Glackin Shane Nicholas
Department of Philosophy, Leeds University, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2008 Sep;39(3):292-7. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.06.003. Epub 2008 Aug 15.
Can biological facts explain human morality? Aristotelian 'virtue' ethics has traditionally assumed so. In recent years Alasdair MacIntyre has reintroduced a form of Aristotle's 'metaphysical biology' into his ethics. He argues that the ethological study of dependence and rationality in other species--dolphins in particular--sheds light on how those same traits in the typical lives of humans give rise to the moral virtues. However, some goal-oriented dolphin behaviour appears both dependent and rational in the precise manner which impresses MacIntyre, yet anything but ethically 'virtuous'. More damningly, dolphin ethologists consistently refuse to evaluate such behaviour in the manner MacIntyre claims is appropriate to moral judgement. In light of this, I argue that virtues--insofar as they name a biological or ethological category--do not name a morally significant one.
生物学事实能解释人类的道德吗?亚里士多德式的“美德”伦理学传统上一直这样认为。近年来,阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔将亚里士多德的“形而上学生物学”的一种形式重新引入他的伦理学中。他认为,对其他物种,尤其是海豚的依赖和理性的行为学研究,有助于揭示人类典型生活中的这些相同特征是如何产生道德美德的。然而,一些以目标为导向的海豚行为,以一种给麦金太尔留下深刻印象的精确方式,显得既具有依赖性又具有理性,但却绝不是道德上的“美德”。更糟糕的是,海豚行为学家一直拒绝以麦金太尔声称适合道德判断的方式来评估这种行为。有鉴于此,我认为,就美德——只要它们指的是一个生物学或行为学范畴而言——并不是一个具有道德重要性的范畴。