Peter Singer sa na základe preferenčného utilitarizmu a jeho metafyzických predpokladov, vychádzajúcich z Lockovho empirizmu a odlišovania človeka a osoby, vyslovuje za potraty, infanticídu, pokusy s embryami a eutanáziu. V tejto stati som poukázal na nedostatočnú argumentáciu Singera a neodôvodnenosť jeho predpokladov vychádzajúcich z empirizmu. Jej hlavným nedostatkom je empirické chápanie pojmu osoby podľa Locka a jej odlíšenie od pojmu človek. Táto definícia osoby ukazuje svoje nedostatky a zakladá sa na quinovskej nesubstančnej ontológii, ktorá však nevie vysvetliť identitu osoby v čase. Preto ju treba nahradiť adekvátnejšou definíciou, ktorá vychádza z potreby substanciálnej ontológie, ktorá zdôvodňuje identitu osoby v spojení konkrétnej duše s konkrétnym telom. Princíp indetnity ľudskej osoby tvorí konkrétna individuálna ľudská duša. Tým som preukázal, že aj bioetické dôsledky Singerovej teórie sú neudržateľné., Based on his preference utilitarianism and its metaphysical assumptions originating from Locke’s empiricism, and based on distinguishing between the human being and the person, Peter Singer argues in favor of abortion, infanticide, experiments on embryos, and euthanasia. This article points to Singer’s insufficient argumentation and states that his assumptions stemming from empiricism are not justified. The main flaw in Singer’s argumentation consists in his psychological understanding of the concept of the person and its separation from the concept of the human being. His definition of the person has manifests weaknesses and is based on Quine’s non-substantial ontology which is unable to explain personal identity through time. For this reason, it needs to be supplemented by a more adequate definition addressing the need for a substantial explanation of personal identity. Personal identity is established by the connection between a particular soul with a particular body. The human person’s principle of identity is thus guaranteed by a particular human soul. Singer’s bioethical conclusions are thus shown to be indefensible., and Peter Volek.
Autor stručně představuje české veřejnosti málo známou maďarskou filosofku Ágnes Hellerovou. Po načrtnutí jejího filosoficko-politického vývoje (i jako významné představitelky středoevropské kritické teorie společnosti) zasazuje problematiku morálních konfliktů do širších souvislostí, v nichž autorka promýšlí svou eticko-morální koncepci a její předpoklady v teorii spravedlnosti. Zdůrazňuje význam plurality v etické oblasti, vyplývající z toho, že v posttradičních společnostech není možno vycházet z nějaké substanciální koncepce dobra a s ní souvisejících představ daného souboru mravů ve smyslu hegelovské „Sittlichkeit“. Morální a hodnotové orientace lidí musí být v těchto společnostech vždy znovu testovány a prověřovány, neboť člověk realizuje svou představu „dobrého“, resp. řádného života rozmanitým způsobem. Pluralizace se dotýká i oblasti ctností a jejich vztahu k hodnotám; autor oceňuje zvláště analýzy sociálních ctností v podmínkách nesvobody individua, kde se podle Hellerové běžné ctnosti stávají „vojenskými“, neboť jsou ohroženy základní hodnoty svobody a života. Pluralita etického univerza se promítá do oblasti morálních konfliktů, kde se jedná povýtce o „silné“ konflikty mezi různými pozitivními možnostmi mravního jednání. Autor oceňuje minuciózní analýzy, jejichž prostřednictvím Hellerová prezentuje různé způsoby užití rozumu v těchto konfliktech, především roli soudnosti („fronésis“). Za přínosnou považuje i interpretaci ambivalentní pozice konsekvencialismu a utilitarismu v mravním rozhodování. Zároveň se kriticky vyslovuje k interpretaci instrumentálně-finálního modelu, k níž Hellerorvá dospívá při rozboru Kantovy aplikace kategorického imperativu. Tuto interpretaci autor považuje za „pointilistickou“. Á. Hellerovou autor oceňuje jako významnou kritickou stoupenkyni humanistického projektu osvícenství., The author briefly introduces to the Czech public the little known Hungarian philosopher Ágnes Heller. After sketching her philosophical and political development (including her role as a significant figure in central European critical social theory), the author puts the question of moral conflicts into the wider contexts in which Heller developed her ethico-moral conception and her assumptions in a theory of justice. She emphasises the meaning of plurality in the ethical sphere, stemming from the fact that in post-traditional societies one cannot be guided by a substantial conception of good, nor by the connected ideas of a given collection of morals in the sense of Hegelian “Sittlichkeit”. The moral and evaluative orientation of people here must be always examined anew and checked, since man realises his idea of the good, or rather a life of integrity, in many different ways. This pluralisation also affects the area of virtues and their relation to values; the author especially appreciates Heller’s analyses of the social virtues under the conditions of non-freedom of the individual where normal virtues become “military”, as the basic values of freedom and life are threatened. The plurality of the ethical universe is transmitted into the area of moral conflicts where, for the most part, concern is with “powerful” conflicts between various positive possibilities of moral conduct. The author appreciates Heller’s minute analyses of the various ways of using reason in these conflicts, the role of judgement (phronésis) above all. He also treats as important the interpretation of the ambivalent position of consequentialism and utilitarianism in moral decision-making. At the same time a critical attitude is expressed towards Heller’s interpretation of the instrumentalist-teleological model in analysing Kant’s application of the categorical imperative, which is treated as “pointillistic”. The author looks upon Heller as a significant, critical representative of the humanistic project of the enlightenment., and Vlastimil Hála.
The article interprets the not of "common sense" as presented in the works of Thomas Reid. The focus is not primarily on Reid's epistomology or metaphysics or even on the history of the notion or its influence. Rather, the article is strictly concerned with Reid's use of the term. The notion is considered vague by some interpreters and it is confused with the "principles of common sense". The "principles of common sense" play the role of axioms in the model of the human mind that Reid is aiming at, and thanks to that they play the role of criteria since they are the rules of our thinking. We must only distinguish them from widely-shared prejudices. The "principles of common sense" are propositions believed by every healthy adult who understands the propositions in question, considering them without any prejudice. They are integrated into the structures of different languages, they hold up against explicit criticism, and the acceptance of these propositions does not have any absurd consequences. By the term "common sense", on the other hand, Reid understands the faculty of judgment in the area of sensory experience., Petr Glombíček., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Slavná kniha Elementární formy náboženského života francouzského sociologa Émile Durkheima je jedním z nejdůležitějších příspěvků k sociologii náboženství. Po řadu let byla vychvalována a citována, stejně jako kritizována a zavrhována. Kniha se stala chartou celé řady sociálně vědních badatelů, zejména těch, kteří se zaměřovali na studium společnosti a náboženství. V roce 1966 však vyšel článek amerického antropologa Clifforda Geertze nazvaný „Náboženství jako kulturní systém“, v němž autor tvrdil, že Durkheimova teorie náboženství, stejně jako teorie náboženství Sigmunda Freuda, Bronislawa Malinowského a Maxe Webera, by měla být překonána dokonalejší teorií náboženství. Touto dokonalejší teorií měla být Geertzova teorie. Porozuměl však Geertz Durkheimove teorii dostatečně, aby nás to opravňovalo k tvrzení, že Durkheim byl na poli teorie náboženství překonán?, Émile Durkheim’s famous book Elementary Forms of Religious Life is one of the most important contributions to the sociology of religion. For years, it had been praised and cited as well as criticised and condemned. The book had become a charter of subsequent generations of social scientists, especially those who studied phenomena of society and religion. However, in 1966, an American cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz presented his opinion claiming that Durkheim’s theory of religion as well as the theories of religion of Freud, Malinowski and Weber should be substituted with more subtle and superior theory of religion. A superior theory of religion was supposed to be Geertz’s theory presented in a paper entitled “Religion as Cultural System”. Did Geertz understand Durkheim’s theory adequately, so that we can agree with Geertz’s claim of surpassing the classic authors like Durkheim?, and Nikola Balaš.
The basic aim of this study is to draw attention to certain inaccuracies in the recent discussion about evolutionary ontology. After a brief presentation of Šmajs’ theory, the author describes his standing in contemporary environmental thought and he classifies evolutionary ontology as “ecological ecocentrism”. In the second part he attempts to show that evolutionary ontology, in its character and claims, belongs to a different level of scientific knowledge than standard scientific theory pertaining to a limited sphere, and that therefore certain critical remarks pointing to its overly-broad range are misplaced. The conclusion of the study reminds the reader of the main controversial points of evolutionary ontology that give rise to discussion. The first of these is the paradox of unappreciated cultural information, the second is the above-mentioned “frozenness” of evolutionary ontological thought and the third is the attempt at a quick expansion of the ready evolutionary-ontological approach., Bohuslav Binka., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
The first part of this study is devoted to analysing the prevailing western ethical systems and to a comparison of them with a conception of a new environmental ethics. The author here, with reference to J. Passmore, divides the western approach into a “dominant tradition”, in which man conducts himself with regard to the things of nature, and to nature itself, as a tyrannical ruler, and the less widespread tradition of man as superintendent (or supervisor), and man as perfecter. According to Sylvan, environmental ethics is in conflict with each of these conceptions. The second part of Sylvan’s text introduces thought-experiments which demonstrate the inconsistency of the environmental tradition of western ethics based on (human) chauvinism. First of he introduces the thought-experiment of “the last man” and then the thought-experiment of “the last people”, “the great businessman” and “the disappearing species”. The third part of Sylvan’s text then briefly considers the possible consequences connected with the acceptance of an environmentally-ethical attitude. This brings with it, in Sylvan’s view, changes to one’s ethical conception and changes to meta-ethics. New concepts are needed to treat old and new realities; a fundamental change in perspective is required., Richard Sylvan., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii