Wojciech Żełaniec

Are there things that we must never do, no matter how untypical the circumstances and “unorthodox” our deontic ideas might be? In this essay I try to make evident that acts I call “pure sadist acts” satisfy this description. I discuss several examples of such acts and alert to their being not always easy to distinguish from certain others. Norms prohibiting such acts I call “true”, and I suggest that other, less suggestive, norms might also be (derivatively) true, if the pertinent acts stand in certain relations with the former ones. I incorporate some ideas from Hume, as well as from elementary model theory, to make mine clearer.

This essay attempts to define a value (not «the» value) of what, in it, comes to be called an «eccentric». In a largely standardized and stereotyped society like ours of the present times, a society where a human being can be creative but only within certain predefined limits, diverse groups exert all kinds of pressure on an individual, and with growing geographical as well as social mobility these kinds of pressure, intertwined and superimposed, give rise to overdue stress and situations of psychological and maybe even metaphysical impossibility. One solution is a «no notice» attitude, in which all rules but a few selected ones are more or less dignifiedly flouted. Another solution is an attitude of an eccentric, close to, but not identical with, that of John Henry Newman’s «gentleman». I try to define this attitude and show one of its values: enabling us to evade too much social pressure without estranging us from society.

G.E.M. Anscombe znalazła w Etyce nikomachejskiej Arystotelesa pewną niekonsekwencję: Arystoteles zdaje się twierdzić, że cokolwiek wynika z namysłu, jest wyborem, i że słaby wolą może się skutecznie namyślać, ale i że — z drugiej strony — on nie wybiera. Anscombe znajduje rozwiązanie tej sprzeczności: Arystoteles powinien był, jej zdaniem, zaznaczyć, że by z namysłu wynikał wybór, to, ze względu na co się namyślamy, musiałby sam być przedmiotem uprzedniego wyboru. Badam to rozwiązanie i znajduję jego słabe strony, jak niebezpieczeństwo nieskończonego regresu, trudność prześledzenia genealogii wyborów i nieosiągalność pierwotnego celu. Pomimo to próbuję je ulepszyć, poddając pod dyskusję, czy tego rodzaju pierwotne wybory, jakich wymaga rozwiązanie Anscombe, nie są jednak czasem naprawdę podejmowane i czy ich cele nie są rozkładalne na takie, które można realistycznie mieć nadzieję osiągnąć.

This essay is an assessment of Searle’s arguments for the derivability of an obligation from a fact set out in his 1964 and 1968. It draws on a number of authoritative authors both old and recent. It is not, nor does it attempt to be, an erudite review of the very large literature on the topic in question. Rather, it focuses on certain fine points of the Searlean derivation, points that, while striking, have largely gone unnoticed in the current literature. The bottom line is, not unexpectedly, that the derivability of obligations from facts is to remain a matter of debate for some time still—yet a debate to which Searle’s contribution can’t be overestimated.