본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

자녀의 복리 원칙의 의미에 대한 윤리적 접근

An Ethical Approach to the Meaning of the Welfare Principle in the Parent-Child Relationship

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

In exercising parental authority, priority shall be given to the welfare of a child. Furthermore in designating a person of parental authority, the Family Court shall give priority to the welfare of a child. For such purpose, the Family Court may seek counsel from experts in the related fields or social welfare agencies(Civil Act §912). This principle(‘BIC’ hereafter) requires that any decision be decided only by reference to what is best for the individual child, and not by the will, situation, character of parents and Family Court seek to achieve individualized justice in every case. But the BIC is often attacked by legal commentators as being indeterminate and unduly influenced by the courts' unbridled discretion and bias. To meet this critics it is needed to review the meaning and nature of welfare or best interests as used in family law through the lens of normative ethics. It is hard to deny that underlying this debate is the moral philosophy of consequentialism, in particular, some form of utilitarianism. In policy discussions, politicians, citizens, and academics all tend to speak in terms of some variation of “the greatest good of the greatest number,” primarily because such an approach is both accessible and relatively uncontroversial. But the problem is that the approach requires available relevant data. On the contrary, Deontology theory can justify the BIC through the concept of special obligation, admitting that it is morally acceptable to favor significantly one's close relatives and friends as compared to strangers. On the other hand, Virtue theory starts from the critic the presumption that all the parties agree about the definition of the terms ‘welfare’ or ‘best interests’, and that there is therefore no need to question those definitions. On the contrary it seeks to significantly reshape normative legal theory debate. Contending that normative legal theory should be grounded in a neo-Aristotelian philosophy of virtue. But we need not choose one of the normative ethics theories to grasp the ethical meaning of the BIC. Admitting the BIC is concerned with the territory of applied ethics it can be admitted as sufficient to elucidate the rules that can be draw through the overlapping consensus.

Abstract

In exercising parental authority, priority shall be given to the welfare of a child. Furthermore in designating a person of parental authority, the Family Court shall give priority to the welfare of a child. For such purpose, the Family Court may seek counsel from experts in the related fields or social welfare agencies(Civil Act §912). This principle(‘BIC’ hereafter) requires that any decision be decided only by reference to what is best for the individual child, and not by the will, situation, character of parents and Family Court seek to achieve individualized justice in every case. But the BIC is often attacked by legal commentators as being indeterminate and unduly influenced by the courts' unbridled discretion and bias. To meet this critics it is needed to review the meaning and nature of welfare or best interests as used in family law through the lens of normative ethics. It is hard to deny that underlying this debate is the moral philosophy of consequentialism, in particular, some form of utilitarianism. In policy discussions, politicians, citizens, and academics all tend to speak in terms of some variation of “the greatest good of the greatest number,” primarily because such an approach is both accessible and relatively uncontroversial. But the problem is that the approach requires available relevant data. On the contrary, Deontology theory can justify the BIC through the concept of special obligation, admitting that it is morally acceptable to favor significantly one's close relatives and friends as compared to strangers. On the other hand, Virtue theory starts from the critic the presumption that all the parties agree about the definition of the terms ‘welfare’ or ‘best interests’, and that there is therefore no need to question those definitions. On the contrary it seeks to significantly reshape normative legal theory debate. Contending that normative legal theory should be grounded in a neo-Aristotelian philosophy of virtue. But we need not choose one of the normative ethics theories to grasp the ethical meaning of the BIC. Admitting the BIC is concerned with the territory of applied ethics it can be admitted as sufficient to elucidate the rules that can be draw through the overlapping consensus.

참고문헌 (27)

  1. 도성달, "윤리학, 그 주제와 논점" (2011), 한국학중앙연구원 출판부
  2. 염수균, "법과 권리" (2010), 한길사
  3. 루이스 포이만, "윤리학: 옳고 그름의 발견" (2010), 도서출판 울력
  4. 김재홍, "니코마코스 윤리학" (2006), 이제이북스
  5. 윤진수, "주해친족법 제2권" (2015), 박영사
  6. 백종현, "실천이성비판" (2002), 아카넷
  7. 백종현, "윤리형이상학 정초" (2005), 아카넷
  8. 백종현, "윤리형이상학" (2012), 아카넷
  9. 제러미 벤담, "도덕과 입법의 원리 서설" (2011), 나남
  10. 이을상, "공리주의" (2008), 지만지
  11. 폴 테일러, "윤리학의 기본원리" (1985), 서광사
  12. 황경식, "덕윤리의 현대적 의의: 의무윤리와 결과윤리가 상보하는 제3윤리의 모색" (2012), 아카넷
  13. 강준호, "현대 공리주의 동향에 대한 연구", 철학연구, (93), pp.175~199 (2011), 철학연구회
  14. 김수정, "아리스토텔레스의 덕 윤리와 생명윤리에의 적용", 생명윤리정책연구, 3(2), pp.135~153 (2009), 생명의료법연구소
  15. 김현철, "권리의 우선성에 대한 고찰", 법철학연구, 7(1), pp.249~272 (2004), 한국법철학회
  16. 노영란, "응용윤리에 대한 덕윤리적 접근의 비판적 고찰", 철학, (113), pp.349~380 (2012), 한국철학회
  17. 류지한, "권리에 기초한 공리주의 비판", 철학논총, 59(1), pp.89~113 (2010), 새한철학회
  18. 류지한, "두 수준 공리주의와 권리", 대동철학, (58), pp.63~85 (2012), 대동철학회
  19. 맹주만, "밀의 공리주의와 덕 윤리학", 철학탐구, 30, pp.325~347 (2011), 중앙철학연구소
  20. 이원봉, "장성한 자녀는 부모에게 어떤 의무를 지고 있는가-칸트의 자선의 의무를 통한 자녀 의무의 정당화-", 생명연구, 33, pp.45~73 (2014), 생명문화연구소
  21. 정원규, "공리주의에 대한 패러다임적 독해", 철학, (78), pp.271~290 (2004), 한국철학회
  22. 정원규, "실천윤리학 방법론 소고 : 정치적 절차주의를 제안하며", 철학, (82), pp.203~234 (2005), 한국철학회
  23. 차선자, "혼인계약에서 정의의 원칙", 가족법연구, 25(2), pp.1~32 (2011), 한국가족법학회
  24. Alexander, G., "Property's Ends: The Publicness of Private Law Values", Iowa L. Rev, 99, pp.1257~ (2014)
  25. Bonner, D., "Judical approaches to the Human Rights Act", International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 20, pp.23~ (2003)
  26. Eekelaar, J., "Beyond the Welfare Principle", Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14, pp.237~ (2002)
  27. Herring, J., "Welfare Means Relationality, Virtue and Altruism", Legal Studies, 32, pp.480~ (2012)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)