도덕 판단에 대한 일 고찰

Abstract

도덕판단에 있어 의무론과 더불어 쌍벽을 이루는 결과주의는 지나치게 허용적이며 또 한편으로 지나치게 엄격하다는 비판에 직면해 왔다. 지나치게 허용적이고 또한 지나치게 엄격하다는 비판은 일견 모순어법인 듯하나, 개인의 개별성이나 정체성을 평가절하한다는 공통된 문제점을 가지고 있다. 본 논문에서는 결과주의의 문제점을 지적하며 해법을 제시하는 일련의 시도들을 비판적으로 평가하면서 나름대로의 대안을 제안하고자 하였다. 제시된 일련의 시도들의 공통점이라면 형태는 다양하나 절대적 성격을 갖는 행위자 중심의 제약사항을 제안하고 있다는 점인데, 직견적 결과주의를 표방하는 본 논문에서는 절대적 성격의 행위자 중심의 제약사항이 아니라 직견적 성격의 행위자 중심의 제약사항으로 수정되어야 한다는 입장을 개진하였다.

This study attempts to offer some solutions to the dilemma that consequentialism confronts. Consequentialism provides a very simple theory of the right: an act is morally right or morally permissible if and only if it produces the best consequences. So interpreted, consequentialism can be criticized for producing counter-intuitive outcomes. On one hand, act consequentialism is too permissive: it leaves no room for the thought that there are certain constraints on our action. Our intuitive moral convictions say that the end does not justify the means. On the other hand, if act consequentialism is too permissive in one respect, it is too demanding in another. I shall only be acting rightly in so far as I maximize the good. It has no place for the duties we take ourselves to have to our family and friends. It is because act consequentialism is an agent-neutral moral theory. * Department of National Ethics Education, Seoul National UniversityWith regard to the weaknesses inherent in consequentialism, this study suggested that it is possible to make the distinction between absolute consequentialism and prima facie consequentialism. Absolute consequentialism implies that consequences are the only morally relevant factor, "all things being considered". We can then simply say that you should perform the act with the best consequences, 'period.' And this is exactly what absolute consequentialism holds: in any given choice situation, the agent is morally required to perform the act with best consequences. By contrast, this study argues that consequences are not the only thing that can help determine the moral status of an act, even if we stick to consequentialism. Rather, the maxim that you should perform the act with the best consequences, "other things being equal" can be compatible with the fundamental value of consequentialism. This leaves open the possibility that there are other normative factors that may come into play so that in at least some situations the best act may not be the one with the best consequences.