[XII] 伦理学（价值论）的对立：
价值论在基督徒对哲学的批判里所扮演的角色
THE ANTITHESIS IN VALUES:
PLACE OF VALUE THEORY IN CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF PHILOSOPHY (33-36)
正如我较早说过，我在本书不会专论价值论，因为我在《基督教伦理学》(Doctrine of the Christian Life) 一书已作过详细的讨论。
As I said earlier, I will not be focusing on value theory in this book, having dealt with it in much detail in DCL.
但是『价值』的确是形而上学和知识论的重要层面，因为几个视角是不能分开的。
But values are an important aspect of metaphysics and epistemology, since perspectives are inseparable from one another.
因此在这一段，我会略略勾画出，在我对哲学史的批判中，价值论扮演怎样地方角色。
So I want to sketch a bit in this section how value theory functions in my critique of philosophy.
较早我曾说过，知识论会以伦理作为前提，因为：在人类对知识的追寻里，伦理价值是必须的：『纪律，勤奋，对真理的尊重，避免虚假，诚实报导研究的结论，前辈承认自己的错误或不足，承担责任为自己的宣称提出证据。』
I mentioned earlier that epistemology presupposes ethics, since the quest for knowledge requires ethical values: “discipline, diligence, respect for truth, avoidance of falsehood, honesty in reporting conclusions, humility in admitting error and inadequacy, acceptance of responsibility to give evidence for one’s claims.”
我也力争伦理价值乃以上帝为前提的。
And I have also argued that ethical values presuppose God.
[ 注脚底四十五。见我的《卫道学概论》英文新版，等。]
[Footnote 45. AJCB, 95-1232; John M. Frame and Paul Kurt, “Do We Need God to Be Moral?,” Free Inquiry 16, 2 (1996). Courtesy of the Council for Secular Humanism, http://www.secularhumanism.org.
Also availablea t http://frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1996Debate.htm. ]
[1] 符合《圣经》的伦理学：唯有一个位格有资格颁布伦理准则
BIBLICAL ETHICS: ONLY A PERSON HAS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ETHICAL NORMS
简言之：一个非位格的事物，没有权柄强加伦理准则在人身上。
In brief: nothing impersonal has the authority to impose ethical norms.
唯有一个位格才有资格（例如：一个母亲，父亲，教师，警察），而唯有一个绝对的位格才有资格强加终极的，普遍性的准则。
Only a person can do that (e.g. a mother, father, teacher, policeman), and only an absolute person can impose ultimate, universal norms.
[2] 非基督徒伦理学的理性主义和非理性主义
RATIONALISM AND IRRATIONALISM IN NON-CHRISTIAN ETHICS
很多非基督教的思想家（例如：在注脚提到的库兹）认为他们可以不考虑上帝而宣称伦理准则。
Many non-Christian thinkers (such as Paul Kurtz, in the dialogue referenced below) think they can affirm absolute ethical norms without God.
但是他们的尝试必然失败。
But their attempt inevitably fails.
如何补救？可以接受《圣经》有神论的伦理，或否认宇宙有绝对（伦理）准则。
That failure can be remedied either by embracing the ethic of biblical theism or by denying that absolute norms are possible.
因此，非基督教的伦理绝对主义（理性主义的一种）导致非基督教的伦理相对主义（非理性主义的一种）。
So non-Christian ethical absolutism (a form of rationalism) leads to non-Christian ethical relativism (a form of irrationalism).
但是我再说，非理性主义乃根据理性主义，反之亦然。
But again, irrationalism is based on rationalism and vice versa.
基督徒因为有上帝的启示，因此有确实的伦理学 (ethical certainty)。
The Christian finds ethical certainty in God’s revelation.
但是他往往在应用上帝的启示在人生难题时，会遇到困难。
But he often runs into difficulty trying to apply that revelation to the issues of life.
基督徒接受事实：他并没有所有问题的答案，他会在上帝的奥秘前低头。
He accepts that he doesn’t have all the answers, and bows the knee to God’s mystery.
因此，在价值论的范围内，长方形的图表是如下的；见图表1.7。
So in the area of values, the rectangle looks like this; see fig. 1.7.
[ 注脚四十六。参考《基督教伦理学》页45-49，有这个长方形图表的更多应用，包括：道德律的绝对性和适切性，上帝的主权和人的责任，客观性和内在性，谦虚与盼望，社会里的自由和权威，等。]
[Footnote 46. For other applications to ethics of the rectangular diagram, see DCL, 45-49. These include the absoluteness and relevance of the moral law, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, objectivity and inwardness, humility and hope, and freedom and authority in society. ]
符合《圣经》的 不符合《圣经》的
Biblical Non-Biblical
[1] 应用上的困难 [3] 伦理相对主义
Difficulty of application Ethical relativism
[2] 伦理的确定性 [4] 伦理绝对主义
Ethical certainty Ethical absolutism
图表1.7. 伦理相对主义，和伦理绝对主义。
Fig. 1.7. Ethical Relativism and Absolutism
[3] 伦理学里的处境视角，准则视角，和存在视角
SITUATIONAL, NORMATIVE & EXISTENTIAL PERSPECTIVES FOR ETHICS
较早我提出基督教思想的三个视角：处境视角，准则视角，和存在视角。
Earlier I mentioned the three perspectives of Christian thought: situational, normative, and existential.
这三个视角在基督教伦理学至为重要。
These three perspectives play important roles in Christian ethics.
[1] 基督教伦理学是准则性的，它应用《圣经》和自然界里的上帝道德律。
Christian ethics is normative, applying the moral laws of God given in Scripture and nature.
[2] 基督教伦理学也是处境性的，它分析上帝所创造的世界；也知道如何用最好的方法，在某一个处境中应用上帝的准则。
It is also situational, in that it analyzes the world that God has made to know how best to apply God’s norms to a given situation.
[3] 基督教伦理学是存在性的， 它处理伦理的当事人（人, ethical agent），了解人在作到的抉择时扮演的角色，人如何把上帝的准则应用在他的处境里。
It is existential, in that it deals with the ethical agent to understand his role in making ethical decisions, how he takes the norms of God and applies them to his situation.
当基督徒作抉择时，他会在这个三角形（三个视角）中旋转，用道德律来诠释处境，借着审视处境来应用道德律，还有，用他的主观功能（理智，情感，意志等）来了解道德律和处境。
In making decisions, the Christian goes round and round the triangle, interpreting the situation by the moral law, applying the moral law by investigating the situation, and understanding both of these through his subjective faculties; see fig. 1.8.
准则的视角
Normative Perspective
处境的视角 存在的视角
Situational Perspective Existential Perspective
图1.8 对伦理学的三个视角
Fig. 1.8. Perspectives on Ethics
非基督徒与基督徒一样，生活在同一个伦理世界里（处境），被上帝的律法包围（准则），他们也是按照上帝的形象被造的（存在）。
Non-Christians live in the same ethical world as Christians (situational), surrounded by God’s laws (normative), made in God’s image (existential).
但他们选择了不跟从上帝，用谎言取代上帝的真理（参：《罗马书》1：25）。
But they choose not to follow God, “exchang[ing] the truth about God for a lie” (Rom. 1:25).
作为哲学家，他们发展出一些不承认上帝的律法，不承认上帝的世界，不承认上帝的形象的伦理学系统。
As philosophers, they develop systems of ethics that do not acknowledge God’s laws, his world, and themselves as his image.
他们不想面对上帝，宁愿有一套接受他们自己的自主性的伦理。
They do not want to be confronted with God, but prefer an ethic that honors their own autonomy.
[4] 世俗伦理学的三大学派THREE SCHOOLS OF SECULAR ETHICS
我在较早曾提过，世俗的伦理学可分三派：义务论，目的论，和存在主义。
I mentioned earlier that there are three general types of secular ethics: deontologism, teleologism, and existentialism.
这三者大体上与基督教思想的三个视角相配：义务论与准则视角；目的论与处境视角，存在主义与存在视角。
These correspond, more or less, to the three perspectives of Christian thought: deontological to the normative, teleological to the situational, and existentialist to the existential.
但是在基督教的伦理学里，律法，处境，和位格之间并不存在张力，因为同一位上帝造了三者。
But in Christian ethics, there is no tension between the law, the situation, and the person, because the same God has made all three.
上帝创造了人（位格）在祂的世界里，根据祂的准则生活。
God has made the person to live in his world, under his norms.
当我们应用上帝的伦理准则在自己身上和周围的处境时，可能面对困难，但是我们不可责怪上帝所创造的世界。
We might have difficulties in applying his ethical norms to ourselves and our situations, but we may not blame that problem on the nature of God’s creation.
但是非基督徒一般不会承认，需要在三个视角之间作任何协调。
Non-Christians, however, do not generally recognize the need to reconcile the three perspectives.
他们假设，因为《圣经》中的上帝并不存在，因此，道德律，世界的处境，和道德当时人之间，可能会有不一致。
They assume that because the biblical God does not exist, there may be inconsistency between the moral law, the world situation, and the moral agent.
因此，很多非基督教哲学家会采用某一个或两个视角，否认其他。
So many non-Christian philosophers adopt one or two of these perspectives and deny the other(s).
例如：康德，作为一个义务论者，接受道德律，他宣称道德与我们的环境无关，也与我们的喜好
无关。
So Kant the deontologist embraces the moral law and claims that morality has nothing to do with our environment or our personal inclinations.
米勒，作为一个目的论者，接受他所认为的伦理目标（人类的快乐），而不承认我们应受准则的约束，也不承认我们会有一些喜好，是让别人不快乐的。
Mill the teleologist embraces what he considers to be the goal of ethics (human happiness) and denies that we are bound by rules or personal inclinations that fail to make people happy.
而萨特，作为一个存在主义者，认为伦理就是一个人的个性（整全性，personal integriy）的表达，但不承认道德律，也不承认（正视）客观世界。
And Sartre the existentialist says that ethics is the expression of personal integrity, but not the affirmation of moral law or the objective world.
[5] 不符合《圣经》的伦理学必需面对形而上学问题，和知识论问题
NON-BIBLICAL ETHICS MUST FACE SAME METAPHYSICAL & EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES
我在《基督教伦理学》一书中指出：这三个系统是彼此不一致的。
I argued in DCL that these systems are incoherent.
我要说的是：伦理哲学与知识论和形而上学一样，必须面对这些困难。
My point here is that ethical philosophy is subject to the same difficulties as epistemology and metaphysics.
[5.1] 形而上学问题：理智，意志，主观性
METAPHYSICAL PROBLEMS: MAN’S REASON, WILL, SUBJECTIVITY
我在较早讨论形而上学，讨论人的精神（知情意）时，我说哲学家分为理智主义者，意志主义者，和主观主义者。
In my earlier discussion of the metaphysics of the human mind, I mentioned the division among philosophers between intellectualists, voluntarists, and subjectivists.
当我讨论知识论的不同学派时，我提到理性主义经验主义，和怀疑主义。
In discussing schools of thought in epistemology, I mentioned rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism.
在基督教哲学里，这三种学派是互为视角的，这是它们之间的关系。
In Christian philosophy, the members of each triad are best seen as perspectivally related.
在知识论的三角形红，人，作为整全的位格，理解世界。
In the epistemological triad, human beings understand the world as whole persons.
『理智』并不是指一种功能，与其他的功能（意志，情感）分割，彼此斗争要主导整个人的精神 (mind)。
Intellect refers not to some faculty of the mind separate from others that wars with others for supremacy.
反之，理智是指一个人（位格）推理，获得知识的能力，而它当然会受意志和情感（主观）的影响。
Rather, it refers to the capacity of the person to reason and gain knowledge, which is, of course, influenced by will and subjectivity.
『意志』并不是理智的对手，乃是从另一个视角看整个人：一个在作抉择，选择的人。
Will refers not to an adversary of the intellect, but to the whole person from another perspective: the person as making choices and decisions.
这些抉择是又他的知识影响的，而也影响他的思考。
Those choices are influenced by his knowledge, and they in turn influence his thought processes.
但是非基督教的哲学不承认上帝在协调这些功能，因而往往觉得必须在它们之间有所取舍，要看哪一个是『主要』的。
But non-Christian philosophy, which does not recognize divine coordination of these faculties, often feels that it must choose which one is “primary.”
[5.2] 知识论问题：理性主义，经验主义，怀疑主义
EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEMS: RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, SKEPTICISM
对理性主义，经验主义和怀疑主义也是如此。
Same for the triad rationalism, empiricism, skepticism.
在《圣经》里，这个三角形描述了人对知识的追寻。
In Scripture, this triad also describes the whole person in his quest for knowledge.
人的理智会考虑到他的经验和感觉；五官经验的定义，也只有理智能提供给；如此类推。
Reason takes sense experience and feelings into account; sense experience can be defined only by reason; and so on.
基督徒可以有信心知道，上帝设计了人的知情意三个功能，共同运作。
The Christian can trust that God has designed these faculties to work as one.
但非基督教的思想家不能这样假设，因此对他们来说，必须在三角形中有所取舍，特别是三者之间有冲突时。
But non-Christian thinkers cannot assume that, so for them one must choose which member of the triad to follow if and when there is conflict.
[6] 哲学上的党派分裂
PARTISANSHIP IN PHILOSOPHY
这就导致哲学上的党派主义和分割。
This leads to philosophical partisanship and division.
这个党派主义，是激发哲学史前进的动力。
That partisanship is what drives the history of philosophy.
如政治的党派注意一样，首先，某一派占上风。
As in politics, one party prevails at first.
其后，另一党派在争辩上得分，压倒第一派，成为主导派。
But then another party scores argumentative points against the first and becomes dominant.
然而在世俗的哲学中，问题永远得不到答案。
Yet in secular philosophy, none of these questions is ever answered.
在其他的学科，例如：天文学，历史，地质学，语言学等，我们可以看出某一个程度上的进展（除了：当他们的问题涉及到哲学问题时！）。
In other disciplines, such as astronomy, history, geology, and linguistics one can trace progress to some extent (except when their questions are linked to philosophical questions).
但是在哲学界本身，今天的思想家所讨论的，本质上和柏拉图和亚里斯多特所讨论的，没有什么两样。
But in philosophy itself, thinkers today discuss essentially the same questions that Plato and Aristotle did.
这个有趣的事实暗示：哲学史，乃是不断转错弯的历史(a history of wrong turns)。
That interesting fact suggests that the history of philosophy might be to an extent a history of wrong turns.
ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）