International Open Access Journal Platform

反驳对《康德的伦理学其实很烂》的非议

Counter of the Kant’s Ethics is Very Bad

New Research on Philosophy / 2022,1(1): 12-27 / 2022-05-06 679 583

View Download PDF

• Authors: 韩东屏     
• Information:

  华中科技大学哲学院，武汉

• Keywords: Kant ethics; Reasoning and criticism; This proverb; Overall rating; Value 康德伦理学；说理性非议；俗语；总评；价值
• Abstract: My article “Kang PI” because of the title of the word “very bad”, attracted a lot of criticism. Excluding non-rational criticism, rational criticism involves two academic questions, namely, whether the title of academic paper can be colloquially used and whether my general assessment of Kant’s ethics is “bad” is valid. Since “bad” is an adjective and evaluation word transformed from colloquial descriptives, rather than a dirty word, and there is no regulation in academic laws and ethics against the use of colloquial expressions, and the existence of academic conventions does not mean that it must be followed, using colloquial expressions in articles is a legitimate behavior within the scope of academic freedom. And since there is nothing to be said about all the articles refuting the views of Kangpi so far, this shows that my general assessment of Kant’s ethics as “very bad” can be justified. Moreover, Kangpi’s criticism of Kant’s ethics is full of new ideas. 我的《康批》一文因题目中用了“很烂”一词，引来很多非议。排除非说理性非议，说理性非议涉及的是两个学术问题，即学术论文题目能否用俗语和我对康德伦理学“很烂”的总评能否成立。由于“很烂”是由俗语性描述词转化而来的形容词和评价词，不是脏话，而学术法规和学术道德又没有不能使用俗语的规定，学术惯例的存在也不意味必须按惯例做，因而文题用俗语就是学术自由范围内的正当行为。又由于迄今为止全部反驳《康批》观点的文章的各种说法，均无可是之处，这就说明，我对康德伦理学的“很烂”总评是可以成立的。不仅如此，《康批》对康德伦理学的批判还满含新意。
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.35534/nrp.0101002
• Cite: 韩东屏．反驳对《康德的伦理学其实很烂》的非议［J］．哲学新探，2022，1（1）：12-27．