查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 存心倫理學、責任倫理學與儒家思想="Gesinnungsethik", "Verantwortungsethik", and Confucianism |
---|---|
作 者 | 李明輝; | 書刊名 | 臺灣社會研究季刊 |
卷 期 | 21 1996.01[民85.01] |
頁 次 | 頁217-244 |
分類號 | 190 |
關鍵詞 | 存心倫理學; 責任倫理學; 功效倫理學; 儒家思想; Gesinnungsethik; Verantwortungsethik; Erfolgsethik; Confucianism; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 國內學術界流行一種看法,認為德國社會學家韋伯所說的「存心倫理學」和「責任倫理學」是相互對立的,而康德底倫理學是存心倫理學之典型。有人據此反對同時藉康德底「道德自律」及「存心倫理學」與韋伯底「責任倫理學」來詮釋儒家思想。本文透過相對文獻的分析證明:韋伯對存心倫理學的批評並不適用於康德底「存心倫理學」。康德底「存心倫理學」與韋伯所謂的「責任倫理學」不但不形成對立,甚至可以涵蘊它。本文也指出:以孔、孟為代表的儒家主流思想基本上包含兩個倫理學面向,這兩個面向分別對應於康德底「存心論理學」與韋伯底「責任倫理學」。 |
英文摘要 | It is a popular opinion among scholars that Max Weber's "Gesinnungsethik" and "Verantwortungsethik" are contradictory to each other, and Kant's ethics is often regarded as a typed of the former. Therefore, it is viewed as self-contradictory, to interpret Confucianism in terms of Kant's "moral autonomy" and "Gesinnungsethik," together with Weber's "Verantwortungsethik". In this paper, by an analysis of Kant's and Weber's texts, I demonstrate that Weber's criticism of "Gesinnungsethik" is not suitable for Kant's "Gesinnungsethik". Not only Kant's "Gesinnungsethik" and Weber's "Verantwortungsethik" are logically compatible, the former even implies the latter. Finally, I show that the Confucianism, as Confucius and Mencius advocate, has two dimensions which correspond to Kant's "Gesinnungsethik" and Weber's "Verantwortungsethik" respectively. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。