윤리학의 한계개념으로서의 이데올로기 = Ethics and Ideology

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

How does a discussion in ethics lead into a problem of ideology? Is it inevitable and legitimate to do so? If so, is ideology a limiting concept for ethics?
It is the problem of demarcation or boundary for ethics that is the subject of this paper. It seems appropriate to raise this question of boundary in ethics because we are already involved in discussions which, in turn, require proper conceptual distinctions, e.g., the relation of ethics to social philosophy, the distinction between individual ethics and social ethics, the issue of socialist ethics and liberalist ethics.
The problem of justice, for example, belongs to social ethics. But in order to make any kind of ethical judgment, we must first decide what we are to mean by "justice". Justice can mean equality, freedom, or order. So we must decide which of the social values to be supreme or basic. Of course this decision is an ideological choice.
An ethical society is a bound society. Each ethical society is a unit with its own particular cultural, historical, and geographical limits. Each ethical society has its own ethical paradigm, which prevails within that society. But an ethical paradigm, like any other kind of cultural paradigm must undergo a periodic change.
The change in ethical paradigm involves an ideological issue. It could be conservative or revolutionary. It is an ideological attitude that determines what the society should do with the existing moral sanction. But how do we decide our ideological position? Is there an ethical consideration that must come before any ideological decision? If so, we have made a full circle with the relationship between ethics and ideology. Is it a vicious circle? This is a question left open in this paper.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 윤리학의 영역문제
• 2. 개인윤리와 사회윤리
• 3. 윤리적 사회와 파라다임
• 4. 윤리적 파라다임과 이데올로기
• Abstract