Transcript L1: Introduction

HKIER CUHK
2011-12
MVE 6030
The Good Society and its Educated Citizens
TSANG, Wing Kwong
Tel. 3943-6922
[email protected]
http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~wktsang/
1
2
MVE 6311
The Good Society and its Educated Citizens
Topic 1
Defining of the
Subject Matter & Framework of
Social-Value Enquiry
3
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
4
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
核心價值受衝擊 三百專業人士聯署：
不要失去靈魂的香港
2004 年 06 月 07 日
【本報訊】香港的自由民主、人權法治、公平公義等核心價值備受衝擊，約三百位來自
不同界別，包括非民主派的專業人士，今日在報章發表聯署宣言，對此表示憂心，呼籲
港人齊來維護本港賴以成功的核心價值，以免令香港變成「失去靈魂的軀殼」，因「失
去核心價值，也就失去了香港」。 記者：何文雯
聯署由四十二位來自十多個不同界別的人士發起，包括資深大律師梁家傑、大導演徐克
和陳嘉上，以及陳方安生堂妹方敏生等。發起人之一的新力量網絡主席張炳良昨在記者
會上表示，三百位聯署者不僅限於民主派，還有工商專聯主席、前任立法會議員黃匡源；
全國政協羅祥國，及曾任民建聯總幹事和前中央政策組顧問的鄭艾倫等人。
聯署宣言提到香港引以自豪的核心價值包括自由民主、人權法治、公平公義、和平仁愛、
誠信透明、多元包容、尊重個人、恪守專業。但近來香港核心價值備受衝擊，港人所追 5
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
6
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
香港《大公报》：“一国两制”是香港核心价值
（2004-06-16 20:42:53）
来源：人民网
香港《大公报》今天发表社评指出，“一国两制”是香港核心价值。
社评说，三百位专业、学术界人士最近提出了要维护香港核心价值的问题。这是一个很
好的建议。一个地方、一座城市，都必然有其不可缺少的存在价值，才有值得生存和发
展的理由。否则，纵有高楼大厦林立、纸醉金迷，也只能是一座“石屎森林”，徒有躯
壳，欠缺灵魂。今天的香港，回归已快七年。眼前，政治争拗仍持续不断，社会上人心
仍浮动不安，经济复苏纵不乏机遇、条件，也未能迈开昂然大步。这一切，显然都和价
值观的问题有关。未能知道拥有的可贵，就不会懂得去珍惜；同样，未能看到自己真正
的价值所在，也就只能对前路感到茫然。
7
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
What are the core values of Hong Kong Society?
 Version 1: 自由民主、人權法治、公平公義、和平仁愛、
誠信透明、多元包容、尊重個人、恪守專業。
 Version 2:香港的「核心價值」只有堅持國家認同，堅
持「愛國愛港」，才能避免香港變成「失去靈魂的軀
殼」。 （文匯報，2004年6月15日）
 今时今日的香港，最重要、最切实、最可贵的核心价值，
就在于“一国两制”：香港是中华人民共和国辖下的香
港，是国家的组成部分；港人是中国香港特区公民，是
顶天立地、光荣自豪的中国人。…国家民族观念理所当
然成为港人的核心价值。(大公報， 2004年6月16日）
8
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
What are the core values of Hong Kong Society?
Is society with all these core value a good
society?
What are the core values of a good society?
9
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
Where can these core values be found in a
good society?
Are they embedded in its social institutions?
Are they observed in the social routines practiced
by members of a society?
Are they embodied in the virtues of members of a
society?
Should they be embodied in the virtues of the Chief
Executive of the HKSAR? And How ??
10
In Defense of the Core Values of
Hong Kong society
Where can these core values be found in a
good society?
Should they be embodied in the virtues of the Chief
Executive of the HKSAR? And How??
 「最 終 達 至 由 一 個 有 廣 泛 代 表 性 的 提 名
委 員 會 按 民 主 程 序 提 名 後 普 選 產 生 的 目
標 。 」(第 四 十 五 條 )
 “The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief
Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by
a broadly representative nominating committee in
accordance with democratic procedures.”
11
絕
對
民
主
Your Preference
Value Enquiry……
愛
國
愛
港
12
明報 23-4-2014
明報 29-4-2014
13
明報 30-4-2014
14
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
 The aim of value education
The teaching of values
The cultivation of ability of evaluating and
the capacity of justifying one’ value
judgments
15
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
 Definitions of value: The object of value
enquiry
 D.N. Aspin’s definition: “Conduct, performances,
situations, occurrence, states of affairs, production, all
these is associated with the ways in which we perceive
them, appraise them, judge them, and the way we are
inclined towards or away from, attract to or repelled by,
such objects, productions, state of affairs, performances,
manifestation of conduct. We choose them. We prefer
them over other things in the same class of comparison.
We want to follow their model or to replicate them. We
want to emulate them. …(W)e are willing to endorse and
command those objects, performances, to other people.”
16
(Aspin, 1999, p.125)
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
 Definitions of value: The object of value
enquiry
唐君毅的定義：「大體上說來，一切具價值之
事物，都是人所欲得的，人所尋求的、喜悅的、
愛護的、讚美的、或崇敬的。簡言之，即都是人
所欲或所好的。一切具負價值或反價值之事物，
則都是人所不欲得的，人所不尋求的、厭棄的、
憎恨的、貶斥的、鄙視的。簡言之，即都是人所
不欲或所惡的」。（唐君毅，2005a，頁707）
17
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of values: Values can be classified
according to different dimensions. Two of the
common dimensions in use are
Extrinsic-intrinsic dimension: According to this
dimension values can generally be categorized into
“An intrinsic value can be defined as something that is
valuable for its own sake” (Ellis, p.12) or important in and of
itself.
“An extrinsic value is valuable not for its own sake, but
because it facilitates getting or accomplishing something
that is valuable for its own sake.” (Ellis, p.12) It means the
worth or desirability of a thing or person is derived from its
instrumentality and efficiency in achieving something more
18
desirable.
19
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of values:
Extrinsic-intrinsic dimension: …
Based on this classification, two important conceptual
tools can be derived for value enquiry. They are
 Value priority: When values are in conflict, such as an
intrinsic value is in conflict with an extrinsic value, one has
to set the priority for one value to be over the other. In
general, the intrinsic value should have the priority over
the extrinsic. It is because extrinsic values are only
instrumental (acting as means or tools) in attaining some
more profound and substantive value, such as an intrinsic
value.
20
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of values:
Based on this classification, two important
conceptual tools can be derived for value enquiry.
They are
….
‘Prima facie’ value: When intrinsic values are in conflict, a
value enquiry has to proceed to the level of deciding the
‘Prima facie’ value. According to Ralph Ellis definition, “in
the context of value theory, ‘Prima facie’ can be taken to
mean ‘unless some more important values takes priority.’”
(Ellis, 1998, p.11) In short, in facing conflicts among
intrinsic values, one has to decide which intrinsic value
should be prioritized to be the most profound.
21
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of values:
Individual-social dimension: Values can also be
classified in terms of their scope of application.
According to Ronald Dworkin’s formulation value
studies can be differentiated into “ethnics studies
how people best manage their responsibility to live
well, and personal morality what each as an
individual owes other people. Political morality, in
contrast, studies what we all together owe others as
individuals when we act in and on behalf of that
artificial collective person.” (Dworkin, 2011, Pp. 3278)
22
23
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of values:
Individual-social dimension:
… Accordingly, values may be categorized into
Ethical value: It refers to desirable traits and features we
attributed to human behaviors, actions, and conducts.
Moral value: It refers to desirable traits and features
attributed to human interactions and relationships among
fellows humans.
Political values: It refers to the ethical and moral values
taken by a given society as of prominent importance that
they should be imposed upon all members of that society
coercively.
24
To summarize, values may be classified into the following
typology:
Extrinsic values Intrinsic values
(Instrumental Values)
Prima facie value
(Substantive Values)
Ethical values
Moral values
Political values
25
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: In value enquiry, two
essential constituents are vital in the
evaluation process.
Levels are evaluations: According two theorists in
value studies, evaluations may be differentiated into
several levels
26
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
Harry Frankfurt’s first-order and second-order evaluations:
“Human beings are not alone in having desires and motives,
or in making choices. They share these things with
members of certain other species, some of which even
appears to engage in deliberation and to make decisions
based on prior thought. It seems to be particularly
characteristic of humans, however, that they are able to
form …second order desires. …no animal other than
man…appears to have the capacity for reflective selfevaluation that is manifested in the formation of secondorder desires.” (Frank, 1971, P.6-7)
27
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
Harry Frankfurt’s first-order and second-order evaluations:
…Accordingly, evaluation may be categorized into
• First-order evaluation: It refers to the capacity of evaluation
shared almost by all species in adopting and choosing more
or less instinctively the most desirable conditions for their
survivals.
• Second-order evaluation: It refers to the human capacity of
self-reflection on one’s evaluation, in other words, evaluation
of evaluation. More specifically, it refers to human capacity of
providing reasoned scrutiny or even public justification to
one’s own value judgment.
28
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
Charles Taylor’s weak and strong evaluations:
Charles Taylor elaborates Frankfurt’s formulation by
suggesting that “I agree with Frankfurt that this
capacity to evaluate desires is bound up with our
power of self-evaluation. …but I believe we can come
closer to defining what is involved in this mode of
agency if we make a further distinction, between two
broad kinds of evaluation of desire,” namely weak and
strong evaluations. (Taylor, 1985, p. 16).
29
30
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
Charles Taylor’s weak and strong evaluations: ...
• Weak evaluation: It refers to the kind of evaluations focusing
on the outcomes of the desired actions, more specifically the
practical calculation of the outcome in quantitative terms,
such as the ‘maximum quantity of happiness to the
maximum number of persons’, as the doctrine of
utilitarianism would endorsed. (Taylor, 1985, Pp.21-23)
• Strong evaluation: It refers to the kind of evaluation, whose
criteria of evaluation go beyond quantitative calculations of
outcome of desired action in point. They address the
concern about the qualitative distinction of ‘good’ and/or
‘worth’ of the action under evaluation.
31
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
 Charles Taylor has related the concept of strong
evaluation with different “levels” of human agencies,
which refers to the commitments and efforts that
human agents are willing to invest into the evaluation.
They are
• Justificatory with articulacy and depth: It refers to the
kind of human agency (commitments and efforts) that
evaluators are ready to render in the form of explicit
articulations and justifications of their value judgment.
Furthermore, these justifications are to be grounded on
ethical, moral and/or political validities and “depth”.
32
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
 Charles Taylor has related the concept of strong
evaluation with different “levels” of human agencies, …
• Supported with sense of responsibility and agency: A
strong evaluative assertion must also be supported with
human practices and actions, i.e. human agencies.
Furthermore, those who are in support of the strong
evaluative positions are not just paying lip services but
are ready to bear the cost or even lost for its fulfillment
33
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
 Charles Taylor has related the concept of strong
evaluation with different “levels” of human agencies, …
• Embodied with notion of identity: A person who are in
support of a strong evaluative stance will most probably
hold that specific value orientation continuously over
time, consistently across various circumstances and
coherently with the other aspects of his life. In other
words, the value orientation in point will become part of
one’s own identity.
34
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Levels are evaluations: …
 Charles Taylor has related the concept of strong
evaluation with different “levels” of human agencies, …
• Embedded in community: The last kind of human agency
in supporting a strong evaluation is a community, which
refers to a group of human agents with shared value
orientation and ready to work concertedly to fulfil the
specific value orientation in point. In other words, the
strong and intrinsic value in point has been embedded
into the practices, routines and lifeworld of that
community.
35
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Justificatory bases of strong evaluation: In value
studies, there are several theoretical perspectives
available in providing justificatory bases for strong
evaluation for intrinsic values. They are
Deontological theory (Transcendentalism) of evaluation:
The theoretical tradition can usually be traced back to
Kant’s concept of categorical imperative. It is the universal
normative rule, which transcends all particular ontological
situations, i.e. the deontological principle of ethical
conduct.
36
37
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Justificatory bases of strong evaluation
Deontological theory (Transcendentalism) of evaluation: ….
• It is called the categorical imperative because it is
“'categorical' in a sense that the principle is not based upon
different goals and desires people might happen to have, and
‘imperative’ since it tells people what they ought to do.”
(Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)
• Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative can simply be stated
as that in testing for the morality of actions, “an action is
morally permissible if you would be willing to have everyone
act as you are proposing to act (if you would be willing to
have the ‘maxim’ of your action become a universal law). An
action is morally wrong if you are not willing to have everyone
act as you are proposing to act.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)
38
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Justificatory bases of strong evaluation
The institutional bases (Institutionalism) of evaluation
• Alasdair McIntyre, in contrast to Neo-Kantian stance, proposes
that the social ground of intrinsic-value evaluation “can never be
grounded by an appeal to some neo-Kantian ideal of a set of
norms presupposed by all speakers in a discussion. Rather, the
concept of the better argument must always be ground within
social particular tradition of philosophical enquiry.” (Doody,
1991, p. 61)
39
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Justificatory bases of strong evaluation
The institutional bases (Institutionalism) of evaluation
• More specifically, McIntyre contends that it is within a tradition of
a craft of inquiry that rationality and ethical principles can find
their authority or ground of justification. Hence, “for on
McIntyre’s account, moral rules are not embodiments of a pure
practical reason whose charge is to issue statements of ought
which necessarily bind ahistorical beings. Rather moral rules
which express claims of ought are expressions or statements of
…virtues and rules of practices that which were …grounded in a
community of practice which understood itself through those
practices.” (Doody, 1991, p.68)
40
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Justificatory bases of strong evaluation
The realization-focused comparison of evaluation: Amartya
Sen, the Nobel Laureate in Economics 1998, in his recent
book The Idea of Justice (2009), suggests that there are two
justificatory bases for evaluating the idea of justice, namely
“transcendental institutionalism” and “realization-focused
comparison”.
• The former is more or less the integration of the deontological
and institutional bases (see 2009, Pp.5-8, especially footnote on
P.6). ….
42
43
The Tools:
A Framework of Value Enquiry
Typology of Evaluations: …
Justificatory bases of strong evaluation
The realization-focused comparison of evaluation:
…
As for the base of realization-focused comparison, it refers to
the approach of evaluation emphasizing on comparison of
concrete societies that are existing and in full operation,
rather than focusing on some transcendental search of some
high-sounding moral ideals and institutional rules.
Furthermore, emphasizing on realization-focused
comparison, this approach focuses more on the incremental
improvements (or the betterment) of the existing institutional
settings or the removal of undesirable elements of the status
quo, rather than to strive for the best at all cost.
44
To summarize, values may be classified into the following
typology:
Extrinsic values Intrinsic values
(Instrumental Values)
Prima facie value
(Substantive Values)
Ethical values
Moral values
Political values
45
To summarize, evaluations can be categorized with the
following typology
Transcendental-institutionalism
Deontological- based
Evaluation
Institutional-based
Evaluation
Realization-focused
Comparison
Instinctive/Reflexive Evaluation
Self-reflective Evaluation
Weak/Outcome-based Evaluation
Strong/Qualitative-based Evaluation
Justificatory with articulacy and depth
Supported with sense of responsibility & agency
Embodied with sense of identity
Embedded in communal bondage
46
Typology of Evaluation
How ?
Locating your
point of departure of
social-value enquiry
Typology of Values
What ?
47
To summarize, values may be classified into the following
typology:
Extrinsic values Intrinsic values
(Instrumental Values)
Prima facie value
(Substantive Values)
Ethical values
Moral values
Political values
48
To summarize, evaluations can be categorized with the
following typology
Transcendental-institutionalism
Deontological- based
Evaluation
Institutional-based
Evaluation
Realization-focused
Comparison
Instinctive/Reflexive Evaluation
Self-reflective Evaluation
Weak/Outcome-based Evaluation
Strong/Qualitative-based Evaluation
Justificatory with articulacy and depth
Supported with sense of responsibility & agency
Embodied with sense of identity
Embedded in communal bondage
49
Topic 1
In search of the subject & framework of a Value enquiry
END
50