# Thick Ethical Concepts

> 【EN】Evaluative terms and concepts are often divided into “thin” and “thick”. We don’t evaluate actions and persons merely as good or bad, or right or wrong, but also as kind, courageous, tactful, selfish, boorish, and cruel. The latter are examples of thick concepts, the general class of which includes virtue and vice concepts such as generous and selfish, practical concepts such as shrewd and imprudent, epistemic concepts such as open-minded and gullible, and aesthetic concepts such as banal and gracious. These concepts stand in an intuitive contrast to those we typically express when we use thin terms such as right , bad , permissible , and ought . (Concepts are often regarded as non-linguistic representational items that can serve as the meanings of linguistic expressions and as constituents of propositions; terms are linguistic items that can be used to express concepts. … 【中】词条指出，我们的评价并不只用好坏、对错这类薄词，也大量使用厚词：德性与恶习类的慷慨与自私、实践类的精明与不明智、认识类的开明与轻信、审美类的平庸与优雅。核心争论是厚概念中描述成分与评价成分能否分离，词条讨论反拆解论证、反思与知识的优先性、不可分离主义与次级内容等立场，并考察伦理之外的厚概念。

- ID: m13324
- Category: culture
- Domain: 伦理学

## Definition

评价性概念被分为厚薄两类。厚概念如勇敢、体贴、自私、粗鲁、残忍，既描述事实又作出评价；相对的薄概念如正当、错误、应当、可允许，几乎只承担评价功能。 脚手架作用：- 事实还原：把勇敢、残忍等厚词拆出它描述的具体行为事实。 - 评价识别：确认争论是事实分歧还是评价立场分歧。 - 用词选择：需要中立描述事实时改用薄词，避免预设评价。

## How it works

厚概念的关键特征是其应用同时由事实与评价立场决定：学会使用一个厚词，就等于学会把某类事实看作支持某种评价。因此难以把描述内容独立抽出而不带评价色彩，这是不可拆解主张的根据；反对者则试图说明评价内容可由描述内容加上一般规范原则推出。

## Practice

1) 判定所用的评价词是厚是薄；2) 尝试把它拆为描述成分与评价成分，看替换后是否保留原意；3) 检验它能否承受反思性追问，据此判断其在道德论证中的作用。

## Use

- 事实还原：把勇敢、残忍等厚词拆出它描述的具体行为事实。 - 评价识别：确认争论是事实分歧还是评价立场分歧。 - 用词选择：需要中立描述事实时改用薄词，避免预设评价。

[Read the web page](https://thinkingmodels.site/en/entries/detail/m13324)