morals and ethics have a great deal to do with certain types of human behavior. Not all human behavior can be classified(归类于) as moral, however; some of it is nonmoral and some of it is social, having to do with manners, or etiquette, which is essentially a matter of taste rather than of right or wrong. Often, of course, these distinctions blur(污损) or overlap, but it is important to distinguish as clearly as we can between nonmoral and moral behavior and that which has to do with manners alone. 5.To Whom or What Does Morality Apply? (1)Explain the four aspects of morality There are four main aspects related to the application of morality. (1) Religious morality is concerned with human beings in relationship to a super natural being or beings. (2) Morality and nature are concerned with human beings in relationship to nature. (3) Individual morality is concerned with human beings in relationship to themselves. (4) Social morality is concerned with human beings in relationship to other human beings. This is the most important category of all. (2)Why is the social aspect the most important? The most important aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in more ethical systems than any of the others. The most important human moral issues arise for most ethicists when human beings come together in social groups and begin to conflict with one another. (当人们聚集在一起，并彼此冲突时， 最重要的伦理问题就产生了) Nonconsequentialist(无结果论), or deontological(道义论、义务论), theories such as Kant„s (康德) stress actions toward others more than any other aspect. The important thing to note at this point is that most ethical systems, even the most individualistic or religious, will emphasize the social aspect either exclusively(唯一的) or much more than any of the other aspects. (3)How are we to use these aspects? In the spirit of synthesis(综合), however, we hold these distinctions open in unity so that we can accept into a broad human ethics，the religious, nature and morality, and individual aspects, recognizing nevertheless that most ethical systems meet in the social aspect. We should, in other words, keep our eyes on the first three aspects while we stand firmly(坚定 地) planted in the social aspect, where most human moral problems and conflicts occur. Who Is Morally or Ethically Responsible? Who can be held morally or ethically responsible for their actions? All of the evidence we have gained to date compels us to say that morality pertains(属于) to human beings and only to human beings; all else is speculation. Therefore, when we use the terms moral and ethical, we are using them in reference only to human beings. At this point in the world„s history, only human beings can be moral or immoral, and therefore only human beings should be held morally responsible for their actions and behavior. 6.Where Does Morality Come From? (1)The Supernatural Theory. They believe, further, that these beings or principles embody the highest good themselves, and that they reveal to human beings what is right or good and what is bad or wrong. Criticisms of the Supernatural Theory. Albert Einstein said:“I consider ethics to be an exclusively(唯一的) human concern with no superhuman authority(权威) behind it.” it is, of course, possible that the supernatural exists somewhere,this, however, is only a belief, based on faith, and there is no conclusive (决定性) proof of the existence of a supernatural being, beings, or principle. It does mean that it is difficult to establish with any certainty that morality comes from this source. (2)The Natural Law Theory. Others believe that morality somehow is embodied(包含) in nature, and that there are “natural laws” that human beings must adhere(坚持) to if they are to be moral. Criticisms of the Natural Law Theory. We certainly talk about “laws of nature” (自然法则), such as the law of gravity but if we examine such laws closely, we see that they are quite different from man-made laws having to do with morality or the governing of societies. The law of gravity, for example, says, in effect, that all material objects are drawn toward the center of the earth: If we throw a ball into the air, it will always fall back down to the ground. The key word in this process is described, for so-called natural laws are descriptive(描述性 的), whereas moral and societal laws are prescriptive(规定性的). (3)we believe that by observing how morality develops and changes in human societies, one can see that it has arisen largely from human needs and desires and that it is based upon human emotions and reason. Conclusion: we can only say for sure that most of our morality and ethics comes from ourselves. that is, from human origins. All (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and others ) else is speculation(投机) or a matter of faith. (4)At the very least(至少，起码), morality and moral responsibility must be derived from human beings. Furthermore, people must decide what is right or good and what is wrong or bad by using both their experience and their best and deepest thoughts and feelings and by applying them as rationally and meaningfully as they can. (5)Customary or traditional and reflective morality A. Customary or traditional morality is based on custom or tradition and is often accepted without analysis or critical evaluation. B. Reflective morality is the careful examination and critical evaluation of all moral issues whether or not they are based on religion, custom, or tradition. 7.Morality, Law, and Religion (1)What is the relationship between law and morality? The law provides a series of public statement a legal code, or system of dos and don?ts to guide(引导)humans in their behavior and to protect them from doing harm to persons and property. Some laws have less moral import than others, but the relationship between law and morality is not entirely reciprocal(并非完全相辅相成). What is moral is not necessarily legal and vice(伦理并不一定被法律代替) versa(反之亦然). That is, you can have morally unjust laws. Also, certain human actions may be considered perfectly legal but be morally questionable. In fact, morality precedes(优先于) law, whereas law sanctions(批准、维护) morality; that is, law puts morality into a code or system that can then be enforced by reward or punishment. Perhaps the larger and more complex the society, the greater the necessity for laws, but it is not inconceivable(难以相信的) that a moral society could be formed having no legal system at all-just a few basic principles of morality and an agreement to adhere to those principles. This is not to suggest that law should be eliminated(除掉) from human affairs, but rather to show that law is not a necessary attribute(属性) of morality. Can law, however, do without morality? It would seem that morality provides the reasons behind any significant laws governing human beings and their institutions(体系). Very few laws have no moral import. Even laws controlling(控制) the incorporation of businesses, which do not seem to have any direct moral bearing on anyone, function at least to ensure fairness to all concerned stockholders, owners, and employees. We can say, then, that law is the public codification of morality in that it lists for all members of a culture what has come to be accepted as the moral way to behave in that culture. Law also establishes(建立) what is the moral way to act, and it sanction, by its codification and by the entire judiciary process set up to form, uphold, and change parts of the code the morality that it contains. The corrective for unjust laws, however, is not necessarily moral laws, but rather valid moral reasoning carried on by the people who live under the code. Law is a public expression of social morality and also is its sanction. Law cannot in any way replace or substitute for morality, and therefore we cannot arbitrarily equate what is legal with what is moral. Many times the two "whats" will equate exactly, but many times they will not; and indeed many times what is legal will not, and perhaps should not, completely cover what is moral. To summarize: It should be obvious that law serves to codify and sanction morality, but that without morality or moral import, law and legal codes are empty. Do you agree that morality is not necessarily based on the law, but that the law gets its real meaning from morality? Why or why not? A. Morality is not necessarily based on law. B. Morality provides the basic reasons for any significant laws. C. Law is a public expression of and provides a sanction for social morality. Give examples of how the law embodies(具体化) morality. (2)Morality and Religion Morality need not, indeed should not, be based solely on religion for the following reasons. (1) It is difficult to prove conclusively the existence of a supernatural being. (2) Nonreligious people can be moral, too. (3) It is difficult to provide a rational foundation for religion, which makes it difficult to provide such a foundation for morality. (4) If religion were to be the foundation of morality, which religion would provide this foundation and who would decide? (5) There is a difficulty in resolving the conflicts arising from various religiously based ethical systems without going outside of them. A.Difficulty of Proving Supernatural Existence. Morality need not be founded on religion at all, and there is a danger of narrowness and intolerance if religion becomes the sole foundation for morality. B.Nonreligious(非宗教人士) People Can Be Moral. C.Difficulty of Providing a Rational (理性的、合理的)Foundation. “Religion can provide a psychological (心理上)but not a logical(逻辑上)foundation for morality." Can there be any better foundation for morality than religion? D.Difficulty of Resolving Conflicts. In summary, then, just what is the connection between religion and morality? The answer is that there is no necessary connection. One can have a complete ethical system without mention of any life but this one no god or gods, no supernatural, no afterlife. Does this mean that to be moral we must avoid religion? Not at all. Human beings should be allowed to believe or disbelieve as long as there is some moral basis that protects all people from immoral treatment at the hands of the religious and nonreligious alike. A religion that advocates(号召) the human sacrifice of unwilling participants(参与者), for example, would not be moral as it deprives(剥夺) others of their lives. A religion that persecutes all who do not accept its tenets is equally immoral and should not be allowed to exist in that form under a broad moral system. If, however, religions can agree to some broad moral principles and their members can act in accordance with those principles, then they can exist with nonreligious people and still serve their principles meaningfully and well. One last point about religion and morality is that religion, for most people who are involved with it, is much more than an ethical system. For example, because Jews and Muslims believe that there is a being far worthier of their love than any being in the natural world, it is their relationship with this being that is of uppermost importance to them, rather than how they act within the natural world. In this sense, religion is more than (or other than) an ethical system. 8.Why Should Human Beings Be Moral? (1)Enlightened Self-lnterest If everyone tried to do and be good and to avoid and prevent bad, it would be in everyone's self-interest. (2)Argument from Tradition and Law This argument suggests that because traditions and laws, established over a long period of time, govern the behavior of human beings, and because these traditions and laws urge human beings to be moral rather than immoral, there are good reasons for being so. Self-interest is one reason, but another is respect for the human thought and effort that has gone into establishing such laws and traditions and transferring(传递) them from one historic period and one culture to another. (3)Evolution of the Arguments Problems exist with the above two arguments: The self-interest argument can be a problem when other interests conflict with it; often it is difficult to convince someone who sees obvious benefits in acting immorally in a particular situation that it is in his or her self-interest to do otherwise. Morality established by tradition and law is problematic because it is difficult both to change and to question successfully. This lack of questioning(质问) sometimes encourages blind obedience(顺从、服从) to immoral practices. It encourages the belief that because something has been done a certain way for hundreds of years, it must be right. (4)Common Human Needs If we examine human nature as empirically(以经验为主) and rationally as we can, we discover that all human beings have many needs, desires, goals, and objectives in common. For example, people generally seem to need friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace, creativity, and stability in their lives, not only for themselves but for others, too. In order to satisfy these needs, people must establish and follow moral principles that encourage them to cooperate with one another and that free them from fear that they will lose their lives, be mutilated(毁伤 ),or be stolen from, lied to, cheated, severely restricted, or imprisoned. Morality has come about because of human needs and through a recognition of the importance of living together in a cooperative and significant way. All human beings can be convinced that they should be moral, or even that it will always be in each individual's self-interest to be moral. The question "Why should human beings be moral?" generally can best be answered by the statement that adhering to moral principles enables human beings to live their lives as peacefully, happily; creatively, and meaningfully as is possible. Significance and Relevance of Ethics When discussing law and morality, there has been a marked increase in the teaching of ethics in law schools. The same types of courses have been established at medical schools, and there has been an increase in bioethics and other ethics committees in hospitals and various businesses. One might ask, "Does this mean that we are becoming more ethical?" Certainly it is admirable that so many-even politicians are interested in values and in improving the ethical life. Yet regardless of how popular, superficially(表面的) or not, ethics may become, it certainly should be the most important aspect of your life. After all, what could be more important than learning how to live more ethically and improving the quality of your life and the lives of others around you? As Albert Einstein said, “The most important human endeavor(努力) is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity(尊严、高贵) to life." The importance of determining why human beings should be moral A. The question is not "Why should any one individual be moral?" but rather "Why should human beings in general be moral?" B. Various reasons for being moral have been posited. (1)Religion, or the supernatural, has been used as the foundation of morality. (2) It has been argued that enlightened self-interest is the basis for morality. (3) Tradition and law have been posited as yet another basis for morality. C. There are problems with all the reasons given in A and B; therefore, morality has come about because of common human needs and through the recognition of the importance of living together in a cooperative and significant way in order to achieve the greatest possible amount of friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace, creativity, and stability in the lives of all human beings. X. A working definition of morality. Morality or ethics deals basically with human relationships--how humans treat other beings so as to promote mutual welfare, growth, creativity, and meaning as they strive for good over bad and right over wrong. 第二章、主要是两大部分(认识论和功利主义) In the history of ethics, two major viewpoints emerge: the consequentialist and the nonconsequentialist. Traditionally these have been called the "teleological" and "deontological" theories. Consequentialist We have seen that in both egoism and utilitarianism, moralists are concerned with the consequences of human actions. In these two theories, the goodness of an action is measured by how well it serves the interests of someone, whereas the goodness of a human being is measured by the extent to which he or she performs such actions and actually causes good consequences. The two major consequentialist ethical theories are ethical egoism and utilitarianism. These both agree that human beings ought to behave in ways that will bring about good consequences. They differ, however, in that they disagree on who should benefit from these consequences. The ethical egoist essentially says(本质上说) that human beings ought to act in their own self-interest, whereas utilitarians essentially say that human beings ought to act in the interests of all concerned. Before we discuss ethical egoism in more detail, we should make a distinction between psychological egoism, which is not an ethical theory, and ethical egoism. Some ethical egoists have tried to base their egoistic theories on psychological egoism(心理上的利己主义), so it is important for us to examine whether it is a valid concept and to make sure we know the difference between how people do act and how they should act. 1.Psychological Egoism (1)psychological egoism is not an ethical theory, but a descriptive or scientific theory having to do with consequence.(结果、推论) (2)Psychological egoism may be divided into two forms. The strong form maintains that people always act in their own self-interest—that they are psychologically constructed to do so—whereas the weak form maintains that people often, but not always, act in their own self-interest. Neither form can operate as a basis for ethical egoism, (3)Two forms of psychological egoism can not operate as a basis for ethical egoism. Because human beings vary so much in the thoughts, feelings, motives, and reasons for their actions, it is highly presumptuous to assume that everyone “always” thinks, feels, is motivated, or reasons in one way to the exclusion of (排斥着)all others. This theory, like the theory about the existence of a supernatural being, cannot be conclusively proved; indeed, there is some evidence to the contrary. First, how can the psychological egoist deal with the fact that we often do not want to act unselfishly, but do so anyway? At times we would really rather do something else, but feel we "must" or "have to" do what we don't want to do. Second, the only evidence the psychological egoist can cite(引用) in support of the statement "people always do what they want to do" is that the act was done. But all that means is that "everyone always does what he or she does," and this really doesn't give us any information at all about human conduct, nor does it in any way prove that human beings always act only in their own self-interest. Therefore it seems to me that we can discount psychological egoism as a basis for ethical egoism. In its strong form it would destroy all morality and is lacking both in evidence and in logic; and in either the strong or the weak form it fails to provide a rational foundation for ethical egoism. 2.Ethical Egoism (1)What is ethical egoism? Ethical egoism is a normative theory. It is a theory about what we ought to do, how we ought to act. It is not necessarily the same thing as selfishness, which could be behavior that is not in the egoist's self-interest at all. That is, if I am always acting selfishly, people may hate me and generally treat me badly, so it might be more in my self-interest not to be selfish. So ethical egoism cannot be equated with selfishness, nor should it necessarily be equated with having a big ego or being conceited.(自负的) An egoist might very well be conceited; on the other hand, he or she might appear to be very self-effacing(谦卑的) and humble. Ethical egoism can take three possible forms: • Individual ethical egoism, which states that everyone ought to act in my self-interest. • Personal ethical egoism, which states that I ought to act in my own self-interest but that I make no claims about what anyone else ought to do. • Universal ethical egoism, which states as its basic principle that everyone should always act in his or her own self-interest, regardless of the interests of others, unless their interests also serve his or hers. (2)Problems with Individual and Personal Ethical Egoism There are serious problems associated with individual and personal ethical egoism, in that they apply only to one individual and cannot be laid down for(列入……名单) humanity in general. The problems associated with promulgating(发布，传播) either of these forms of ethical egoism go deeper than their lack of general applicability, however. It probably would not be in the interest of individual or personal egoists to state their theory at all because they might anger other people and thus thwart(阻碍) their own self-interest. For this reason, such egoists might have to appear as other than they really are, or lie about(点缀) what they really believe, and dishonesty and lying are considered to be questionable moral actions in most moral theories. Another problem with such individualistic systems is that they fail to take into consideration the fact that human beings are not isolated from each other, and that the moral and immoral actions of all persons affect other people around them. These two versions of egoism, however, are good only for one person and may not even be beneficial for that individual. (3) Problems with Universal(通用的) Egoism Universal Ethical Egoism Universal ethical egoism is the version of the theory most commonly presented by egoists because, like most other ethical theories, it is, as its name states, "universal"—an ethical theory that claims to apply to all human beings. This theory does not state only what I should do; rather, it concerns itself with what all human beings should do if they want to be moral: They should always act in their own self-interest. Inconsistency.(不一致) The ethical egoist says that everyone ought to act in his own self-interest,but it is unclear whose self-interest should be satisfied. There is an inconsistency here, because when self- interests conflict, universal ethical egoism provides for no resolution that will truly be in the best interest of everyone. Difficulty in Giving Moral Advice. Ethical egoism becomes highly questionable, then, when we talk about giving moral advice. Derivation(引出) from Economic Theory. It is taken from economic theory, such as that proposed by Adam Smith. He and other proponents of laissez-faire(放任主义) or government-hands-off capitalism believe that self-interest provides the best economic motivation. In any case, a more basic question can be asked about the relevance(关键) of economics to morality. Even if an economic system worked well, would this prove that morality ought to be modeled on it? Is not the moral life broader than the economic life? For example, are all human relations economic relations? Inconsistent with Helping Professions. Another criticism of ethical egoism in any of its forms is that it does provide the proper(适当 的、恰当的) ethical basis for people who are in the helping professions(辅助性专业). 总结:These criticisms would support the contentions(争论) of some philosophers that egoism in any of its forms is really not a moral system at all, but rather the nonmoral stance (立场)from which one asks, "Why should I be moral?" Although not wanting to go that far, I do feel there are a great many problems with ethical egoism that are not easily resolvable. Therefore, it seems to be a highly questionable ethical theory. (4)Advantages of Universal Ethical Egoism It‘s Easier to Determine(判决) Self-Interest. It is much easier for individuals to know what their own interests are than it is for them to know what is in the best interest of others. It Encourages Individual Freedom and Responsibility. Another advantage of universal ethical egoism is that it encourages individual freedom and responsibility. Egoists need only to consider their own self-interest, and then take responsibility for their actions. There need be no dependence on anybody else, and one need only seek his or her own self-interest and let others do the same. Limitations(局限性) to These Advantages. The theory will work best as long as people are operating in relative isolation(孤立), thereby minimizing the occasions for conflict among their self-interests. ethical egoism fails to provide the means of resolving these conflicts in such a way that everyone's self-interest is protected or satisfied. So some principle of justice or compromise must be brought in, and it probably would not be in everyone's self-interest. At this point egoists must either become utilitarians, and concern themselves with the best interests of everyone involved, or play their nonmoral game by telling people what they should do while hoping they won't in fact do it. The real and immediate(直接的) problem with egoism, however, is that we do not live in self-sufficient communities(自给自足的社会). We live, rather, in increasingly crowded communities where social, economic, and even moral interdependence is a fact of life, and where self-interests conflict constantly and somehow must be compromised(妥协、危害). This means that a person's self-interest will be only partially served and, in fact, may not be served at all. Conclusions In conclusion, it would seem that people can be ethical egoists with some success only if they advocate some other theory besides ethical egoism, and only if they don„t tell people that that is what they?re doing! This makes for a questionable(可疑的) ethical theory at worst, and an impractical one at best. Given all of these serious problems, we certainly should not settle on ethical egoism until we first have examined other ethical theories. The second part: Utilitarianism The original utilitarians were democratic(民主的), progressive(进步的), empiricist(经 验主义), and optimistic. They were democratic in the sense that they believed that social policy ought to work for the good of all persons, not just the upper class. However, they also believed that when interests of various persons conflicted, the best choice was that which promoted the interests of the greater number. The utilitarians were progressive in that they questioned the status quo(现状). They believed that if the contemporary(同期的) punishment system was not working well, for example, then it ought to be changed. Observation would determine whether a project or practice promoted this good. Thus, utilitarianism is part of the empiricist tradition(经验主义传统) in philosophy, for we only know what is good by observation or by appeal to experience. Bentham and Mill were also optimists. They believed that human wisdom and science would improve the lot of humanity. Mill wrote in Utilitarianism, "All the grand sources of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort." 2.The Principle Of Utility The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is called “The Principle of Utility” or “The Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle has several formulations in Bentham and Mill as well as in utilitarianism after them. Here are two simplified formulations(构想、规划), one correlated with each title. (1)Two simplified formulations ?The morally best (or better) alternative is that which produces the greatest (or greater) net utility(净效益), where utility is defined in terms of happiness or pleasure. ?We ought to do that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. (2)Consequentialist Principle(结果原则) First, utilitarianism is teleological in orientation. In other words, it stresses the end or goal of actions. Second, it is also a conscquentialist moral theory. According to utilitarian moral theory, when we evaluate human acts or practices we consider neither the nature of the acts or practices nor the motive for which people do what they do. According to utilitarianism, we ought to decide which action or practice is best by considering the likely or actual consequences of each alternative. If one version of the barrier will save more lives than another at lesser or equal cost, then that is preferable. If the status quo has a greater balance of good over bad, then that is best. Nevertheless, this is not so simple to understand or calculate (3)The Intrinsic Good: Pleasure or Happiness Classical utilitarianism is a pleasure or happiness theory. Utilitarians also have believed that pleasure or happiness is the good to be produced. As Bentham put it, "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.'' Things such as fame, fortune, education, and freedom may be good, but only to the extent that they produce pleasure or happiness. Happiness and pleasure are the only intrinsic goods--that is, the only things good in themselves. (4)Calculating the Greatest Amount of Happiness Utilitarianism is not an egoistic theory. Some philosophers have called utilitarianism universalistic because it is the happiness or pleasure of all who are affected by an action or practice that is to be considered. Sacrifice may be good, but not in itself. As Mill puts it, "A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, considers as wasted.'' Everyone affected by some action is be to counted equally. Pleasure Minus Pain(快乐减去痛苦). Almost every alternative that we choose produces unhappiness or pain as well as happiness or pleasure for ourselves, if not for others. Pain is intrinsically bad and pleasure is intrinsically good. Something that produces pain may be accepted, but only if it causes more pleasure overall. When an act produces both pleasure or happiness and pain or unhappiness, we can think of each moment of unhappiness as canceling out a moment of happiness, so that what is left to evaluate is the remaining or net happiness or unhappiness. Intensity(强度) Moments of happiness or pleasure are not all alike. Some are more intense than others. The thrill of some exciting adventure--say, running the rapids-may produce a more intense pleasure than the serenity we feel in view of one of nature's wonders. All else being equal, the more intense the pleasure, the better. All other factors being equal, if I have an apple to give away and am deciding which of two friends to give it to, I ought to give it to the friend who will enjoy it most. In calculations involving intensity of pleasure, a scale is sometimes useful Duration(持续) Intensity is not all that matters regarding pleasure. The more serene(平静的) pleasure may last longer. This also must be factored in our calculation. The longer lasting the pleasure the better, all else being equal. Fruitfulness(丰收) A more serene nature pleasure may or may not be more fruitful than an exciting pleasure such as that from running rapids. The fruitfulness of experiencing pleasure depends on whether it makes us more capable of experiencing similar or other pleasures. The fruitfulness depends not only on the immediate(直接的) pleasure, but also on the long-term results. Indulging in immediate pleasure may bring pain later on, as we know only too well! Likelihood(可能性) If before acting we are attempting to decide between two available alternative actions, we must estimate the likely results of each before we compare their net utility. It may turn out that we ought to choose an act with lesser rather than greater beneficial results if the chances of it happening are better. It is not only the chances that would count but also the size of the prize. 3. Quantity And Quality of Pleasure(两个量)(边沁和密尔的不同) Bentham and Mill are in agreement that the more pleasure or happiness, the better. However, there is one significant difference between them. According to Bentham, we ought to consider only the quantity of pleasure or happiness brought about by various acts: how much pleasure, to how many people, how intense it is, how long-lasting, how fruitful, and how likely the desired outcome will occur. Consider Bentham's own comment on this point: The "quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin [a game] is as good as poetry.'' While Mill believed that the quality of the pleasure should also count. He attempted to prove or show that intellectual(智力) pleasures are better than sensual ones. He said, "to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." 4. Act and Rule Utilitarianism 2)Two forms of utilitarianism Act utilitarianism: Consider the consequences of this act of promise keeping or promise breaking. Rule utilitarianism: Consider the consequences of the practice of promise keeping or promise breaking. (3)The relationship They are alike in requiring us to produce the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. They differ in what they believe we ought to consider in estimating(估算) the consequences. Act utilitarianism states that we ought to consider the consequences of each act separately. Rule utilitarianism states that we ought to consider the consequences of the act performed as a general practice. (4)Which form of utilitarianism is better is a matter of dispute(争辩) Act utilitarians can claim that we ought to consider only what will or is likely to happen if we act in certain ways, not what would happen if we acted in certain ways but will not happen because we are not going to so act. Rule utilitarians can claim that acts are similar to one another and so can be thought of as practices. My lying in one case to get myself out of a difficulty is similar to others' lying in other cases to get themselves out of difficulties. Because we should make the same judgments about similar cases. 5.Evaluating Utilitarianism The following are just some of the many considerations raised by those who wish to determine whether utilitarianism is a valid moral theory. (1)Application of the Principle One reaction to calculating the greatest amount of happiness that students often have is that this theory is too complex. When we consider all of the variables concerning pleasure and happiness that are to be counted when trying to estimate the "greatest amount of pleasure or happiness," the task of doing so looks extremely difficult. We must consider how many people will be affected by alternative actions, whether they will be pleased or pained by them, how pleased or pained they will be and for how long, and what we estimate will happen will. The point of this criticism is that no one can consider all of the variables(变量) that utilitarianism requires us to consider: the probable consequences of our action to all affected in terms of duration, intensity, fruitfulness, likelihood, and type or quality of pleasure. However, a utilitarian could respond that, although given this complexity no one is a perfect judge, we do make better judgments the better we are able to consider these variables. It may well be that in some cases, at least, one cannot both maximize(取最大值) happiness and make the greatest number of people happy. (2)Utilitarianism and Personal Integrity A more substantive criticism of utilitarianism concerns its universalist and maximizing nature, that we should always do that which maximizes overall (全部的)happiness. For one thing, this theory seems to allow us to consider neither our own happiness in some privileged place nor the happiness of those closer to us when to do so does not maximize happiness. I can give no more weight to my own projects or my own children in determining what to do than other peoples' similar projects or others' children. Utilitarians might respond that we should probably give more attention to our own projects and our own children, but only because this is likely to have better results overall. The objection remains that not to give some preference to ourselves is an affront to our personal integrity. (3) End-Justifies-the-Means(为了目的不择手段) A second criticism concems utilitarianism's consequentialist nature. You may have heard the phrase "The end justifies the means." People often refer to it with a certain amount of disdain. Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist moral theory, holds that it is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine whether particular means to them are justified. This seems to lead to conclusions that are contrary to commonsense morality. Utilitarians might respond by noting that such action or practices will probably do more harm than good, especially if we take a long-range view. In particular, they might point out that practices that allow the punishment of those known to be innocent are not likely to deter as well as those that punish only the guilty or proven guilty. (4)The Cost-Benefit Analysis(成本效益分析), or End-Justifies-the-Means, Approach--A Problem for Utilitarianism There is another problem in utilitarianism, and that is the difficulty of carrying the "useful" aspect of utility too far. Doesn't this sometimes end up as the greatest good for the majority with some very bad consequences for the minority? Certainly, by number alone, this would be the greatest good for the greatest number, but many moralists would object, saying that each individual is, morally speaking, unique, and therefore no such experiment should ever be performed regardless of how many individuals will be saved by it. To be sure, there are times when a group of people has to think of the survival of the group rather than of one or two individuals, and then moral decisions have to be made about who gets the "goods" that are in short supply. (5)“proof" of The theory One of the best ways to evaluate a moral theory is to examine carefully the reasons that are given to support it. Being an empiricist theory, utilitarianism must draw its evidence from experience. This is what Mill does in his attempt to prove that the principle of utility is the correct moral principle. His argument is as follows: Just as the only way in which we know that something is visible is its being seen, and the only way we can show that something is audible is if it can be heard, so also the only proof that we have that something is desirable is its being desired. Because we desire happiness, we thus know it is desirable or good. In addition, Mill holds that happiness is the only thing we desire for its own sake. All else we desire because we believe it will lead to happiness. Thus, happiness or pleasure is the only thing good in itself or the only intrinsic good. All other goods are instrumental goods; in other words, they are good in so far as they lead to happiness. There are two main contentions here in this argument. One is that people's desiring something is a good basis for its being, or being thought to be, good. The other is that happiness in particular is the only thing desired for itself and thus it is the only intrinsic good. Furthermore, just because we do desire something does not necessarily mean that we ought to desire it or that it is good. Conclusions In conclusion, then, utilitarianism is an improvement over egoism, in that it attempts to take into consideration all persons concerned by any moral action. At the same time, however, it runs into the difficulty of determining what would be good for others, a difficulty not involved in egoism. Another advantage utilitarianism has over ethical egoism is that it is far more suitable for people in the helping professions, in that it is concerned with the best good consequences for everyone. Difficulty with Consequentialist Theories in General One difficulty inherent(固有的) in all of the consequentialist theories is the necessity of trying to discover and determine as many of the possible consequences of our actions as we can—a difficult task at best. The critic of consequentialist theories probably would say that it is very difficult to assess all of the consequences of any of our actions because, we cannot see far enough into the future, nor do we have enough knowledge about what is best for ourselves or for all concerned to make such a judgment. 第三章和第四章、主要是不可知论和康德的责任伦理学和美德伦理学 1. Nonconsequentialist theories(不可知论) (1)What is nonconsequentialist Nonconsequentialist theories of morality are based on something other than the consequences of a person's actions. The most important thing to remember when discussing the nonconsequentialist theories is that their proponents(支持者) claim that consequences do not, and in fact should not, enter into judging whether actions or people are moral or immoral. Actions are to be judged solely(唯一的) on whether they are right and people solely on whether they are good, based on some other (many nonconsequentialists would say "higher") standard or standards of morality. That is, acts or people are to be judged moral or immoral regardless of the consequences of actions. (2)Act Nonconsequentialist Theories Act nonconsequentialists make the major assumption that there are no general moral rules or theories at all but only particular actions, situations, and people about which we cannot generalize. We must approach each situation individually as one of a kind and somehow decide what is the right action to take in that situation. It is the “how we decide” in this theory that is most interesting. Decisions for the act nonconsequentialist are “intuitionistic(直觉的)." That is, what a person decides in a particular situation, because he or she cannot use any rules or standards, is based upon what he or she believes or feels (intuits) to be the right action to take. This type of theory, then, is highly individualistic—individuals must decide what they feel is the right thing to do, and then do it. They are not concerned with consequences--and certainly not with the consequences of other situations, or with people not immediately involved in this particular situation—but they must do what they feel is right given this particular situation and the people involved in it. Criticisms of Act Nonconsequentialism For if intuition(直觉)s differ from person to person, how can conflicts between opposing intuitions be resolved? All we can say is that we disagree with another person's intuitions; we have no logical basis for saying, "Your intuition is wrong whereas mine is right." Intuitions simply cannot be arbitrated, as reasons and judgments of evidence can; therefore, any theory of morality based upon intuitions alone, such as act nonconsequentialism, is highly questionable. Other criticisms are these: * How do we know that what we intuit--with nothing else to guide us—will be morally correct? * How can we know when we have sufficient(充足的) facts to make a moral decision? * With morality so highly individualized(个性化), how can we be sure we are doing the best thing for anyone else involved in the situation? * Can we really rely upon nothing more than our momentary(瞬间) intuitions to help us make our moral decisions? * How will we be able to justify our actions except by saying, "Well, I had an intuition that it was the right thing for me to do"? Another criticism of act nonconsequentialism, focuses on the questionable assumption that all situations and people are completely different, with none of them having anything in common. There are, of course, some highly unique situations for which no rules can be set up in advance, but there are many other situations containing enough similarities so that rules perhaps with some appended exceptions or qualifications, can be stated quite effectively. These generally work quite satisfactorily by condemning immoral acts while at the same time recognizing extenuating(为什 么找借口) circumstances thereby attaining a significant degree of justice and fairness for all concerned. (3)Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories Rule nonconsequentialists believe that there are or can be rules that are the only basis for morality and that consequences do not matter. It is the following of the rules (which are right moral commands) that is moral, and the concept of morality cannot be applied to the consequences that ensue when one follows the rules. The main way in which the various rule nonconsequentialist theories differ is in their methods of establishing the rules. 2.Kant's Duty Ethics以下是他的伦理学中涉及到的几个问题。可以总结出他的个人观点 Kant„s moral theory answer the question, (1)What gives an act moral worth?(行为的道德 价值是什么) It is not the consequences of the act, according to Kant. Suppose, According to Kant, because I intended and tried to do what I thought was right, I ought not to be blamed for things having turned out badly. The idea is that we generally ought not to be blamed or praised for what is not in our control. The consequences of our acts are not always in our control and things do not always turn out as we want. However, Kant believed that our motives are in our control. We are responsible for our motive to do good or bad, and thus it is for this that we are held morally accountable(道德上 的责任). Kant also objected to basing morality on the consequences of our actions for another reason (happy states or experiences). On Kant's view, we should not be used in this way for we are rational beings or persons. Persons have intrinsic (内在的)value, according to Kant, not simply instrumental value. The belief that people ought not to be used, but ought to be regarded as having the highest intrinsic value, is central to Kant's ethics, as is the importance of a motive to do what is right. As we shall see in the next two sections, Kant uses this second idea to answer the question, What gives an act moral worth? (2)What Is the Right Motive? Kant believed that an act has specifically moral worth only if it is done with a right intention or motive. He referred to this as having a “good will.” only such a will is good unconditionally(无条件的). Everything else needs a good will to make it good. Without a right intention, such things as intelligence, wit, and control of emotions can be bad and used for evil purposes. Having a right intention is to do what is right (or what one believes to be right) just because it is right. In Kant„s words, it is to act “out of duty”(出于道德责任而为 ), out of a concern and respect for the moral law. Kant was not a relativist(相对主义者). He believed that there was a right and a wrong thing to do, whether or not we knew or agreed about it. This was the moral law. Now we do not always know when our acts are motivated by self-interest, inclination(倾向), or pure respect for morality. Also, we often act from mixed motives. We are more certain that the motive is pure, however, when we do what is right even when it is not in our best interest (when it costs us dearly) and when we do not feel like doing the right thing. In these cases, we can know that we are motivated by concern to do the right thing because the other two motives are missing. Moreover, this ability to act for moral reasons and resist the pushes and pulls of nature or natural inclination is one indication of and reason why Kant believes that it is persons that have a unique value and dignity. The person who says to himself, "I feel like being lazy (or mean or selfish), but I am going to try not to because it would not be right," is operating out of the motive of respect for morality itself. This ability to act for moral reasons or motives, Kant believes, is one part of what makes people possess particularly high and unique value. (3)What Is the Right Thing to Do? For our action to have moral worth, according to Kant, we must not only act out of a right motivation but also do the right thing. Kant does not believe that morality is a function of producing good consequences. We may do what has good results, but if we do so for the wrong motive, then that act has no moral worth. However, it is not only the motive that counts for Kant. We must also do what is right. The act itself must be morally right. Both the act and the motive are morally relevant. In Kant's terms, we must not only act "out of duty" (have the right motive) but also "according to duty" or "as duty requires" (do what is right). How then are we to know what is the right thing to do? Once we know this, we can try to do it just because it is right. a hypothetical imperative (假设命令)and a categorical imperative(绝对命令). First of all, an imperative(命令) is simply a form of statement that tells us to do something Moreover, I can avoid the obligation to leave early by changing my goals. I can decide that I do not need or want to get there on time. These "oughts" are also quite individualized. What I ought to do is dependent on my own individual goals or plans. These are obligations only for those who have these goals or desires. Think of them in this form: "If (or because) I want X, then I ought to do Y." Whether I ought to do Y is totally dependent on my wanting X. Moral obligation, on the other hand, is quite different in nature. Kant believed that we experience moral obligation as something quite demanding(过分要求的). If there is something I morally ought to do, I ought to do it no matter what-whether or not I want to, and whether or not it fulfills my desires and goals or is approved by my society. Moral obligation is not contingent on(视条件 而定) what I or anyone happens to want or approve. Moral “oughts” are thus, in Kant„s terminology, unconditional(无条件的) or necessary. Moreover, while hypothetical(假定的) “oughts” relate to goals we each have as individuals, moral “oughts” stem from the ways in which we are alike as persons, for only persons are subject to morality. This is because persons are rational (理性的)beings and only persons can act from a reason or from principles. These “oughts” are thus not individualized but universal as they apply to all persons. Kant calls moral “oughts” categorical imperatives(绝对命令) because they tell us what we ought to do no matter what, under all conditions, or categorically. (3)The Categorical Imperative(绝对命令) The categorical imperative, Kant's basic moral principle, is comparable in importance for his moral philosophy to the principle of utility for utilitarians. It is Kant's test for right and wrong. Although at least four of them may be found in his writings, we will concentrate on just two and call them the first and second forms of the categorical imperative. The others, however, do add different elements to our understanding of his basic moral principle and will be mentioned briefly. The First Form Because morality is not a matter of producing good consequences of any sort (be it happiness or knowledge or peace), the basic moral principle will be formal, without content. It will not include reference to any particular good. Knowing this, we are on the way to understanding the first form of the categorical imperative, which simply requires that we only do what we can accept or will that everyone do. Kant's own statement of it is basically the following: Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law.(这样行动，使你的行为准则， 同时必须成为普遍的准则) The Second Form The first form of Kant„s categorical imperative requires universalizing one?s contemplated action. In the second form we are asked to consider what constitutes proper treatment of persons as persons. According to Kant, one key characteristic of persons is their ability to set their own goals. Persons are autonomous(自治的、有目的性的). They are literally self-ruled or at least capable of being self-ruled (from auto, meaning "self," and nomos, meaning "rule" or "law"). As persons we choose our own life plans what we want to be, our friends, our college courses, and so forth. We have our own reasons for doing so. We believe that while we are influenced in these choices and masons by our situation and by others, we let ourselves be so influenced and thus these choices are still our own choices. In this way persons are different from things. Things cannot choose what they wish to do. We decide how we shall use things. We impose our own goals on things, using the wood to build the house and the pen or computer to write our words and express our ideas. It is appropriate in this scheme of things to use things for our ends, but it is not appropriate to use persons as though they were things purely our own disposal and without a will of their own Kant's statement of this second form of the categorical imperative is as follows: Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end. This formulation tells us several things. First, it tells us how we ought to treat ourselves as well as others for we are persons as they are. Second, it tells us to treat ourselves and others as ends rather than merely as means. Kant believes that we should treat persons as having intrinsic value and not just as having instrumental value. People are valuable in themselves, regardless of whether they are useful or loved or valued by others. However, this form also specifies that we should not simply use others or let ourselves be used. We can also use this second form to evaluate the examples considered for the first form of the categorical imperative. The moral conclusions should be the same whether we use the first or second form. Kant believes that in lying to another--for example, saying that we will pay back the money when we have no intention of doing so--we would be attempting to get that other to do what we want but which she or he presumably does not want to do, namely, just give us the money. This would violate the requirement not to use persons. So also in the experiment described at the beginning of this chapter, the researcher would be using deception to get people to "volunteer" for the study. One difficulty presented by this type of study, however, is that if the participants were to know the truth, it would undermine the study. Some people have argued that in such studies we can presume the voluntary consent of the subjects, judging that they would approve if they did know what was going on in the study. Do you think that presuming consent in this or similar cases would be sufficient? The third Kant relies on his views about nature as a system of everything that we experience as it is organized according to laws. Thus, he says that we ought always to ask whether some action we are contemplating could become a universal law of nature. The effect of this version is to stress the universality and rationality of morality, for nature necessarily operates according to coherent laws. other formulations of the categorical imperative stress autonomy. We are to ask whether we could consider ourselves as the author of the moral practice that we are about to accept. The fourth This formulation points out that we are all alike as persons and together form a community of persons. He calls the community of rational persons a "kingdom of ends," that is, a kingdom in which all persons are authors as well as subjects of the moral law. Thus, we ask whether the action we are contemplating would be fitting for and further or promote such a community. These formal actions of the categorical imperative involve other interesting elements of Kant's philosophy, but they also involve more than we can explore further here. (4)Evaluating Kant?s Moral Theory There is much that is appealing in Kant's moral philosophy, particularly its central aspects--fairness, consistency, and treating persons as autonomous equal beings. They are also key elements of a particular tradition in morality, one that is quite different than that exemplified by utilitarianism with its emphasis on the maximization of happiness and the production of good consequences. To more fully evaluate Kant's theory, consider the following aspects of his thought. The Nature of Morel Obligation One of the bases on which Kant's moral philosophy rests is his view about the nature of moral obligation. He believes that moral obligation is real and strictly binding. According to Kant, this is how we generally think of moral obligation. If there is anything that we morally ought to do, then we simply ought to do it. Thus, this type of obligation is unlike that which flows from what we ought to do because of the particular goals that we each have as individuals. To evaluate this aspect of Kant's moral philosophy, you must ask yourself if this is also what you think about the nature of moral obligation. This is important for Kant's moral philosophy, because acting out of respect for the moral law is required for an action to have moral worth. Furthermore, being able to act out of such a regard for morality is also the source of human dignity, according to Kant. The Application of the Categorical Imperative Critics have pointed out problems with the universalizing form of the categorical imperative. For example, some have argued that when using the first form of the categorical imperative there are many things that I could will as universal practices that would hardly seem to be moral obligations. I could will that everyone write their name on the top of their test papers. If everyone did that, it would not prevent any-one from doing so. There would be no contradiction involved if this were a universal practice. Nevertheless, this would not mean that people have a moral obligation to write their names on their test papers. A Kantian might explain that to write your name on your test paper is an example of a hypothetical, not a categorical, imperative. I write my name on my paper because I want to be given credit for it. If I can will it as a universal practice, I then know it is a morally permissible action. If I cannot will it universally, then it is impermissible or wrong. Thus, the categorical imperative is actually a negative test, in other words, a test for what we should not do, more than a test for what we ought to do. Whether or not this is a satisfactory response, you should know that this is just one of several problems associated with Kant's universalizing test. Rule utilitarians, require that we consider what the results would be if some act we are contemplating were to be a universal practice. Reasoning in this way, we ask what would be the results of some general practice, such as making false promises, or whether one practice would have better results than another. Although in some sense Kant's theory requires that we consider the possible consequences when universalizing some action, the determinant of the action's morality is not whether its practice has good or bad consequences, but whether there would be anything contradictory in willing the practice as a universal law. Because we are rational beings, we must not will contradictory things. The second form of the categorical imperative also has problems of application. In the concrete, it is not always easy to determine whether one is using a person, for example, what is coercion and what is simply influence, or what is deception am what is not. When I try to talk a friend into doing something for me, how do I know whether l am simply providing input for the person's own decision making or whether I am crossing the line and becoming coercive? Moreover, if I do not tell the whole truth or withhold information from another should this count as deception on my part? Although these are real problems for anyone who tries to apply Kant's views about deceit and coercion, they are not unique to his moral philosophy. Theories vary in the ease of their use or application, but, as Kant puts it, "Ease of use and apparent adequacy of a principle are not any sure proof of its correctness. " The fact that a theory has a certain amount of ambiguity should not necessarily disqualify it. Difficulty of application is a problem for most, if not all, reasonable moral philosophies. Duty(重点) Some of the language and terminology found in Kant's moral theory can sound harsh to modern ears. Duty, obligation, law, and universality may not be the moral terms most commonly heard today. Yet if one considers what Kant meant by duty, the idea may not be so strange to us. He did not mean any particular moral code or set of duties that is held by any society or group. Rather, duty is whatever is the right thing to do. However, Kant might respond that there is a streak of absolutism in his philosophy. There is one example in which Kant himself suggests that if a killer comes to the door asking for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must tell the truth. We are never permitted to do what we cannot will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat persons as persons. Kant believed that he was only setting basic principles of morality and establishing it on a firm basis. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that a moral theory should go further. Moral Equality and Impartiality(道德的平等和公平) One positive feature of Kant's moral theory is its emphasis on the moral equality of all persons, which is implied in his view about the nature of moral obligation as universally binding. We should not make exceptions for ourselves but only do what we can will for all. Moral obligation and morality itself flow from our nature as persons as rational and autonomous. Morality is grounded in the ways in which we are alike as persons rather than the ways in which we are different as individuals. These views might provide a source for those who want to argue for moral equality and equal moral rights. Another feature of Kant's moral philosophy is its spirit of impartiality. For an action to be morally permissible, we should be able to will it for all. However, persons do differ in significant ways. Among these are differences in gender, race, age, and talents. In what way does morality require that all persons be treated equally and in what way does it perhaps require that different persons be treated differently? Kant pointed out that it is the common aspects of our existence as persons, and not the ways in which we are different and unique, that give us dignity and are the basis for the moral equality that we possess. (5)Perfect And Imperfect Duties Kant concluded that we should not make a false or lying promise, both because we could not consistently will it for all and because it violates our obligation to treat persons as persons and not to use them only for our own purposes. Kant calls such duties perfect or necessary duties. As the terms suggest, perfect duties are absolute. From the perspective of the first form of the categorical imperative, we have a perfect duty not to do those things that could not even exist and are inconceivable as universal practices. Using the second form, we have a perfect duty not to do what violates the requirement to treat persons as persons. However, some duties are more flexible. Kant calls these duties imperfect or meritorious duties. Ethical egoism is the view that we may rightly seek only our own interest and help others only to the extent that this also benefits us. Is this a morally acceptable philosophy of life? Using the first form of Kant's categorical imperative to test the morality of this practice, we must ask whether we could will that everyone was an egoist. If I try to do this, I would need to will that I was an egoist as well as others, even in those situations when I needed others' help. In those situations, I must allow that they not help me when it is not in their own best interest. Although a society of egoists could indeed exist, Kant admits, no rational person could will it, for a rational person does not will contradictories. We have an imperfect or meritorious duty, then, not to be egoists, but to help people for their own good and not just for ours. However, just when to help others and how much is a matter of some choice. There is a certain flexibility here. One implication of this view is that there is no absolute duty to give one's whole life to helping others. We, too, are persons and thus have moral rights and also can at least sometimes act for our own interests. The same conclusion regarding the wrongness of egoism results from the application of the second form of the categorical imperative. If I were an egoist and concerned only about myself, then no one could accuse me of using other people. According to Kant, such an attitude and practice would be inconsistent with the duty to treat others as persons. One implication of this distinction is in handling conflicts of duties. Perfect duties will take precedence over imperfect ones such that we cannot help some by violating the rights of others. 3.Virtue Ethics(美德伦理学) (1) What is "Virtue Ethics" ? Another moral theory that has become significant to many contemporary ethicists is known as "Virtue Ethics." It certainly is not a new theory, for it began with the Greeks and especially with Aristotle in the fourth century B.C. Essentially, this theory differs from all of the previous ones we have discussed in that it focuses not upon consequences, intuitions, or rules, so much as the development within human beings of a moral or virtuous character by means of doing what a good or "virtuous" person would do. it is the development of the virtuous person that is important in this moral theory, not abstract rules or consequences of acts or rules except as they derive from a good or virtuous person or cause that person to be good or virtuous. (2)Aristotle's Virtue Ethics Ethics(都是亚里斯多德的观点) Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. He goes on to say that the end of human life is happiness, and the basic activity of human beings is reason a virtuous activity; therefore, the aim of human beings according to Aristotle, is to reason well for a whole or complete life. Emphasis on Goodness of Character Aristotle presupposes that there are natural ethical tendencies implanted in human beings, and that to follow them with a general attitude of consistent harmony and proportion constitutes an ethical life. Development of the Virtuous Human Being Aristotle states that humans begin with a capacity for goodness, which has to be developed by practice. He says we start by doing acts that are objectively virtuous, without a knowledge that the acts are good and without actively or rationally choosing them ourselves. As we practice these acts, we come to realize that the virtue is good in and of itself. For example, a child is taught to tell the truth (objectively a virtue) by her parents, and she does so because they have taught her she should. Eventually she recognizes that truth telling is a virtue in and of itself, and she continues to tell the truth because she knows that it is virtuous to do so. This process would seem to be circular, except that Aristotle makes a distinction between those acts that create a good disposition (such as telling the truth without knowing this to be a virtue) and those that flow from the good disposition once it has been created (such as telling the truth because a person has come to know it to be a virtue). Aristotle further states that virtue itself is a disposition that has been developed out of a capacity by the proper exercise of that capacity. What Is Virtue and How Does It Relate to Vice? According to Aristotle, virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices-either excess or deficiency (or defect). Moral virtue, then, is defined as being to be the mean between the two extremes of excess or deficiency. And, according to Aristotle, practical wisdom is the ability to see what is the right thing to do in any circumstance. Obviously, Aristotle attaches much more importance to an enlightened conscience than to prior theoretical rules. How to Determine the Proper Mean What is the mean between excess and deficiency, and how does one determine it? According to Aristotle, the mean in ethics cannot be determined mathematically. Rather it is a mean "relative to us" or to whoever is trying to determine the right thing to do. For example, if ten pounds of food are too much (excess) and two are too little (deficiency), then six pounds, which is the mean between these two extremes, still may be too much for some and too little for others; therefore, one must choose the appropriate mean between the two extremes, relative to himself. (3)Contemporary Analysis of Virtue Ethics(当代的美德伦理学分析) Probably the most significant and prominent contemporary analysis of Virtue Ethics, especially Aristotle's version of it, may be found in Alasdair Macintyre's book, After Virtue. In analyzing Aristotle's intentions, Macintyre states that virtues are dispositions not only to act in particular ways but also to feel in particular ways, which obviously emphasizes the creation of a virtuous character in oneself, not merely the following of rules or the calculation of good consequences. One must create virtuous feelings or inclinations within oneself, not merely act virtuously. Macintyre stated further that to act virtuously is not to act against inclination (as Kant thought), but rather to act from inclinations that have been formed through the cultivation of the virtues. The idea, then, is to decide what the practically wise and virtuous human being would do in any situation involving moral choice, and then do likewise. As Macintyre says, human beings must know what they are doing when they judge or act virtuously, and then they should do what is virtuous merely because it is so. (4)Advantages of Virtue Ethics Creating the Good Human Being. Virtue Ethics attempts to create the good or virtuous human being, not just good acts or rules and not just a robot who follows preestablished(预选设定) rules or a person who acts on whim or tries to achieve good consequences. It seeks to inculcate virtue by urging human beings to practice virtuous acts in order to create the habitually virtuous or good person who will then continue to act virtuously. Unifying Reason and Emotion. Both act nonconsequentialism and Kant's theories attempt to separate reason from emotion or feelings. Virtue Ethics, on the other hand, attempts to unify them by stating that virtues are dispositions not only to act in certain ways but also to feel in certain ways virtuously, in both cases. The purpose again is to use reasoning (practical wisdom) to cause people to do what is virtuous, while at the same time inculcating that virtuousness within so that humans not only reason virtuously but also begin and continue to feel virtuously. None of the other theories attempts to do this. Emphasizes Moderation Virtue Ethics gives us a way to achieve moderation between excess and deficiency. Many ethicists believe, along with the Greeks, that “moderation in all things” is what human beings ought to strive for. (5)Disadvantages or Problems Do Human Beings Have an End? One of Aristotle's first assumptions is that all things have a purpose or end at which they aim. He then goes on to say that the end of human life is happiness, and that all human beings aim at that. First, is it true or proven that all things have an end or purpose? Even if we assume that everything has an end toward which it aims, what proves that the end of human life is happiness? Aristotle's assumption is just that an assumption. Many would also argue that happiness is not an appropriate end for human life but that something more "noble" is appropriate, such as love of God and the hope of being with Him. Furthermore, some argue that "to reason well for a complete life" might be a philosopher's view of what the human aim is, but why couldn't it be other things as well? Again, Aristotle has made another assumption, but religionists might argue that being spiritual is the human aim, and other philosophers might argue that feelings or emotions are the aim. Are Morals Naturally Implanted? A second major assumption by Aristotle is that the tendency to be moral is naturally implanted in human beings. What evidence is there to support that claim? Many would argue that morality is not some innate(先天的) characteristic, but rather something that is taught and learned from experience. Is it really true, however, that human beings have a natural, innate tendency to be moral? Some argue in the affirmative and some argue the opposite, but there is no clear evidence or proof that Aristotle's assumption is true. What Is Virtue and What Constitutes the Virtues? One of the most significant problems with this theory centers around the following questions: What is virtue, what are the virtues, and what is the ideal, or who is the virtuous human being whom we are supposed to emulate when choosing our virtues? Some, including Aristotle, argue that all we need to know and provide is an account of what human flourishing and well-being consist of; then the virtues can be adequately characterized as those qualities needed to promote such flourishing and well-being. According to Macintyre, however, there have been and still are deep conflicts as to what is involved in human flourishing and well-being. (6)Who Is the Ideal Virtuous Person? Finally, because Aristotle states that we ought to decide what a virtuous act or person is by modeling ourselves after the ideal virtuous person, how do we determine who and what that paradigmatic person is? I'm sure we could each name an ideal person we feel we ought to emulate, but wouldn't we come up with a lot of different ones, depending upon our own backgrounds, experiences, and desires? It hasn't worked successfully to hold up certain public figures and say, "Here is the ideal virtuous person; now act as he or she does." History has shown that many of our so-called heroes have had feet of clay, or at least not always acted virtuously. Look at how many of our nation's famous founders owned slaves, for instance. Look at how many presidents have not been perfect in their private and their public lives. Many of them have still done some good for the country and the people in it, but they have not necessarily fit any pattern of the "ideal virtuous person." Virtue Ethics constitutes a particular problem because it seems to be a shortcut, providing a more superficial solution to our ethical problems. "Just make all of the children and adults virtuous, and they will act virtuously" is much too simple an answer to our ethical problems. What we need is rational moral education (not indoctrination into a specific ethical code) that will enable people to learn what moral issues are and how to deal with them. With such an education, hopefully they will at least know how to act virtuously and ethically. 4.John Rawls and His Theory of Justice(罗尔斯的正义论) There is one other philosopher, whose theory belongs under the nonconsequentialist theories and that is John Rawls and his theory of justice. (1)Natural Rights vs. Rights of a Just Society John Locke believe that human rights are natural rights, that is, they somehow exist in human beings through nature. According to Locke, these rights are life, liberty, and property. According to Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, they are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights cannot be violated by any governmental laws. Rawls believed that such rights are given to human beings by a just society in which no one has an unfair advantage over others. That is, we must know how such principles would shape society without knowing our specific position in that society. We must establish such principles without regard to anyone's position in the society. Behind this veil of ignorance we then could set up principles for fairness and justice for all without regard for anyone's specific talents, inclinations, social status, political ideology, or any other accidental features of their lives. 2)Rawls's Two Basic Principles The Equality Principle. Each person has equal rights to maximum liberty compatible with the same amount of liberty for everyone else. In other words there must be freedom for all. The Difference Principle. Any inequality is permissible to the extent that it is to everyone's advantage, including people at the bottom of society's ranks, and that it arises under conditions of equal opportunity. The first principle gives members of society the freedom advocated by Locke. However, the second principle gives people many more individual rights not among their so-called natural rights; for example, people at the bottom of the economic scale have the right to a minimum income which must be supplemented by government taxes on others. Rawls believes that justice as fairness requires the distribution of wealth to all members of society, and the rule governing the distribution of wealth must give no member of society unfair advantage over other members. Rawls believes that we can guarantee a just an fair outcome by requiring the rule be acceptable to all members of society without the knowing how the rule will work out for them, that is, they will know how wealth will be distributed among different segments of society without knowing to which segment they will belong. They must be willing to accept the rule no matter what their segment will be. This, of course, would violate Locke's natural rights theory. Rawls would accomplish the distribution of wealth by what is known as a transfer of payments, that is, he would tax those nearest the top ranks of wealth to supplement the income of the poor. (3)Advantages and Disadvantages of Rawls's Theory The first advantage of his theory is it seems to fit in with the ideals of the liberal capitalist structure of democratic nations like the United States. It allows for individual freedom, but still allows for a fair and equitable distribution of wealth to all members of society. It also provides for a way to arrive at a just set of rules and principles by using the veil of ignorance as a method. It tries to balance individual rights and freedom with the good of everyone. Whether it succeeds or not is another story. One of its disadvantages is it does not fit in with the strong individual rights theories of conservative members of our society who believe that all people have the rights to their earned and inherited wealth and property and should not have to share them with other members of society unless they wish to. We know that many wealthy members of society will voluntarily share their wealth with the poor or underprivileged, and the government gives them an incentive to do so by allowing them charitable tax deductions, but critics of Rawls believe that people should not be forced in any way to share their wealth either earned or inherited through mandatory government taxation. Secondly, can members really operate out of a veil of ignorance? It's an interesting idea, but how many people really want to set up principles of justice without considering where they will fit into the overall scheme of things. How does Rawls's theory fit in with the exorbitant amounts of money acquired by entertainers or sports figures as opposed to teachers, for example? Last, is Rawls's theory of justice with its equality of distribution the best theory? Other theories of distribution, such as merit, need, effort, and ability will be taken up in . 5.Conclusions(最关键、最明确) In summary, then, the nonconsequentialist theories of morality have certain advantages. First, they do not necessitate the difficult task of computing consequences for a moral action. Second, they provide, in their rule form, a strong set of moral guides—unlike those of the act moralists of both the consequentialist and nonconsequentialist approaches to morality. Third, nonconsequenfialists are able to found their system on something other than consequences, thereby avoiding the pitfall of a cost-benefit analysis approach to morality. On the other hand, as difficult as computing consequences may be, nonconsequentialists really seem to avoid the whole point of morality certainly social morality—by trying to ignore the consequences of their rules or acts. Although it is helpful to have a series of strong rules and guides to go by, rule nonconsequentialism makes it difficult to decide which rules these will be and how to rank them in order of importance or otherwise resolve conflicts when absolutes oppose each other Furthermore, rule nonconsequentialism provides for no open discussion of moral quandaries because it has closed the door by arbitrarily stating what is right and what is wrong, without any possibility of exception. And what is right and wrong is based either upon the supposed commands of a supernatural being or beings whom no one is allowed to question or upon a theory of logical consistency that can show that human beings should not be inconsistent but can give very few other reasons why one should follow one rule rather than another. Virtue Ethics has the advantage of seeking to develop the moral person from within as well as from without, but it is based upon a number of assumptions that are difficult to prove, such as human beings' having an end or purpose and what that purpose is; that morality is innate; and what virtue, the virtues, and the virtuous human being are. The nonconsequentialist and Virtue Ethics theories do not seem any more satisfying than the consequentialist—to many people, probably even less so. What are we to do, then,Should we retreat to consequentialist theories with their attendant problems, or adopt the nonconsequentialist or the Virtue Ethics approach as being the "lesser of two evils"? I believe there is a value in trying to synthesize the best of these systems while deemphasizing the worst. 第五章(伦理学体系的建立) SETTING UP A MORAL SYSTEM : BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES(原则) 1.Conflicting General Moral Issues They are the issues of consequentialism versus nonconsequentialism, self- versus other-interestedness, act versus rule, and emotion versus reason. (1)Consequentialism versus Nonconsequentialism In order to set up a moral system, it is important to decide first to what extent it will be based on consequences and to what extent it will be nonconsequentialist. (2)Self- versus Other-lnterestedness Although I feel that people certainly are justified when they consider themselves as a vital factor in any moral system they may establish ethical egoism, or self-interest, will provide a workable basis for a valid moral system because of its many disadvantages. (3)Act versus Rule Another problem in establishing a moral system is how to allow for the greatest amount of individual freedom while still incorporating stability, security, and order. The act approach allows for the most freedom; the rule approach imposes certain constraints on freedom, yet provides for greater stability. As you will see, I attempt to bring in the best of both approaches by establishing rules that nevertheless include a strong element of freedom within them. (4)Emotion versus Reason The issue of emotion versus reason will be discussed largely as a part of the justification fo the first assumption that follows, but the synthesis here will be to base my moral system on reason without excluding emotions, which are a definite part of morality; In order for a moral system to be tenable and viable, I believe it ought to have the following characteristics: It should be rationally based and yet not be devoid of emotion--this was implied in my criticism of a religiously based morality and of an intuitionally based act nonconsequentialism. It should be as logically consistent as possible, but not rigid and inflexible—this was implied in my criticisms of egoism, especially universal ethical egoism, and of the rule nonconsequentialist theories. It must have universality or general application to all humanity, and yet be applicable (in a practical sense) to particular individuals and situations—this I implied in my criticisms of both act consequentialist and act nonconsequentialist theories, as well as individual and personal ethical egoism (for their highly individualistic approach to morality) and rule nonconsequentialist theories (for their failure to be applicable in a practical way to practical situations). It should be able to be taught and promulgated--this was implied in my criticism of all forms of ethical egoism and all act theories of morality. It must have the ability to resolve conflicts among human beings, duties, and obligations—this was implied in my criticisms of both universal ethical egoism and Kant's Duty Ethics. 2.Basic Assumptions (1)Including the Rational and Emotional Aspects It is an obvious empirical fact that human beings are both feeling (emotional or affective) and reasoning (rational or cognitive) beings, and that in order to establish any sort of system that can be applied to everyone, we have to take these two human aspects into consideration. Emotion Just because feelings are difficult to work with when we are making moral decisions does not mean that morality must be a completely cold, calculating, and unemotional affair. After all, moral issues are some of the most emotional ones we face; therefore, it is too much to expect that we will not feel strongly about them. However, as a sole basis for making moral decisions, feelings are too unreliable and individualistic, and some other basis that is fairer and more objective is needed. That basis is reason. Reason The word reason implies giving "reasons" for a decision or an action, and such an activity already involves more than merely expressing feelings. Further, reason, which is an ability, should be differentiated from reasoning, which is an activity; reason is a power that human beings have, whereas reasoning is something they do. All humans have the ability to reason in varying degrees, but there are formal rules for reasoning that can be taught to all and can thereby form the basis for our understanding each other and for supporting any decisions or actions we make or perform. Reasoning implies several things Logical argument, which includes supplying empirical evidence in support of one's position. Logical consistency, which involves avoiding fallacies and making sure that one's argument follows smoothly from one point to the next until it arrives at a logical conclusion. A certain detachment from feelings; this springs from reasoning's formality, which forces one to consider the truth and validity of what the individual and others are thinking and saying. A common means by which differences in feelings, opinions, and thoughts can be arbitrated. (2)Logical Consistency with Flexibility It is important that any ethical system be logically consistent so that there will be some stability to our moral decision making. We must, instead, strive to be as logically consistent as we can in our morality and yet allow enough flexibility so that our system will remain truly applicable to the complexity and variety of human living. (3)Including Universality and Particularity Any morality that attempts to help all human beings relate to each other meaningfully must strive to possess a universal applicability; it is very important that any moral system apply to human beings in general, which means that it must be broadly enough based not to exclude anyone who is striving to be good, and to include as many meaningful and workable moral systems as possible. In its universality, however, one's moral system should not become so generalized and abstract that it cannot be applied to particular situations and individuals. Morality, after all, always takes place at particular times, in particular places, in particular situations, and between or among particular individuals; it never takes place in the abstract. Morality may be theorized(推理) about or discussed in the abstract, but decisions, actions, or failures to act always occur in concrete, everyday situations. (4)Ability to Be Taught and Promulgated If any moral system is to be applied to more than one person, it must be able to be prom ulgated, that is, laid out for people to see and understand. It also should be teachable so that others can learn about it regardless of whether they wish to accept or reject it. If a moral theory is not teachable or cannot be promulgated, then how can it be applicable to society or any part of it beyond the one person who holds it? (5)Ability to Resolve Conflicts A final consideration is that a workable moral system must be able to resolve conflicts among duties and obligations, and even among its participants. People must know, when clashes between or among moral commandments occur, how they can choose the action that will be most moral. Any system that does not provide for the resolution of such conflicts may be abstractly or theoretically meaningful, but, again, in the concrete moral situation it will be of very little use to human beings who are striving to do the right thing. BRIEF CONCLUSION Keeping these assumptions in mind, then, the most important question we have to face is how we can go about setting up a moral system that is rationally based and yet not unemotional; logically consistent, but not rigid or inflexible; universal, and yet practically applicable to particular individuals and situations; can be taught and promulgated; and can effectively resolve conflicts among human beings, duties, and obligations. Conclusion(关于第3部分的结论) If we recognize the value of human life; always attempt to do good and avoid or prevent bad; attempt to distribute good and bad fairly and justly; try to be honest and tell the truth; and still allow for the fullest possible amount of individual freedom and for equal consideration within the limits of the other four principles, we will have an ethical upon which many varied individual and group ethical systems can function without serious conflict or the need to eliminate one system because it conflicts with another. 3.Basic Principles, Individual Freedom, and Their Justification In ethical egoism, the basic principle is self-interest. In utilitarianism, it is the interest of all concerned. In Kant„s system it is the Categorical Imperative, the emphasis upon duty rather than inclination, the reversibility criterion, and the principle that each human being is an end and not a means(人是目的不是手段). Even the ethical system that advocates rules the least and stresses particular situations the most—situation ethics—still has one basic principle, which is love. the ultimacy(根本性) of principles necessary to the formation of any ethical system that will successfully apply to human morality. 首先第一点就就是批判一下康德的“黄金法则”为自己的理论造势。然后再提出自己关于 PRINCIPLE的“四个基本点” The Golden Rule One of the most popular rules or principles people put forth when asked what they base their ethics on is the Golden Rule, or what Kant called “the reversibility criterion(可逆性标准)." It can be stated many ways, but the usual way is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". There is nothing really wrong with putting oneself in the other person?s shoes(换位思考), as the saying goes, but as a primary and especially only principle on which to base a moral system, it is not very adequate. First of all, in applying the Golden Rule, we are assuming that what the other person will want or need is the same as what we will want or need, and this is not always true. Second, the Golden Rule doesn't really tell us what we should do: It only gives a method for testing what we have chosen to do, against how it would affect us if we were to be the recipients of a certain act. 自己的理论 1)The Value of Life Principle The first principle we shall discuss is the Value of Life principle. This principle can be stated in several ways, but I prefer to state it as follows: “Human beings should revere(崇敬、敬畏) life and accept death." It is perhaps the most basic and necessary principle of ethics because, empirically speaking, there can be no ethics whatsoever without living human beings. This does not necessarily mean that no one may ever be killed, or that people should never be allowed to die, or that no one can ever commit suicide or have an abortion. Justification of the Value of Life Principle This principle is empirically prior to any other because without human life there can be no goodness or badness, justice or injustice, honesty or dishonesty, freedom or lack of it. Life is a basic possession, the main possession of each individual human being. It is the one thing that all living human beings have in common, yet each individual experiences life uniquely—no one else can truly share or live another's life. Therefore, individuals (as Kant maintained) should never be treated merely as means, but rather as unique and individual ends in themselves. This does not mean that the ending of a human life can never be justified. "Humans should revere life and accept death" means that although we recognize life as basic and important, we also realize that no human life has been everlasting and that none is ever likely to be. All of us must die sometime. Therefore, "life at all costs" is not what the principle stands for, nor does it stand for the quantity of life over its quality. It merely proposes that no life should be ended without very strong justification. The Value of Life principle is justified as a near absolute because life is held both in common and uniquely by all human beings, and it has to constitute that empirical starting point for any morality or humanity whatsoever. 2)The Principle of Goodness or Rightness The second principle implied in every ethical system. I have ever heard of is the Principle of Goodness or Rightness. This principle sometimes is presented as two separate principles: (1) the Principle of Beneficence(善行), which states that one should always do good; (2) the Principle of Nonmaleficence, which states that one should always try to prevent and avoid doing badness or harm. In actuality, the Principle of Goodness or Rightness demands that human beings attempt to do three things: 1. Promote goodness over badness and do good (beneficence). 2. Cause no harm or badness (nonmaleficence). 3. Prevent badness or harm (nonmaleficence). Justification of the Principle of Goodness. morality as being goodness or rightness, and immorality as being badness or wrongness. When we speak of a moral person, life, or action, we mean a good person, a good life, and a right action; when we speak of an immoral person, life, or action, we mean a bad person, a bad life, and a wrong action. Despite all of these differences, however, it is possible to discover some “goods” that human beings have generally been able to agree upon. These include life, consciousness，pleasure, happiness, truth, knowledge, beauty, love, friendship, self-expression, self-realization, freedom, honor, peace, and security. There is no doubt that people rank these “goods” differently or even omit(省略，删掉) one or two from their list of "good things," but most people, after careful discussion, probably will include many of these. My view would be that there are many “goods”; this view is called pluralism(多元论). There is not one ethical system that advocates that a person do what is bad and avoid what is good. But this in itself is not justification; it is merely an empirical fact. The Principle of Goodness is logically prior to all other principles, just as the Value of Life principle is empirically prior. 3)The Principle of Justice or Fairness This concerns itself essentially with the distribution of good and bad on a just and fair basis. It says that human beings should treat other human beings fairly and justly when distributing goodness and badness among them. It is not enough that people should try to be good and to do what is right; there also must be some attempt made to distribute the benefits of being good and doing right. Justification of the Principle of Justice It is almost too obvious to state that no one should be denied the opportunity because of his or her skin color, sex, religious belief, age, or beauty or lack thereof, nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to earn as much money as anyone else for these or other reasons that have nothing to do with fair qualifications for obtaining a position. In this way we recognize the common equality of human beings as human beings and yet allow for individual differences when attempting to distribute goodness and badness fairly. We must have the Principle of Justice, then, in order to be moral toward other people because they are inevitably affected by our actions. 4)The Principle of Truth Telling or Honesty It is extremely important, if for no other reason than to provide for meaningful communication, which is an absolute necessity in any moral system or in any moral relationship between two or more human beings. Therefore, it would seem that truth telling and honesty are important and basic cornerstones(基 础) of morality. Most ethical systems have some prohibition against lying. Justification of the Principle of Truth Telling or Honesty. Human beings need to enter into relationships with each other with a sense of mutual trust, believing that whatever they say or do to one another will be as honest and open an expression of their thoughts and feeling as possible. This principle may be the most difficult of all the principles to try to live with because human beings are essentially very vulnerable(易受伤的) in the area of human relationships, and in order to protect this vulnerability may have built up defenses against exposing themselves to others. This is especially true in a modern, crowded, and complex civilization such as ours. Because of such obvious vulnerability, this very demanding principle is open to many carefully justified exceptions. Basically, however, it still must be adhered to wherever possible. It is true that a strong attempt must be made to be truthful and honest in human relationships because morality, in the final analysis(归根结底), depends upon what people say and do. The problem is that the basis of human relationships is communication, and when communication is eroded by lying or dishonesty, that basis is destroyed, and meaningful human relationships—especially those in the moral sphere—become impossible. It is absolutely necessary that truth telling and honesty be considered as fundamental and basic to any theory or system of morality. 5)The Principle of Individual Freedom The fifth and last basic principle is the Principle of Individual Freedom, or the equality principle, sometimes referred to as the Principle of Autonomy. The principles means that people, being individuals with individual differences, must have the freedom to choose their own ways. It is understood that individual moral freedom is limited by the other four principles: the necessity of preserving and protecting human life, the necessity of doing good and preventing and avoiding bad, the necessity of treating human beings justly when distributing goodness and badness, and, finally, the necessity of telling the truth and being honest. Justification of the Principle of Individual Freedom There are many human beings to be considered when one is attempting to establish a human morality, and although they have common characteristics (bodies, minds, feelings, and so forth), each person is, nevertheless, unique. Human beings are at different stages of development, have different talents and abilities, and possess different feelings, wants, and needs, and if we are not to completely obliterate(除去) these differences we must recognize and allow for them. The only way to allow for them is to let individuals live out their lives in whatever unique and different ways they choose. Nowhere is freedom more important or significant than in morality. It is important not only because of the obvious diversity among human beings, but also because the basic principles are only near absolutes, and every opportunity must be given human beings to follow these principles in the way that best suits their individuality, their lives and life situations, and their relationships with other human beings The Principle of Individual Freedom, then, is extremely important to any moral system in that it can encourage the widest possible expression of moral preferences, choices, and decisions within the structure of the other four principles, thus allowing for the combination of flexibility and stability that all livable and workable moral systems need. Conclusion If we recognize the value of human life; always attempt to do good and avoid or prevent bad; attempt to distribute good and bad fairly and justly; try to be honest and tell the truth; and still allow for the fullest possible amount of individual freedom and for equal consideration within the limits of the other four principles, we will have an ethical upon which many varied individual and group ethical systems can function without serious conflict or the need to eliminate one system because it conflicts with another.