انجمن علمی جامعه‌شناسی دانشگاه تهران

محفل فکری دانشجویان جامعه‌شناسی دانشگاه تهران

شنبه ، ۱ مهر ۱۳۹۶
معرفی برنامه‌ها
صوت برنامه‌ها
آرشیو
نشریه سره
آرشیو

«کنش عقلانی معطوف به هدف تقریبا مترادف همان کنش منطقی پارتو است. این نوع کنش، کنش مهندسی است که پلی را می سازد، کنش سوداگری است که درصدد کسب منفعت است، و کنش سرداری است که پیروزی را از آن خود می کند. در تمامی این موارد، کنش عقلانی معطوف به هدف، بر این اساس تعریف می شود که فاعل کنش هدفی روشن را در نظر دارد و همه وسایل را برای رسیدن به آن با هم به کار می گیرد. با این همه، وبر، مانند پارتو، آشکارا نمی گوید که کنشی که فاعل آن به دلیل نادرستی شناخت هایش وسایلی نامتناسب را به کار می گیرد، کنش غیرعقلانی است. به عبارت دیگر، عقلانی بودن نسبت به هدف، بیشتر به تبع شناختهای فاعل کنش تعریف شده است تا به تبع شناخت های ناظر کنش. اگر چنین نمی بود، تعریف وبر با تعریف پارتو تفاوتی نمی کرد.

نمونه ی کنش عقلانی معطوف به ارزش، کنش لاسال، سوسیالیست آلمانی، است که خود را در پیکار تن به تن به کشتن داد. یا کنش ناخدایی است که همراه با کشتی اش به غرق شدن در دریا تن در می دهد. عقلانی بودن این کنش از آن جهت نیست که می خواهد به هدفی معین و خارجی برسد، بل از آن جهت است که تن به ستیز ندادن یا کشتی در حال غرق شدن را رها کردن نشانه ی افتخار تلقی نمی شود. بنابراین فاعل کنش، با پذیرش خطرها، به نحوی عقلانی رفتار می کند

Weber in his article of ” Objective Possibility and Adequate Causation in Historical Explanation” says:

What, then, is meant when we speak of a number of “possibilities” between which those contests are said to have “decided”? 

“It involves first the production of -let us say It calmly -“imaginative constructs” by the disregarding of one or more of those elements of “reality” which are actually present, and by the mental construction of a course of events which is altered through modification in one or more conditions.” Even the first step towards an historical Judgment is thus – this IS to be emphasized – a process of abstraction. This process proceeds through the analysis and mental isolation of the components of the directly given data – which are to be taken as a complex of possible causal relations – and should culminate in a synthesis of the “real” causal complex: Even this first step thus transforms the given “reality” into a “mental construct” in order to make It into an historical fact I In Goethe’s words, “theory” is involved in the “fact”.

If now one examines these “Judgments of possibility”- ie, the propositions regarding what “would” happen in the event of the exclusion or modification of certain conditions – somewhat more closely and inquires: how are we really to arrive at them – there can be no doubt that it is a matter of isolation and generalizations .This means that we so decompose the “given” into “components” that every one of them is fitted into an “empirical role” hence, that It can be determined what effect each of them, with others present as “conditions,” “could be expected” to have, in accordance with an empirical rule.” (Weber, 1949:173-174)

Weber, Max (1949) The Methodology of the Social Science, Freely translated by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch

ترجمه ی فارسی متن در ادامه مطلب

Weber’s answer to the following question in his article of “Objectivity” in Social Science and Social Policy: what is the meaning and purpose of the scientific criticism of ideals and value-Judgments?

“All serious reflection about the ultimate elements of meaningful human conduct is oriented primarily in terms of the categories “end” and “means.” We desire something concretely either “for its own sake” or as a means of achieving something else which is more highly desired The question of the appropriateness of the means for achieving a given end IS undoubtedly accessible to scientific analysis Inasmuch as we are able to determine (within the present limits of our knowledge) which means for the achievement of a proposed end are appropriate or inappropriate, we can in this way estimate the chances of attaining a certain end by certain available means In this way we can indirectly criticize the setting of the end itself as practically meaningful (on the basis of the existing historical situation) or as meaningless with reference to existing conditions Furthermore, when the possibility of attaining a proposed end appears to exist, we can determine (naturally within the limits of our existing knowledge) the consequences which the application of the means to be used will produce in addition to the eventual attainment of the proposed end, as a result of the Interdependence of all events We Can then provide the acting person with the ability to weigh and compare the undesirable as over against the desirable consequences of his action. Thus, we can answer the question: what will the attainment of a desired end “cost” m terms of the predictable loss of other values? Since, in the vast majority of cases, every goal that is striven for does “cost” or can “cost” something in this sense, the weighing of the goal in terms of the incidental consequences of the action which realizes it cannot be omitted from the deliberation of persons who act with a sense of responsibility One of the most important functions of the technical criticism which we have been discussing thus far is to make this sort of analysis possible to apply the results of this analysis in the making of a decision, however, is not a task which science can undertake, It is rather the task of the acting, willing person’ he weighs and chooses from among the values involved according to his own conscience and his personal view of the world Science can make him realize that all action and naturally” according to the circumstances, inaction imply in their consequences the espousal of certain values – and herewith – what is today so willingly overlooked  the rejection of certain others. The act of choice itself is his own responsibility”.(Weber, 1949: 52-53)

Weber, Max (1949) The Methodology of the Social Science, Freely translated by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch

ترجمه فارسی متن در ادامه مطلب

وبر در مقاله معنای «بی طرفی اخلاقی» در جامعه شناسی و اقتصاد در پیرامون تضاد اینگونه می نویسد:

«تحلیل های صرفا تجربی فقط می توانند به سوال هایی پاسخ دهند که درباره ی وسایل کافی برای تحقق یک هدف کاملا روشن، پرسیده می شوند.این قضیه که : X تنها وسیله ی رسیدن به Y است، در واقع شکل معکوس این قضیه است که: Y معلول X است.

اصطلاح «سازگارشدنی» (و دیگر اصطلاحات هم خانواده ی آن) حتی کوچکترین اشاره­ ای به قضاوت­ های ارزشی که در آن مستتر است، ندارد؛ درست مانند اصطلاح «اقتصاد انسانی» که اخیرا پرطرفدار گشته و به عقیده ­ی من از ریشه و بنیاد شبه­ برانگیز است، قضاوت­ های ارزشی مستتر در چنین اصطلاحاتی پشت پرده­ ای از ابهام قرار دارند.