在“可证实”与“不可说”之间的价值——对“分析进路的伦理学范式”的思考

发布时间：2018-05-08 07:59

本文选题：分析进路的伦理学 + 石里克　；参考：《哲学动态》2016年04期

【摘要】：针对目前关于"分析进路的伦理学范式"的讨论,本文尝试给予回应并作出进一步的思考。牛津日常语言学派的重要代表人物厄姆森在《论分等》中,揭示出分析进路的伦理学所存在的问题。早期分析哲学存在着元伦理学的、严格逻辑实证主义的、维特根斯坦的和石里克的四种伦理学进路,通过分析维特根斯坦和石里克伦理学的观念之争,可以发现分析哲学本身在"可证实"与"不可说"之间的内在矛盾。这使得他们要么把伦理学作为"不可说"的形而上学加以拒斥,要么接纳伦理学就势必抛弃逻辑实证主义的纲领。随着分析哲学成为一种学院哲学,更存在一种玩弄分析技巧的危险,导致伦理学逐渐远离真实的生活,甚至根本不关心生活的意义问题。伦理学应该脚踏社会生活的实地,在社会生活中阐明伦理规范的意义。
[Abstract]:In view of the current discussion on the ethical paradigm of analytical approach, this paper attempts to give a response and make further thinking. Ermson, an important representative of the Oxford School of Daily language, reveals the problems in the ethics of analytical approaches in the Theory of grading. There are four kinds of ethical approaches in early analytical philosophy, namely metethics, strict logic positivism, Wittgenstein's and schlick's, by analyzing the argument between Wittgenstein and schlick's ethics. We can find the inherent contradiction between "verifiable" and "unspeakable" in analytic philosophy itself. This makes them either reject ethics as "unspeakable" metaphysics or accept ethics as a program of logical positivism. As analytical philosophy becomes a kind of college philosophy, there is a danger of playing with analytical techniques, which leads ethics to be gradually away from real life, and even does not care about the meaning of life at all. Ethics should follow the field of social life and clarify the significance of ethical norms in social life.
【作者单位】：复旦大学哲学学院;
【基金】：“孔学堂”重大项目“中国传统文化与马克思主义中国化”(kxtzd201505) 国家社会科学基金一般项目“西方社会哲学研究”(15BZX078)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：B82-0

【相似文献】