习惯、自愿抑或责任:论如何重新诠释亚里士多德的品格悖论  

Habit,Voluntariness or Responsibility:On How to Reinterpret Aristotle’s Para⁃dox of Character

作　　者：边开昊 BIAN Kaihao(School of Philosophy and Social Development,Shandong University,Jinan,Shandong 250000,China)

机构地区：[1]山东大学哲学与社会发展学院,山东济南250000

出　　处：《宜宾学院学报》2024年第11期1-8,17,共9页Journal of Yibin University

摘　　要：亚里士多德关于品格形成及其责任,提出了习惯造就了行动者的品格和行动者应对自身品格负责两个关键命题。命题内容似乎相互矛盾:若需为品格负责,行动者似应自愿地获得这一品格,而品格的形成却似乎更多是被动的习惯化过程,故重新诠释这两个命题是调和这一矛盾的有效途径。品格既由早期习惯化奠基,也在成年后的自觉习惯中不断塑造。虽然幼年的习惯化过程难以由行动者掌控,且对品格的形成影响深远,但成年后的品格培养取决于行动者自身的努力,因此品格之责任在一定范围内归于行动者自身。这一解读揭示了亚里士多德德性发展的复杂性与道德责任的多重维度,或能为当代的道德教育与伦理归责问题提供深刻启示。Aristotle proposed two key theses concerning character formation and responsibility:character is shaped by habituation and an agent is responsible for his own character.These propositions seem contradictory:if one must be responsible for his character,it would imply that character is acquired voluntarily;yet character formation appears to be a more passive process of habituation.Thus,a reinterpretation that reconciles this tension is worthwhile.Character is initially shaped by early habituation,but it is also continually molded by conscious habits in adulthood.While childhood habituation significantly influences character formation and is largely beyond the agent’s control,the cultivation of character in adulthood depends on the agent’s own efforts.Consequently,responsibility for character rests with the agent to a certain extent.This interpretation not only reveals the complexity of Aristotle’s view on the development of virtue and the multifaceted nature of moral responsibility,but it may also offer profound insights for contemporary moral education and issues of ethical accountability.

关 键 词：亚里士多德 习惯化 理性 责任 

分 类 号：B502[哲学宗教—外国哲学]