Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:

Displaying: 1-10 of 43 documents

series introduction
1. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Ioanna Kuçuradi Series Introduction
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
volume introduction
2. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Harun Tepe Volume Introduction
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
section: epistemological questions of ethics
3. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Andrew B. Schoedinger Nonreductive Ethical Naturalism
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper argues that Nonreductive ethical naturalism is a viable approach to normative ethical theory. Central to Nonreductive ethical naturalism is the identification of moral properties with natural ones. Natural properties are objective and pertain to facts. It follows that moral properties are factual in nature. In the proposed theory pain and harm are the natural properties that are also moral in nature. Pain and harm are not identical. Pain is the chief indicator of harm. The concept of harm entails injury. Injury to an individual is both a factual and moral issue. The well-being of individuals constitutes the foundation of morality. Consequently, that which runs counter to an individual's well-being is what we mean by evil. It follows that injury is evil and its intentional infliction upon other people is morally evil. The factual nature of ethical properties provides the basis for universal agreement on which forms of behavior are evil. As such, acceptance of this theory would go a long way in resolving many of the global problems that confront us all at the onset of the 2 1 s t century.
4. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Halil Turan Does the Is-Ought Issue Suggest a Transcendental Realm?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The principle that values cannot be derived from facts, though first explicitly formulated by David Hume, does not seem to be consistent with Hume's assertions that value becomes intelligible through experience, and that the will is determined by pleasure and pain. Moral reasoning involving pleasures and pains in the context of the peculiarities of human existence in society must be more complicated than reasoning involving ordinary, i.e. natural, pleasures and pains. Nevertheless, all pains and pleasures must be sensations. Hence Hume's moral philosophy becomes an example of an ethics in which facts, namely pleasures and pains, are related to values. However, many philosophers have argued that values must have a transcendental origin. Ludwig Wittgenstein's arguments concerning ethics and aesthetics constitute an interesting contemporary example of such transcendental conceptions of value. For Wittgenstein, the voice of conscience is God; the will can affect the subject at the limits of the world, and not things in the world; therefore, ethics must be transcendental (not expressible in the way facts in the world are). It seems that this attitude in ethics and aesthetics rules out any empirical discourse on values, which can hardly be called totally fruitless. An example of such discourse may even be one describable in Wittgensteinian terms: values can be defined through facts as modifications in the limits of the world, and through facts as things "in the world". If such descriptions are possible and expressible, a reference to a transcendental realm to account for the existence of conscience would become redundant.
5. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
W. J. Korab-Karpowicz Beyond Scientific Objectivity: Knowing about Right and Wrong
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Our way of seeing things depends upon the state of our minds. We can look at the world through the lenses of love, hate or indifference. What remains largely unquestioned about science is its essence. Scientific objectivity is not free from subjectivity. I argue that objective, scientific knowledge is a partial knowledge based on indifference, the state of mind that constitutes the scientific attitude. Hate does not produce knowledge at all, but reinforces our prejudices. However, love gives the possibility of knowing someone or something fully, and not only as an object. Once we accept that our experiences, thoughts, and feelings are not incommunicable, we can arrive at inter-subjective and non-objective moral knowledge which results from our recognition of others as persons and our affective engagement with the world.
6. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Mary Tjiattas Against Moral Particularism
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Advocates of particularism in moral philosophy (e.g. Prichard, Dancy, McDowell) hold that moral theory contributes little if anything to moral deliberation, claiming that we do best in moral judgement by relying on our intuitive moral sensitivities to situations rather than on general principles. In this paper I argue that particularism lacks the resources to provide a preferable account of moral deliberation and justification.
7. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Harun Tepe Epistemological Dilemmas of Contemporary Ethics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Contemporary ethics has often faced questions concerning its epistemological foundations. Thus epistemological problems of ethics have become a main interest in ethics, and ethics has begun to be considered mainly as meta-ethics or analytical ethics, mainly dealing with the foundation of ethical propositions or norms. However questions raised about the foundation of ethics have mostly ended in dilemmas. Today, moral dilemmas or epistemological dilemmas of ethics pose a challenge to contemporary ethics in the form of questions like "Is ethics normative?", "Is there any ethical knowledge?", "Are the statements of ethics bearers of truth-values? (these questions relate to what 1 call the Normativity Dilemma); and questions like "Are ethical judgements objective?", "Are values part of the world, out there, in the way that physical objects are?" (these questions relate to what 1 call the Objectivity Dilemma); and questions like "Is there any criterion to see which principles are correct?", "Do we have good reasons to do what is right?", "Can acting ethical ever be justified?" (these questions relate to what 1 call the Justification Dilemma). Are these dilemmas that are said to be epistemological genuine dilemmas, or are they only supposed to be so? In this paper I will tackle the epistemological foundations of these dilemmas and try to demonstrate that there are fallacies involved in them.
8. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Ulrich F. Wodarzik Zwischen Natur- und Sittengesetzlichkeit Objektivität, Leben und Normativität
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Der lebendige Mensch befindet sich immer zwischen Erfahrung und Metaphysik, er ist Natur und Freiheit zugleich. Anders gesagt erfährt sich der von Welt umgebende Mensch als ein freiheitliches Wesen, das unter einem bedingungslosen moralischen Sollensanspruch steht, der an keine Kontingenz geknüpft ist. Betrachten wir die moralische Dimension genauer, so erkennen wir moralischen Pflichten gegenüber uns selbst und anderen als Gebote Gottes.1 Das bewusste Leben selbst gibt uns Zwecke, die wir weder theoretisch noch praktisch auf den Begriff bringen können.2 Kant spricht vom Leben als ein Vermögen, dass einen inneren selbst-bestimmten Anstoß zum praktischen Handeln im Sinne einer inneren Kausalität darstellt. Wir müssen ein naturgemäßes Leben von einem guten Leben unterscheiden. Idealiter gesehen oder im Zustand der Glückseligkeit ist das natürliche und das moralisch gute Leben ein und das selbe.3 Ein natürliches und ein gutes Leben soll der Mensch führen, denn die Natur ermöglicht sittliches Handeln und sittliches Handeln macht natürliches Leben lebenswerter. Kant hat in seiner epochalen Kritik der Urteilkraft ein für alle mal gezeigt, dass nur der Mensch unbedingter Endzweck der Schöpfung ist, nicht als natürliches sondern als ein moralisches Wesen betrachtet, denn »im Menschen, aber auch in diesem nur als Subjekte der Moralität, ist die unbedingte Gesetzgebung in Ansehung der Zwecke anzutreffen, welche ihn also allein fähig macht, ein Endzweck zu sein, dem die ganze Natur teleologisch untergeordnet ist.4« So gesehen ist der Mensch sich eines physikotheologischen Verhältnisses bewusst und muss es aushalten, und es fragt sich wie der Hiatus zwischen Natur und Freiheit zu denken ist.
section: main concepts of ethics
9. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Karoly Kokai Das Kreisen um die Gerechtigkeit
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The problem of justice lies at the heart of the philosophy of jurisprudence. Then what justice does, the purpose for which a legal system exists, the central principle of jurisprudence, is to provide, for concrete cases, a basis for decisions as to what is just. In the lecture I will first of all deal with Kant's ideas about justice, as shown in his works. They can also be seen as examples of a concept of justice from a previous epoch. The magnitude of these distances will become apparent when one bears in mind what Kant meant, and in what context, when he used this concept. At the same time Kant is the thinker who is most often mentioned in the contemporary discourse on justice. This is for two reasons. Firstly, Kant's position is exemplary for that position that holds that justice is the trancendental centre of any theory of jurisprudence; secondly, Kant is seen as the most significant thinker of that epoch, which is seen as the starting point for the present: the modern European Enlightenment. Finally I would like to contrast the concept of justice which has been developed in this way with the concept that seems fitting for the concrete situation of the Istanbul Congress of 2003.
10. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 1
Taşkiner Ketenci Der Begriff ,,des Rationalen'' in der Kantischen Ethik
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In der aktuellen Diskussion werden die Begriffe "Vernunft" und "Rationalität" in Frage gestellt. Mit der "Rationalität" einer Handlung, einer Haltung oder einer Organisation bezeichnet man im Allgemeinen den Erfolg bei der Verwirklichung eines bestimmten Zweckes. Die "instrumentale Rationalität" als Grundlage einer Ethik, für die das Nachdenken über den Wert der Zwecke ohne Belang ist, wurde seit jeher heftig kritisiert. Kant verwendet das Wort "rational" in Bezug auf die Bestimmungsgründe des Willens. Nach Kant sind die Bestimmungsgründe des Willens entweder „subjektiv und empirisch" oder „objektiv und rational". Wenn der Wille "rational" bestimmt wird, so hat dies zur Folge, dass die Personen andere Personen nicht nur als Mittel, sondern auch als Zweck behandeln. Also in der Kantische Ethik weist das Wort "rational" auf ein Wesen hin, das selbst ein Zweck ist und deshalb als solcher behandelt werden soll. Schließlich bedeutet in der Kantischen Ethik das Wort "rational" eine "Rationalität" der Zwecke.