We present some equivalent conditions for a quasivariety of structures to be generated by a single structure. The first such condition, called the embedding property was found by A.I. Mal′tsev in [6]. It says that if are nontrivial, then there exists such that A and B are embeddable into C . One of our equivalent conditions states that the set of quasi-identities valid in is closed under a certain Gentzen type rule which is due to J. Łoś and R. Suszko (...) [5]. (shrink)
A partir de los textos originales, especialmente el Ṛgveda, se someten a examen los conceptos de mal, culpa y pecado en la ideología védica y brahmánica. Para el pensamiento védico eran pecaminosas las infracciones contra el ṛtá, en concreto drúh: mentira, traición, faltar a la palabra dada. La ideología védica presenta rasgos de las «culturas de la vergüenza», en las que una mala acción no crea sentimientos de culpa personal, arrepentimiento o contrición, sino en primer lugar, temor a la pérdida (...) de la estimación pública. Cuando se pide a los dioses quedar libre de las ataduras que son la consecuencia esperada de las malas acciones, no se hace distinción en los textos entre una mala acción intencionada, un error casual o inconsciente, ni entre pecados propios o ajenos, ya que también las consecuencias de un pecado ajeno, en forma de polución, pueden contaminar a terceros. El análisis de avadyá «vergüenza» se lleva a cabo en textos acerca del nacimiento de Indra (RV 4.18) y la muerte de Namuci (MS 4.3.4). (shrink)
Such thinkers as John Stuart Mill, Gerald Dworkin, and Richard Doerflinger have appealed to the value of freedom to explain both what is wrong with slavery and what is wrong with selling oneself into slavery. Practical ethicists, including Dworkin and Doerflinger, sometimes use selling oneself into slavery in analogies intended to illustrate justifiable forms of paternalism. I argue that these thinkers have misunderstood the moral problem with slavery. Instead of being a central value in itself, I argue that freedom is (...) a means of serving the real value of autonomy. Moreover, I argue that autonomy is ambiguous. In cases of conflict, autonomous choice, here called "shallow autonomy", can justifiably be limited to serve "deep autonomy", or self-rule. I use these notions to give a better understanding of the problem with selling oneself into slavery, and argue that the work of Dworkin has to be seriously revised, and Doerflinger's position has to be given up altogether.\\\ John Stuart Mill, Gerald Dworkin y Richard Doerflinger han recurrido al valor de la libertad para explicar tanto porque está mal moralmente la esclavitud como venderse uno mismo como esclavo. Los teóricos de la ética práctica, incluidos Dworkin y Doerflinger, a veces utilizan el caso de venderse uno mismo como esclavo en analogias que pretenden ilustrar formas justificables de paternalismo. Sostengo que estos pensadores han malinterpretado el problema moral con la esclavitud. Argumento que en lugar de ser un valor fundamental en si mismo, la libertad es un medio para el valor real de la autonomia. Arguyo, por otra parte, que la autónomia es ambigua. En casos de conflicto, la elección autonóma, denominada aqui "autonomia superficial", puede justificadamente estar limitada a servir a la "autonomia profunda", o autogobierno. Utilizo estas nociones para ofrecer una mejor interpretatión del problema moral con venderse uno mismo como esclavo, y sostengo que la obra de Dworkin se debe revisar con seriedad, y que se debe abandonar por completo la postura de Doerflinger. (shrink)
Thomas Aquinas' treatment of Moses Maimonides' via negativa has been frequently called into question. In particular, some contemporary Maimonideans have argued that Aquinas grossly misunderstands Maimonides. Other scholars argue that Maimonides' defense of his own position provides insuperable challenges to alternative ways of naming God, despite the problems Aquinas raised with the via negativa. In this article, the author attends to Aquinas' two objections to Maimonides in Summa theologiae I.13.2 in order to see if these objections are valid and further, (...) to see if Aquinas mischaracterizes Maimonides in this passage, as some have alleged. Before addressing the question of whether or not Aquinas understood Maimonides, the author offers also a brief introduction to the historical debate over religious language in the Middle Ages. /// O tratamento da via negativa de Moisés Maimónides por S. Tomás de Aquino tem sido frequentemente posta em questão. De um modo particular, os seguidores contemporâneos de Maimónides têm argumentado que S. Tomás compreendeu mal o pensador Judeu. Outros especialistas argumentam que a defesa de Maimónides da sua própria posição fornece desafios insuperáveis às maneiras alternativas de nomear Deus apesar das dificuldades identificadas por S. Tomás com a via negativa. Neste artigo, a autora ocupa-se sobretudo de duas objecções de S. Tomás de Aquino a Maimónides na Summa theologiae Ia.13.2, a fim de verificar a validade destas objecções e também para ver se S. Tomás não terá compreendido mal Maimónides nesta passagem, tal como alguns têm alegado. Antes de tratar a questão de saber se sim ou não S. Tomás compreendeu correctamente a Maimónides, a autora oferece uma breve introdução ao debate histórico sobre a linguagem religiosa na Idade Média. (shrink)
Schelling fait remarquer que la théorie kantienne du mal radical repose fondamentalement sur un acte de liberté, ce qui n’est pas le cas chez Fichte. Dans cet article, nous voulons examiner le bien-fondé de la thèse de Schelling selon laquelle les conceptions kantienne et fichtéenne du mal moral présentent d’importantes divergences. Pour I’essentiel, en effet, la position de Fichte s’éloigne de celle de Kanten ce qu’elle réhabilite une certaine forme d’humanisme en réduisant le mal à l’inertie de l’être raisonnable fini (...) et à l’ignorance dans laquelle il a tendance à se maintenir. Contrairement à Kant donc, jamais Fichte ne pourra admettre que la pleine conscience de la loi morale laisse encore. ouverte la possibilité de choisir délibérément le mal.Shelling contends that Kant’s theory of radical evil, unlike Fichte’s, is fundamentally based on liberty. In this article, we wish to examine the relevance of Schelling’s thesis according to which the Kantian and Fichtean conceptions of moral evil bear important differences. Essentially, in deed, Fichte’s position differs from that of Kant in that it restores a certain form of humanism by reducing evil to the inertia of a finite rational being and to the ignorance in which it tends to persist. Thus, unlike Kant, Fichte could never admit that full consciousness of the moral law allows the possibility to choose evil deliberately. (shrink)
Recent work in moral theory includes an intriguing new argument that the vagueness of moral properties, together with two well-known and well-received metaethical principles, entails the incredible conclusion that it is impossible to be moral. I show that the argument equivocates between “it is true that A and B are morally indistinguishable” and “it is not false that A and B are morally indistinguishable.” As expected the argument is interesting but unsound. It is therefore not impossible to be moral.Les travaux (...) récents en théorie morale comprennent un nouvel argument intrigant voulant que le caractère vague des propriétés morales, joint à deux principes métaéthiques bien connus et généralement admis, entraîne une conclusion incroyable, soit qu’il est impossible d’être moral. Je montre que cet argument entretient l’équivoque entre «il est vrai que A et B sont moralement impossibles à distinguer» et «il n’est pas faux que A et B soient moralement impossibles à distinguer». Comme on s’y attendait, l’argument est intéressant mais mal fondé. Il n’est donc pas impossible d’être moral. (shrink)
I propose and motivate a new account of fundamental physical laws, the Measurability Account of Laws (MAL). This account has a distinctive logical form, in that it takes the primary nomological concept to be that of a law relative to a given theory, and defines a law simpliciter as a law relative to some true theory. What makes a proposition a law relative to a theory is that it plays an indispensable role in demonstrating that some quantity posited by that (...) theory is measurable. In Section 1, I motivate the project of seeking a philosophical account of fundamental physical laws, as opposed to laws of nature in general. In Section 2, I motivate seeking an account with the distinctive logical form of the MAL. In Section 3, I present the MAL and illustrate the way it works by applying it to a simple example. (shrink)
ABSTRACT: This article defends two theses: that a mental state is conscious if and only if it has phenomenal character, i.e., if and only if there is something it is like for the subject to be in that state, and that all state consciousness involves selfconsciousness, in the sense that a mental state is conscious if and only if its possessor is, in some suitable way, conscious of being in it. Though neither of these theses is novel, there is a (...) dearth of direct arguments for them in the scholarly literature and the relationship between them has so far gone underrecognized. This article attempts to remedy this lack, advancing the claim that if all conscious states have phenomenal character, then all state consciousness involves self-consciousness.RÉSUMÉ: Cet article soutient deux thèses : un état mental est conscient, si et seulement si il a un caractère phénoménal, c’est-à-dire si et seulement si, pour le sujet, être dans cet état mental s’apparente à quelque chose; et chaque conscience d’état implique la conscience de soi: un état mental est conscient, si et seulement si son possesseur est, de manière satisfaisante, conscient d’en faire l’expérience. Quoique ces deux thèses ne soient pas novatrices, la littérature secondaire est mal dotée en termes d’arguments en leur faveur et la relation qu’elles entretiennent a été jusqu’ici insuffisamment appréciée. Cet article tente de combler ce vide, en soutenant que si tous les états conscients ont un caractère phénoménal, alors toute conscience d’état implique la conscience de soi. (shrink)
Van Fraassen's argument from the "bad lot" challenges realist interpretations of inference to the best explanation (IBE). In this paper I begin by discussing the replies suggested by S. Psillos and P. Lipton. I do not find them convincing. However, I think that van Fraassen's argument is flawed. First of all, it is a non sequitur. Secondly, I think that the real target for the scientific realist is the underlying assumption that epistemic justification results from a comparative assessment among rival (...) explanations. I argue that justification for believing an explanation does not depend on comparison, but on the extent that criteria of explanatory goodness are fulfilled. Therefore, in addition to offering more or less intuitive IBE-tailored arguments, realists fond of IBE should have to analyze the implicit standards of explanatory goodness. In the last section I distinguish between contextual and transcontextual criteria concerning explanatory goodness. Concerning the latter, I focus on consilience, simplicity, analogy and conservatism. \\\ Un argumento empleado por van Fraassen contra las interpretaciones realistas de la inferencia a la mejor explicación es el argumento "del mal lote". El articulo comienza discutiendo las réplicas de S. Psillos y P. Lipton. Aunque ninguna me parece convincente, pienso que el argumento de van Fraassen no resiste un examen cuidadoso. En primer lugar, la conclusión antirrealista que él extrae es un non sequitur. Además, el argumento parte de un supuesto muy cuestionable, a saber, que la justificación de una explicacion es resultado de una comparacion con sus rivales. En mi opinion, la justificación no depende de esto, sino del grado en que la explicacion satisface ciertos criterios de bondad explicativa, independientemente de que haya o no comparación. En consecuencia, la socorrida estrategia de defender el realismo cientifico basándose en la IBE pasa necesariamente por un análisis de los criterios implicitos de bondad explicativa. Mi propuesta es distinguir entre criterios contextuales y transcontextuales. En los últimos incluyo: la diversidad de la evidencia explicada, la simplicidad, la analogia y el conservadurismo. (shrink)
Dans cet article, je tente de montrer que le principe d’impartialité et de généralisation qui définit le point de vue moral s’accommode mal de la distinction entre discours moral et discours éthique proposée par Habermas. Alors que celuici relie le jugement moral à un processus de décontextualisation qui affranchit le discours de ses réferences symboliques immédiates, je suggère plutôt, à la suite d’A. Wellmer, d’y voir une règle d’impartialité immanente aux situations d’action. Dans cette foulée, je propose un examen critique (...) du Principe “U” qui gît au coeur de la Diskursethik mais aussi de la théorie du consensus sur laquelle s’appuie ce principe, tout en reconnaissant par ailleurs l’importance de la philosophie de Habermas pour la théorie morale contemporaine. A la toute fin, j’aborde la question de l’enracinement du moral point of view dans la forme de vie moderne, en suggérant que sa conception de I’impartialité est peut-être elle-même liée à une certaine représentation du bien qui lui est propre. Faut-il alors maintenir la séparation étanche qu’etablir Habermas entre discours moral et discours éthique? Rien n’est moin sûr.I attempt to show that the principle of impartiality and generalization that defines the moral point of view is irreconcilable with Habermas’s distinction between moral and ethical discourse. While Habermas imposes a process of decontextualization upon moral judgment, which frees discourse from its immediate symbolic references, I suggest, following A. Wellmer, that an impartiality rule be extracted from them. Similarly, I undertake a critical analysis of the “U” principle at the heart of the Diskursethik and the underlying consensus theory, while recognizing the importance of Habermas’s philosophy for contemporary moral theory. Finally, I address the question of the entrenchment of the moral point of view in the modern life form. I suggest that his concept of impartiality is perhaps linked to a certain representation of the good peculiar to him. Should the impermeable division established by Habermas between moral and ethical discourse be maintained? Nothing is less certain. (shrink)
This paper takes up Richard Kearney's work The God Who May Be, specifically in the context of postmodern debates concerning epistemological claims regarding the other. Kearney's hermeneutics of religion attempts to forge a middle path between ontotheological philosophies of religion and various quasi-religious manifestations of postmodernism; however, my main concern is to address certain points of disagreement between Kearney and proponents of a deconstructive "religion without religion" principally Jacques Derrida and John D. Caputo. The main issue at stake is just (...) how other God is, which is itself a specific case of a broader question concerning otherness per se. Caputo et al. claim that religious assertions about God are fundamentally undecidable, which means that they are "infinitely translatable" and "substitutable," that we can never tell what is a translation of what, but the ultimate point is that it "does not matter" The undecidable nature of religious claims includes the very claim that religion is a discourse about God, which is why deconstructive religion without religion is a messianic hope for "the impossible" devoid of any content. Kearney objects that such radical undecidability leaves us lost in the desert ofkhora with no way to distinguish, even imperfectly and provisionally, between God and Satan, good and evil, the widow and the terrorist. In this paper I claim that Kearney succeeds in finding this via tertia between the Scylla of dogmatism and the Charybdis of complete indeterminacy by thinking God in two important ways: as persona-prosopon (which avoids confusing God with khora or monstrosity) and as posse (which keeps us from dogmatism). /// O presente artigo toma em particular consideração a obra de Richard Kearney The God Who May Be, especificamente no contexto dos debates pós-modernos acerca do estatuto epistemológico da alteridade. A abordagem hermeneutica que Kearney faz da religião procura estabelecer um caminho médio entre as filosofias ontoteológicas da religião e várias manifestações quase-religiosas do pós-modernismo. O autor do artigo, contudo, pretende estabelecer alguns pontos de desacordo entre Kearney e os defensores da "religião sem religião" típica do movimento da desconstrução, tendo em vista, sobretudo, as aportações de Jacques Derrida e de John D. Caputo. Em questão está especificamente a alteridade de Deus, ou seja, um caso específico da questão mais alargada acerca da alteridade em si mesma. Caputo, por exemplo, defende que as asserções religiosas sobre Deus são fundamentalmente indecidíveis, o que significa que elas são "infinitamente traduzíveis "e "substituíveis ", enfim, que nós nunca sabemos o que pwpriamente é tradução de quê, sendo que, no fundo, a questão em si mesma "não importa". O carácter indecidível das propostas religiosas inclui a ideia de que a religião constitui um discurso sobre Deus, razão pela qual a desconstrutora "religião sem religião "constitui uma esperança messiânica pelo "impossível" desprovida de qualquer conteúdo. Kearney objecta que uma tal indecidibilidade radical nos deixa perdidos no meio do deserto da Chora sem capacidade de distinguir, ainda que imperfeita e provisoriamente, entre Deus e Satanás, entre o bem e o mal, entre a viúva e o terrorista. Assim, o autor do artigo defende que Richard Kearney é bem sucedido em sua busca de uma via tertia entre a Cila do dogmatismo e a Caríbdis da completa indeterminação graças ao seu modo de pensar Deus por dois caminhos distintos: como pessoa-prosopon (o que impede confundir Deus com Chora ou monstruosidade) e como posse (o que nos resguarda do dogmantismo). (shrink)
A questão do método na Ciência da Lógica (CL) é uma das mais controvertidas na discussão da filosofia de Hegel. O artigo defende a opinião de que o “método absoluto” de fato apresenta uma estrutura formal definida e distinta que seja o princípio geral de todo o desenvolvimento do sistema hegeliano (maduro). Defende essa interpretação contra mal-entendimentos, sobretudo contra aquele que um tal método geral tornaria a CL num formalismo vazio. O método hegeliano é apresentado como método do determinar, sendo (...) que a CL, fundamentalmente e originariamente, não e outra coisa que uma teoria de determinações aprióricas do pensar, i.é, de categorias, regras e formas lógicas. O artigo argumenta em favor da pretensão à universalidade e incondicionalidade que Hegel atribui a seu método. Quer mostrar que é exatamente essa incondicionalidade do método, e nada mas, que sustenta a necessidade e a imanência do proceder do pensar puro e, com isso, sustenta toda a pretensão à “ciência absoluta” e ao “idealismo absoluto” hegeliano. No final, porém, o texto oferece uma crítica interna a este método, que modifica decisivamente a pretensão de Hegel, embora não a destrua fundamentalmente. É que o próprio método contém um momento de indeterminação ou contingência. Essa crítica conduz ao conceito do “acaso” como princípio originário e intransponível de toda dialética e, com isso, de todo determinar-se. Determinação se realiza no acaso da dialética. O acaso dialético e o princípio de toda realidade. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Hegel. Método. Ciência da Lógica. ABSTRACT The question of the Method in the Science of Logic (SL) is among the most controversially debated in the discussions on Hegel. This article defends the view that there actually is a definite and distinct formal structure underlying the whole development of Hegel’s (mature) system which he himself presents as the “Absolute Method”. This interpretation is defended against misunderstandings, especially against the opinion that such a method should turn the SL into a empty formalism. Hegel’s Method is explained as method of determining, the SL being primarily and fundamentally nothing else but a theory of the aprioric determinations of thinking, i.e. of categories, logical rules and forms. The article arguments in favor of the universality and unconditionality which Hegel claims for his Method. It tries to show that it is exactly this unconditionality of the Method, and nothing else, which supports the necessity and immanence of “pure thinking” and consequently supports Hegel’s claim to “absolute science” and “absolute idealism”. Finally, however, the article offers a critique of this Method, which modifies it fundamentally without destroying it totally. It is argued that there is a moment of indeterminacy or of contingency within the very Method of determining. This critique will lead to the concept of “accident” or “chance event” as original principle of all dialectics and, with this, of all determining. KEY WORDS – Hegel. Method. Science of Logic. (shrink)
lf addiction is the disease of the epoch, women are its greatest victims. Not only are they the population most affected by this “disease,” the campaigns and treatments designed to treat women’s addictions are both ineffective and (worse) demonstrably sexist, racist, and misogynist (Greaves, 1996). This paper situates the hermeneutics of (the disease of) addiction and the analysis of appropriate treatments for this “disease” within the broader social and historical contexts that shape gendered paradigms of health and the “healthy free (...) will” (Sedgwick). Following contemporary work in the Humanities, the Social Sciences and the Arts (Greaves, Sedgwick, Hutcheon, Klein, et al.), I shall investigate the ways in which cultural and philosophical systems of representation and social, political and economic systems ofinequality contribute to interlacing often contradictory paradigms of dependency and independency. I shall close with some solutions that utilize a number of faculties to be found in art, literature, and culture.Si la dépendance est le mal du siècle, les femmes en sont les plus grandes victimes. Non seulement forment elles la population la plus touchée par cette “maladie”, mais les traitements destinés à les libérer de leurs dépendances sont à la fois inefficaces et (pis encore) sexistes, racistes et misogyne (Greaves, 1996). Cet article établira une herméneutique de la (maladie de la) dépendance et analysera destraitements appropriés dans les contextes plus larges de société et d’histoire qui forment des paradigmes sexuels de santé et d’une “saine volonté libre” (Sedgwick). À la suite de travaux contemporains dans les domaines des humanités, des sciences sociales et des arts (Greaves, Sedgwick, Htcheon, Klein, et al), il examinera les façons desquelles les systèmes culturels et philosophiques de représentation, de même que les systèmes social, politique et économique des inégalités, contribuent au lacis des paradigmes de dépendance et d’indépendance, souvent contradictoires. Il terminera avec quelques solutions qui utilisent les possibilités qu’on peut trouver dans les arts, la littérature et la culture. (shrink)
Like many languages, Korean has a special form of negation that is used in imperative clauses (see (1)c), to the exclusion of the usual clausal negation in (1)b: (1) a. ka-la b. *ka-ci anh-ala c. ka-ci mal-ala go-Imp go-Comp Neg-Imp go-Comp Neg-Imp ‘Don’t go!’ ‘Don’t go!’ ‘Go!’ Sadock and Zwicky (1985) noted that negation in imperative(-like) clauses shows special morpho-syntax in many languages, a fact documented in more detail by Zanuttini (1997) or Han (2000). In this paper I will consider (...) the semantic properties of Korean clauses that use the negative form mal-, and suggest a more indirect relationship to the morpho-syntax than has been assumed in previous work.∗ In section 2 I present the basic account of clausal semantics in the HPSG framework of Ginzburg and Sag (2000), and then in section 3 I return to a fuller consideration of data like that in (1). (shrink)
Le débat entre relativistes, affirmant la pluralité irréconciliable des cultures, et absolutistes, défendant la supériorité de la culture humaniste, peut être depasse si I’on définit correctement la “cultureuniverselle.” Elle est recherche infinie de la compréhension la plus complète et la plus cohérente possible à travers le dialogue, c’est-à-dire dans des discours à la validité véritiable. Elle n’a d’autre fondement que la raison. Ainsi relativistes et absolutistes, en tant qu’ils argumentent, appartiennent à cette culture que pourtant ils interpètent mal, en oubliant (...) que I’universel ne peut être qu’une exigence que I’on impose librement. Cependant cette culture désintéressée et formelle a des effets historiques, notamment les ciences modernes. De tene sorte que le problème contemporain est de savoir si on peut articuler la pluralité des cultures, la civilisation scientifique et technique et la réflexxion libre. (shrink)
In "De malorum subsistentia" chs 30-7, Proclus criticizes the view that evil is to be identified with matter. His main target is Plotinus' account in Enn. I,8 [51]. Proclus denies that matter is the cause of evil in the soul, and that it is evil or a principle of evil. According to Proclus, matter is good, because it is produced by the One. Plotinus' doctrine of matter-evil is the result of a different conception of emanation, according to which matter does (...) not revert to its principle. Proclus claims that to posit a principle of evil either amounts to a coarse dualism, or makes the Good ultimately responsible for evil. Plotinus does not seem to be able to escape the latter consequence, if he is to remain committed to the Neoplatonic conception of causation. Plotinus equated matter with privation and said it is a kind of non-being that is the contrary of substance, thus violating fundamental Aristotelian tenets. Proclus reinstates Aristotelian orthodoxy, as does Simplicius in his "Commentary on the Categories." It is possible that lamblichus was the source of both Proclus and Simplicius, and that he was the originator of the parhypostasis theory and the inventor of the anti-Plotinian arguments. (shrink)
Paradox of the Evil and "Family Ressemblances". The paper tackles the problem of Matter and evil in Plotinus. monistic metaphysics, especially in theperspective of the following aparent inconsistency: if there is no other principle but the Good, then the Good creates the Matter which is the absolute evil. Itfollows that the Good is bad, according to a certain axiom of Proclus, which states that the creator is to a higher degree all what the creature is. The authorshows that, despite what (...) Proclus and then many modern critics believed, Plotinus is consistent within his system. He relies on the axiom that the creature is not all what the creator is, i.e. that the creator also gives what he has not. Therefore, the One gives the Intellect multiplicity and thought which He is deprived of and also gives the Matter the evil which He is also deprived of. The paper also shows that Plotinus developed a logic of ontological procession which is not Aristotelian. This logic does not work by formind classes, but chains of partially intransitive ressemblances. So, the Intellect ressembles the One (the Good), the Soul ressembles the Intellect and the Matter ressembles the Soul; yet the Matter resembles the One no more. Yet, the unity of the world is assured, because of the continuity of the chain. The extreme terms are contrary, though not in the Aristotelian sense of sharing in the same genus. A certain similarty with Wittgenstein's logic of "family resemblances" is striking, which means that not only Wittgenstein, but Plotinus also went beyond the Platonic-Aristotelian Vulgata, even while he was sticking to its linguage. (shrink)
Después de un breve excursus histórico, absolutamente no exhaustivo, pero dirigido a entender el significado del término hipocresía dentro de algunos autores, me concentro en su defensa paradójica. Paradójica porque, a pesar de ser moralmente reprochable, la actitud hipócrita preserva la integridad del valor ético, que se respeta aparentemente y que, sin embargo, se viola en secreto. After a short historical excursus, that doesn't pretend to be complete, but is only directed to understand the meaning of the term hypocrisy in (...) some authors. I concentrate on its paradoxical defense. Paradoxical because, though morally censurable, the hypocritical attitude preserves the integrity of the ethical value, that it apparently respects, but secretly violates. (shrink)
Since moral action often requires understanding the nature of justice and the development of empathy and compassion, moral education involves the learner?s intellect, emotions and will. The lifelong learning involved is thus multifaceted and plausibly benefits from the integration of personal and political with professional learning. I explore this triadic conception of moral education by drawing on the movement to lifelong learning where a triadic notion of ?lifelong learning? has already been developed, partly in contrast to narrower vocational conceptions that (...) focus only on professional learning. I also consider what we are to understand by the integration of personal, professional and political learning. How do these three kinds of learning contribute to moral understanding, how do they interact, how do they influence our moral selves? I illustrate my key points with examples from my own personal, professional and political involvement with an area of social injustice?disability as oppression. (shrink)
Abstract This paper rejects the notion of moral education in adulthood as merely remedial, i.e. as providing a second chance to learn that which should have been learned in school, or as merely compensatory, i.e. as making up for the waning of our cognitive abilities which (stereotypically) occurs with age. Rather, it advocates a conception of lifelong moral education which presupposes that there are social and cognitive features of maturity which have the potential to generate some worthwhile learning which can (...) therefore only be acquired in adulthood. First the theoretical issues associated with this presupposition will be outlined and the notions of dialectical/relativistic and eclectic/synthesising forms of thinking, as adult stages of thinking, will be explored in the context of moral development and education. Secondly, reference will be made to some relatively recent research undertaken (at the Department of Continuing Education, University of Warwick) into the impact of liberal adult education certificated courses on the mature student's sense of identity. In?depth interviews revealed that the students themselves perceive their learning in terms of adult cognitive development. Moreover, the courses were found to have had a significant impact on their self?understanding. In so far as the development is an aspect of moral education, these research findings have some significance for lifelong moral education. (shrink)
Abstract In this paper a reinterpretation of G.E. Moore's distinction between two senses of ?ought? leads to the exposure of a strong connection between the education of the emotions and moral education such that the former is seen to be partly constitutive of the latter. I argue that what Moore calls ?Rules of Feeling?, which inculcate a moral ideal, the attainment of which is not directly within the power of our wills, could on the contrary, be either interpreted as a (...) shorthand way of expressing ?Rules of Duty? or sui generis but genuinely prescriptive and connected with the interests of other people. Thus moral education will be concerned with right feeling as well as with right action. In addition I trace out the implications of this reinterpretation for multiracial education, (a field becoming of increasing interest to educationalists), and conclude that these three important aspects of education are logically inextricably connected. (shrink)
