행위 결과주의의 찬반논변 : 윌리암스의 행위자 통합성 비판을 중심으로

Abstract

This study attempts to investigate the implication for ethics in Korea by paying attention to controversies about act consequentialism. Consequentialism builds on what may seem to be simple truism, namely that morality is concerned with making the world a better place for all. It judges the rightness or wrongness of actions in terms of the value of their consequences. Its most popular version is act-consequentialism, which claims that, of all the actions open to the agent, the right one is that which produces the best result. Act consequentialism can be criticized as being excessively demanding. Bernard Williams argues that utilitarianism erodes the integrity of individuals by virtue of its strong doctrine of 'negative responsibility'. With regard to the weakness of consequentialism, there are two responses that could modify a consequentialist conception in such a way as to clearly accommodate the objection dealing with personal integrity. The first one is objective consequentialism Peter Raliton suggested. He maintained that in order to live morally, individuals must act in terms of a personal perspective as well as impersonal one. The second onε is Samuel Schefflers idea of a agent -centered prerogative. He suggested that one response to the problems Williams raises about the impersonality and rigorism of consequentialism could be a departure from consequentialism which would recognize as a fundamental moral principle an agent-centered prerogative, roughly to the effect that one is not always obliged to maximize the good, although one is always permitted to do so if one wishes. We as moral educators or moral philosophers have to consider seriously whether the special, personal perspective of agency has legitimate significance in determining what people have reason to do. It is worth emphasizing that we are constituted by a subjective self as well as an objective one. Usually we tend to believe that ethics is more than thε purification and intensification of internal human perspectives. It also requires a detachment from particular perspectives. But this study argues that it would be a mistake to try to eliminate a perspective :from our conception of ethics entirely.