ABSTRACT I question whether the flourishing that McMullin presents as negotiating the demands of three distinct normative domains is itself normative. If it is, I argue it must be incremental in some way to McMullin’s three normative domains, because there is no single, plausible, structural inter-relation between the domains. This leads to regress. If flourishing is not normative, then it undermines the unity of reason that is a cornerstone of McMullin’s account. These difficulties lead to further consideration of flourishing conceived, as McMullin does, as a project of living well in the world. What is the content of this project and what role can it play? If it is merely formal, i.e. without content, then it can be shared, but is empty, therefore without a role. If it has content, and so plays a role in balancing or unifying one’s responses to the normative domains, then that content comes, McMullin claims, from answers to the question, “Who am I?” However, I claim that this question and the answers it is likely to elicit cannot supply the content required. Even if it could, it could not do so to produce a project that is plausibly normative, leaving it thus disconnected from the normative domains. I conclude that the normative character of McMullin’s notion of flourishing cannot be made good. My tentative suggestions are to jettison flourishing as a central part of conceiving a life well-lived; or to swap Aristotle for Plato to supplant flourishing with the idea of a good life.

中文翻译：

---

我们是否分享了一个在世界上存在的项目？

摘要 我质疑 McMullin 所呈现的繁荣，表现为协商三个不同的规范领域的要求本身是否是规范的。如果是，我认为它必须以某种方式对 McMullin 的三个规范领域有所增加，因为这些领域之间没有单一的、合理的、结构性的相互关系。这导致倒退。如果繁荣不是规范性的，那么它就会破坏作为麦克穆林叙述基石的理性统一性。这些困难导致进一步考虑繁荣，正如麦克穆林所做的那样，作为在世界上生活得很好的项目。这个项目的内容是什么，能起到什么作用？如果它只是形式的，即没有内容，那么它可以共享，但它是空的，因此没有角色。如果有内容，因此在平衡或统一一个人对规范领域的反应方面发挥着作用，然后内容来自麦克穆林声称，来自对“我是谁？”这个问题的回答。但是，我声称这个问题及其可能引出的答案无法提供所需的内容。即使可以，它也无法产生一个看似规范的项目，从而使其与规范领域脱节。我得出的结论是，麦克马林的繁荣概念的规范特征不能很好。我的初步建议是放弃繁荣作为构想美好生活的核心部分；或者将亚里士多德换成柏拉图，用美好生活的理念取代繁荣。我声称这个问题及其可能引出的答案无法提供所需的内容。即使可以，它也无法产生一个看似规范的项目，从而使其与规范领域脱节。我得出的结论是，麦克马林的繁荣概念的规范特征不能很好。我的初步建议是放弃繁荣作为构想美好生活的核心部分；或者将亚里士多德换成柏拉图，用美好生活的理念取代繁荣。我声称这个问题及其可能引出的答案无法提供所需的内容。即使可以，它也无法产生一个看似规范的项目，从而使其与规范领域脱节。我得出的结论是，麦克马林的繁荣概念的规范特征不能很好。我的初步建议是放弃繁荣作为构想美好生活的核心部分；或者将亚里士多德换成柏拉图，用美好生活的理念取代繁荣。我的初步建议是放弃繁荣作为构想美好生活的核心部分；或者将亚里士多德换成柏拉图，用美好生活的理念取代繁荣。我的初步建议是放弃繁荣作为构想美好生活的核心部分；或者将亚里士多德换成柏拉图，用美好生活的理念取代繁荣。