Alejandro G. Vigo

The present essay explores the connections among the notions of ethics and creativity. Firstly, it tried to show that what we call 'creativity' presupposes the reference to a background of sense in which the reference to ends and to ruled procedures play a decisive role. It is examined, then, the case of the ruled games such as chess, which reveals in a paradigmatic way the peculiar union of spontaneity and ruled mediation that characterizes the contexts where the type of capacities, attitudes and strategies, that we usually call 'creative', can be devoloped. Finally, I tried to move the structures previously analyzed to the area of the non-ludic practice, to manifest the important role of creativity in the field of the human action as this involves a strictly moral dimension. Ethics and creativity, game and morality appear, from this perspective, much more related than what they seem at first sight.El presente trabajo explora las conexiones entre las nociones de ética y creatividad. Primero, se intenta mostrar que lo que llamamos 'creatividad' presupone la referencia a un background de sentido en el cual juegan un papel decisivo la referencia afines y a procedimientos reglados. A continuación se examina el caso de los juegos reglados como el ajedrez, que revelan de modo paradigmático la peculiar trabazón de espontaneidad y mediación reglada que caracteriza a los contextos en los que puede desplegarse el tipo de capacidades, actitudes y estrategias que solemos llamar "creativas". Por último, se intenta trasladar las estructuras así avistadas al ámbito de la praxis no-lúdica, para poner de manifiesto el importante papel que desempeña la creatividad en el ámbito propio de la acción humana, en cuanto ésta comporta una dimensión estrictamente moral. Ética y creatividad, juego y moral aparecen, desde esta perspectiva, como fenómenos mucho más estrechamente emparentados de lo que parece a primera vista

This book brings together a number of contributions dealing with certain fundamental structures of practical rationality, as they are presented in the areas of the philosophy of action and normative ethics, namely: intentionality, normativity, and reflexivity. With the term “intentionality,” is meant a set of problems that are linked not only with the teleological structure of praxis-oriented rationality, but also with its temporal structure. “Normativity”, in turn, refers to a distinct set of problems, which cannot simply be reduced to those entailed in the intentional nature of human action, even if this notion incorporates a reference to the good or value in its very structure. Finally, with the term “reflexivity” we point at the linkage between the normative dimension of reason with both the contingent circumstances of action and the moral receptivity of the agent, as it is experienced in moral judgment.

En el ámbito de la acción moral, el principio socrático de que nadie yerra voluntariamente implica que toda vez que un agente elige algo lo hace por considerarlo, al mismo tiempo, como bueno o, al menos, preferible a otra cosa: su elección es internamente racional. La tesis socrática sobre la conexión estructural entre error y autoengaño constituye, sin duda, uno de los aportes más decisivos al pensamiento filosófico occidental. De esta concepción en torno a la naturaleza y estructura del error, en general, y de su aplicación específica al caso del error moral, se siguen importantes consecuencias para el modo en que Sócrates considera el fenómeno del conflicto motivacional. Asimismo, se muestra la importancia decisiva que tuvo la concepción socrática para la discusión de la estructura de la conciencia moral tanto en Platón y Aristóteles como en Tomás de Aquino. In the realm of moral action, the socratic principle nobody errs willingly implies that the rational agent always chooses to do what he/she takes to be good or better for himself/herself: his/her choice is internally rational. Socrates' view of the connection between error and self-deception is a major contribution to western philosophy. The application of this view to the particular case of moral error has important consequences concerning the possibility of motivational conflict. Not only Plato and Aristotle but also Aquinas are strongly influenced by Socrates in their views concerning the structure of moral conscience

This paper discusses Kant’s account of the connection between ethics and right. Firstly, the way Kant includes rigth in the sphere of morals is considered. Secondly, the difference between moral and juridical legislation is examined in connection with the distinction between internal and external freedom. On this basis, an account of both the function of the principle of coexistence of freedoms and the connection between right and coaction is given.As a result, Kant’s complex position is characterized in terms of the so called “motivational model” for the distinction between ethics and right.