realove: 在你繼續之前，我得先插個嘴說，
我不覺得問題在於「品性」跟「情境」的衝突
也不在於「受試者是否多數都是有品性的」這一問題
(而你的論證也是有問題的。)
根本的問題在於：what is the status of "nature"?
a. if nature is understood in the "modern natural science" kind of way,
then nature has a lower status, it's "meaningless," "full of chance"
and so on. this further implies that if there still exists anything
that could be called "morality," it must be conceived as "autonomous,"
i.e. in contradistinction and even in opposition to nature.
since the problem can only be solved in this way, then it becomes quite
evident that the modern experiments you mentioned in your first post
are just the "physiological" counterparts of Freud's
vaguely-optimistic but in fact totally pessimistic psychoanalysis.
the only morality I perceive that would be convincing enough out
of this way of thinking would be Christian morality (and not any sort of
virtue ethics) - humble and awe, love and repentance kind of things -
since you're never sure of things, I see that this would be the only
reasonable consequence.
b. if nature is understood in whatever way "teleological" (I mean, of
course the Greek way), then nature has a higher dignity, and all the
other beings must be judged by the end of nature, or, to be precise,
by the respective ends of the nature of naturally classified beings.
then, morality is conceived under this framework as "convention" or
"unnatural" but at the same time compatible with nature. this compatibility
indicates that the natural end of "morality" is judged under the light
of the end of human nature (or, if you like, the end of the nature of
human beings operating behind conventions).
how the modern experimental methods and conclusions could be incorporated
into this understanding would be a most interesting problem to tackle with.
up to now I haven't seen any promising possibilities, not even a dim light
of it.
--
"I used to be indecisive but
now I'm not so sure."
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.224.30.29