공리주의에서 ‘동기(motive)’의 도덕적 역할
Moral Role of ‘Motives’ in Utilitarianism
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
공리주의의 가장 기본적인 특징은 결과주의이다. 그러나 동시에 공리주의가 오랫동안 오해와 편견의 대상이 되어왔던 이유도 바로 이 결과주의적 속성과 결코 무관하지 않다. 결과주의에서 중요한 것은 행위의 결과이지 행위자의 동기가 아니다. 여기서 많은 사람들은 공리주의를 불편하게 생각하기 시작한다. 왜냐하면 우리들의 도덕상식은 행위 이후의 결과 못지않게 행위 이전의 동기도 소중하게 여기는 경향이 있기 때문이다. 이 논문은 대표적인 공리주의자들인 벤담과 밀의 동기 론을 개략적으로 살펴 본 뒤 아담스의 이른바 ‘동기공리주의(motive utilitarianism)’를 호의적으로 소개하고 있다. 벤담은 전통 공리주의자답게 행위자의 동기를 행위의 결과와 관계되는 범위 안에서만 그 가치를 수용하고자 했다. 다시 말해 공리성의 원리를 충족시키지 못하는 동기는 도덕적 의미를 부여받을 수 없다고 보았던 것이다. 이에 반해 밀은 동기를 의도와 구분하는 세련됨을 과시하면서도 동기 혹은 의도가 행위의 결과에 미치는 영향을 벤담보다 훨씬 더 부각시킨다. 그런 점에서 밀의 동기개념은 때때로 목적에 대한 수단의 범위를 넘어 거의 목적 그 자체로 간주되는 경우도 있을 정도였다. 아담스는 한 걸음 더 나아가 자신의 공리주의적 입장을 처음부터 동기공리주의로 불러줄 것을 요구할 만큼 자신만만한 모습을 보인다. 그의 인식에 따르면 도덕적으로 완전한 사람은 가장 유용한 욕구의 소유자이자 가장 유용한 동기의 소유자이기도 하다. 이 말은 훌륭한 동기를 가진 사람은 공리주의적으로도 바람직한 결과를 낳는 행동을 할 수 밖에 없다는 뜻이다. 그러나 이와 같은 공리주의 진영 내부의 다양한 변화 움직임에 대해서는 여전히 찬반양론이 분분한 만큼 섣불리 어떤 결론을 내리기 보다는 계속 관심을 가지고 지켜볼 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 공리주의는 마치 살아 있는 생명체처럼 자신의 생존가능성을 높이기 위해 끊임없이 진화하고 있는, 유력한 윤리이론 중의 하나이기 때문이다.
Abstract
The most basic characteristic of utilitarianism is consequentialism. However, the reason why utilitarianism simultaneously has been the subject of misunderstanding and bias for long time is absolutely not unrelated with this very consequentialism. One needs to note that what’s important in consequentialism is not so much the motive of the agent but the outcomes of the action. It is this point that many people begin to feel uncompatible about utilitarianism. This is so, because our sense of morality tends to deem important the motive prior to an action as much as the outcomes after an action. This paper examined at an overview level the utilitarian theories of archetypical utilitarians Bentham and Mill, and afterwards, introduces in critical fashion Adams’s so called motive utilitarianism. Bentham, like a traditional utilitarian, was willing to accept the value of the agent’s motive only within the scope related to the outcomes of the action. In other words, he deemed that a motive that does not meet the principle of utility could not be given a moral meaning. In contrast, even while showing off sophistication by distinguishing between intention and motive, Mill brings out much more than Bentham the effects that motive or intention has on the result of the action. In that sense, Mill’s utilitarianism would at times exceed the threshold of the means for a purpose(the utility), so much so that in some cases it would be considered as the purpose itself. Going one step further , Adams displayed a lot of confidence as to suggest his utilitarian position be called from the start the motive utilitarianism. According to his recognition, a morally perfect person is the possessor of the most useful desire, as well as the possession of most useful motive. Here the word ‘useful’ means the utility of utilitarianism. This statement implies that a person with a great motive cannot act in any other way but in a way that bears preferred results. However, concerning such a wide variety of change movements inside the camp of utilitarianism, as there are ongoing contentious pro- and anti- sentiments, it is deemed necessary to continue to watch with interest and address specific issues one at a time, rather than reaching hasty conclusions.
참고문헌 (53)
- 제레미 벤담, "도덕과 입법의 원리 서설" (2011), 나남
- Adams, R. M, "Motive Utilitarianism", The Journal of Philosophy, 73(14) (1976)
- Alm, David, "Consequentialism and the Autonomy of the Deontic", Utilitas, 20(2) (2008)
- Barrow, Robin, "Utilitarianism" (1991), Edward Elgar
- Bentham, Jeremy, "An Introduction To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation" (1823), The Clarendon Press
- Berger, Fred, "Happiness・Justice・& Freedom: The Moral & Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill" (1984), University of California Press
- Bradley, Ben, "Virtue Consequentialism", Utilitas, 17(3) (2005)
- Brink, David O., "Impartiality and Associative Duties", Utilitas, 13(2) (2001)
- Bykvist, Krister, "Utilitarianism: A Guide for The Perplexed" (2010), Continuum International Publishing Group
- Calder, Todd, "Against Consequentialist Theories of Virtue and Vice", Utilitas, 19(2) (2007)
- Card, Robert F, "Situationist Social Psychology and J. S. Mill’s Conception of Character", Utilitas, 22(4) (2010)
- Carter, Alan, "Inegalitarian Biocentric Consequentialism, the Minimax Implication and Multidimensional Value Theory: A Brief Proposal for a New Direction in Environmental Ethics", Utilitas, 17(1) (2005)
- Crisp, Roger, "Utilitarianism and the Life of Virtue", The Philosophical Quarterly, 42(167) (1992)
- Doviak, Daniel, "Virtue, Satisfaction and Welfare Enhancement", Utilitas, 21(1) (2009)
- Driver, Julia, "Monkeying with Motives: Agent-Basing Virtue Ethics", Utilitas, 7(2) (1995)
- Driver, Julia, "Uneasy Virtue" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Foot, Philippa, "Utilitarianism and the Virtues", Mind, 94(374) (1985)
- Haines, William A., "Hedonism and the Variety of Goodness", Utilitas, 22(2) (2010)
- Holbrook, Daniel, "Consequentialism: The Philosophical Dog That Does Not Bark?", Utilitas, 3(1) (1991)
- Jamieson, Dale, "When Utilitarians Should Be Virtue Theorists", Utilitas, 19(2) (2007)
- Kelly, P. J., "Taking Utilitarianism Seriously", Utilitas, 8(3) (1996)
- Langton, Rae, "Virtues of Resentment", Utilitas, 13(2) (2001)
- Lefkowitz, David, "On the Concept of a Morally Relevant Harm", Utilitas, 20(1) (2008)
- Mcelwee, Brian, "Consequentialism and Permissibility", Utilitas, 22(2) (2010)
- Metz, Thaddeus, "Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life", Utilitas, 15(1) (2003)
- Mill, John Stuart, "A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive,” in the Collected Works of John Stuart Mill(CW)" (1991), Toronto University Press
- Mill, John Stuart, "Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy, in CW, vol.Ⅹ", ~
- Mill, John Stuart, "Bentham, CW, vol.Ⅹ.", ~
- Mill, John Stuart, "Utilitarianism, CW, vol.Ⅹ.", ~
- Miller, Dale E, "Hooker on Rule-Consequentialism and Virtue", Utilitas, 25(3)
- Nakano-Okuno, "Mariko, Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism" (2011), Palgrave Macmillan
- Oakley, Justin, "Consequentialism, Moral Responsibility, and the Intention", Foresight Distinction, 1994, pp.6(2), ~
- Odell, S. Jack, "Practice Consequentialism: A New Twist on an Old Theory", Utilitas, 13(1) (2001)
- Pettit, Philip, "Consequentialism and Respect for Persons", Ethics, 100(1) (1989)
- Priestly, F. E. L, "Introduction to The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, CW. Quinton, Anthony , Utilitarian Ethics" (1973), Macmillan
- Ridge, Michael, "Mill’s Intentions and Motives", Utilitas, 14(1) (2002)
- Rogers, Jason, "In Defense of a Version of Satisficing Consequentialism", Utilitas, 22(2) (2010)
- Rosen, F, "Individual Sacrifice and the Greatest Happiness: Bentham on Utility and Rights", Utilitas, 10(2) (1998)
- Russell, Luke, "What Even Consequentialists Should Say About the Virtues", Utilitas, 19 (2007)
- Sachs, Benjamin, "Consequentialism’s Double-Edged Sword", Utilitas, 22(3) (2010)
- Segev, Re’em, "Hierarchical Consequentialism", Utilitas, 22(3) (2010)
- Sen, Amartya, "Utilitarianism and beyond" (1982), Cambridge University Press
- Shaver, Robert, "The Appeal of Utilitarianism", Utilitas, 16(3) (2004)
- Sidgwick, Henry, "The Methods Of Ethics" (1981), Hackett Publishing Company
- Skorupski, John, "John Stuart Mill" (1991), Routledge
- Smart, J. J. C., "Utilitarianism: for and against" (1963), Cambridge University Press
- Smith, Michael, "Immodest Consequentialism and Character", Utilitas, 13(2) (2001)
- Sumner, L. W, "Utility and Capability", Utilitas, 18(1) (2006)
- Swanton, Christine, "Virtue Ehics and the Problem of Indirection: A Pluralistic Value-Centered Approach", Utilitas, 9(2) (1997)
- Swanton, Christine, "Virtue Ethics, Value-centredness, and Consequentialism", Utilitas, 13(2) (2001)
- Tannsjo, Torbjorn, "Hedonistic Utilitarianism" (1998), Edinburgh University Press
- Timmermann, Jeans, "Why Kant Could not Have been a Utilitarian", Utilitas, 17(3) (2005)
- YEW-KWANG NG, "Welfarism and Utilitarianism: A Rehabilitation", Utilitas, 2(2) (1990)