<목차>
1. Act and Character, Principle, and Rule
2. Repugnant Conclusions: A fundamental Challenge for Environmental Ethics
3. Is there Another Way of Doing Moral Theory?
4. Note on Contributing to Overpopulation
5. Intuition and Theory
6. Summary
pp.221-224. (Act and Character, Principle, and Rule)
1) consequentialism : “right action is the one that does as much good as possible”
2) deonotolgy : “an action is right if, but only if, it expresses respect for all persons as ends in themselves and therefore treats no person merely as a means to further ends”
3) virtue ethics : “what is right is to be a certain kind of person, a person of virtue”
*주요 윤리학 이론 요약 (결과주의, 의무론, 덕 윤리)
“If the applicable moral rule forbids X, then X is ruled out, so to speak. In contrast, principles can weigh against X without categorically ruling out X.”
“Rules are things we follow. Principles are things we apply.”
“The idea of following a rule [...] has the feel of relieving us of moral responsibility. [...] Principles leave us with no doubt as to who is responsible for weighing them, for making choices, and for bearing the consequences.”
*규칙과 원칙의 구별
“moral agent is like in the real world: if you need to figure out what to do, don’t look for rules; look for principles. Needless to say, this too is a principle, not a rule. It has exceptions.”
*도덕적 행위자의 행위 결정에 있어 규칙에 대한 원칙 우선의 원칙
“Virtue ethics is about understanding the challenge of being moral as in the first instance a challenge of being a certain kind of agent, a certain kind of character. But part of being moral character is being principled, and [...] being sensitive to and respectful of morally justified rules”
*덕 윤리 → 도덕적 성격 → 원칙 입각과 규칙 존중을 포함
pp.224-230. (Repugnant Conclusions: A fundamental Challenge for Environmental Ethics)
“When Hill’s neighbor cut down a beautiful old avocado tree and covered his yard with asphalt, Hill was indignant, but paused to wonder whether he had any theoretical justification for his indignation.”
“Ultimately, Hill concluded, the core question was not what was wrong with the act, but what was wrong with the person. ‘What sort of person,’ Hill asked, ‘would do a thing like that?’”
“Interestingly, the humility about which Hill was talking was recognizably an ecological humility. [...] our need to acknowledge and ultimately cherish our proper status as citizens [not conquerors] of the biotic community.”
*결과주의와 의무론이 대답할 수 없는 지점(환경문제)에서 대답할 수 있는 덕 윤리 → 환경적 덕과 환경적 덕 윤리로 나아갈 수 있음
1) an aggregate: that is, the sum of everyone’s happiness
2) quantitative, referring to the kind of thing that can be maximized
3) the quantity is most naturally thought of as a total sum, as opposed to an average
*결과주의의 원칙인 행복 극대화 원칙 분석
*행복 극대화 원칙에 따른 불쾌한 결론 (Derek Parfit)
: 행복 극대화를 위해서는 A 인구에서 Z 인구로 이행하는 것이 옳다.
(“why not continue until we are left with an enormous number of people whose lives are, on average, only barely worth living?”)
“average utilitarianism: the theory that an act is right if and only if it maximizes average utility.”
*불쾌한 결론을 피하기 위한 시도로서 (합계 공리주의 total utilitarianism과 대비되는) 평균 공리주의
“The Other Repugnant Conclusion: For any population of people with a quality of life more or less like ours, say, we can imagine a smaller population (in the limit, a single, godlike Utility Monster) that is on average so much happier that it would be better if our population were replaced by that smaller one.”
*평균 공리주의가 마주하게 되는 다른 불쾌한 결론 (Derek Parfit)
: 행복 극대화를 위해서는 작은 인구로 이행하는 것이 옳다.
⇒ “neither version of a utilitarian number – that is, neither total nor average happiness- reliably tracks the intuitions that led us to find utilitarianism plausible in the first place”
“An anthropocentric deontology likewise would seem not to solve the problem, as there is no particular reason to suppose members of this larger population are failing to treat each other as ends in themselves.”
“The problem is more than a problem for utilitarianism. It is a problem for all act-centered theories: that is, moral theories that treat specifying action-guiding rules as their primary task. For an act-centered perspective, it is hard to explain why the Repugnant Conclusion is repugnant.”
*불쾌한 결론이 제기하는 의무론을 포함한 모든 행위중심 도덕이론의 문제
: 불쾌한 결론이 왜 불쾌한지 행위중심 도덕이론은 밝힐 수 없다.
pp.230-233. (Is there Another Way of Doing Moral Theory?)
“The sort of person who would prefer Z is the sort of person who does not possess the humility that would lead a more virtuous person to see value in human society playing an appropriately limited role in the biotic community, for nonanthropocentric as well as anthropocentric reasons.”
*환경적 덕 윤리가 밝히는 불쾌한 결론이 불쾌한 이유
: 생물공동체에서 인간사회가 적절히 제한된 역할을 맡는 데에서 가치를 추구하는 덕스러운 인간의 겸손을 결여하는 선호이기 때문이다.
“It’s normal to think that the happiness of particular other people is important. It’s normal to generalize from this and think that happiness itself is important. It’s maniacal to think that this abstraction translates into a reason to prefer, over A, the concrete misery of world Z.”
“[...] in being a person who would think of maximizing a happiness number, [...] what matters most were happiness rather than persons themselves (or something about persons other than their happiness, such as whether they achieve excellence).”
*결과주의의 근본적 문제
: 타인의 행복의 중요성을 인식하는 데에서 출발하여, 행복 그 자체가 중요하다고 추상화하고, 결국 행복을 극대화하는 것이 옳다고 생각하며 인간과 별개로 행복의 양에 집착하게 됨
pp.233-236. (Note on contributing to overpopulation + Intuition and Theory + Summary)
“when confronted with free-riding that does only minute harm, a character-centered theory provides a rich vocabulary for criticizing those who contribute to Repugnant Conclusions as short-sighted, irresponsible, weak-willed, selfish, and so on.”
*현실적으로 불쾌한 결론으로 가게 되는 무임승차 문제에 대한 덕 윤리적 반응
: 무임승차자는 부덕하다. 즉, 근시안적이고, 무책임하고, 의지력이 약하고, 이기적이다.
“A good person is considerate, and therefore cares about consequences. A good person is humble, in the sense of seeing himself as a locus of value in a world where there are many loci of value, and recognizing that it is not only humans who can be worthy of appreciation.”
“The idea is that to act in a way that you could will to be a universal law is arguably the essence of acting with integrity. That is, when we do that, we are acting from motvies that we would not hesitate to make transparent, for all the world to see.”
*덕스러운 인간의 특징 : 결과주의적 신중함, 의무론적 진실함, 환경윤리적 겸손함
“A theory is an attempt to capture our intuitions with a simple formula. How could we expect to do that without losing some of morality’s intuitive nuance? Of course theories will have counterexamples!”
*도덕 이론과 도덕적 직관 사이의 괴리의 필연성에서 발생하는 반례(ex. 불쾌한 결론)
“The proper lesson is not that act-centered theories are useless, though, but rather that we are better off treating act-centered theory as the sort of thing from which wise persons can gain insight that is useful, even if limited.”
“Moral decisions require wisdom, not mere computational power, and there is no simple recipe for wisdom.”
*도덕적 지혜의 중요성, 도덕적 지혜에 기여하는 행위중심 도덕이론