首页> 外文期刊>Philosophical Studies >Is evil just very wrong?
【24h】

Is evil just very wrong?

机译:邪恶是非常错误的吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Is evil a distinct moral concept? Or are evil actions just very wrong actions? Some philosophers have argued that evil is a distinct moral concept. These philosophers argue that evil is qualitatively distinct from ordinary wrongdoing. Other philosophers have suggested that evil is only quantitatively distinct from ordinary wrongdoing. On this view, evil is just very wrong. In this paper I argue that evil is qualitatively distinct from ordinary wrongdoing. The first part of the paper is critical. I argue that Luke Russell’s attempt to show that evil is only quantitatively distinct from ordinary wrongdoing fails. Russell’s argument fails because it is based on an implausible criterion for determining whether two concepts are qualitatively distinct. I offer a more plausible criterion and argue that based on this criterion evil and wrongdoing are qualitatively distinct. To help make my case, I sketch a theory of evil which makes a genuinely qualitative distinction between evil and wrongdoing. I argue that we cannot characterize evil as just very wrong on plausible conceptions of evil and wrongdoing. I focus on act-consequentialist, Kantian, and contractarian conceptions of wrongdoing.
机译:邪恶是一种独特的道德观念吗?还是邪恶的行为只是非常错误的行为?一些哲学家认为,邪恶是一种独特的道德观念。这些哲学家认为,邪恶在质量上与普通的过错有所不同。其他哲学家认为,邪恶在数量上与普通的不法行为是有区别的。根据这种观点,邪恶是非常错误的。在本文中,我认为邪恶在质量上与普通的过错有所不同。本文的第一部分至关重要。我认为卢克·罗素(Luke Russell)试图证明邪恶在数量上与普通的不法行为是不同的。罗素的论点之所以失败,是因为它基于一种难以置信的标准来确定两个概念在质上是否不同。我提供了一个更合理的标准,并认为基于此标准,邪恶和不道德行为在质量上是不同的。为了说明问题,我画了一个邪恶的理论,该理论对邪恶和不道德行为进行了真正的定性区分。我认为,就合理的邪恶和不法行为概念而言,我们不能将邪恶描述为非常错误。我关注行为后果论者,康德主义和契约主义的错误观念。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号