Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

19. Yüzyıl İngiliz Ahlak Düşüncesinde William Whewell ve John Stuart Mill Polemiği

Year 2021, Volume: 23 Issue: 43, 217 - 246, 15.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.17335/sakaifd.872082

Abstract

Bu makalede 19. yüzyıl İngiliz Ahlak düşüncesinin iki önemli düşünürü olan William Whewell ile John Stuart Mill arasındaki polemiği konu ediniyorum. Whewell Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England adlı eserinde Bentham ve faydacı teoriye çeşitli eleştiriler yöneltmiştir. Mill de bu eleştirileri cevaplamak için “Whewell on Moral Philosophy” başlıklı bir yazı kaleme almıştır. Whewell genel olarak faydacılığı eylemleri haz ve acı temelinde değerlendirmesi, Bentham’ı da haz ve acı üzerine bir ahlak teorisi inşa etmekle suçlarken; Mill ise Whewell’i sisteminin temel ahlaki ilkeleri için gerekçeler üretirken faydacı sebeplere müracaat etmekle itham eder. Her iki düşünürün de sıklıkla retorik hilelere müracaat ettiği bu kalem kavgası, görüşlerin teknik olmak-tan ziyade popüler argümanlarla desteklendiği bir polemiktir. Bu polemikte Whewell’in genel amacı, faydacılığın zannedildiği kadar güçlü temellere sahip olmadığını göstermekken, Mill’in amacı ise Whewell’in eleştirilerinin önyargılara dayandığını göstermektir. Bu anlamda her iki teo-rinin de mutlak savunusu olarak kabul edilmemesi gerektiğini düşündüğüm bu tartışmada Mill’in verdiği cevaplarla Whewell’in bir adım önüne geçtiği söylenebilir.

References

  • Aydın, Metin. “John Stuart Mill’in Faydacı Ahlakı”. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakül-tesi Dergisi 15/28 (2013), 143-167.
  • Aydın, Metin. “Mutlu Budala mı Mutsuz Sokrates mi: John Stuart Mill’in Ahlak Teo-risinin Faydacı Karakteri ve Hazları Tasnifi”. Kutadgu Bilig Dergisi 35 (2017), 121-148.
  • Bentham, Jeremy. Ahlak ve Yasama İlkeleri. çev. Ömer Saruhanlıoğlu - Uğur Kaşif Bo-yacı. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2017.
  • Bentham, Jeremy. “An Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation”. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. ed. John Bowring. New York: Russel&Russel Inc., 1962.
  • Cremaschi, Sergio Volodia Marcello. “The Mill-Whewell Controversy on Ethics and Its Bequest to Analytic Philosophy”. Rationality in Belief and Action. ed. Elvio Baccarini - Snežana Prijic Samaržja. 45-62. Rijeka: University of Rijeka - Croa-tian Society for Analytic Philosophy, 2006.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Autobiography”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. John Mercel Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Bentham”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. John Bowring. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Mill, John Stuart. Faydacılık. çev. Selin Aktuyun. İstanbul: Alfa Yayıncılık, 2017.
  • Mill, John Stuart. Faydacılık. çev. Gökhan Murteza. İstanbul: Pinhan Yayınları, 2017.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. J.M. Rob-son. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Whewell on Moral Philosophy”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. J.M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Priestley, Francis Ethelbert Louis. “Whewell”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. John Mercel Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Schneewind, Jerome B. Sidgwick’s Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Snyder, Laura J. “William Whewell”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Erişim 05 Mayıs 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/
  • Stratton-Lake, Philip. “Intuitionism in Ethics”. ed. Edward N. Zalta, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/intuitionism-ethics/ .
  • Whewell, Whilliam. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England. London: John W. Parker, 1852.
  • Whewell, William. Elements of Morality. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 4. Basım, 1864.

A Polemic in 19th Century British Moral Thought Between William Whewell and John Stuart Mill

Year 2021, Volume: 23 Issue: 43, 217 - 246, 15.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.17335/sakaifd.872082

Abstract

This article deals with the polemic between William Whewell and John Stuart Mill, two major thinkers of 19th century British moral thought. In his work, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England, Whewell criticized Bentham and utilitarianism. Mill also wrote an article titled "Whewell on Moral Philosophy" to answer these criticisms. Whewell generally accuses utilitarianism of evaluating actions on the basis of pleasure and pain and Bentham of building a moral theory on pleasure and pain; Mill accuses Whewell of solving the relation between self-interest and duty by appealing to God, and of appealing to utilitarian reasons when generating justifications for the basic moral principles of his system. This polemic, in which both thinkers often apply rhetorical tricks, is a polemic in which opinions are supported by popular arguments rather than technical ones. In this polemic, Whewell's main purpose is to show that utilitarianism does not have as strong foundations as it seems, while Mill's aim is to present that Whewell's criticisms are based on prejudices. In this context, based on the answers given, it can be said that Mill is more successful than Whewell, which I think should not be accepted as the absolute defense of both theories.
[You may find an extended abstract of this article after the references.]

References

  • Aydın, Metin. “John Stuart Mill’in Faydacı Ahlakı”. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakül-tesi Dergisi 15/28 (2013), 143-167.
  • Aydın, Metin. “Mutlu Budala mı Mutsuz Sokrates mi: John Stuart Mill’in Ahlak Teo-risinin Faydacı Karakteri ve Hazları Tasnifi”. Kutadgu Bilig Dergisi 35 (2017), 121-148.
  • Bentham, Jeremy. Ahlak ve Yasama İlkeleri. çev. Ömer Saruhanlıoğlu - Uğur Kaşif Bo-yacı. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2017.
  • Bentham, Jeremy. “An Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation”. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. ed. John Bowring. New York: Russel&Russel Inc., 1962.
  • Cremaschi, Sergio Volodia Marcello. “The Mill-Whewell Controversy on Ethics and Its Bequest to Analytic Philosophy”. Rationality in Belief and Action. ed. Elvio Baccarini - Snežana Prijic Samaržja. 45-62. Rijeka: University of Rijeka - Croa-tian Society for Analytic Philosophy, 2006.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Autobiography”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. John Mercel Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Bentham”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. John Bowring. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Mill, John Stuart. Faydacılık. çev. Selin Aktuyun. İstanbul: Alfa Yayıncılık, 2017.
  • Mill, John Stuart. Faydacılık. çev. Gökhan Murteza. İstanbul: Pinhan Yayınları, 2017.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. J.M. Rob-son. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Mill, John Stuart. “Whewell on Moral Philosophy”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. J.M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Priestley, Francis Ethelbert Louis. “Whewell”. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. John Mercel Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.
  • Schneewind, Jerome B. Sidgwick’s Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Snyder, Laura J. “William Whewell”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Erişim 05 Mayıs 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/
  • Stratton-Lake, Philip. “Intuitionism in Ethics”. ed. Edward N. Zalta, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/intuitionism-ethics/ .
  • Whewell, Whilliam. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England. London: John W. Parker, 1852.
  • Whewell, William. Elements of Morality. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 4. Basım, 1864.
There are 17 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Metin Aydın 0000-0002-4918-7270

Publication Date June 15, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 23 Issue: 43

Cite

ISNAD Aydın, Metin. “19. Yüzyıl İngiliz Ahlak Düşüncesinde William Whewell Ve John Stuart Mill Polemiği”. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 23/43 (June 2021), 217-246. https://doi.org/10.17335/sakaifd.872082.

 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

SAUIFD accepts the Open Access Journal Policy for expanding and flourishing of knowledge.