Text vykládá jednotlivé pojmy, které v Aristotelově díle představují kandidáty na protějšek moderního pojmu zdravého rozumu, a uvádí je do vzájemné souvislosti. Především v logických a rétorických textech Aristotelés pracuje s termínem endoxos, který používá pro výroky a osoby, které jsou v daném společenství uznávány. V epistemologii pracuje s termínem koiné aisthésis v souvislosti s vnímáním jako takovým. Autor poukazuje na vazbu, kterou u Aristotela díky jeho práci ve fyziologii má obecná schopnost vnímat třetí klíčový pojem, který patří do etiky, totiž na fronésis. V rámci výkladu fronésis má místo také poslední bezprostředně relevantní pojem – orthos logos. Aristotelova koncepce jednání, jež Aristotelés vykládá někdy pomocí tzv. praktického sylogismu, pak ukazuje na roli uznávaných výroků jako typických obecných premis v těchto sylogismech a roli osob uznávaných pro svou fronésis jako měřítek určujících kritéria pro to, co je dobré jednání., The text interprets the particular concepts in Aristotle’s work which present themselves as candidates for being the counterpart to the modern concept of common sense, and it introduces them in their mutual relatedness. Aristotle works with the term endoxos, particularly in his logical and rhetorical texts, which he uses for statements and persons which are recognised in a given community. In epistemology he works with the term koiné aisthésis in connection with perception as such. The author points to a third concept, which Aristotle, thanks to his work in physiology, has a general ability to perceive, and which belongs to ethics: this is fronésis In an interpretation of fronésis there is also a place for the last directly relevant concept – orthos logos. Aristotle’s conception of conduct, which he sometimes interprets with the help of a so-called practical syllogism, displays the role of recognised statements as the typical general premisses in these syllogisms, and the role of persons recognised for their fronésis as the measure of the determining criteria for what is good conduct., and Petr Glombíček.
The article examines the meaning of the other for Kant's idea of autonomy. Autonomy is interpreted, in relation to the universal demand of the ethical, as governing the will by principles. Autonomy as principled self-determination by means of the practical law cannot be understood as the standpoint of an isolated subject. Instead we must understand it as a standpoint taken towards others, which we treat as the aspect of spontaneity, and at the same time as a standpoint taken thanks to others, since others make possible its awakening and development - here the aspect of receptivity is discussed. In this two-way relation between autonomy (enabled by a self-determining goverment by principle) and the other, the character of dialogical mutuality is exhibited: autonomy is the principled considerateness of a good will towards others, and, in order for it to be such, it must be initiated by others., Ondřej Sikora., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
The well-known book by Peter Singer The Liberation of Animals has not only inspired a series of texts defending the rights and interests of animals, but has also provoked a discussion about what humanity is, what meaning can our belonging to the human kind have for us, and whether Singer’ critique of the “human prejudice” is justified. The paper considers two important defenders of “human prejudice”, B. A. O. Williams and C. Diamond, who both claim the concept of human being to be a basic ethical concept. In the first part, we will present Williams’s argument that solidarity and identity with one’s species doesn’t have the structure of a blameworthy privilege similar to sexism and racism. In the second part, we will proceed to Diamond’s conception of human being that is founded in relations and responses towards the other. Just as our treatment of a human being depends on whether we see this person as our fellow, so our treatment of an animal depends on how we see it. In the last part, we will consider Diamond’s illustration of how it is possible to change our perception of an animal and thus to change our treatment of it., Kamila Pacovská., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Sam Harris ve své knize The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2010) tvrdí, že otázka morálních hodnot není ničím jiným než otázkou po blahu vědomých bytostí. Ve svém výkladu si Harris klade tři úkoly: etablovat etiku jakožto plně racionální a ideálně vědeckou disciplínu, posílit a obhájit naturalismus a ustanovit smysluplnost lidského života na nenáboženské bázi. Harrisova kniha se setkala s odmítnutím v odborných recenzích, avšak ne všechny kritiky jsou oprávněné a skutečný problém s Harrisovým přístupem podle mne leží jinde, než se kritici domnívají. Existují nejméně tři důvody, proč odmítnout Harrisovu koncepci morálky jakožto vědy. Prvním je konfuzní pojetí vědy, se kterým souvisí absence čehokoli vědeckého v Harrisově popisu etických problémů či jejich řešení. Druhý důvod je nekoherentní postup při výkladu původu hodnot. A konečně posledním důvodem k odmítnutí Harrisovy vize je podoba života, kterou nám nabízí jakožto výsledek přijetí etiky založené na vědě., Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2010) argues that the question of moral values is none other than the question of the happiness of conscious beings. In his account Harris sets himself three tasks: to establish ethics as a fully rational and purely scientific discipline, to reinforce and defend naturalism, and to rest the meaning of human life on a non-religious grounding. Harris’ book has met with a negative reaction in journal reviews, but not all the criticisms are justified and the real problem with Harris’ approach, in my view, is different to what his critics suppose. There are at least three reasons why we should reject Harris’ conception of morality as a science. The first is his confused conception of science which brings with it the absence of any scientific (on Harris’ understanding) ethical problems and of their solution. The second reason is an incoherent approach in his account of the origin of values. And finally, the last reason for rejecting Harris’ vision is the form of life which he offers us as the result of accepting ethics founded on science., Jakub Jirsa., and Obsahuje seznam literatury