Ahlaki Tikelcilik: Ahlaki Kurallar Olmadan Ahlaklı Olmak

Year 2026, Volume: 25 Issue: 1 , 83 - 107 , 29.03.2026

Cemre Demirel

https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1794868

https://izlik.org/JA38CD45TL

Abstract

Ahlaki tikelcilik, sabit evrensel ahlaki ilkelerin olmadığını ve ahlakın tamamen bağlama dayalı olduğunu öne sürer. Ahlaki tikelciliğin benimsediği holistik yaklaşım, bir durumda ahlaki gerekçe olabilecek bir özelliğin başka durumlarda hiçbir gerekçe sunmayabileceğine ve hatta karşıt gerekçe de olabileceğine dikkat çeker. Örneğin yalan söylemek yanlışken, bir hayat kurtarmak için yalan söylemek doğru kabul edilebilmektedir. Bu nedenle ahlaki tikelciliğe göre ahlaki ilke ve kurallar, hayatın karmaşıklığını yakalamada ve ahlaki çatışmaların doğasını açıklamada yetersiz kalmaktadır. Makalede tikelciliğin bu iddialarına cevaplar verilmiş, tikelciliğin zıttı olan ahlaki genelciliğin ılımlı bir türü olan Ross’çu çoğulculuktan taraf olunmuştur. Bir durumda ahlaken yanlış olan bir eylemin, bir başka durumda ahlaken doğru olabileceği günlük deneyimlerimizle uyuşan bir gerçektir. Ancak bu durum, bizi ahlaki tikelciliğe götürecek kadar güçlü bir paradigma sunmamaktadır. Zira her ahlaki durum biricik olsa da tamamen benzersiz değildir. Durumlar arasında benzerlikler ve örüntüler vardır. Bu örüntüler sayesinde ahlaki bir dil oluşturur ve bu benzer durumlara uygulanabilecek ilkeler keşfederiz. Ahlaki ilkelerimiz ise bize hangi yönde eylemde bulunacağımız hususunda ahlaki gerekçeler temin eder. Dolayısıyla bağlamın önemli olması, her şeye rağmen ahlaki ilkeleri tamamen geçersiz kılmamaktadır.

Keywords

Ahlaki Tikelcilik , Ahlaki Genelcilik , Monizm , Çoğulculuk , Ahlaki İlke , Ahlaki Gerekçe , Jonathan Dancy , W. D. Ross

Moral Particularism: Being Moral Without Moral Rules

https://izlik.org/JA38CD45TL

Abstract

Moral particularism suggests that there are no fixed universal moral principles and that morality is entirely context-dependent. The holistic approach adopted by moral particularism dictates that a feature that may provide moral justification in one situation might offer no justification, or even an opposing one, in another. For example, while lying is generally wrong, lying to save a life may be deemed right. Consequently, according to moral particularism, moral principles and rules fall short in capturing the complexity of life and explaining the nature of moral conflicts. The study addresses these claims of particularism, advocating for a moderate form of moral generalism, namely Rossian pluralism. It is a fact, consistent with our daily experiences, that an action that is morally wrong in one situation may be morally right in another. However, this does not present a paradigm strong enough to lead us to moral particularism. Although every moral situation is unique, it is not entirely dissimilar. There are similarities and patterns across situations. These patterns enable us to construct a moral language and discover principles applicable to similar cases. Our moral principles, in turn, provide moral reasons for how we should act. Thus, while context is significant, it does not invalidate moral principles altogether.

Keywords

Moral Particularism , Moral Generalism , Monism , Pluralism , Moral Principle , Moral Reason , Jonathan Dancy , W. D. Ross

References

• Audi, R. (2006). “Ethical Generality and Moral Judgment”, in Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, ed. James Dreier. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 285-304.
• Berker, S. (2007). “Particular Reasons”, Ethics 118 (1): 109-139.
• Crisp, R. (1998). “Moral Particularism”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London and New York: Routledge.
• Crisp, R. (2000) “Particularizing Particularism”, In Moral Particularism, ed. Brad Hooker, Margaret Olivia Little. Oxford: Clanderon Press. 23-47.
• Dancy, J. (1983). “Ethical Particularism and Morally Relevant Properties”, Mind Vol. XCII, 530-547.
• Dancy, J. (1993). Moral Reasons. Cambridge: Blackwell.
• Dancy, J. (2004) Ethics Without Principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hooker, B. (2000). “Moral Particularism: Wrong and Bad”, in Moral Particularism, ed. Brad Hooker, Margaret Olivia Little. Oxford: Clanderon Press, 1-22.
• Hooker, B (2007). “Moral Particularism and the Real World”, in Challenging Moral Particularism, ed. Matjaž Potrc, Vojko Strahovnik & Mark Lance. New York: Routledge, 2007, 12-30.
• Jackson, F., Pettit, P., Smith, M. (2000). “Ethical Particularism and Patterns”, in Moral Particularism, ed. Brad Hooker, Margaret Olivia Little. Oxford: Clanderon Press, 2000, pp. 79-99.
• Kirchin, S. (2007). “Moral Particularism: An Introduction”, Journal of Moral Philosophy Vol 4 (1), pp. 8-15.
• Little, M. O. (2000). "Moral Generalities Revisited", in Moral Particularism, ed. Brad Hooker, Margaret Olivia Little. Oxford: Clanderon Press, 276-304.
• McKeever, S., Ridge, M. (2005). “What Does Holism Have to Do With Moral Particularism?”, Ratio 18 (1), 93-103.
• McKeever, S. Ridge, M. (2008). “Preempting Principles: Recent Debates in Moral Particularism”, Philosophy Compass 3/6, 1177-1192.
• McNaughton, D. (1988). Moral Vision: An Introduction to Ethics. Blackwell Publishing.
• McNaughton, D., Rawling, P. (2000). “Unprincipled Ethics”, in Moral Particularism, ed. Brad Hooker, Margaret Olivia Little. Oxford: Clanderon Press, 256-275.
• Pojman, L. P., Fieser, J. (2012). Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsworth, Cengage.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
• Stangl, R. L. (2006): “Particularism and the Point of Moral Principles”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2), 201-229.
• Väyrynen, P. (2006). “Moral Generalism: Enjoy in Moderation”, Ethics, Vol. 116, No. 4. 707-741.
• Väyrynen, P. (2011). “Moral Particularism”, in The Continuum Companion to Ethics, ed. Christian Miller. Continuum International Publishing Group, 247-260.