281,1
Let me stress that; The first question is not; what particular code of values should man accept? The first question is; Does man need values at all-and why?3
282,2
Philosphers who fail to consider this issue usually conclude that ethics has no foundation in fact, that the realm of values is forever separated, by logic, from the realm of facts. Ethics ,they declare, is concerned with what ought to be the case, while science is concerned with what is the case; and the normative recommendations of ethics cannot logically be derived from the descriptive statements of science. Consequently, two theories of ethics have enjoyed considerable vogue in the past few decades; emotivism , according to which ethical judgments are mere emotional expressions and therefore lack cognitive content; and subjectivism, according to which ethical judgments have meaning, but this meaning is nothing more than a report of one's personal, subjective preference. Both of these theories and their offshoots upholds the radical cleavage between facts and values, and they have elevated the so-called "is-ought dichotomy' to the status of a modern dogma.
282,3
Ethics, according to Rand and other philosophers within the general trend of Aristotelianism, is a normative science; and it is instructive to note that many sciences other than ethics are concerned with ought-judgments. Medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that must be taken in order to preserve health. A doctor prescribes what ought to be done, but this prescription, to be valid, must be based on objective knowledge, such as the facts of human nature discovered through chemistry, physiology, anatomy and so forth. Architecture is another normative science; an architect learns what ought to be done in the course of constructing a building; and, as with medicine, his ought-judgments must be based on facts.
281,
There is little difficulty in understanding the relationship between "is" and "ought" as displayed in normative sciences. Man has the capacity for choice, and whenever a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, and ought-judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved. A doctor ought to do x, if he wants to cure his patient. An architect ought to do x, if he wants his building to stand. Even the purely describe sciences, such as physics and astronomy-which have no direct connection with human behavior-require ought-judgments in order to specify correct scientific procedures. A physicist ought to do x, if he wants his experiment to yield results.
Let me stress that; The first question is not; what particular code of values should man accept? The first question is; Does man need values at all-and why?3
282,2
Philosphers who fail to consider this issue usually conclude that ethics has no foundation in fact, that the realm of values is forever separated, by logic, from the realm of facts. Ethics ,they declare, is concerned with what ought to be the case, while science is concerned with what is the case; and the normative recommendations of ethics cannot logically be derived from the descriptive statements of science. Consequently, two theories of ethics have enjoyed considerable vogue in the past few decades; emotivism , according to which ethical judgments are mere emotional expressions and therefore lack cognitive content; and subjectivism, according to which ethical judgments have meaning, but this meaning is nothing more than a report of one's personal, subjective preference. Both of these theories and their offshoots upholds the radical cleavage between facts and values, and they have elevated the so-called "is-ought dichotomy' to the status of a modern dogma.
282,3
Ethics, according to Rand and other philosophers within the general trend of Aristotelianism, is a normative science; and it is instructive to note that many sciences other than ethics are concerned with ought-judgments. Medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that must be taken in order to preserve health. A doctor prescribes what ought to be done, but this prescription, to be valid, must be based on objective knowledge, such as the facts of human nature discovered through chemistry, physiology, anatomy and so forth. Architecture is another normative science; an architect learns what ought to be done in the course of constructing a building; and, as with medicine, his ought-judgments must be based on facts.
281,
There is little difficulty in understanding the relationship between "is" and "ought" as displayed in normative sciences. Man has the capacity for choice, and whenever a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, and ought-judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved. A doctor ought to do x, if he wants to cure his patient. An architect ought to do x, if he wants his building to stand. Even the purely describe sciences, such as physics and astronomy-which have no direct connection with human behavior-require ought-judgments in order to specify correct scientific procedures. A physicist ought to do x, if he wants his experiment to yield results.
281
دعني أشدّد ذلك؛ ليس السؤال الأول ؛ ما الرمز المعيّن من القيم يجب أن يقبله الانسان ؟ يكون السوال الاول ؛ هل يحتاج الرجل إلى قيم علي اية حال ، ولماذا ؟3
282,2
الفلاسفة الذين فشكلوا أن يعتبروا هذه القضية عادة يستنتجون بأنّ الأخلاق ليس لها في الحقيقة أساس، بأن عالم القيم يعتبر منفصلا إلى الأبد، بسبب المنطق، من عالم الحقائق. الأخلاق، يعلنون، تهتم بما يجب أن تكون الحالة، بينما يهتم العلم بماذا تكون الحالة؛ والتوصيات المعيارية للأخلاق لا تستطيع أن تكون مشتقّة منطقيا من البيانات الوصفية للعلم. ولذلك، إثنان من نظريات الأخلاق تمتّعا بالرواج الكبير في العقود القليلة الماضية؛ لانفعالية، طبقا لأيّ أحكام أخلاقية تعتبر مجرد تعابير عاطفية وبالتالي تفتقر إلى المحتوى الإدراكيا؛ واعتبارات ذاتية، طبقا بأن الاحكام أخلاقية لها معنى، لكن هذا المعنى لا شيء أكثر من تقرير الشخصي ، وتفضيله ذاتية . كلتا هذه النظريات وفروعهم يؤيّدان الشقّ الجذري بين الحقائق والقيم، وهم رفعوا " يدعي إنقسام' إلى منزلة عقيدة معاصرة.
282,3
الأخلاق، طبقا لراند والفلاسفة الآخرون ضمن إتجاه عام من مبدء ارسطو ، يعتبر علم معياري؛ ويكون مفيدا للملاحظة بأن العديد من العلوم ما عدا الأخلاق تهتم بأحكام-حق .
. الطبّ، على سبيل المثال، يصف تلك الأعمال التي يجب أن تؤخذ في الطلب لإبقاء الصحة. يصف الطبيب ما يلزم عمله ، لكن هذا الوصف ، لكي يكون معتبرا ، يجب أن يكون مستندا على المعرفة الموضوعية، مثل حقائق الطبيعة البشرية إكتشفت من خلال الكيمياء، علم وظائف ألاعضاء، علم التشريح وهلم جرا. تعتبر الهندسة المعمارية علم معياري آخر؛ يتعلّم المصمّم ما يلزم عليه عمله أثناء انشاء البناية؛ وكما هو الحال مع الطبّ، يجب أن يبني أحكام-حق على الحقائق.
281,
هناك القليل من الصعوبة في فهم العلاقة بين "يكون " IS" (يلزم) - حق-(اعتبار) ought" كما عرضت في العلوم المعيارية. لدي الرجل القدرة للإختيار، وحينما يطبق مبدأ نظري إلى مجال العمل الإنساني، يصبح ضروريا لوصف طريقة العمل، وحكم-الحق، إذا اريد انجاز الهدف. يلزم علي الطبيب عمل x، إذا اراد معالجة مريضه. يلزم علي المصمّم عمل x، إذا اراد انشاء بنايته . حتى العلوم الوصفية تماما، مثل الفيزياء وعلم الفلك - و ليس لهما إتّصال مباشر بالسلوك الإنساني -يتطلّب أحكام-حق لكي تحدّد إجراءات علمية صحيحة. يلزم علي الفيزياوي أن يعمل x، إذا اراد تجربته اعطاء النتائج.
No comments:
Post a Comment