我们为什么“必须”和“应该”——架通从“是”到“应该”的桥梁  

Why We"Must"and"Should"--Bridging the Gap from"Is"to"Ought"

作　　者：陈波 Chen Bo

机构地区：[1]武汉大学哲学学院,武汉430072

出　　处：《中国社会科学》2024年第11期47-65,205,共20页Social Sciences in China

摘　　要：休谟、摩尔等人提出的“是”与“应该”、“事实”与“价值”和“规范”之间的分裂和鸿沟是虚构的,因为没有纯客观的“事实”,也没有纯主观的“规范”。为什么“必须”和“应该”是由以下因素共同决定的:人的需求、意图和目标,其中意图和目标产生于需求,意图的强度往往取决于需求的强度,而需求有客观基础;当下的实际状况,常常与需求和目标存在差距,人们力求改变现状,造成能够满足需求和目标的某种愿景;相关的广义科学原理(包括自然科学、社会科学和人文科学)、社会共识(文化传统和习俗等);人所具有的理性思考能力。这些因素把“是”与“应该”关联起来,由此架通了从“事实”到“价值”和“规范”的桥梁。The supposed divide between"is"and"ought,"or"fact,"and"value"and"norm,"as argued by Hume,Moore,and others,is a misconception for two reasons:first,no fact is purely objective.Second,norms are not purely subjective.The necessity of"must"and"should"arises from a confluence of factors:human needs,intentions,and objectives,with intentions and objectives rooted in needs,whose intensity reflects their objective basis;the current state of affairs,often misaligned with needs and intentions,motivating changes to the status quo toward a desired vision;relevant scientific principles across disciplines(including natural sciences,social sciences,and humanities)and social consensus(cultural traditions and customs);and the human capacity for rationality.These elements collectively link"is"to"ought,"thereby constructing a bridge from"facts"to"values"and"norms."

关 键 词：“是-应该”问题 被动旁观者 主动参与者 认知主义 假言命令 

分 类 号：B82-0[哲学宗教—伦理学] B0-0