论文部分内容阅读
学术界流行一种看法 ,认为德国社会学家韦伯所说的“存心伦理学”和“责任伦理学”是相互对立的 ,而康德的伦理学是存心伦理学之典型。有人据此反对同时藉康德的“道德自律”及“存心伦理学”与韦伯的“责任伦理学”来诠释儒家思想。本文透过对相关文献的分析证明 :韦伯对存心伦理学的批评并不适用于康德的“存心伦理学”。康德的“存心伦理学”与韦伯所谓的“责任伦理学”不但不形成对立 ,甚至可以涵蕴它。本文也指出 :以孔、孟为代表的儒家主流思想基本上包含两个伦理学面向 ,这两个面向分别对应于康德的“存心伦理学”与韦伯的“责任伦理学”。
The popular academic view holds that the German sociologist Weber said that “caring ethics” and “responsibility ethics” are mutually antagonistic, while Kant’s ethics is typical of caring ethics. Some people oppose it at the same time to interpret Confucianism with Kant’s “moral self-discipline” and “caring ethics” and Weber’s “responsibility ethics.” Through the analysis of related literatures, this paper proves that Weber’s critique of caring ethics does not apply to Kant’s Caring Ethics. Kant’s “caring ethics” and Weber’s so-called “responsibility ethics” not only do not form an opposition, it can even imply it. This paper also points out that the mainstream Confucianism, represented by Confucius and Mencius, basically includes two ethical orientations. These two orientations correspond to Kant’s Ethics of Caring and Weber’s Responsible Ethics respectively.