Mobile version of Hanspub

文章引用说明 更多>> (返回到该文章)

Nielsen, K. (1988) Arguing about Justice: Marxist Immoralism and Marxist Moralism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17, 222-223.


  • 标题: 道德的空场和批判的失语—艾伦•伍德“马克思主义反道德主义”的理论局限Abolishing Morality and Critique—The Defects in the Allen Wood’s “Marxist Immoralism” Theory

    作者: 陈洪华

    关键字: 艾伦•伍德, 马克思主义反道德主义, 理论局限Allen Wood, “Marxist Immoralism” Theory, Defects and Limitations

    期刊名称: 《Advances in Philosophy》, Vol.5 No.1, 2016-03-04

    摘要: 艾伦•伍德的“马克思主义反道德主义”在国外马克思主义学界具有重要的影响,它直接引起并深度参与了20世纪70年代以来国外马克思主义学界关于马克思主义是“道德主义”还是“反道德主义”的一场学术大争论。这一理论因为正确地坚持了马克思主义历史唯物主义的视角而具有一定的合理性。但由于对作为整体的马克思主义的理解存在偏差,导致了这一理论内部具有诸多无法克服的矛盾和局限:它无法有效回应和充分说明马克思主义对资本主义社会的批判,取消了马克思主义的最显著特质;其隐含的“现实的即为合理的”道德评价主张混淆了描述性、功能性的道德与规范性道德之间的区分,取消了“现实”之道德与“应然”之道德之间的必要张力;“阶级利益论证”的理论将无产阶级利益与道德价值完全对立,取消了无产阶级运动的价值正当性。伍德的“马克思反道德主义”导致了道德话语在马克思主义理论中的整体消解和丧失,使得批判成为空话和不可能,这是对马克思主义理论的严重曲解和误认。 Allen Wood’s “Marxist Immoralism” theory has an important influence in the western Marxism academic circle. It is one of the causes and one of the most important participations of the great debate about Marxist Moralism and Immoralism which happened in the 1970s. In term of its in-sistence of the insight of the Historical Materialism, the theory has something correct as an integral theory. But because of its misunderstanding about the Marxism, the theory has some de-fects and limitations: the theory cannot explain the Capitalism in the Marxism, and loses the most important features of Marxism; the principle “existence is reasonable”, which is concluded from Allen Wood’s “Marxist Immoralism” theory, confuses the distinguish between the descriptive, functional morality and the normative conception of morality. The “class interests argument” makes the interests of the proletariat completely contradict with the moral values, and it cancels the legitimacy of the interests of the proletariat. Allen Wood's "Marxist Immoralism" leads to the overall digestion and loss of moral discourse in Marxist theory. And critique becomes impossible. It is a serious misinterpretation and misconception of Marxist theory