株式会社極東書店トップ > 商品一覧 > Shaping a Modern Ethics : The Humanist Legacy from Nietzsches to Feminism.
商品詳細
Shaping a Modern Ethics : The Humanist Legacy from Nietzsches to Feminism. 近代倫理学の形成-ニーチェから フェミニズムまでの人文主義の遺産-
・ISBN 978-1-350-12285-7 hard GB£ 110.00
¥34,848.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-1-350-12288-8
| 著者・編者 | Bennett, Benjamin, |
|---|---|
| 出版社 | (Bloomsbury Academic, UK) |
| 出版年月 | 2020 |
| ページ数 | 256 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | <651-P421 652-P514> |
解説
Is there any such thing as a single ethical system to which all human beings could conceivably subscribe?
The short answer is no; and most people, being tolerant, would probably agree with this answer. Yet most people, precisely in being tolerant, also subscribe to an idea of "human rights" which presupposes just such a universal ethics.
This basic question of ethics is similarly treacherous when approached on a higher technical level. Specialists have long recognized that Kant's categorical imperative is neither theoretically nor practically tenable. But efforts to revive and repair the Kantian project-including especially the monumental work of Juergen Habermas-have all themselves been theoretically questionable, while developing a complexity that makes them impractical.
Must we then simply do without ethics in the sense of a universal ethical method?
By way of a close study of literary and philosophical texts, from Freud to Machiavelli, Benjamin Bennett shows why the failure of a universal or propositional ethics is indeed unavoidable. He uncovers a modern non-propositional ethics that cannot be grasped in a single theoretical move but can only be approached as a collection of instances of a modern ethical "we", three key examples of which Bennett explores in this book:
- The "we" of irony, whose speakers share a strictly preter-verbal knowledge which is concealed in their actual utterances
- The insistent exclusive "we" of a group that has neither its own physical locality nor even a clear intellectual identity, comparable to the "we" of Jews in the diaspora
- The "we" of feminism, a separate "we" from that embracing people who happen to have been born women.