“名家”,是流行于春秋战国时期,提倡“循名责实”学说的流派,他们提 倡的“正名实”,。是要“正彼此之是非,使名实相符”。 在春秋战国礼崩乐坏的纷乱里,提出这样的主张非常普通,象儒家有“必也 正名乎”,法家有“综核名实”,墨家有“以名举实”,都与之类似

伊索寓言中有很多借动物讽刺人的可笑行为的故事,我试着从逻辑学的角度去看看 伊索寓言故事。 故事一:狼、狐狸和猴子 有一只狼控告一只狐狸偷了他的东西,狐狸不肯承认。猴子负责审判他们之间的纠 纷。当他们双方都充足的说明了自己的理由后,猴子郑重的宣判说:“狼,我不认为你 曾经丢失了你所说的东西;狐狸,我确实相信你曾经偷了你所不承认的物品。” 寓意是说不诚实的人即使做了诚实的事,也不会让人相信

Prof. Sally Haslanger December 2, 2001 Kantian Ethics (and more on famine) So far we've looked at egoist and utilitarian approaches to ethics. The main objection we considered to egoism was that it failed to accommodate the common sense idea that morality involves a kind of impartiality, at the very least it seems that

Particularism and virtue ethics I. Universalism and Particularism We've considered before some basic questions that we would expect a moral theory to answer i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understanding the\ought\as a moral

December 10. 2001 (Meta-Ethical Subjectivism(or Non-cognitivism) For the past couple of weeks we have been focusing on the following questions i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform? ii)What makes an action right or wrong? What about the action determines its moral status? Our third question has received less attention

November 21, 2001 Ethical Egoism Here are three questions (of course there are others)we might want an ethical theory to answer for us: i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understandir the\ought\ as moral \ought\)? ii)What makes a particular action right or wrong? What is it about the action that determines its moral status? ii)How do we know what is right and wrong? Remember that according to relativism, whether an action is right or wrong

November 29, 2001 Duty and Famine: Singer Last time we considered Mill's version of Utilitarianism, called Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism characterized by what he calls \the greatest-happiness principle\: You ought always to act so as to maximize happiness, i.e., the right act is the act that results in the greatest amount of happiness overall. The \greatest-happiness principle\, however, just states one version of Utilitarianism. Other versions of

Utilitarianism Last time we considered three questions one might ask an ethical theory to answer i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understanding the\ought as a moral ii)What makes a particular action right or wrong? What is it about the action that determines its moral status? 111) How do we know what is right and wrong? There are a variety of strategies for answering(iii). One might hold e. g. that moral truths are revealed by god and

Moral Luck One of the important themes in the freewill debate is the idea that freedom is necessary for moral responsibility. In effect, if hard determinism is the correct view, then we should not hold ourselves or others morally responsible. Libertarians, in particular, seem to hold that in order to be responsible for an act, we must be its \sole author. Here is the principle at issue: Control Principle: You are only responsible for what you have control over. If you steal an axe from my garage and use it to break into a gas station, there's no point in holding me responsible, I didn't

Moral Relativism The problem of moral relativism begins with the fact of moral diversity: different cultures have different moral codes. Of course,it' s not just between different national cultures that moral opinions differ the same can happen between different subcultures of the same national culture. What does this show? Consider: Moral diversity: Different cultures have different moral codes/values. Does it even follow that: Moral conflict: Different cultures have conflicting moral codes/values