628033282

226 KAZIMIERZ TWARDOWSKI

flBJifleTCH npeuMeTOM 3thhcckhx paccyacACHHfi, mohcho BbuejiHTb 3THKy HHAHBHAyajibHyio h oómec-TBeHHyio 3THKy. Bonpoc KacaiomnecB zene3uca Mopajiw (nponcxo>KAeHHe pa3HHUbi Meac/iy xopo-mHM H HeÓJiarOBHAHblM IlOBeAeHHHMH) BBJUieTCfl HCXOAHbIM AJIB reTepOHOMHOfi (aBTOpHTaTHB-Hoft) h aBTOHOMHOft 3thk. Pa3Hbie pemeHHH Bonpoca KacaioiiierocB 3THbecKoro (JjyHAaMeHTa, — T.e. MOTHBHpOBKH XOpOIUOrO IIOB6A6HHB — Be^yT K 3MOUHOH3JIH3My HJIH K 3THHCCKOMy HHTCJUieK-TyaJlH3My, pa3HOBHAHOCTbK> KOTOpOrO BBJlBeTCB HpaBCTBCHHblft pHrOpH3M. BonpOCbl CBfl3aHHbie c 3THHCCKHM KpumepueM ecjiH Aejio KacaeTCB jiHiub ero coflepacaHHB, Moiyr HaxoAHTb cBoe pemeHHe hjih b paMKax TejieojiorHHecKoft 3thkh (3bacmohh3m, nep(J)eKUHOHH3M), hjih b 3THKe aHTHTejie-OJlOrHHeCKOft, T.e. JHOMHAHOit Bonpoc o6oCHOBaHH5I 3THHCCKOrO KpHTepHB, eCJIH CHHTaTb, HTO TaKoe o6ocHOBaHHe hco6xoahmo, pemaeTca hjih b Ayxe aiipnopH3Ma hjih Ha nyTH omnecKoro 3MiiHpH3Ma. PemeHHe ace Bonpoca uchhocth 3THHecKoro KpHTepnH HaxoAHT CBoe BbipaaceHne b aócoJiioTHCTHHecKoft hjih pejmTHBHCTHHecicoft TeopH«x HpaBCTBCHHOCTH. MeTaHayHHbie paccyac-AeHHB b cboio onepe^b, bbjuuotcb HCXoAHoft tomkom AHCKycHH Me>KAy npHBepHCCHuaMH HayHHoro xapaKTepa HpaBCTBeHHoft aKCHOJiorHH h HOpMaTHBHOił 3Thkh a npeACTaBHTejiHMH onncaTejibHofi 3THKH, OTpHLiaiOlUHMH HayHHOCTb 3THX Teopnfi.

AHaJiH3y h KpHTHKe Bbiuie yKa3aHHbix, h HeKOTopbix Apyrnx HanpaBjieHHfi He Ha3BaHHbix b 3tom pe3iOMe, nocBsmeHa nepBaa nacTb jieKunft no 3THKe. npo6jieMaTHKa 3toA nacTH BBjiseTCfl BBCACHHCM B HCTOpHK) HayHHOft 3THKH, JICKUHH Ha TCMy 3THHeCKOTO CKenTHUH3Ma (nacTb II) h jieKUHH o 3aAanax HayTHOfi 3thkh (nacTb III).

t

Kazimierz Twardowski

THE PRINCIPAL TRENDS OF SCIENTIFIC ETHICS

(edited by Izydora Dąmbska)

In scientific ethics which is equivalent to the theory of human action analysed in terms of the value of goodness, researches tend to follow different directions depending on how its principal problems are solved. Thus, as regards the scope of procedurę of ethical research, we can distinguish between individual and social ethics. The ąuestion about the source of morality (what is the origin of the diffe-rence between good and evil acts) is the point of departure of heteronomic (authori-tative) and autonomous ethics. Different answers to the ąuestion about the ethical foundation (i.e. the mótivation of good acts) lead to ethical emotionalism or intellectualism, with ethical rigorism as one of its variants. The answers to the problems involved in the ethical criterion, as far as its contents is concerned, lead either to teleological (eudaemonism or perfectionism) or ateleological or nomical ethics. If it is thought necessary to justify some ethical criterion, the justifications tend either in the direction of ethical apriorism or empirism. The ąuestion about the validity of the ethical criterion is answered either in terms of absolutist or relativist ethics. Metascientific analyses of the cognitive status of ethics in turn provide the points for debates between those advocating the scientific naturę of morał axiology and normative ethics and the followers of descriptive ethics.

Analyses and critiąues of these and some other directions of ethical research make up this part of the lectures in ethics which were intended as an introduction to a history of scientific ethics and to the lectures on ethical scepticism (part two) and on the tasks of scientific ethics (part three).