摘要
处于社会交往中的个体承载着规范性的期待和要求,如果这种要求遭遇挫败就会有一种自然的反应即来自他人或自我的责备.无论什么样的责备都带有一定程度的"刺痛",因此责备的合适性理应受到重视.对于责备合适性的探讨离不开责备的资格问题,尤其是其中最核心的一个资格——不虚伪条件.不虚伪条件有三种解释进路:平等性解释、道德优越性解释、严肃性解释.最终看来,严肃性解释方案能给出较圆满的回答.该方案认为,如果一个人对于规范性要求及其背后的价值缺乏严肃对待或承诺,就会失去责备的资格.自我苛刻者不会丧失资格,但虚伪责备者会缺失资格.此外,对于虚伪责备者来说,通过自我责备可以恢复责备他人的资格.也正是在自我责备中,规范性价值重新获得主体的认可和追寻.
Abstract
Social relationships pose normative expectations and demands on individuals.When expectations or demands are frustrated,blames,including self-blame and other-blame,are natural responses.Regardless of its variety,blame stings,so the appropriateness of blame is pivotal.This paper addresses this issue by looking at the standing to blame,especially on the non-hypocrisy condition.While discussing hypocritic blame and hypercrisy,we articulate and compare three proposals,i.e.,the moral equality proposal,the moral superiority proposal,and the moral seriousness proposal.It turns out that the moral seriousness proposal provides a satisfactory explanation to both phenomena.On this view,if one makes a hypocritical blame,one lacks serious commitment to the value behind normative requirements,and hence loses the standing to blame.However,via self-blame,one can restore the standing to blame others.
维普
万方数据