“无知者无罪”的合理性根据是否存在——从亚里士多德对苏格拉底“作恶出于无知”的反驳看

摘要

＂Innocence guiltless＂ means the actors will not take responsibility to what he/she did wrong because of ignorance.Usually,people are used to applying it to defend for themselves,which may be accessible from ＂nobody is willing to do evil＂＂being guilt from innocence＂ by Socrates.In accordance with the exposition of Socrates,＂doing or being willing to do evil from awareness＂ could not exist.Meanwhile,Aristotle held that doing evil is not indeed purely out of innocence;＂being willing to do evil from awareness＂ exists.From the analyses of the proposition of Socrates and Aristotle,as can be known that the opinion of ＂being innocence from guiltless＂ is reasonable in some degree as a scientific proposition,but as a moral one,its ground doesn＇t exist.%＂无知者无罪＂意味着行为者由于无知可以对其行为选择及其结果不承担责任。通常情况下,人们习惯用＂无知者无罪＂来解释自己的行为过失。这种观点或许可以从苏格拉底关于＂无人自愿作恶,作恶出于无知＂的命题中找到根据。按照苏格拉底的阐述,＂作恶出于无知、明知而故犯＂的现象是不存在的。而亚里士多德认为,作恶并非真的纯粹出于无知,＂明知而故犯＂的现象是存在的。通过对苏格拉底和亚里士多德的命题进行分析,可以看出,作为科学命题,＂无知者无罪＂的说法有一定的合理性,而作为道德命题,＂无知者无罪＂的合理性根据是不存在的。