假設性思考與倫理學方法

Hypothetical Thinking and the Methodology of Ethics

10.7015/JEAS.202009_50(3).0001

許漢(Hahn Hsu)

假設性思考 ； 倫理學方法 ； 道德一般主義 ； 道德規範的必然性 ； hypothetical thinking ； methodology in ethics ； moral generalism ； the normative necessity of moral norms

歐美研究

50卷3期（2020 / 09 / 01）

483 - 521

繁體中文

倫理學中使用假設性思考的觀念是：假想一個情況並思考這個情況的道德意義，這會對於我們思考實際情況的道德意義有指引作用。這是倫理學中的假設性思考方法。許多哲學家接受這樣的思考方法。Jonathan Dancy明白反對假設性思考的方法論功能。本文的論述內容包括：一、說明倫理學中的假設性思考作為方法的一般性結構與特性，闡述假設性思考在倫理學論述上方法論的功能；二、討論並反駁Dancy之否定假設性思考在倫理學有方法論功能的主張；三、討論Dancy提出的倫理學經驗主義的後設倫理學主張，尤其是他的反道德一般主義的論述；Dancy的理論面臨一項重要的困難：無法說明道德規範的必然性。

The idea of hypothetical thinking as a method in ethics is in allowing one to imagine a situation and then think about the moral significance of the imagined situation; doing so provides guidance as to how the moral significance of the actual situation can be dealt with. While many philosophers adopt this method, Jonathan Dancy, however, rejects this idea. This paper attempts to explain the methodological structure and features of hypothetical thinking in ethics; argue against Dancy's rejection of hypothetical thinking as a method of ethical discourses and reasoning; and explain some relevant meta- ethical issues and difficulties associated with Dancy's rejection, especially the insurmountable difficulty Dancy faces in explaining the normative necessity of moral norms.

1. 祖旭華, S. H.(2015)。理由整體主義與預設值理由。東吳哲學學報，31，59-91。
   連結：
2. 許漢, H.(2018)。原則、情境與道德規範性。人文及社會科學集刊，30(3)，313-347。
   連結：
3. Dancy, J.(1985).The role of imaginary cases in ethics.Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,66,141-153.
4. Dancy, J.(2004).Ethics without principles.Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
5. Dancy, J.(1993).Moral reasons.Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
6. Daniels, N. (2016). Reflective equilibrium. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/reflective-equilibrium
7. Davidson, D.(1980).Essays on actions and events.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
8. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019). Elgin marbles. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elgin-Marbles
9. Foot, P.(2002).Virtues and vices: And other essays in moral philosophy.
10. Hume, D,Selby-Bigge, L. A.(Ed.)(1975).A treatise of human nature.Oxford, UK:Clarendon.
11. Hume, D,Selby-Bigge, L. A.(Ed.)(1975).Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals.Oxford, UK:Clarendon.
12. Kagan, S.(1998).Normative ethics.Boulder, CO:Westview.
13. McPherson, T. (2015). Supervenience in ethics. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/supervenience-ethics
14. Mill, J. S. (1879). Utilitarianism (7th ed.). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tw/books/about/Utilitarianism.html?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
15. Rawls, J.(1999).A theory of justice.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
16. Sinnott-Armstrong, W.(Ed.)(2008).Moral psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
17. Stuart, M. T.(Ed.),Fehige, Y.(Ed.),Brown, J. R.(Ed.)(2018).The Routledge companion to thought experiments.New York:Routledge.
18. Thomson, J. J.(2008).Turning the trolley.Philosophy and Public Affairs,36(4),359-374.
19. Thomson, J. J.(1971).A defense of abortion.Philosophy and Public Affairs,1(1),47-66.
20. Thomson, J. J.(1985).The trolley problem.The Yale Law Journal,94(6),1395-1415.