POWINNOŚĆ CZY DECYZJA? SPÓR TADEUSZA STYCZNIA Z MIECZYSŁAWEM A. KRĄPCEM O METAFI ZYCZNOANTROPOLOGICZNE PODSTAWY MORALNOŚCI
MORAL OBLIGATION OR DECISION? ON THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TADEUSZ STYCZEŃ AND MIECZYSŁAW A. KRĄPIEC OVER THE METAPHYSICAL AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL BASES OF MORALITY

Summary/Abstract: The author scrutinizes the debate on the proper object of ethics as a discipline continued at the Catholic University of Lublin by its two prominent philosophers: Tadeusz Styczeń and Mieczysław A. Krąpiec. The opening part of the paper discusses Styczeń's thesis that the proper object of ethics is moral duty, which simultaneously provides the norm for morality and ultimately determines the shape of the entire conception of ethics. Due to the special rank of the moral subject's duty towards another person by virtue of her being a person, the ethics Styczeń proposed had a deeply personalistic essence. Then the author discusses the anthropological and metaphysical bases of Styczeń's ethics, as well as the objections towards it made by Krąpiec. The second part of the considerations includes an outline of the ethics proposed by Krąpiec, who emphasized the significance of the decision-making act which lies at the basis of human action and which, as such, can be conceived as a kind of moral entity: the decision to act (or not to act) is always accompanied by its moral evaluation on the part of the acting subject, who juxtaposes his or her practical judgment with the preceding, theoretical one, viewed in terms of "what is truly good for me." The author then discusses the anthropological and ethical bases of Krąpiec's position, called metaphysical ethics by its commentators, as well as Styczeń's objections towards it. In the closing section of the paper, the author has included his observations concerning the complementary nature of the discussed standpoints.

• Details
• Contents