scholarly journals 導言

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Jonathan CHAN
Keyword(s):  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Norman Daniels ◽  
Digital Commons

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese生命倫理學深受英美的道德哲學（尤其是自由主義）的影響，這是無庸置疑的事實。大部分當代生命倫理學的著作都是從自由主義的道德前提出發來論証關於生命倫理課題的結論。然而必須提出的問題是，從事生命倫理學的探究是否必須從自由主義的道德前提出發？Norman Daniels 等生命倫理學家在其近作From Chance to Choice: Genetics & Justice 一書的一篇附錄裏指出，自由主義的道德架構是目前得到最佳表述和辯護的道德思想架構，其言下之意是理所當然地我們應從此一架構的道德前提出發從事生命倫理學的探究。然而， 倘若我們接受著名道德哲學家Alasdair Macintyre 對道德探究的看法，我們就不會同意Daniels 等人的看法。Macintyre 認為自由主義只是眾多的道德傳統之一，他在Whose Justice? Which Rationality?一書里指出並沒有跨越不同傳統的理性標準可用以支持自由主義具有普遍的合理性。相反，他認為不同傳統本身就其備了它的合理性。DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 19 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals 德性倫理與醫療專業精神

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-89
Author(s):  
Jonathan CHAN
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare System ◽  
Professional Ethics ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Medical Professional ◽  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Medical Professionalism ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
Moral Aspect

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.中國的醫療制度存在着很多問題。很多人歸究於中國政府錯誤地將醫療推向缺乏足夠監管的市場。本文認為，中國的醫療制度存在着很多問題固然是由於缺乏足夠的市場監管。但是，亦涉及到醫療行業人員的專業失德的問題。本文即旨在探討醫療行業人員的“醫德”問題。本文對比兩種不同的“醫德”觀，它們分別為規則式的醫德觀和以德性為本的醫德觀。本文認為規則式的醫德觀會遇到很多困難，而以德性為本的醫德觀卻較能克服有關困難。China faces many healthcare problems. Many people, such as experts Prof. William Hsiao and Li Ling, attribute these problems to the unregulated marketization of the country’s healthcare system. This paper argues that although the unregulated marketization of its healthcare system contributes to many of China’s healthcare problems, a lack of professionalism is also an important factor. Furthermore, it argues that the Chinese medical profession requires both regulation and professionalism. It focuses on the moral aspect of medical professionalism (i.e., medical professional ethics) by discussing the rule- and virtue-based approaches to ethics. Alasdair MacIntyre initially observed the differences between these two approaches in his book, After Virtue. This paper discusses how the two approaches can be used to flesh out rule- and virtue-based medical professional ethics. It argues that rule-based medical professional ethics encounter severe difficulties from which virtue-based medical professional ethics are immune, and that there is therefore an urgent need to research virtue-based medical professional ethics.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 358 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

An Ethical Postlude

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan D. Teubner
Keyword(s):  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Ethical Reflection ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
Critical Engagement

‘An Ethical Postlude’ returns to reflect directly on an understanding of tradition that frames how Boethius and Benedict relate to Augustine vis-à-vis the theme of prayer. This final chapter reflects on the kinematics of tradition, that is, on the actual motions qua motions of the act of tradition. This chapter engages the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Jeffrey Stout, both of whom have offered challenges to religious ethicists to broaden their historical horizons. Through critical engagement with MacIntyre and Stout, this chapter presents a case for an historical approach to Christian existence which can still give rise to meaningful moral and ethical reflection without having to accept (consciously or unconsciously) a Hegelian metaphysics of history.

Faith and Reason: Reflections on MacIntyre's ‘Tradition-constituted Enquiry’

1991 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-267
Author(s):  
Ian Markham
Keyword(s):  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Modern Problem ◽  
Faith And Reason

The problem at the heart of the faith/reason relationship can be set out as follows. Faith implies total commitment whilst reason requires a certain detachment. One cannot be totally committed yet rationally detached at the same time. Therefore faith and reason are two mutually exclusive approaches to religion. Alasdair MacIntyre in Whose Justice? Which Rationality? has offered a very interesting perspective on this problem. He has argued, albeit indirectly, that this faith/reason question is a modern problem generated by a certain set of liberal and relativist presuppositions. This paper will summarize Maclntyre's contribution to the discussion, and then point to some of the inadequacies of his account. I will be arguing that commitment to a tradition is largely justified by internal explanations for disagreement. Faith seems to need an intolerant explanation for different traditions. Therefore, MacIntyre is, in fact, handling liberalized forms of the traditions. By tackling MacIntyre's work from the faith/reason angle, I hope to show certain more fundamental problems with his work.

The Privatization of Good: An Inaugural Lecture

1990 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alasdair MacIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Continuing Education ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Christian Ethics ◽  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Inaugural Address ◽  
Inaugural Lecture ◽  
University Of Notre Dame ◽  
The University

Alasdair MacIntyre was installed in 1989 as the first occupant of the McMahon/Hank Chair in Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. On April 18, 1990, he delivered his inaugural lecture, “The Privatization of Good,” before a large and appreciative audience in Notre Dame's Center for Continuing Education. He invited three Notre Dame colleagues to comment on his presentation: Donald P. Kommers, Professor of Law and Government, and Editor of The Review of Politics; William David Solomon, Associate Professor of Philosophy; and Richard McCormick, S.J., John A. O'Brien Professor of Christian Ethics. The following pages include the inaugural address, the remarks of two of the three commentators, and Professor Maclntyre's response. The editors wish to thank Professor MacIntyre for his cooperation in publishing his inaugural address.

Desacuerdos profundos, elección de criterios y exigencia de coherencia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Julio Robledo Bordas
Keyword(s):  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Ad Hominem

Este trabajo trata de ahondar en la noción de desacuerdo profundo propuesta por Robert Fogelin, comparando la idea de Fogelin de que los desacuerdos profundos emergen del choque entre dos marcos o trasfondos conceptuales (e incluso vitales) con el concepto kuhniano de inconmensurabilidad entre paradigmas. A su vez, argumento que ciertos elementos de dichos trasfondos no son enteramente revisables por medios puramente lógicos (dándole la razón a Fogelin) y dependen de una elección voluntaria fundamental entre distintos criterios sobre los que hacer pivotar la propia posición (siguiendo a Alasdair MacIntyre). Por último, contra Fogelin, propongo un método de resolución racional (parcial) de los desacuerdos profundos basado en la argumentación ad hominem en el sentido de Henry Johnstone y en la argumentación por analogía, que llamo «exigencia de coherencia».

The Tragedy of the Digital Commons

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gian Maria Greco ◽  
Luciano Floridi
Keyword(s):  
Digital Commons
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document