Book Description
Ranging over central issues of morals and politics, this book discusses the nature of freedom and authority. It examines the role of value-neutrality, rights, equality, and the prevention of harm in the liberal tradition, and relates them to fundamental moral questions such as the relation of values to social forms, the comparability of values, and the significance of personal commitments.
Synopsis
Ranging over central issues of morals and politics, this book discusses the nature of freedom and authority. It examines the role of value-neutrality, rights, equality, and the prevention of harm in the liberal tradition, and relates them to fundamental moral questions such as the relation of values to social forms, the comparability of values, and the significance of personal commitments.
Joseph Raz (/rɑːz/; Hebrew: יוסף רז; born 21 March 1939) is an Israeli legal, moral and political philosopher. He is one of the most prominent advocates of legal positivism and is well known for his conception of perfectionist liberalism. Raz spent most of his career as a professor of philosophy of law at the University of Oxford associated with Balliol College, and is now a part-time professor of law at Columbia University Law School and a part-time professor at King's College London.
【按语:《自由的道德(The morality of Freedom,1986)》是一部很精致的政治哲学作品,Raz提出一种至善论的、基于自主的(autonomy-based)的政治自由理论,其“理由(reason)”和“自主(autonomy)”概念糅合了至善论和道义论两种伦理路径。Raz展现了对现代社会和道德理论...
評分谁有日语版的? 最近看,怎么也没法看完第一章。翻译太差,比机器可能稍好一点。 请问有哪位师傅有该书日文版的?我没学过日文,不过知道,日文里很多中文,相信日本版的也比孙晓春,曹海军翻译的中文版抢?
評分当代几种不同版本的自由主义理论均不约而同地申说一种中立性(Neutrality)理想,以作为对国家权力的限制。具体而言,它指的是政制在面对多元社会中诸善观念时所应该遵守的原则。这一概念最易令人混淆之处是,就词义而言,实际上存在着两种意义上的中立:首先是同等对待的中立...
評分这本书作为拉兹在政治哲学方面的代表作,在国外享有很高的声誉。翻译莫名其妙,如果你没有看到原文,看他们的翻译,很多时候都会一头雾水。 举几个十分明显的错误: 1)书名翻译有问题。“自由的道德”——中文初听起来,好像是说道德是自由的?free morality? 但是,事实上,...
評分【按语:《自由的道德(The morality of Freedom,1986)》是一部很精致的政治哲学作品,Raz提出一种至善论的、基于自主的(autonomy-based)的政治自由理论,其“理由(reason)”和“自主(autonomy)”概念糅合了至善论和道义论两种伦理路径。Raz展现了对现代社会和道德理论...
本來昨天晚上讀得還覺著深受觸動心情澎湃醍醐灌頂,今天看完Harm Principle覺得自己和Liberal Perfectionism完全站不到一邊:你tax人傢來redistribute可以說是provide adequate opportunity但被tax的人的option是不是被diminish瞭呢?你又說imprisoning是不被Harm Principle justify的,因為violate autonomy瞭,但這不是一種price麼,這不是prevent (at least futuristic) harm麼?sigh各傢的interpretation都隻是為自傢theory服務的。PS:Raz是個比Rawls還不可方物的老頭子!我還是最愛Cohen!
评分第一編講權威和政治權威,二三四編在否定或弱化瞭幾種政治道德理論(二-反至善論;三-權利至上諸理論;四-後果主義),第四編後半段和第五編開始正麵勾勒自己的理論:一種基於自主的至善論,而自主的基礎是道德多元/不可通約。
评分暫告一段落。
评分讀瞭關於autonomy和pluralism的節選,結尾處又被詭異地戳中燃點。隻有存在真正不同的選擇,那選擇纔是有意義的。而足夠的選擇正是實現autonomy的基礎。忽然意識到pluralism其實未必在個人層麵上放棄瞭對更“善”的追求。這樣比起來,似乎perfectionism顯得過於急切又雄心勃勃瞭。
评分最近為瞭改論文重讀這本書。這次再讀對拉玆在這本書的命題和論證開始能理解得更多瞭,同時也理解瞭為什麼範老師會說第三部分是整本書的核心。記錄一下,一件值得高興的小事。
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息,本站不存儲任何數據與內容,任何內容與數據均與本站無關,如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美書屋 版权所有