Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  moral knowledge
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
Diametros
|
2017
|
issue 54
7-29
EN
The secular interpretation of Kant is widespread and Kant is viewed as the most prestigious founding father of liberal secularism. At the same time, however, commentators note that Kant’s position on secularism is in fact much more complex, and some go as far as to talk about an ambiguous secularism in his work. This paper defends a refined version of the secular interpretation. According to this refined version, Kant can offer a limited, political secularism on the basis of a simple argument which focuses on the distinct epistemic statuses of political and religious claims; however, the paper argues, a more general secularism is unwarranted on the basis of the same argument. If my argument is correct, then it will account at least in part for the plurality of interpretations. Moreover, any further attempt to show that Kant’s relation to secularism is ambiguous or dismissive should take into consideration the argument from epistemic grounds presented here.
EN
Both the function of one’s conscience, as Thomas Aquinas understands it, and the work of casuistry in general involve deliberating about which universal moral principles are applicable in particular cases. Thus, understanding how conscience can function better also indicates how casuistry might be done better – both on Thomistic terms, at least. I claim that, given Aquinas’ descriptions of certain parts of prudence (synesis and gnome) and the role of moral virtue in practical knowledge, understanding particular cases more as narratives, or parts of narratives, likely will result, all else being equal, in more accurate moral judgments of particular cases. This is especially important in two kinds of cases: first, cases in which Aquinas recognizes universal moral principles do not specify the means by which they are to be followed; second, cases in which the type-identity of an action – and thus the norms applicable to it – can be mistaken.
EN
In this article, I claim that emotions, as we understand the term today, have a more prominent role in the moral life described by Thomas Aquinas than has been traditionally thought. First, clarity is needed about what exactly the emotions are in Aquinas. Second, clarity is needed about true virtue: specifically, about the relationship of acquired virtue to infused, supernatural virtues. Given a fuller understanding of both these things, I claim that emotions are not only auxiliary to the life of flourishing, specifically with regard to moral motivation and morally relevant knowledge. In fact, at the highest stage of moral development, emotions have a more prominent role than at lower stages. Pointing this out helps us to resist over-intellectualizing interpretations of Aquinas’s moral philosophy.
Roczniki Filozoficzne
|
2019
|
vol. 67
|
issue 3
93-113
PL
Argument darwinowski w metaetyce może posiadać swój memetyczny odpowiednik oparty na założeniu, że nasze przekonania moralne powstały w procesie ewolucji kulturowej na drodze memetycznego doboru naturalnego. Czy istnieje jakaś różnica w mocy argumentacyjnej tych dwóch rodzajów krytyki genealogicznej? W niniejszym artykule staram się wykazać, że różnica taka może występować. Dlatego też nie jest prawdą, że każdy możliwy mechanizm przyczynowy mieszący się w ramach naturalistycznego obrazu świata w tym samym stopniu podważa nasze przekonania moralne. Należy jednak zadać dalej idące pytanie: czy powinniśmy pozostawić racjonalność naszych najgłębszych przekonań moralnych na łasce wyników badań empirycznych nad ich przyczynową genezą? W artykule staję na stanowisku, że nie powinniśmy tego czynić. Jeśli jednak takie podejście ma być uzasadnione, musimy obronić twierdzenie o autonomii systemu przekonań moralnych. Tylko wówczas odmienna koncepcja wiedzy, a także odmienne standardy obiektywnej racjonalności propozycjonalnej mogą zostać zastosowane do tychże przekonań; odmienne, tj. różne od tych właściwych dla przekonań i sądów nienormatywnych. Okazuje się, że tylko ekspresywiści mogą utrzymywać, że własność, na mocy której przekonania moralne pełnią charakterystyczną dla siebie funkcję praktyczną, nadaje dyskursowi moralnemu poszukiwaną autonomię.
EN
The Darwinian argument in metaethics can have its memetic counterparts based on the assumption that our moral beliefs were formed in the process of cultural evolution by means of memetic natural selection. Is there any difference with respect to the debunking force of these two kinds of genealogical critiques? In this paper, I argue that there might be such difference. Therefore, it is not true that any possible naturalistically respectable causal mechanism is equally undermining for our moral beliefs. Yet, there is a more profound question to be asked: should we leave the rationality of our deepest moral beliefs at the mercy of the results of empirical investigations into their causal origin? This paper argues that we should not. However, if this approach is to be justified, the autonomy of moral beliefs must be defended in a principal manner. Only then may a different account of knowledge as well as different standards of objective propositional rationality be legitimately adopted for moral beliefs — i.e. different from those proper to non-normative beliefs. It turns out that only expressivists are in a position to claim that the property in virtue of which moral beliefs perform their distinctive practical function confers autonomy on moral discourse.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.