译者前言 卢梭(.J. Rousseau,1712-1778)是十八世纪启蒙运动最卓 越的代表人物之一,是法国大革命的思想先驱者。他的《社会契约 论》一书为十八世纪末法国资产阶级民主革命和美国资产阶级民主革 命提供了理论纲领。 本书的中心思想是:人是生而自由与平等的,国家只能是自由的 人民自由协议的产物,如果自由被强力所剥夺,则被剥夺了自由的人 民有革命的权利,可以用强力夺回自己的自由;国家的主权在人民,而 最好的政体应该是民主共和国。本书立论的观点虽然基本上是唯心主 义的,但在十八世纪下半叶资产阶级民主革命的前夜提出,终究起过 进步的历史作用

原始思维”一语是某个时期以来十分常用的术语。本版 中提供给俄国读者的作品,在一定程度上有助于引起对这 论题的注意。在这里,用几句话谈一谈我所说的“原始思 维”是什么意思,也许将不无裨益。 “原始”一语纯粹是个有条件的术语,对它不应当从字面 上来理解

这篇论文的目的是要尽我所能解释清楚:在我对社会或 政治的事态开始形成见解的最早时期我就持有的一个意见的 根据。随着思考和生活经验的进展,这些根据不但未淡薄下 去或有所修改,反而不断地在增强。我确认,规范两性之间 的社会关系的原则 个性别法定地从属于另一性别 其本身是错误的,而且现在成了人类进步的主要障碍之一。我 认为这个原则应代之以完全平等的原则,不承认一方享有权 力或特权,也不承认另一方无资格 阐明我的任务所需要的恰当辞句表明了这个任务的艰 巨

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