고전적 공리주의와 행위 공리주의의 관계에 대하여
On the Relationship between Classical Utilitarianism and Act-Utilitarianism
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
최근까지 고전적 공리주의를 행위 공리주의와 동일시하고, 18-9세기 영국 공리주의자들의 학설을 행위-공리주의로 해석하려는 경향이 있었다. 이 논문의 주된 목적은 우선 ‘고전적 공리주의자’로 일컬어지는 벤담, 밀, 시즈위크의 학설의 중요 측면을 고찰함으로써 이런 경향에 대한 반론을 제기하고, 다음으로 행위/규칙 공리주의의 구분이 그들의 학설에 대한 이해에 유익하지 않음을 보여주는 것이다. 밀의 학설에 대해서는 행위-공리주의적 해석과 규칙-공리주의적 해석이 오랫동안 대립되어 왔다. 어느 한쪽의 우세를 단언할 수 없는 이런 해석들은 각각의 문제점을 가지면, 이런 문제점을 통하여 행위/규칙 구분에 의거한 접근방식 자체에 문제가 있다는 의문이 제기될 수 있다. 시즈위크의 경우도 마찬가지다. 그의 학설을 행위-공리주의로 해석하는 경향에 대하여 많은 반론이 제기되었다는 사실에 주목하는 동시에, 특히 필자는 그가 일반적 도덕 규칙들에 대하여 깊은 존경심을 표하면서 공리의 원칙을 그런 규칙들을 보완하는 원칙으로 간주했다는 점을 강조할 것이다. 마지막으로 벤담의 경우에는 고전적 공리주의의 본질은 공적･정치적 도덕임을 강조하면서, 행위/규칙 구분에 대한 논의는 전체 사회의 최대 행복이라는 궁극적 목적의 달성을 위한 비본질적 수단에 대한 논의였다고 주장할 것이다.
Abstract
Up to recently, there has been an strong tendency to identify classical utilitarianism with act-utilitarianism and further to interpret the doctrine of the English utilitarian precursors of the 18-19 century as a kind of act-utilitarianism. In this paper, my main purpose is in the first place to cast a doubt to this tendency by examining the so-called ‘classical utilitarians’ such as J. Bentham, J. S. Mill, H. Sidgwick, and thereby to suggest that the distinction of act/rule utilitarianism is not very instructive to the proper understanding of their doctrine. As for Mill’s theory, there has long been an opposition between act-utilitarian and rule-utilitarian readings. Given the fact that each of these readings about which it is unable to readily assert to be more plausible than the other has its own critical shortcomings, I shall suggest that the approach to Mill’s theory through the act/rule distinction may be problematic in itself. The proposed readings on Sidgwick’s theory seem to be on the same footing with the ones of Mill’s. Attending to that many objections have been raised against the act-utilitarian reading of Sidgwick’s theory, I shall in particular emphasize that he expressed an immeasurably deep respect towards the general common-sense moral rules and at the same time frequently characterized the principle of utility as a principle that supplements these rules. Dealing with Bentham’s position, lastly, I shall stress that the nature of classical utilitarianism consists in a public and political morality and upon this understanding bring it to light that the discussion about the act/rule distinction can only be a discussion about an inessential means with regard to the ultimate end of utilitarianism, that is the achievement of the greatest happiness of the whole community.
참고문헌 (31)
- 강준호, "시즈위크의 상식도덕 개념에 대한 고찰", 대동철학, (44), pp.145~168 (2008), 대동철학회
- Allison, L., "Utilitarianism: What is it and What should it respond?, In The Utilitarian Response: The Contemporary Viability of Utilitarian Political Philosophy" (1990), Sage Publications
- Baker, J. M., "Utilitarianism and “Secondary Principles”", Philosophical Quarterly, 21, pp.69~71 (1971)
- Bentham, J., "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 1", pp.1838~1843
- Berger, F., "Happiness, Justice, and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill" (1984), University of California Press
- Berger, F, "John Stuart Mill on Justice and Fairness, In Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays" (1997), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
- Brown, D. G., "Mill’s Act-Utilitarianism", Philosophical Quarterly, 24, pp.67~68 (1974)
- Brown, D. G., "What is Mill’s Principle of Utility?, In Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays" (1997), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc
- Donner, W., "Mill’s Utilitarianism, In The Cambridge Companion to Mill", pp.255~292 (1998), Cambridge University Press
- Engelmann, Stephen G., "“Indirect Legislation”: Bentham’s Liberal Government", Polity, 35, pp.369~388 (2003)
- Frey, R. J., "Introduction: Utilitarianism and Persons, In Utility and Right" (1984), University of Minnesota
- Frey, R. J., "Act-Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Moral Rights, In Utility and Right" (1984), University of Minnesota
- Goodin, R., "Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy" (1995), Cambridge University Press
- Harrison, R., "Bentham" (1983), Routledge & Kegan Paul
- Hume, L. J., "Revisionism in Bentham Studies", Bentham Newsletter, 1, pp.3~20 (1978)
- Lyons, D., "Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism" (1965), Oxford University Press
- Lyons, D., "In the Interest of the Governed: A Study of Bentham’s Philosophy of Utility and Law" (1973), Clarendon Press
- Lyons, D., "Mill’s Theory of Morality", Nous, 10, pp.101~120 (1976)
- Lyons, D., "Human Rights and the General Welfare, In Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays" (1997), Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
- Mackie, J. L., "Rights, Utility and Universalization, In Utility and Right" (1984), University of Minnesota
- Mill, J. S., "Collected Works of John Stuart Mill" (1963), Toronto University Press
- Mill, J. S., "Utilitarianism" (1979), Hackett Publishing Company
- Mill, J. S., "John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism; On Liberty, Essay on Bentham" (1962), Meridian
- Rawls, J., "A Theory of Justice, the revised edition" (1999), Harvard University Press
- Schneewind, J. B., "Sidgwick’s Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy" (1977), Clarendon Press
- Schultz, B., "Introduction: Henry Sidgwick Today, In Essays on Henry Sidgwick" (1992), Cambridge University Press
- Sidgwick, H., "The Methods of Ethics" (1907)
- Smart, J. J. C., "Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism", Philosophical Quarterly, 6, pp.344~354 (1956)
- Smart, J. J. C., "An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics, In Utilitarianism: For and Against" (1973), Cambridge University Press
- Sumner, L. W., "The Good and the Right", Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 5(Supplementary), pp.99~114 (1979)
- Urmson, J. O., "The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill, In Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays" (1997), owman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.