|
課程名稱 |
專題研究：康德式道德建構論
Independent Study: Kantian Moral Constructivism |
|
開課學期 |
111-1 |
|
授課對象 |
文學院 哲學研究所 |
|
授課教師 |
王榮麟 |
|
課號 |
Phl7896 |
|
課程識別碼 |
124 M6250 |
|
班次 |
|
|
學分 |
1.0 |
|
全/半年 |
半年 |
|
必/選修 |
選修 |
|
上課時間 |
星期五A(18:25~19:15) |
|
上課地點 |
哲研討室二 |
|
備註 |
本課程中文授課,使用英文教科書。請先徵得授課教師及申請者同意後，始得選課。
限碩士班以上 且 限本系所學生(含輔系、雙修生)
總人數上限：3人 |
|
|
|
|
課程簡介影片 |
|
|
核心能力關聯 |
核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖 |
|
課程大綱
|
|
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
|
|
課程概述 |
康德式道德建構論面臨了許多挑戰，包括：康德自己是道德建構論者，還是道德實在論者？康德式道德建構論能否徹底擺脫某些實在論的假定？它是個後設倫理學上的獨特立場嗎？此外，康德主義者們訴諸所謂的「構成論」以證立規範性，真的能成功？他們會不會碰到哪些新的麻煩？本課程聚焦於檢視康德式道德建構論能否有說服力地回應這些至關緊要的問題。
Kantian moral constructivism faces a great many challenges, including: is Kant himself a moral constructivist or a moral realist? Can Kantian moral constructivism entirely escape certain realistic assumptions? Whether it is a distinct position in metaethics? Can normativity be successfully justified by appealing to the so-called “constitutivism”? Would new difficulties arise from such approach? This course will focus on examining whether Kantian moral constructivism can answer these pressing questions. |
|
課程目標 |
把握康德式道德建構論的相關理論爭議，並嘗試解決之。
Understand theoretical disputes regarding Kantian moral constructivism and attempt to solve them. |
|
課程要求 |
討論每週的指定閱讀、撰寫期末報告。 |
|
預期每週課後學習時數 |
|
|
Office Hours |
|
|
指定閱讀 |
待補 |
|
參考書目 |
1. Bagnoli, C. (2013) “Constructivism about Practical Knowledge”, In C. Bagnoli (Ed.), Constructivism in Ethics (pp. 153-182). Cambridge University Press.
2. Copp, D. (2013). “Is Constructivism an Alternative to Moral Realism?”, In C. Bagnoli (Ed.), Constructivism in Ethics (pp. 108-132). Cambridge University Press.
3. Enoch, D. (2006). “Agency, Shmagency: Why Normativity Won’t Come from What is Constitution of Agency”, Philosophical Review, 115(2), 169-198.
4. Enoch, D. (2011). “Shmagency Revisited”, In M. S. Brady (Ed.), New Waves in Metaethics (pp. 208-233). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
5. Engstrom, S. (2013). “Constructivism and Practical Knowledge”, In C. Bagnoli (Ed.), Constructivism in Ethics (pp. 133-152). Cambridge University Press.
6. Ferrero, L. (2010). “Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency”, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 4, 303-333.
7. Ferrero, L. (2018). “Inescapability Revisited”, Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia, 41(4), 113-158.
8. Fitzpatrick, W. J. (2005). “The Practical Turn in Ethical Theory: Korsgaard’s Constructivism, Realism and the Nature of Normativity”, Ethics, 115(4), 651-691.
9. Fitzpatrick, W. J. (2013). “How Not to be An Ethical Constructivist: A Critique of Korsgaard’s Neo-Kantian Constitutivism”, In C. Bagnoli (Ed.), Constructivism in Ethics (pp. 41-62). Cambridge University Press.
10. Galvin, R. (2011). “Rounding Up the Usual Suspects: Varieties of Kantian Constructivism in Ethics”, Philosophical Quarterly, 61(242), 16-36.
11. Hussain, N. J. Z. & Shah, N. (2013). “Meta-ethics and its Discontents: A Case Study of Korsgaard”, In C. Bagnoli (Ed.), Constructivism in Ethics (pp. 82-107). Cambridge University Press.
12. Korsgaard, C. (2021). “Valuing Our Humanity”, In R. Dean & O. Sensen (Ed.) Respect: Philosophical Essays (pp. 171-191). Oxford University Press.
13. Lavin, D. (2004). “Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error”, Ethics, 114(3), 424-457.
14. Stern, R. (2013). “Moral Skepticism, Constructivism, and the Value of Humanity”, In C. Bagnoli (Ed.), Constructivism in Ethics (pp.22-40). Cambridge University Press.
15. Silverstein, M. (2015). “The Shmagency Question”, Philosophical Studies, 172(5), 1127-1142.
16. Tiffany, E. (2012). “Why Be an Agent?”, Australasia Journal of Philosophy, 90(2), 223-233.
17. Ridge, M. (2012). “Kantian Constructivism: Something Old, Something New”, in J. Lenman & Y. Shemmer (Ed.), Constructivism in Practical Philosophy (pp. 138-58). Oxford University Press. |
|
評量方式
(僅供參考) |
|
|