论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The exploration of the scale of moral evaluation in Zhuangzi may subvert people’s basic views on Zhuangzi’s thinking about moral issues.However， analyzing Zhuangzi’s philosophy based on moral relativism.It is necessary to clarify its attribution to the dual dimension of human nature， and at the same time， it should reveal the basic view vision of Zhuangzi’s exploration of moral scale of evaluation around virtue.
【Key words】Zhuangzi； Scale of moral evaluation； Moral relativism
【作者簡介】季卓瑾（1994.11.12-），女，汉族，内蒙古包头人，内蒙古大学，硕士，研究方向：中国哲学。
Research purposes：Harman once said this：“the claim that there is not a single objectively true morality but only many different moralities，just as there is not a single true language but only many different languages.moral relativism is the claim that that there is not a single objectively true morality but only many different moralities.”What Boghossian thinks that：“the proper response to the thought that there is not a single true morality is to stop believing in moral right and wrong. ”in Harman’s view what Boghossian takes the proper response to be moral nihilism， not moral relativism.In the past years of Zhuangzi’s research， Zhuangzi’s moral philosophy was classified as moral nihilism.This paper will analyze the moral evaluation scale of Zhuangzi in the perspective of moral relativism to prove that Zhuangzi’s moral philosophy can be established under the perspective of moral relativism.The purpose is to affirm Zhuangzi’s philosophy as a philosophical perspective of relativism， not nihilism.
Zhuangzi attributed moral relativism to the dual dimension of human nature，And it is identified as the basic view of the scale’s evaluation of virtue.
For Zhuangzi， the middle period of the Warring States period isThe world is chaotic，the wisdom of sage can not be demonstrated，and there is no unified standard of morality.”In other words，because the ideas advocated by the philosophers are different from each other，the moral judgment standards they hold are also diversified.
Zhuangzi believes that human nature is an inherent endowment of an individual.And only depending on the differences virtue between individuals can be identified.For example Confucian morality but like a rope hook， rules， or based on the unity of scale to evaluate people’s moral and human nature，his will inevitably force people to “lost their usual” or change their original moral evaluation criteria.In Zhuangzi’s view， if benevolence and justice are limited to how to evaluate individual morality， this will only can impact people’s values；What’s more， if benevolence and justice are regarded as the purpose itself， the result is that people lose their moral standards. After criticizing the Confucian moral theory， Zhuangzi clearly recognized the philosophical significance of distinguishing between the natural attributes of human beings and the moral attributes .When analysing the terms used by Zhuangzi， he has clearly pointed out that human natural attributes and human moral attributes stand for two different dimensions of human.
Joined toes and extra fingers seem to com from nature，yet，functionally speaking they are superfluous！Goiters and tumors seem to come from the body， yet in their nature，they are superfluous.And （similarly），to have many extraneous doctrines of charity and duty and regard them in practice as parts of a man’s nature sentiments is not the true way of Dao.《Joined Toes》
It is undeniable that many commentators have always reminded people of Zhuangzi’s different usages of “in nature” and “morality.”For example，Zhuangzi think that “Moral” is to highlight the boundary between the special phenomenon and the general characteristics of human nature.
It should be noted that Zhuangzi not only explores the unique meaning of “morality”， but also pays more attention to analyzing the evaluation scale of morality.In fact， among the thinkers in the middle of the Warring States period， it has become a trend of the times to argue the moral evaluation scale by contemplating the different dimensions of human nature.For example， Mencius， who was contemporary with Zhuangzi， not only defined the nature of human beings based on the concept of natural morality， but also distinguished the natural and moral nature of human beings by distinguishing different ways of satisfying physiological desires and independent choices.
On the basis of distinguishing the different dimensions of human nature， Zhuangzi explains the evaluation scale of morality from two levels：conformity and nature.
On the whole， Zhuangzi believes that morality must have the following characteristics：
What I called good is not what is meant charity and duty，but talking good care of virtue.And what I called good is not so-called charity and duty，but following the nature of life.《Joined Toes》
Specifically， Zhuangzi believes that the standard of moral evaluation is not derived from the benevolence and righteousness and a unique endowment of nature， but must reflect the “life” or nature of human beings.Although it is only possible to say that morality is a quality that inhibits nature， Zhuangzi does not seem to believe that the two are either one or the other.A reasonable explanation should be that Zhuangzi builds moral evaluation scales in accordance with moral attributes in preference to ethical attributes.In other words， a person can make his unique innate attributes unrestricted without violating the moral attributes of a person. It is certain that Zhuangzi’s criticism of the virtues of the philosophers does not necessarily lead to the conclusion to moral relativism.The essence is to explore： “How should we use human nature to confirm the scale of moral evaluation？”For Zhuangzi， Confucianism， ink， and Taoist scholars represented by Yang Zhu cannot give reasonable answers because they confuse the different dimensions of human nature.Therefore， it is possible to regard the viewpoint of violating humanity as the evaluation scale of morality.Zhuangzi pointed out that in order to confirm the evaluation scale of morality， it is necessary to distinguish between innate attributes and moral attributes， and it is more important to grasp the specific connotations of the two.In particular， Zhuangzi’s moral scale is to explain morality by respecting the unique endowment or innate attributes of the individual while ensuring the continuity of human life and the general characteristics of moral attributes.
After the above investigation， it can be found that in Zhuangzi’s《Joined Toes》，Zhuangzi clarified the connotation of “Human nature”，respected the dual dimension of human nature，and confirmed in detail the existence of the moral evaluation scale.For that， it can be affirmed that Zhuangzi’s moral philosophy can be established under the perspective of moral relativism. It further proves that Zhuangzi’s philosophy is the perspective of relativism philosophy， not nihilism.
References：
[1]Harman on Moral Explanations of Natural Facts[J]. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 24 （1986a） Supplement，69-78.
[2]What Difference Does It Make Whether Moral Realism Is True[J].The Southern Journal of Philosophy 24 （1986b） Supplement，115-41.
[3]Relativism， in John Skorupski， ed.， The Routledge Companion to Ethics （London and New York： Routledge，2010：356-65.
[4]郭齊勇.中国哲学史[M].北京：高等教育出版社，2011：90.
[5]郭象.庄子[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2012：153.
[6]百度文库.林语堂.庄子英文版[OL]. https：//wenku.baidu.com/view/e80b2ad276a20029bd642d8f.html.
【Key words】Zhuangzi； Scale of moral evaluation； Moral relativism
【作者簡介】季卓瑾（1994.11.12-），女，汉族，内蒙古包头人，内蒙古大学，硕士，研究方向：中国哲学。
Research purposes：Harman once said this：“the claim that there is not a single objectively true morality but only many different moralities，just as there is not a single true language but only many different languages.moral relativism is the claim that that there is not a single objectively true morality but only many different moralities.”What Boghossian thinks that：“the proper response to the thought that there is not a single true morality is to stop believing in moral right and wrong. ”in Harman’s view what Boghossian takes the proper response to be moral nihilism， not moral relativism.In the past years of Zhuangzi’s research， Zhuangzi’s moral philosophy was classified as moral nihilism.This paper will analyze the moral evaluation scale of Zhuangzi in the perspective of moral relativism to prove that Zhuangzi’s moral philosophy can be established under the perspective of moral relativism.The purpose is to affirm Zhuangzi’s philosophy as a philosophical perspective of relativism， not nihilism.
Zhuangzi attributed moral relativism to the dual dimension of human nature，And it is identified as the basic view of the scale’s evaluation of virtue.
For Zhuangzi， the middle period of the Warring States period isThe world is chaotic，the wisdom of sage can not be demonstrated，and there is no unified standard of morality.”In other words，because the ideas advocated by the philosophers are different from each other，the moral judgment standards they hold are also diversified.
Zhuangzi believes that human nature is an inherent endowment of an individual.And only depending on the differences virtue between individuals can be identified.For example Confucian morality but like a rope hook， rules， or based on the unity of scale to evaluate people’s moral and human nature，his will inevitably force people to “lost their usual” or change their original moral evaluation criteria.In Zhuangzi’s view， if benevolence and justice are limited to how to evaluate individual morality， this will only can impact people’s values；What’s more， if benevolence and justice are regarded as the purpose itself， the result is that people lose their moral standards. After criticizing the Confucian moral theory， Zhuangzi clearly recognized the philosophical significance of distinguishing between the natural attributes of human beings and the moral attributes .When analysing the terms used by Zhuangzi， he has clearly pointed out that human natural attributes and human moral attributes stand for two different dimensions of human.
Joined toes and extra fingers seem to com from nature，yet，functionally speaking they are superfluous！Goiters and tumors seem to come from the body， yet in their nature，they are superfluous.And （similarly），to have many extraneous doctrines of charity and duty and regard them in practice as parts of a man’s nature sentiments is not the true way of Dao.《Joined Toes》
It is undeniable that many commentators have always reminded people of Zhuangzi’s different usages of “in nature” and “morality.”For example，Zhuangzi think that “Moral” is to highlight the boundary between the special phenomenon and the general characteristics of human nature.
It should be noted that Zhuangzi not only explores the unique meaning of “morality”， but also pays more attention to analyzing the evaluation scale of morality.In fact， among the thinkers in the middle of the Warring States period， it has become a trend of the times to argue the moral evaluation scale by contemplating the different dimensions of human nature.For example， Mencius， who was contemporary with Zhuangzi， not only defined the nature of human beings based on the concept of natural morality， but also distinguished the natural and moral nature of human beings by distinguishing different ways of satisfying physiological desires and independent choices.
On the basis of distinguishing the different dimensions of human nature， Zhuangzi explains the evaluation scale of morality from two levels：conformity and nature.
On the whole， Zhuangzi believes that morality must have the following characteristics：
What I called good is not what is meant charity and duty，but talking good care of virtue.And what I called good is not so-called charity and duty，but following the nature of life.《Joined Toes》
Specifically， Zhuangzi believes that the standard of moral evaluation is not derived from the benevolence and righteousness and a unique endowment of nature， but must reflect the “life” or nature of human beings.Although it is only possible to say that morality is a quality that inhibits nature， Zhuangzi does not seem to believe that the two are either one or the other.A reasonable explanation should be that Zhuangzi builds moral evaluation scales in accordance with moral attributes in preference to ethical attributes.In other words， a person can make his unique innate attributes unrestricted without violating the moral attributes of a person. It is certain that Zhuangzi’s criticism of the virtues of the philosophers does not necessarily lead to the conclusion to moral relativism.The essence is to explore： “How should we use human nature to confirm the scale of moral evaluation？”For Zhuangzi， Confucianism， ink， and Taoist scholars represented by Yang Zhu cannot give reasonable answers because they confuse the different dimensions of human nature.Therefore， it is possible to regard the viewpoint of violating humanity as the evaluation scale of morality.Zhuangzi pointed out that in order to confirm the evaluation scale of morality， it is necessary to distinguish between innate attributes and moral attributes， and it is more important to grasp the specific connotations of the two.In particular， Zhuangzi’s moral scale is to explain morality by respecting the unique endowment or innate attributes of the individual while ensuring the continuity of human life and the general characteristics of moral attributes.
After the above investigation， it can be found that in Zhuangzi’s《Joined Toes》，Zhuangzi clarified the connotation of “Human nature”，respected the dual dimension of human nature，and confirmed in detail the existence of the moral evaluation scale.For that， it can be affirmed that Zhuangzi’s moral philosophy can be established under the perspective of moral relativism. It further proves that Zhuangzi’s philosophy is the perspective of relativism philosophy， not nihilism.
References：
[1]Harman on Moral Explanations of Natural Facts[J]. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 24 （1986a） Supplement，69-78.
[2]What Difference Does It Make Whether Moral Realism Is True[J].The Southern Journal of Philosophy 24 （1986b） Supplement，115-41.
[3]Relativism， in John Skorupski， ed.， The Routledge Companion to Ethics （London and New York： Routledge，2010：356-65.
[4]郭齊勇.中国哲学史[M].北京：高等教育出版社，2011：90.
[5]郭象.庄子[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2012：153.
[6]百度文库.林语堂.庄子英文版[OL]. https：//wenku.baidu.com/view/e80b2ad276a20029bd642d8f.html.