|
|
|
| An Exploration of the Connotations and Value of Leisure Ethics |
| Liu Huimei1,2, Zhang Mingxiao1 |
1.School of Philosophy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
2.Academy of Leisure Studies and Aesthetic Philosophy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Ethics is a kind of rational wisdom of life, which is not only the recognition and analysis of the actual state of leisure, reflection and regulation, but also the exploration and practice of the proper value of leisure. The essence of both leisure and ethics is to explore “how to live a good life”, and in order to fully understand the concept and meaning of leisure, it is necessary to examine it from the ethical dimension. First, the definition of the concept of leisure by Chinese and Western scholars can be divided into three categories according to the ethical attributes they imply. The first type is the value-neutral concept, which defines leisure only as objective “free time” and/or “self-chosen activities in free time”, but does not indicate whether leisure contains positive or negative ethical values. The second type is a concept of leisure that has positive connotations or values, stating that leisure is a positive and enjoyable experience, or even a positive way of being with philosophical implications. The third type of the concept of leisure is perceived or defined with negative, derogatory or even discriminatory perceptions that it is embedded with negative ethical values. Of these three types of definition, the value-neutral approach is tenser, encompassing both positive and negative forms of leisure, and better reflects the reality of leisure, so it is appropriate to define leisure as an activity or state of affairs that an individual freely chooses to engage in during his or her free time. Second, the conceptual definition of leisure ethics has undergone an evolutionary process. In the 1970s and 1980s, Western leisure scholars thought that leisure ethics meant “the primacy of leisure in relation to work”, and in the 1990s it changed to “norms of behaviour and moral codes in leisure”. The domestic scholars’ definition emphasizes its ethical significance and value, in line with the Western view in the 1990s. The former is a continuation of the ancient ideal of leisure, while the latter reflects the specific needs for moral norms to be observed in leisure situations in the contemporary context, and the combination of the two is the comprehensive connotation and value of leisure ethics. Therefore, leisure ethics is a value system of codes of conduct and moral norms that individuals should follow in their leisure activities, as well as the moral qualities formed from them, and the ideal of a good life for which leisure is an end in itself. Again, the connotation of leisure ethics is expressed in four aspects: the moral qualities of the leisure subject who is able to choose and participate in leisure with good or correct ethical behaviour; the ethical concepts and responsibilities that the leisure subject follows in leisure; the practical purposes of the leisure subject and the interests of self or others that are affected by the practice; and the ideal of a good life for which leisure is an end in itself. Finally, the value of leisure ethics in the modern context is mainly embodied in three dimensions: leisure ethics influences the perception and choice of leisure; leisure ethics empowers the constraints and reflection of leisure; and leisure ethics resists the alienation of modern leisure. By re-examining and reflecting on the ethics of leisure, this paper aims at reshaping the moral norms and ethical values of leisure itself, so as to guide people to cope with the ethical problems and challenges of modern leisure, to resist the diverse alienation of modern capitals and technologies, to explore the ideal leisure lifestyle and value pursuit, and ultimately to realize the good life.
|
|
Received: 22 February 2024
|
|
|
|
1 荷］约翰·鲍尔、［荷］马可·范·莱文：《休闲哲学：通往美好生活》，刘慧梅等译，上海：上海交通大学出版社，2023年。
2 刘慧梅、张彦：《西方休闲伦理的历史演变》，《自然辩证法研究》2006年第4期，第91-95页。
3 Fain G. S.（ed.）， Leisure and Ethics： Reflections on the Philosophy of Leisure， Reston： American Association for Leisure and Recreation， 1991.
4 Parker S.， The Future of Work and Leisure， London： MacGibbon and Kee， 1971.
5 Gist N. P. & Fava S. F.， Urban Society， New York： Thomas Y. Crowell Company， 1964.
6 Brightbill C. K.， The Challenge of Leisure， Upper Saddle River： Prentice-Hall， 1960.
7 马惠娣：《文化精神之域的休闲理论初探》，《齐鲁学刊》1998年第3期，第98-106页。
8 Neulinger J.， To Leisure： An Introduction， Boston： Allyn and Bacon， 1981.
9 Pierce R.， “Dimensions of leisure Ⅲ： characteristics，” Journal of Leisure Research， Vol. 12， No. 3 （1980）， pp. 273-284.
10 马惠娣、刘耳：《西方休闲学研究述评》，《自然辩证法研究》2001年第5期，第45-49页。
11 于光远、马惠娣：《于光远马惠娣十年对话——关于休闲学研究的基本问题》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2008年。
12 庞学铨主编：《20世纪西方休闲研究精要》，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2021年。
13 美］约翰·凯利：《走向自由——休闲社会学新论》，赵冉译，昆明：云南人民出版社，2000年。
14 德］约瑟夫·皮珀：《闲暇：文化的基础》，刘森尧译，北京：新星出版社，2005年。
15 de Grazia S.， Of Time， Work and Leisure， New York： The Twentieth Century Fund， 1965.
16 郭鲁芳：《休闲学》，北京：清华大学出版社，2020年。
17 王景全：《论幸福的休闲维度》，《中州学刊》2008年第4期，第114-118页。
18 美］杰弗瑞·戈比：《你生命中的休闲》，康筝译，昆明：云南人民出版社，2000年。
19 庞学铨：《休闲学研究的几个理论问题》，《浙江社会科学》2016年第3期，第110-119，159-160页。
20 马惠娣：《休闲问题的理论探究》，《清华大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2001年第6期，第71-75页。
21 Fullagar S.， “Where might the path less travelled lead us？” World Leisure Journal， Vol. 53， No. 1 （2011）， pp. 15-18.
22 Christiansen A. V.， Henning A. & Frias F. J. L. et al.， “Book symposium： Ask Vest Christiansen’s Gym Culture， Identity and Performance-Enhancing Drugs’，” Ethics and Philosophy， Vol. 15， No. 4 （2021）， pp. 572-593.
23 古希腊］亚里士多德：《政治学》，颜一、秦典华译，见苗力田主编：《亚里士多德全集》第九卷，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2016年。
24 Buchholz R.， “Measurement of beliefs，” Human Relations， Vol. 29， No. 12 （1976）， pp. 1177-1188.
25 Furnhaml A. & Rose M.， “Alternative ethics： the relationship between the wealth， welfare， work， and leisure ethic，” Human Relations， Vol. 40， No. 9 （1987）， pp. 561-573.
26 Lovelock B.， “Introduction to special issue： ethics and leisure，” Annals of Leisure Research， Vol. 20， No. 5 （2017）， pp. 519-523.
27 Creighton-Smith B. A.， Cook M. & Edginton C. R.， “Leisure， ethics， and spirituality，” Annals of Leisure Research， Vol. 20， No. 5 （2017）， pp. 546-562.
28 Rojek C.， “The case of Belle Gibson， social media， and what it means for understanding leisure under digital praxis，” Annals of Leisure Research， Vol. 20， No. 5 （2017）， pp. 524-528.
29 McLean D.， “Speaking of virtue ethics： what has happened to leisure？” Annals of Leisure Research， Vol. 20， No. 5 （2017）， pp. 529-545.
30 Markwell K.， Firth T. & Hing N.， “Blood on the race track： an analysis of ethical concerns regarding animal-based gambling，” Annals of Leisure Research， Vol. 20， No. 5 （2016）， pp. 594-609.
31 Stodolska M.， Berdychevsky L. & Shinew K. J.， “Gangs and deviant leisure，” Leisure Sciences， Vol. 41， No. 4 （2019）， pp. 278-293.
32 方青：《闲暇：一种伦理学的分析》，《安徽师大学报（哲学社会科学版）》1993年第4期，第406-410页。
33 吴文新：《中国特色社会主义休闲价值观刍议——兼议闲暇道德和休闲伦理》，《中共宁波市委党校学报》2007年第6期，第72-77页。
34 刘慧梅：《休闲价值观与世界一流大学》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2011年第4期，第144-152页。
35 来晓维、刘慧梅：《闲暇与幸福的关系：一个被遗忘的德性伦理问题》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2021年第4期，第144-153页。
36 刘慧梅、黄健：《儒家德性伦理与中国休闲伦理建设》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2008年第4期，第30-36页。
37 徐锦中：《休闲文化的道德意蕴》，《道德与文明》2003年第5期，第70-73页。
38 古希腊］亚里士多德：《尼各马科伦理学》，苗力田译，见苗力田主编：《亚里士多德全集》第八卷，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2016年。
39 张莉：《休闲消费人本价值目标的伦理审视》，《改革与战略》2017年第3期，第21-24页。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
