The most frequent charges brought against moral relativism are probably that it is inconsistent, that it has morally repugnant implications, and that it leads to amoralism, or the breakdown of morality altogether. A less frequent but still common objection is more conceptual in nature: relativism cannot make any sense of a certain species of comparative moral judgment, namely those that morally compare two moral codes. The general form of this kind of judgment is: ‘Moral code A is morally superior to moral code B.’ Stace lodges this objection, and others have as well. Is it cogent? Using Stace as a springboard for discussion, I critically examine three related arguments against relativism that claim that comparative judgments of the sort in question are impossible on relativism.

Evolutionary biologists have suggested that human moral judgment is best understood as an emotionally mediated phenomenon. With few exceptions, philosophers have scorned these proposals. Recent research in moral psychology and social neuroscience indicates, though, that moral judgment is produced by the coordinated activity of multiple regions of the brain, and consists of both cognitive and affective processes. Evidence also suggests that different dimensions of moral judgment – the affective and cognitive processes, for instance – possess distinct evolutionary histories. Moral philosophers will need to reconsider longstanding debates – such as those between Humeans and anti-Humeans, and between motivation internalists and externalists – in light of this evidence. Otherwise we run the risk of disciplinary irrelevance.

My aim in this paper is to illuminate the limitations of adopting thick ethical concepts to support the rationality of moral emotion. To this end, I shall first of all concentrate on whether emotions, especially moral emotions are thick concepts and can be analysed into both evaluative and descriptive components. Secondly,I shall examine Gibbard’s thesis that to judge an act wrong is to think guilt and anger warranted. I then raise the following question. If we identify moral considerations with anger in particular, it overly emphasizes one seemingly arbitrary emotion. In other words, I doubt whether ‘other’s anger’ can be the general concept corresponding to thick concepts such as courage or generosity. My doubt about the objectivity of Gibbard’s moral emotion depends on Bernard Williams’doubt about ethical objectivity in terms of a critical notice of the distinction between thick and thin ethical concepts. Finally, I shall pose a challenge to the distinction between thick and thin ethical concepts on the ground that it is not in fact a clear one. I shall argue that it is impossible clearly to classify various ethical concepts either as thick or thin. This is because, I shall argue, as Scheffler points out, “any division of ethical concepts into the two categories of the thick and the thin is itself a considerable oversimplication.” Indeed, I shall argue, our ethical vocabulary is tragically rich with an irreconcilable plurality of values. If my analysis is right, I argue Gibbard’s attempt to appeal to thick concepts to explain the rationality of moral emotion is open to question.

The key issue of traditional theories of human nature in China is De or virtue, Yu or desire and their correlation. It leads to two developing currents: one is the old tradition since Xia, Shang and Zhou, the Three Dynasties which take desire as nature, another is the new tradition later Confucius initiated which take virtue as nature. So the understanding of human nature in early China experienced a process from desire to virtue, or from the instinct of human to the essence of human. Prior to Confucius, nature is desire and instinct. In that time, the theories of human nature has two themes, namely to manage nature by virtue and to explain nature by Qi. Since Lao Zi, virtue was taken as the inner essence of human. Later Confucius further to take virtue as nature directly, so completes the fundamental transformation of traditional theory of human nature. This is the source of the idea nature of reason and the origin of the theory nature is good. Zisi advocated “what Heaven has conferred is called the nature” to promote the new tradition, and named desire as “the inner”. The new excavated bamboo book Xing Zi Ming Chu not only developed the idea of “the inner” of Zisi, but also further to restore desire as nature, and constructed a unique system of outer moral apriorism for it. Shortly afterward, Mencius turns this trend and advocates none but the four beginnings is nature, desire only is impartment, therefore he develops the new tradition to extremes. Even though, before the period between Tang and Song dynasties, the mainstream of the theory of human nature in China was the oldtradition, and that the new tradition merely like a flash in the pan. In fact, the dualism of human nature in Song and Ming dynasties carried on the old tradition, and at the same time, succeeded the new tradition, and put them into a unified thought system.

Since early the 1980s Feminist philosophers started to put up the value of care on agenda in study of ethics, investigating issues of valuing care as a balance of justice. A book came up as The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global in 2006, written by Virginia Held (VH). She called her balancing approach as “fairer caring” and caring justice”. These two terms show the essence of VH’s analysis of notions of care and justice: meshing them together as inseparable but emphasizing care as a wider framework into which justice should be fitted. Hence, care should be the priority in a more comprehensive moral theory, the ethics of care (EC). I will interpret VH’s thoughts and arguments of EC as priority and how justice and care integrated for each other and why EC will work out a better wayregarding many ethical issues. Finally, I will compare VH’s EC with Confucian ethical idea of reciprocity as the golden rule of Confucianism, and evaluate the difference between the two and strengths of each.

A critical approach on tolerance can be done as an endeavor to asset its rational arguments brought in its support or/and as a justification of its moral value within the process of human being completion. The commitment to such critical task is more necessary as it is unyieldingness summon in contemporary debates in political religious and, especially moral contexts, it has been equally valorized and contested. The most remarkable analyses of this rather summary rubric for many and often contradictory connotations, then concept, underline the idea that a limit-matter is at stake: can be tolerated the intolerable? Because these boundaries are hard to be distinguished the critical position intellectually reasonable seems to be that of examining if is not more socially profitable and morally justifiable to be tolerant rather than intolerant.Developing possible arguments for and against the universal value of tolerance, critical discourse imposes a very meaningful statement: to uphold our humanity, even the demand for our right to intolerance must be done within the framework and with the means of tolerance.

L’existant humain est par essence un être-au-monde. Cette dimension ontologique (pré)suppose une réalité ontique, à savoir la nature comme espace de visibilité de notre existence. Cependant, le pouvoir technologique défigure cette nature et se retourne contre l’homme au point que même l’éthique traditionnelle devient inopérante face aux défis de ce pouvoir. C’est à juste titre que Hans Jonas soutient que la réflexion éthique doit cesser de s’occuper uniquement de l’action humaine en rapport avec les hommes entre eux pour s’intéresser à l’homme comme une force agissante au sein de la nature. Ainsi, contrairement à Kant, Jonas pose les effets de l’acte comme condition de sa moralité. Et pourtant, il nous semble que la disposition intérieure du sujet agissant, la volonté bonne,n’est pas non plus à négliger. D’où la pertinence de l’impératif de l’éthique de la visibilité dans l’invisible qui réconcilie les deux positions : Agis de telle sorte que ton acte, sous-tendu par une intention pure, produise des effets compatibles avec la permanence d’une vie authentiquement humaine sur terre en assurant ainsi ta visibilité dans l’invisible. L’inflexion de cet impératif dans la praxis quotidienne passe par l’éducation ; laquelle doit s’organiser autour de trois principes cardinaux, à savoir : le principe de préséance de la vie, le principe d’interaction des générations et le principe de discontinuité des antivaleurs.

This paper presents an interpretation of the paradoxical decision of Abraham done by Søren A. Kierkegaard in his work Fear and Trembling as an ethics of silence. The main idea is to understand ethics not as moral standards or specific duties, but as the responsibility of becoming a single individual in time; singularity as the intimate and personal relationship with the calling of love. In such a way, that silence is the experience of the encounter with the paradox that being human means to be singular in conditions that claim an universal and general transparent manifestation dependent of the dominant rational discourse.Then, silence becomes the fundamental ethical claim to become a human person, as spirit in time, where it becomes a time of trial and examination, a temporality, where the trial is the fidelity to love’s calling, the listening of the possibilities that are presented by the anxiety of the decision. These possibilities are not immanent to the world or to history, they call for a personal choice, always containing a space of revelation; therefore of listening to the interiority of the personal choice that for Kierkegaard is the passion of faith, communicated and lived in silence. Concluding that an ethics of silence by the image of Abraham implies to re-think the role of philosophy in relationship to faith, hope and love in time, as a silent thought.

The responsibility of the subjects is the most important basis of the social life. Recurrences of irresponsible behaviour on the all levels of the modern society do the problem of the purposeful cultivation of the liberty and the morality to be more actual nowadays. The liberty and the morality realized by any personality become the prerequisites of the responsibility that are so necessary for the society. Became the true reality the responsibility provides the sustainable reproduction of all system of feelings, convictions and actions and raises the liberty to the higher and more deliberate stage. Responding to the changes of the time the philosophy has to be urged to clarify the idea of the closing of the social anthropology, aksiologiya and ethics.

Traditionally virtue ethics was considered as a theory about personal perfection. So it may seem that virtue theory hardly can be adopted to the study of social morality which, as some researchers demonstrate, is formalized and institutionalized, effect-oriented and presupposes not personal but shared imputation. However, as impartial analysis of the history of moral philosophy displays, virtue ethics has always had social dimension and has never existed out ofit. For example, Aristotelian ethics extends to politics and his politics is considerably mediated by ethics. And many of modern virtue ethicists proclaim the social orientation of their theories as of high priority. Today social virtue ethics is making substantial progress in applied and professional spheres. My aim is to demonstrate which peculiar basic features of virtue ethics make it effective in dealing with the most urgent social problems.

The author considers positions of evolutionary ethics from the point of interaction with defining ideas of " big science ", and also on a material of concrete ethical concepts. As a program principle the statement about a substantiation of moral principles as congenital biological structures is accepted. Based on concrete positions of works of D. Dennet and I. Merkulov, the author addresses to concept of rationality which "works" as one of the reasons both in evolutionary process and in development of culture. Appearance of special human models of behaviour during evolution can be presented as selection of some conditions focused on efficiency which in the world of culture gets valuable senses of mutual aid, cooperation, altruism.

The paper has seriously explored the triple meanings of death in western philosophy by taking the instance of Socrates’ death. Comparing to God, the westernphilosophy emphasizes that death is necessary. Comparing to the materials, the western philosophy emphasizes that death is happy. Comparing to the man, the western philosophy emphasizes that death is independent.

Marxist value standpoint taking the value of working classes as more important and higher than universal human value has already been proved wrong by the antihuman practice led by the standpoint in the 20th century. Though the disastrous historical reality was definitely beyond or not the expectation of Marxism founders, the practice is logically necessary result of the unavoidable historical limitation and theory mistake of Marxism. In their early years, both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels held the criterion of the universal human value such as freedom, democracy, equality and fraternity. However, decided or required by the spacetime concrete circumstance, they had to concretize the ideal of ‘human liberation’ into the aim of ‘the liberation of proletariat’. According to such the three principles: social existence decides social consciousness, there is no common human nature in a society in which people belong to the different classes, and productive forces is the final motive power and cause of social development, historical materialism demonstrates the supreme position of the value of working classes. These arguments are not persuasive in theory. Marxism itself has to take the universal human value as moral criterion against capitalism. Historical materialism has the problem of inherent reductionism in its epistemic methodology. Also, Marxism commits the obvious simple mistake to negate generality with specialty in expounding no common human nature existing in a class society. And The Marxism founders were rational arrogance when building their theory system. These are epistemology and psychology factors to form the prejudiced value standpoint. This reflection on the mistake of Marxist value standpoint expects to reach such a common consensus: to accept consciously and further improve and perfect the universal human values that mark the maturity level of today’s human spirit as human’s qualification.

This paper adopted a constructive thinking model which is highly abstract and summary to investigate the life phenomena. It is more inclined to avoid detailednonessentials to grasp macroscopic outline trend, which is like: clearly see the direction of mountain range only by climbing to a height and looking forward; the more you enter into the braches and knots of trees, the more difficult to distinguish the general picture of the forest. Adopting this macroscopical mode of thought, it will be easier to break away from the limitation of life body to grasp the inherent essence and common property of life. Any life is like a “running machine” and the running and living life state is the essential property of life. This life state isn’t windy; instead, it is a state of life material system and a state which could makematerial synthesis and energy transfer to keep automatic circulation and linkage running. When this state is established, life is formed. When this state is destroyed, life will be perished, when this state is restored, life could relive. It is the task of chemist and biologist to clarify precise material structure. From the property and characteristics of the life state, we could unearth the common connection and profound value meaning of movement development of objective world. It is Philosopher’s task to make it as the doctrine to guide the development of life world. On the basis of this life state, this paper put forth a theoretical model of life origin, so as to find answer of life origin theoretically. It opened passage between physical world and life world and made the life generated inmaterial system under specific condition to become an inevitable law. It will indicate orientation and a way out for the practical activity of exploring life origin. Meantime, this essay also found the vitality, which created life and push life to continuously run and develop, in addition, it created a significant theory of vitality extension. By means of life body, it downwardly connected with natural science law and upwardly connected with truth and doctrine of human society through life activity. It organically connected with material world, life world, human society and human spirit, offering an explanation to the world. It makes beautiful and simple world weltbild, which is like a developing and rising monument: A stele of weltbild.

Active reciprocity is a process of human harmonious development, which is based on reciprocity. Reciprocity is the result of trichotomy and the expression of golden mean; Active reciprocity is the expression of active golden mean, which discards the passive part of reciprocity. Active reciprocity is a form of rational collectivism which, generally speaking, has two rules for individual communication behavior, namely mutually benefiting and mutually tolerating. It also has three rules for individual behavior, namely benefiting the others without harming oneself, benefiting both oneself and others, benefiting oneself without harming others. It has, through norms, incorporated values and ideas such as fairness, reason, democracy, philanthropism, freedom, harmony, as well as right, responsibility, respect, tolerance, trust, sustainable development. However, it has to be pointed out that active reciprocity should oriented towards altruism, with the minimum requirement of doing no harm to others. Otherwise it will result in moral relativism.