加载中…
个人资料
云之
云之
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:356,382
  • 关注人气:454
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
正文 字体大小:

西塞罗论责任

(2008-01-30 17:05:25)
标签:

西塞罗

《论责任》

中英文对照

逻辑论述

道德学

至善与至恶

文化

分类: 阅读及翻译

“……虽然哲学提供许多既重要又有用的、经过哲学家们充分而又仔细地讨论过的问题,关于道德责任这个问题的教诲,似乎具有最广泛的实际用途。因为任何一种生活,无论是公共的还是私人的,事业的还是家庭的,无论关系到个人还是他人的行为,都不可能没有道德责任;一切有德之事皆因履行道德责任,而一切无行之事皆因忽视这种责任

 

此外,探讨这个问题是所有哲学家共同的特点,不谆谆教诲责任问题的,如何能自称哲学家?但是有些学派用他们所提出的那些涉及“至善与至恶”的理论来曲解一切责任概念,这是因为会有人不将“至善”与德行相联系、不以道德标准而是以个人的自身利益来衡量何谓“至善”,如果他奉行此原则(be consistent),并且经常地不受其善良本性的支配,那么,他就不可能重视友谊、正义和宽容;而且由于视痛苦为至恶,他不可能勇敢;视快乐为至善,他也不可能有节制。

 

尽管这些真相不言自明(self-evident),无须讨论,我还是另外进行了探讨。因此,如果这些学派主张奉行此原则(claim to be consistent),他们就不能谈责任,除了那些认为道德上的善之所以值得追求完全或主要是因其自身价值的人以外,其它人无法设定固定不变而自然的责任规则。……”

 

“……Although philosophy offers many problems, both important and useful, that have been fully and carefully discussed by philosophers, those teachings which have been handed down on the subject of moral duties seem to have the widest practical application. For no phase of life, whether public or private, whether in business or in the home, whether one in working on what concerns oneself alone or dealing with another, can be without its moral duty; on the discharge of such duties depends all that is morally right, and on their neglect all that is morally wrong in life.

 

Moreover, the subject of this inquiry is the common property of all philosophers; for who would presume to call himself a philosopher, if he did not inculcate any lessons of duty? But there are some schools that distort all notions of duty by the theories they propose touching the supreme good and the supreme evil. For he who posits the supreme goods as having no connection with virtue and measures it not by a moral standard but by his own interests – if he should be consistent and not rather at times over-ruled by his better nature, he could not value neither friendship nor justice nor generosity; and brave he surely cannot possibly be that counts pain the supreme evil, nor temperate he that holds pleasure to be the supreme good.

 

Although these truths are so self-evident that the subject does not call for discussion, still I have discussed it in another connection. If, therefore, theses schools should claim to be consistent, they could not say anything about duty; and no fixed, invariable, nature rules of duty can be posited except by those who say that moral goodness is worth seeking solely or chiefly for its own sake……”

 

以上是西塞罗(公元前106-43年)《论责任》之第一卷“道德上的善”之二中的节选。因为是中英文对照本(徐奕春译),开始读中文时,虽然很为其中的逻辑论述所吸引,但没太读懂,于是读英文原文,并试着将部分原译文进行修改(原文将consistent均译为“始终如一”,我感觉破坏了其中的逻辑论述),以准确表述我理解的英文论述。请朋友们指出中译文是否恰当,多谢。

 

最早接触亚当-斯密时,知道他开始在大学教书时教授道德学,后来读他的《道德情操论》,颇为他细致深刻的人性分析所倾倒,第一次了解到,道德其实是一门学问,而不是一些凭空设计的规则。读西塞罗早在公元前的责任论述,所吸引我的,还是其中的逻辑论述。

 

我对国学很陌生,不知有关专家(如薛老师,嘿嘿)是否可以向我解释孟子的“性善论”是否有这样的逻辑论述?博友赵恢真原创的苏格拉底和孔子对话录,如果涉及“责任”问题,一定很有看头。

 

如果当年孔子遭遇苏格拉底,儒学当不是如今这般。

0

阅读 收藏 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  

新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 欢迎批评指正

新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 产品答疑

新浪公司 版权所有