康德的道德哲学对罗尔斯正义理论的影响

康德的道德哲学深深影响到罗尔斯的正义理论,这不仅表现在宏观的理论结构、方法和价值旨趣上,还表现在一些微观的概念上,比如自律与定言命令等。罗尔斯的正义理论在关键的地方依赖康德的一些假定,但他对康德的继承又是创造性的,也是对康德理论疑难的一种澄清和解决。     

作为科学的伦理学何以可能 ——康德的纯粹实践哲学及其使命

康德认为,伦理学是一门和自然科学具有同等地位的道德科学。纯粹实践哲学的使命即是将这门科学建立在纯粹的理性基础之上,使之成为可能。道德法则是理性不受感性所决定的因果性,即自由的因果性,它和自然因果性一样都源自于人的理性自发性。义务行为指向目的,但后者不是行为的内在要素,因而不是纯粹实践哲学的研究对象,更不是道德科学的基础。完整的义务行为内在地包含着诸多经验性内容,但后者也不是纯粹实践哲学的研究对象,而只是行为在认识论上的根据。     

论优先问题——对罗尔斯《正义论》的一种分析

<正义论>的理论骨干是一系列的优先性命题,其基本形式为A优先于B.通过道德风俗考古学式的痕迹分析考察,可以离析出理论家们关注的基本价值.优先性命题中的关系词\"优先于\"的含义是变化的,优先性命题的成立隐含着各种条件,条件的变化与\"优先于\"的含义变化之间有一种本质的联系.罗尔斯关于基本善的不可比较的思想和优先性命题的论证之间存在着矛盾,需要寻找新的理论出路来解决这些矛盾.通过对优先问题的分析,折射出<正义论>可以被看作是传统伦理学走向价值伦理学的一种过渡形态的理论.     

再论康德伦理学的形式主义——兼论康德的道德目的论的意义

黑格尔对康德伦理学的形式主义所作的批评是富有影响力的,他指责康德的纯粹实践理性概念无力在内容上阐明道德的本质。而当代康德主义者在回应这一批评时,却未能在道德现象中揭示纯粹实践理性与客观价值的实质关联,也因此不能彻底反驳黑格尔的批评。通过对康德道德哲学的分析,本文将表明：一方面,形式主义进路服务于论证纯粹实践理性的可能性,并构成了对道德现象的哲学诠释的一部分;另一方面,该诠释成功地揭示了道德意识的意向结构及其事实性要素,并导向了“目的自身”的概念。因此,康德的形式主义伦理学所导向的道德目的论可以构成一种实质价值学说。在与道德目的论的关联中,康德伦理学的形式主义及其纯粹实践理性概念能够得到恰当理解和有效辩护。     

哈贝马斯合理性概念的价值追求——兼评康德、罗尔斯义务论的有限性

对\"价值合理性\"和\"选择意识\"的重视是哈贝马斯合理性概念的价值追求所在。在哈贝马斯看来,哲学自形而上学、黑格尔之后,正在向合理性理论归拢,这就赋予合理性以哲学准绳的使命,一切形态的哲学理论必当接受合理性的审视。康德、罗尔斯的道德义务论以不同的方式宣示着其理论的普遍性,但经由哈贝马斯合理性概念的审视之后,他们立论前提的\"工具性\"、\"封闭性\"和\"主体性\"等有限性特征暴露无遗。由此可见,把立论前提置于\"开放性\"和\"主体间性\"之上,有助于促进义务论的普遍性重建。     

个人观念、正义及其证成 ——论罗尔斯个人观念的嬗变

近代以来,政治正当性的证成越来越依赖于一种政治的个人观念。罗尔斯自觉地承接这一传统,将政治的个人观念作为公共证成的基础。罗尔斯的政治个人观念经历了从寓于宗教共同体的存在者、平等的道德代表到自由而平等的公民的发展脉络。这一观念的嬗变是随着罗尔斯关注点的变化而发生的,个人作为自由而平等的公民是由特定的政治目的——政治正义的公共证成所决定的。政治的个人观念并不旨在精确地描述\"我之所是\",而只是挑选出个人与政治正当性证成最为相关的特征。在这个意义上,罗尔斯的政治个人观念是功能性的。     

一种彻底的“康德式”建构主义是否可能？--论奥尼尔政治哲学的建构主义证成进路及其局限性

奥尼尔是罗尔斯之后英美政治哲学界的重要代表人物,作为罗尔斯的后学,奥尼尔自觉承继起罗尔斯开创的“康德式”建构主义,力图通过更激进的“抽象化”重构和重释使该方法论更加彻底。一方面,奥尼尔对建构主义实践推理的起点进行了更抽象的重构,力图使实践推理的起点更加不偏不倚;另一方面,奥尼尔对实践理性加以更激进的建构主义重释,试图使实践理性摆脱推理过程中的循环论证。通过这种重构和重释,奥尼尔力图把罗尔斯建构主义体系中游离于“反思平衡”之外的推理要素重新纳入反思平衡的追问程序。客观地看,奥尼尔对建构主义学说的这一推进可以使其具备更彻底的方法论意义,但同时也更清晰地揭示出该学说的内在局限性。     

康德是否证成了道德的形上学 ——兼论牟宗三对康德的批评

牟宗三通过对道德理性三义的确立与对儒家的\"当下呈现\"即是康德所谓智的直觉之肯定,建立了道德的形上学。他进而认为康德只证成了道德理性之第一义,而未能证成其第二义,亦未能透显出第三义,衡定康德只有道德的神学而无道德的形上学。通过对康德理路的分析可以发现,康德建立的道德的神学在《判断力批判》中亦有道德的证明,而非只有《实践理性批判》之单纯分解地形式地建立,与儒家以良知为本体建立道德的形上学的思路有不谋而合之处。     

自由的现实性与定言命令的可能性———对康德《道德形而上学奠基》的新理解

自由是康德实践哲学的精神和核心:自由观不仅构成了康德实践哲学的最抽象的层面,而且是其整个伦理学的根基;定言命令是康德道德哲学中的基本要求。然而,康德关于自由的现实性的思想,却是他被诟病最多的地方之一:根据对自由的本体化的传统解释,在实践哲学中,康德试图论证本体所具有的先验自由(独立于经验性因素而引起因果序列的能力),并对实在性、因果性这些知性范畴     

论元伦理学中的康德式建构主义

康德主义伦理学被怀疑论者看作一种心灵-独立的实在论,并因此遭到它的批评。实在论者则把康德主义伦理学作为一种心灵-独立的实在论加以辩护。科斯嘉承继并推进了罗尔斯所实现的康德主义的元伦理学转向,在回应对康德主义外在实在论批评和辩护的同时,提出了一种建构主义的程序实在论,并把它作为一种内在的实在论加以辩护,完成了道德实在论的内在转变。但是这种康德式建构主义却面临着这样一个困难,即它作为一种内在的实在论同时是一种非认知主义。从理论的融贯性来看,与这种康德式内在实在论相适合的应是一种康德式内在认知主义。     

The Importance of Pleasure in the Moral for Kant's Ethics

I argue for a new reading of Kant's claim that respect is the moral incentive; this reading accommodates the central insights of the affectivist and intellectualist readings of respect, while avoiding shortcomings of each. I show that within Kant's ethical system, the feeling of respect should be understood as paradigmatic of a kind of pleasure, pleasure in the moral. The motivational power of respect arises from its nature as pleasurable feeling, but the feeling does not directly motivate individual dutiful actions. Rather, the feeling is motivational in the sense that, after an agent has acted in a morally good way, the pleasure that results from that action contributes to the cultivation of virtue in the agent and, consequently, morally good actions in the future. Understanding the feeling of respect to be moral pleasure not only gives us insight into how finite rational beings develop virtue, but also a new way of understanding respect as an incentive.     

Kant's Theory of Value: On Allen Wood's Kant's Ethical Thought

Karl Ameriks has recently devoted an entire volume to defending what he calls "orthodox" Kantianism against what he judges to be the "errors" of such post-Kantian idealists as K. L. Reinhold and J. G. Fichte and to exposing what he claims is the frequently unnoticed but always deleterious influence of post-Kantianism upon certain prominent strands of contemporary philosophy. In response, this paper challenges Ameriks' interpretation of Kantianism itself and of the "post-Kantian project", as well as his construal of transcendental idealism. This is followed by some remarks concerning Reinhold's and Fichte's actual "arguments" for transcendental idealism and a rejection of Ameriks' characterizations of the same. Ameriks' interpretation of "the primacy of the practical" within Fichte's philosophy is also analyzed and criticized, as are his unsubstantiated claims concerning the powerful "indirect" influence of the writings of Reinhold and Fichte upon contemporary philosophy.     

The Apple of Kant's Ethics: i-Maxims as the Locus of Assessment

I want to distinguish between maxims at three levels of abstraction. At the first level are what I shall call individual maxims, or i-maxims: maxim tokens as adopted by particular rational beings. At the second level are abstract maxims, or a-maxims: abstract principles distinct from any individual who adopts them. At the third level are maxim kinds, or k-maxims: sets of various action-guiding principles that are grouped on the basis of their content. In this paper, I argue for the thesis that i-maxims are the locus of assessment in Kant's ethics.     

Kant's Theory of Judgment,and Judgments of Taste: On Henry Allison's Kant's Theory of Taste

An examination of the currently fashionable thesis that scientists, and especially biologists in the wake of the Darwinian Revolution, can now solve the problems that traditional philosophers have only talked about. Past philosophers, for example during the Enlightenment, have themselves made use of contemporary, scientific techniques and theories. The present claim may only be another such move, to be welcomed by philosophers who would distinguish themselves from rhetoricians. Others may prefer to stake out the merely human or subjective world as their field, identifying 'truth' with 'what it's better to believe'. Both moderns and postmoderns must abandon the rational realism that actually sustained Enlightenment endeavours, and Darwinian explanation, on its own, must erode traditional ethical values and the meta-ethical assumptions that sustain them. Universal humanism is only one possible project among many - and Darwinian reasonings suggest that it is hypocritical. In this crisis there may after all be a rôle for traditional, Platonizing philosophers, believing that there is a truth, and that we can find it out. Such a theory is actually better able to explain our scientific successes, and our evolutionary past.     

回到道德现象本身——康德道德形而上学的论证方法初探

在康德理性的道德形而上学的建构过程中,两种论证方法即分析法和综合法起到了重要的作用。他首先用分析法从普通人的相互混杂的道德认识中逐步分离出纯粹的道德现象和原则,力图给真正的道德哲学奠基。随后他又用综合法来论证道德律的实在性并使它在经验世界中能得到现实的应用,以说明纯粹的道德原则并非人的主观臆造。两种方法相互依赖,相辅相成,共同支撑起道德形而上学的大厦。