Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)

The paper concerns the possibility of naturalistic ethics. It seems that ethics properly understood must be described as a discipline necessarily focused on evaluation of human action, analyzed in the light of its moral value. Such evaluation, in turn, presupposes an agent who is responsible for his...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Artur Szutta
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego 2010-12-01
Series:Analiza i Egzystencja
Subjects:
Online Access:http://usfiles.us.szc.pl/pliki/plik_1321623290.pdf
id doaj-039f787aafda4415a44102c051cdd0c9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-039f787aafda4415a44102c051cdd0c92020-11-24T21:16:06ZdeuWydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu SzczecińskiegoAnaliza i Egzystencja 1734-99232010-12-01126990Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)Artur SzuttaThe paper concerns the possibility of naturalistic ethics. It seems that ethics properly understood must be described as a discipline necessarily focused on evaluation of human action, analyzed in the light of its moral value. Such evaluation, in turn, presupposes an agent who is responsible for his or her actions. The possibility of so understood agent seems not to be possible without agent’s being capable of self-determination in action. According to the naturalistic thesis, however, such freedom is impossible; all human action is causally determined, with no place for ‘sui generis’ causation, and such a thesis must be interpreted as excluding the possibility of responsibility for one’s action. If so, then the concept of naturalistic ethics seems contradictory. Nonetheless, some authors (ex. H. Frankfurt and D. Dennett) try to show that the concept of moral responsibility (so crucial to ethics) does not necessarily entail freedom understood as ‘sui generis’ causation, and therefore it is compatible with determinism. In this paper I analyze their argumentation with the purpose to assess its conclusiveness. The conclusion I reach is that responsibility postulated by Frankfurt or Dennett is to be understood as merely epiphenomenal, as such it must be treated more like an illusion than a real property of human beings. Therefore, the thesis that naturalistic ethics is a contradictory concept seems to maintain its soundness.http://usfiles.us.szc.pl/pliki/plik_1321623290.pdfdeterminismethicsnaturalismresponsibilityfree will
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Artur Szutta
spellingShingle Artur Szutta
Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)
Analiza i Egzystencja
determinism
ethics
naturalism
responsibility
free will
author_facet Artur Szutta
author_sort Artur Szutta
title Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)
title_short Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)
title_full Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)
title_fullStr Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)
title_full_unstemmed Czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (Is Naturalistic Ethics Possible?)
title_sort czy naturalistyczna etyka jest możliwa? (is naturalistic ethics possible?)
publisher Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego
series Analiza i Egzystencja
issn 1734-9923
publishDate 2010-12-01
description The paper concerns the possibility of naturalistic ethics. It seems that ethics properly understood must be described as a discipline necessarily focused on evaluation of human action, analyzed in the light of its moral value. Such evaluation, in turn, presupposes an agent who is responsible for his or her actions. The possibility of so understood agent seems not to be possible without agent’s being capable of self-determination in action. According to the naturalistic thesis, however, such freedom is impossible; all human action is causally determined, with no place for ‘sui generis’ causation, and such a thesis must be interpreted as excluding the possibility of responsibility for one’s action. If so, then the concept of naturalistic ethics seems contradictory. Nonetheless, some authors (ex. H. Frankfurt and D. Dennett) try to show that the concept of moral responsibility (so crucial to ethics) does not necessarily entail freedom understood as ‘sui generis’ causation, and therefore it is compatible with determinism. In this paper I analyze their argumentation with the purpose to assess its conclusiveness. The conclusion I reach is that responsibility postulated by Frankfurt or Dennett is to be understood as merely epiphenomenal, as such it must be treated more like an illusion than a real property of human beings. Therefore, the thesis that naturalistic ethics is a contradictory concept seems to maintain its soundness.
topic determinism
ethics
naturalism
responsibility
free will
url http://usfiles.us.szc.pl/pliki/plik_1321623290.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT arturszutta czynaturalistycznaetykajestmozliwaisnaturalisticethicspossible
_version_ 1726017113677627392