|
Hegelian Morality and Ethical Life, An Experience
|
瀏覽274 ｜回應0｜推薦0 |
|
|
|
Date 05/12/2013, first personal narratives.
----------------------------------------------------------
Prologue:
Four days ago, I have encountered an old lady age seventish. She begged me for a bus fare for home. It is not a problem for me to give her the fare, but I reflectively refused her request. What troubles me since is the action I chose and what is (or was) the reason or rationale behind it.
Analysis:
1. Kant vs. Hegel
The begging incidence by the old lady is significant to me, for she initiated both an imminent need for her well-being and an old age helplessness. Objectively I should take these factors to fulfill her request. I have problem with this my inclination. My questions are, what is the morality I based to act? do I just act? and can I rationalize my response by the ethical life theory I adopt? The immediate thought I have is Kant's categorical imperative, a maxim: "you should help whomever is in need." Does the maxim work? Means that does the maxim worthy as a maxim for me to follow? If I am a Hegelian I would question, is that I should help ALL whoever are in need. Here there is a dialectic between one and many, and Hegel transits it to particular vs. universal. One vs. many dialectic making the maxim itself is questionable in practice. My second thought is I am prompt to act facing her request. Kierkegaard's Either Or comes to me mind. If I fulfill her request, I will regret it, and if I refuse her request, I will regret it. By fulfilling her request, I will always wonder if she is really in need. By rejecting her request, I will always wonder if it is true she is in need. But I have to choose either/or HERE, and NOW. Allen Wood had a detailed analysis about Hegel's morality and ethical life theory. I browsed the analysis, some commentaries said Hegel does not have a theory of morality, but of an ethical life. Basically, Hegel feels that philosophy should not provide a normative guideline for people to act.
2. My perplexity - what should I do?
Kant's practical reason, my understanding via Pippin, is that the theoretical reason can also be practical. The categorical imperative guide is cold pure form without content, so that it is a science without failure. Hegelian is "I that is the we, and We that is the I." On this, my refusal reaction can be - the society now always first distrust people before verification, I as we, so that distrust prompts my refusal. On the other hand, if the society now always has trust between people, I as we, so that trust prompts me to fulfill her request. Philosophy is always too late as Hegel says so. My refusal is to be philosophized and rationalized afterward. I adopt Hegel's spirit dialectic and philosophized afterward. but not at the moment I encounterred her request. The theory of action has two faces, desire and reason. At that moment HERE and NOW, it is apprehension, not conception. My reaction is by desire, and it is an animal instinct in essence. That is I have money for myself but not for her no matter what. It is not a maxim, just animal instinct. There is another thought, at that moment, I am an agent, not an observer. Am I acted autonomously or heteronomously? Hegel says that I am a we, so I acted heteronomously, therefore, either choice I escape morality critiques.
3. Conclusion - there is no conclusion.
I am still an animal HERE and NOW at the moment I act. At least right now, I solve my perplexity; later? I would not know in advance.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
等級：5
