著者

横路 佳幸

出版者

日本倫理学会

雑誌

倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, pp.189, 2017 (Released:2019-04-16)

---

In his essay “Non-Cognitivism and Rule-Following”, John McDowell argues that the extensions and applications of such thick terms and concepts as courageous or selfish cannot be determined without the understanding of a particular perspective based on such noncognitive states as evaluative attitudes or emotions. This distinctive feature of thick terms─it is called ‘shapelessness’─is often thought as a challenge to moral noncognitivism, according to which moral values or judgments can be explained by noncognitive states of mind with regard to their corresponding natural properties. The reason is that it seems follow from the shapelessness of thick terms that the two components of their concepts, i.e. descriptive and evaluative components, are ‘entangling’, but noncognitivists, including Simon Blackburn as their representative, try to disentangle them. My aim in this essay is twofold. First, I organize and reconstruct McDowell’s ‘anti-disentangling argument’ and Blackburn’s response to it for simplicity’s sake. I then argue that McDowell fails in refuting noncognitivism in general because his argument restricts it unduly, while Blackburn’s pragmatic or semantics- free explanation of the shapelessness is also insufficient because it cannot ensure the default evaluative component of thick terms. Second, I argue that the feature of shapelessness can be explained as a semantic phenomenon in term of the nonindexical context-sensitivity of thick terms, in virtue of which such evaluative terms have the same content in any contexts, while their extensions are sensitive with regard to moral standards from ethical sensibilities of the context. By the use of this interpretation of shapelessness, noncognitivists can successfully disentangle the components of thick concepts into two entirely separate ones fulfilling different semantic roles. Thus the nonindexical contextualism I advocate not only makes clear the nature of thick terms and concepts but also offers a new and different semantic ground for noncognitivism from the traditional model.

著者

川島 彬

出版者

日本倫理学会

雑誌

倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, pp.91-104, 2018 (Released:2019-04-01)

---

At 475d1─476d6 in Plato’s Republic, Socrates and Glaucon speak about “sightlovers”(philotheamones), people who are eager to see any theatrical performancebut not interested in Forms. Socrates says that sight-lovers do not possess “knowledge”(epistēmē)but only “belief” (doxa). Glaucon imagines that they would be offended to hear this and would object. So Socrates presents an argument to persuade the sight-lovers that his description of them is correct (476e4─480a13). Interpreters have seldom addressed the question of whether the sight-lovers would have been persuaded by Socrates’ argument. The aim of this paper is to show that they would have been persuaded. The challenge is to show how the sight-lovers, who do not subscribe to the theory of Forms, could accept the argument that rests on that theory(on any interpretation). For this purpose, I first present an interpretation of the argument, according to which, “what(perfectly)is” means what is perfectly f(say, beautiful)and refers, for Socrates, to Forms collectively. For Socrates, knowledge concerned with f is acquaintance with Form F, and at the same time, the sufficient understanding of what f is; while belief is acquaintance with f sensibles and an insufficient understanding of what f -ness is. The key to understanding how the sight-lovers would have been persuaded is to notice that initially they would probably take “what is perfectly beautiful” as referring to exemplarily beautiful sensibles, such as theatrical performances. Without accepting the theory of Forms, they could accept the premise stated at 477a3─4 about the correlation between the degrees of F-ness and the degrees of intelligibility. It is at 479a5-b7 that Socrates makes the sight-lovers accept that no sensible can qualify as “what perfectly is.” They might accept this, since they know from experience, say, that the same theatrical piece once found most beautiful may turn out to be awful depending on the circumstances of performance. By the end of the argument, the sight-lovers are such as neither determinately to reject nor clearly to recognize the existence of Forms. To conclude, I address the following question: If Socrates could have persuaded the sight-lovers that they lack knowledge, as I have argued, then, what does this fact mean for the broader context in the Republic, in particular Socrates’conception of the ideal city?

著者

芝元 航平

出版者

日本倫理学会

雑誌

倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, pp.105-117, 2018 (Released:2019-04-01)

---

This paper proposes to elucidate the volitional basis of deontology in Aquinas’s ethics. We analyze the concept of commanding(imperare)as a clue to this purpose. In the Summa Theologiae I-II, Question 17, Article 1, Aquinas says that to command is essentially an act of reason, based on an act of will because reason’s role is to order another to do something by way of intimation. Although the will can be commanded by reason, the mutual series between will and reason cannot proceed ad infinitum. Aquinas says that the first act of will comes not from reason, but from an “instinct” of a higher cause, i.e., God. Aquinas believes that the first act of will is necessarily to intend the ultimate end, which means perfect good. Human beings can freely select any other end and any other means than the ultimate end, in comparison with what perfect good means. In the Summa Theologiae I-II, Question 94, Article 2, Aquinas suggests the first precept of natural law is unconditional duty, saying “good ought to be done and pursued and evil ought to be avoided.” We can interpret this precept in greater detail by saying that because the will necessarily intend the ultimate end, human good, which is ordered to the ultimate end by reason, ought to be done. Moreover, the characteristic of duty remains in the virtuous act, even that of charity(caritas), a theological virtue infused by God’s grace. This is because it is necessary for human beings to intend the ultimate end until attaining it by seeing God’s essence directly, something impossible in this life. In conclusion, we can say that the first act of will, i.e., necessarily intending the ultimate end, is the volitional basis of deontology in Aquinas’s ethics.

著者

飯泉 佑介

出版者

日本倫理学会

雑誌

倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, pp.135-147, 2018 (Released:2019-04-01)

---

The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the referent of the “we” that appears in G. W. F. Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit(1807)and its intended significance for “we”. This attempt is accomplished by the immanent analysis of the relationship between “we” and the consciousness, whose path to “absolute knowing” is the focus of Phenomenology. Consequently, it is revealed that “we” refers to the public who are contemporary with Hegel, and Phenomenology must be planned as an educational project(das Bildung)for the public or a kind of public selfenlightenment. In contrast to Hegel’s later work, Science of Logic(1812─13/16/32), whose subject is the “speculative thinking” abstracted from the empirical world, the subject of Phenomenology seems to be obscure. Phenomenology describes the developmental path of consciousness headed for “absolute knowing,” but according to Hegel, “we” contemplates(zusehen)its path without any interruption. Since Hegel’s explanation for the methodological role of “we” is not sufficient and he lacks an account of its referent, there has been controversy on this subject. Some interpret the “we” as a philosopher or Hegel himself who has already attained “absolute knowing.” Others interpret the “we” as the reader of Phenomenology, who only reflects upon consciousness in each stage of its development. Then, first, this paper shows that both interpretations do not correspond to Hegel’s description of “we.” Second, it presents the real figure of “we” based on the analysis of the first shape of consciousness, “sense-certainty.” Besides, by comparison with the “we” in J. G. Fichte’s early philosophy(the Science of Knowledge), the distinctive feature of the phenomenological “we” becomes clear: the referent of “we” is indefinite and open. Therefore, “we” should be considered as the public, including the scholars and citizens of various philosophical or even non-philosophical positions. From this perspective, accordingly, the significance of Hegelian philosophy is interpreted as a radical self-examination of the public and the self-transformation of its knowledge.

著者

見附 陽介

出版者

日本倫理学会

雑誌

倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, pp.85, 2017 (Released:2019-04-16)

---

This paper investigates Rawls’s program of socializing Kant’s ethics developed in his theory of justice and ascertains the limitations of its will-oriented approach to freedom by focusing on the difference between Rawls’s and Sen’s interpretation of freedom. In addition, this paper thereby evaluates the significance of Sen’s critique of Rawls’s theory of justice. Rawls socializes Kant’s ethics by transforming Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative into intersubjective procedures in the original position. However, he inherits Kant’s concept of transcendental freedom without making any changes to it; in other words, the “inner freedom” that solely determines a rational being’s will and has no commitment to the physical process to achieve the will. Sen criticizes this interpretation of freedom as being based on a fetishism of goods, introducing the idea of capability to compensate for this lacuna in Rawls’s theory of justice. One feature of Sen’s interpretation of freedom is found in the theoretical accent that he places on the practical aspect of freedom; in other words, the freedom to achieve, which varies according to the diversity of people’s “utilization functions” converting goods into effective functions. Despite this criticism of the Kantian concept of freedom, Sen’s idea can also be seen as being based on Kant’s philosophy. In his Critique of Judgement, Kant attempts to bridge the gulf between freedom and nature(the physical world)derived from his own transcendental conception. We direct our attention particularly to Kant’s argument about rational being’s aptitude(Tauglichkeit)to have a purpose and achieve it because the argument shows a possible correspondence between Kant’s concept of culture and Sen’s concept of development concerning the practical aspect of freedom. On the basis of these arguments, we can understand the limitations of the will-oriented approach to freedom indicated in Rawls’s theory of justice and the significance of Sen’s critique, which not only clarifies such limitations but also proposes another possible way to inherit Kant’s philosophy of freedom.

著者

鈴木 崇志

出版者

日本倫理学会

雑誌

倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, pp.113, 2017 (Released:2019-04-16)

---

Edmund Husserl(1859─1938)conceived a theory of communication in Logical Investigations(1900/01). According to his conception, to initiate communication, one must express his/her wish to communicate, and another must receive this expression. Husserl calls such a function to express mental acts ‘indication(Kundgabe)’. Therefore, the main topics of his theory of communication should be ‘indication’ and ‘reception of indication(Kundnahme)’. Because of his interest in logic, however, this theory was scarcely dealt with in Logical Investigations. However, Husserl began to re-examine it when he planned his new systematic and comprehensive book in 1921. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explain how Husserl’s theory of communication was developed since 1921. Because his plan for the new book was only partially realized, we use mainly manuscripts which were included in Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity II and III. We will clarify the process of this development as follows. First, we will explore Husserl’s manuscripts from 1921 and show that he regarded the ‘body’ and the ‘open world’ as the conditions of possibility to experience others. Second, we will examine further his manuscripts from 1924 and present his view that the experience of others can be classified into ‘empathy’ and ‘communication’. In empathy, the mental acts of another are indicated without his/her intention, while they are indicated intentionally in communication. Husserl tried to characterize communication by intentional indication and the reception thereof. Finally, we will deal with the theory of community in Cartesian Meditations(1931)and manuscripts written in the 1930s. According to this theory, the community of empathy can proceed to the community of communication if members thereof indicate their wish to communicate intentionally and receive it from each other. Then, they satisfy the conditions of possibility to experience others in a higher order; they regard other bodies as bodies for intentional indication and live in the cultural and social world, which is open to the community of communication. We can therefore present this theory of community from the 1930s as a developed form of the theory of communication of Logical Investigations.