Loading...
| Friend's email | |
| Your name | |
| Your email | |
| enter code | |
This page was sent successfuly
- Type of Document: M.Sc. Thesis
- Language: Farsi
- Document No: 54347 (42)
- University: Sharif University of Technology
- Department: Philosophy of Science
- Advisor(s): Azadegan, Ebrahim
- Abstract:
- When we talk about something being normative, it means that there are do’s and don’ts specific to that thing. When we say that language is normative, it means that it is governed by do's and don'ts and we cannot use linguistic structures arbitrarily. In other words, we have justifiable modes of linguistic use that failing to accord with them will distort the meaning of the propositions in the language. In the field of ethics, it may be easier to comprehend the concept of normativity. We all are in touch with ethics and ethical propositions in our daily lives. Beyond this bond, it seems that there is a kind of necessity for us. It seems that because of this necessity, acting in accordance with moral propositions has become an ought for us, and non-adherence to the propositions creates unjustifiable modes of human action. In the face of such propositions, two questions arise for us. The first question is, what are these propositions that we are obligated to do? That is, what is the content of the oughts that we are committed to? This question falls into the category of ethical questions and can be answered by various ethical theories such as Utilitarianism, Deontological ethics, etc., which have different views on the content of our oughts. The second question is deeper than the first: What is the nature and origin of these ethical propositions, oughts, and norms? This question falls into the category of meta-ethical questions. This question cannot be answered by Utilitarianists or Deontological theorists. The question is not, what is my choice? In fact, the question is, where do the necessities of my moral choices come from?This dissertation will address the second question, which seeks the foundations of ethics. Any answer to this question and any element introduced as the basis of morality, it can be asked whether this element is internal or external to the human being? Is what we know as the foundations of ethics subjective or objective? To answer these questions, this study examines the views of three contemporary philosophers, Thomas Nagel, Christine Korsgaard, and John McDowell, on the foundations of ethics. The purpose of this study is to find the differences between McDowell's project and two others after accurately illustrating the views of these people. In this regard, it seems that a Kantian assumption is rooted in the projects of Nagel and Korsgaard, which, if rejected, could completely change the meta-ethics’ path and provide a new picture of the metaphysics of the world. Ultimately, in addition to explaining this metaphysics in detail, this study seeks to clarify the three points of difference between McDowell and the other two people influenced by the Kantian assumption
- Keywords:
- Autonomy ; Nature ; Objective Standpoint ; Reflective Nature ; Second Nature ; Normativity
Digital Object List
-
محتواي کتاب
- view
Bookmark