Wallace K A
Department of Philosophy, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2009;30(1):55-68. doi: 10.1007/s11017-009-9096-2.
The idea of moral reform requires that morality be more than a description of what people do value, for there has to be some measure against which to assess progress. Otherwise, any change is not reform, but simply difference. Therefore, I discuss moral reform in relation to two prescriptive approaches to common morality, which I distinguish as the foundational and the pragmatic. A foundational approach to common morality (e.g., Bernard Gert's) suggests that there is no reform of morality, but of beliefs, values, customs, and practices so as to conform with an unchanging, foundational morality. If, however, there were revision in its foundation (e.g., in rationality), then reform in morality itself would be possible. On a pragmatic view, on the other hand, common morality is relative to human flourishing, and its justification consists in its effectiveness in promoting flourishing. Morality is dependent on what in fact does promote human flourishing and therefore, could be reformed. However, a pragmatic approach, which appears more open to the possibility of moral reform, would need a more robust account of norms by which reform is measured.
道德改革的理念要求道德不仅仅是对人们实际看重之事的描述,因为必须有某种衡量标准来评估进步。否则,任何改变都不是改革,而仅仅是差异。因此,我将围绕共同道德的两种规范性方法来探讨道德改革,我将它们区分为基础主义方法和实用主义方法。共同道德的基础主义方法(例如伯纳德·格特的方法)认为,不存在道德改革,只有信念、价值观、习俗和实践的改革,以便符合一种不变的、基础性的道德。然而,如果其基础(例如合理性方面)发生了修正,那么道德本身的改革就有可能。另一方面,从实用主义观点来看,共同道德与人类的繁荣相关,其正当性在于它在促进繁荣方面的有效性。道德取决于实际上确实能促进人类繁荣的因素,因此是可以改革的。然而,一种似乎对道德改革可能性更开放的实用主义方法,需要对用以衡量改革的规范有更有力的阐释。