Да, названия, которые мне субъективно кажутся более адекватными, звучат до пошлости "модно", т. е., нарочито обтекаемо и жаргонно. Например, "знаковые фигуры года". Тьфуй. Как из арго маркетологов, или из того языка, на котором медиа научились разговаривать с самими собой, оставляя публику в позиции подглядывающего. Но таков, видимо, язык эпохи. Язык якобы нейтральных диагнозов и якобы работающих рецептов, веры в "эффективность". А ярлыки более хлесткие, коннотативно яркие - выглядят комично, неактуально, неискренне. Наверное, это рана, нанесенная эпидемией постмодерна. Новый язык пока не возник, приходится старый доламывать.
I deny both the premiss, that liberal societies attribute an equal and unexchangeable value to each person, and the conclusion, that the figure of a hero is categorically improper therein. The former is belied by utilitarian reasoning that undergirds every public policy in modern democracies. As to the latter, we live in a country that made a secular saint of MLK after elevating Ike to its highest elected office. More recent examples can be found here.
The problem actually is more complicated than that. One has to defend a deontological position in a world of limited resources. So whether one wishes it or not, one has to recourse to utilitarian methods. Which does not change the validity of the principle. Even morals is not a suicide pact. Perhaps I will make an additional argument in my next essay. As to the hero worship, examples do not matter, they are simply a way of pandering - could you direct me to a theoretical work? We live in a society subscribing to liberal principles, it does not mean we live in a liberal society.
There is no duty to be a deontologist. Aristotelian virtue ethics is but one viable alternative that leaves plenty of room for heroics of all sorts in a society of your choosing. For Hellenic theory of our common ancestry, you might look into the Bernards: Knox and Williams. Likewise religious ethics, both within and without the Abrahamic lineage. On the moral importance of examples, please see Kant’s kasuistische Fragen.
Actually, I do feel a duty to be a deontologist, it does not work any other way. At least where interpersonal relations are concerned. And I don't believe one can treat ethics as a menu: utility today, virtue tomorrow. Re heroes: personal moral example is something else; traditionally hero is somebody defending strictly parochial values, hardly compatible with the universalist aspirations of ethics.
Comments 41
Например, "знаковые фигуры года". Тьфуй. Как из арго маркетологов, или из того языка, на котором медиа научились разговаривать с самими собой, оставляя публику в позиции подглядывающего.
Но таков, видимо, язык эпохи. Язык якобы нейтральных диагнозов и якобы работающих рецептов, веры в "эффективность". А ярлыки более хлесткие, коннотативно яркие - выглядят комично, неактуально, неискренне. Наверное, это рана, нанесенная эпидемией постмодерна. Новый язык пока не возник, приходится старый доламывать.
Reply
Reply
Reply
As to the hero worship, examples do not matter, they are simply a way of pandering - could you direct me to a theoretical work? We live in a society subscribing to liberal principles, it does not mean we live in a liberal society.
Reply
Reply
Re heroes: personal moral example is something else; traditionally hero is somebody defending strictly parochial values, hardly compatible with the universalist aspirations of ethics.
Reply
Leave a comment