https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/20885
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor | 孫效智 | en |
dc.contributor | 臺灣大學:哲學研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | 祖旭華 | zh |
dc.contributor.author | Tsu, Shiu-Hwa | en |
dc.creator | 祖旭華 | zh |
dc.creator | Tsu, Shiu-Hwa | en |
dc.date | 2005 | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2007-11-27T03:39:03Z | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-05-29T09:17:23Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2007-11-27T03:39:03Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-05-29T09:17:23Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | - |
dc.identifier | zh-TW | en |
dc.identifier.uri | http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/56433 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 許多效益主義者的批評者認為只要殺人、偷竊、搶劫或是違背諾言可以促進最大幸福的實現,那麼這些行為都是效益主義者所允許的,這似乎顯得效益主義不夠尊重日常道德規則。這種批判如果成立,對於效益主義而言,自然是一大威脅。在筆者的研究中,筆者將論證,這種對於效益主義的批判乃是一種誤解,效益主義事實上有理論上的資源可以解釋日常道德規則。為了支持這個論點,筆者將效益主義區分為三種不同的版本: 行為效益主義、規則效益主義以及黑爾的雙層理論。 行為效益主義認為行為者在道德上有義務P進幸福。雖然這是一個很崇高的理想,但這也表示只要某些令人憎惡的行為有助於最大幸福的實現,那麼行為效益主義就會要求行為者去做那些行為。簡而言之,行為效益主義有可能違反日常道德規則。相對而言,規則效益主義者認為行為者在任何情況下都必須遵守日常道德規則,雖然採取這種觀點似乎對規則效益主義者有利,但事實上它也有它的缺陷。畢竟,為了維護日常道德規則,而捨棄對於最大幸福的追求,這似乎流於對規則的盲目崇拜,而且也似乎有違道德促進幸福的宗旨。黑爾的雙層理論可以彌補規則效益主義的缺陷。其理論主張,雖然日常道德規則在大多數的情況下都應被行為者所遵守,但這些規則絕非如規則效益者所宣稱,具有一種神聖而不可侵犯的地位。筆者的研究將探討黑爾的雙層理論要如何與行為效益主義及規則效益主義兩者區分,並且探討雙層理論要如何解釋日常道德規範。本研究的原創性在於對黑爾的雙層理論提出一個新的闡釋,以回應長久以來效益主義所遭受到的批判。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Many critics of utilitarianism claim that it would condone killing, stealing, robbing, and breaking promises whenever these actions are found to be expedient for the promotion of maximal happiness. It seems that utilitarianism does not take our commonsensical moral rules seriously enough. This charge is a serious one that threatens the plausibility of utilitarianism. In my research, I will argue that utilitarianism, contrary to its critics’ (mis)conception, has theoretical resources to take full account of commonsensical moral rules. I defend this thesis by distinguishing three types of utilitarianism: act-utilitarianism, rule-utilitarianism, and Hare’s two-level theory. Act-utilitarianism maintains that the agent is morally required to promote happiness. While it has a noble goal to achieve, it may indeed prescribe abhorrent actions whenever they are necessary for the realization of maximal happiness. In short, it may run afoul of commonsensical moral rules. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism insists that the commonsensical moral rules must be strictly followed by all means. Although this position might seem to be a merit to rule-utilitarianism, it has its flipside. Abandoning the pursuit of the maximal happiness for the preservation of commonsensical moral rules, it smacks of rule-worship and seems to contradict the welfare-promoting purpose of morality. Hare’s two level theory serves as a remedy for the defect of rule-utilitarianism. It maintains that while the commonsensical moral rules must be adhered to in most situations, they are never sacred and inviolable in a way rule-utilitarianism claims them to be. My research investigates how Hare’s two-level theory is to be distinguished from both act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism and how it can fully accommodate commonsensical moral rules. It is original research in the sense that a new perspective on Hare’s two-level theory is provided to offer a solution to a long-standing problem that plagues utilitarianism. | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 導論………………………………………………………………..1 第一章 行為效益主義與日常道德規則………………………………….5 第一節 行為效益主義與日常道德規則間的緊張關係…………………………. 5 第二節 行為效益主義做為對的判準以及行為效益主義做為行為指導原則…10 第三節 行為效益主義做為行為指導原則時的回應方式………………………13 第四節 行為效益主義如何看待日常道德規則…………………………………17 第五節 日常道德規則在一般人道德思維中與經驗法則的差距………………21 第六節 為什麼行為效益主義不夠尊重遵守承諾的日常道德規則……………26 第二章 規則效益主義與日常道德規則………………………………...29 第一節 規則效益主義為何會興起?規則效益主義與行為效益主義的異同比較…………………………………………………………………………30 第二節 規則效益主義是否可以解決行為效益主義遭遇的難題………………33 第三節 日常道德規則可不可以是規則效益主義所承認的最佳規則…………34 第四節 為何採用日常道德規則所產生的效益大於採用行為效益主義的效益…………………………………………………………………………37 第五節 日常道德規則對於社會合作的好處優於行為效益主義原則…………42 第六節 投票者的悖論……………………………………………………………44 第七節 規則崇拜…………………………………………………………………47 第三章 黑爾雙層次道德思維理論與日常道德規則………………...…55 第一節 為什麼要區分兩個層次的道德思維?......................................................55 第二節 批判性思考的任務………………………………………………………57 第三節 兩個層次思維之間的關係是什麼?..........................................................59 第四節 細心的行為效益主義與行為效益主義的比較…………………………64 第五節 細心的行為效益主義與規則崇拜………………………………………70 結論………………………………………………………………………...75 參考書目…………………………………………………………………...77 | zh_TW |
dc.format.extent | 2121670 bytes | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.language | zh-TW | en |
dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
dc.subject | 道德 | en |
dc.subject | 日常道德規則 | en |
dc.subject | 效益 | en |
dc.subject | 效益主義 | en |
dc.subject | 幸福 | en |
dc.subject | morality | en |
dc.subject | utility | en |
dc.subject | utilitarianism | en |
dc.subject | happiness | en |
dc.subject | commonsensical moral rules | en |
dc.subject.classification | [SDGs]SDG16 | - |
dc.title | 效益、效益,多少罪惡假汝之名而行---論效益主義與日常道德規則的衝突 | zh |
dc.title | O Utility, O Utility, What Crimes Are Committed in Thy Name---On the Conflict between Utilitarianism and Rules of Commonsense Morality | en |
dc.type | thesis | en |
dc.identifier.uri.fulltext | http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/56433/1/ntu-94-R90124012-1.pdf | - |
dc.relation.reference | 外文資料: Anscombe, G.E.M. “Modern Moral Philosophy” in Ethics, Religion, and Politics. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1981, pp. 26-42 Austin, John. Lectures on Jurisprudence. vol. I, Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 1996 Bales, R. Eugenes. “Act-utilitarianism: Account of Right-Making Characteristics or Decision-Making Procedure?” American Philosophical Quarterly, 1971, pp. 257-265 Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. (edited by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart) New York, Oxford University Press, 1996 Brandt, Richard B. “Toward a credible form of utilitarianism.” In Hector-Neri Castaneda and George Nakhnikian eds., Morality and the Language of Conduct. Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1963 DeMarco, Joseph. P. Moral Reasoning. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, The Dryden Press, 1990 Donagan, Alan. The Theory of Morality. Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1977 Foot, Philippa. “Utilitarianism and the Virtues”, Mind 94, 1985, pp. 196-209 Frankena, William K. Ethics. New York, Prentice Hall, 1989 Gert, Bernard. Morality: Its Nature and Justification. New York, Oxford University Press, 1998 Gensler, H. J. Ethics. London, Routledge, 1998 Goldman, Alan H. Practical Rules : When We Need Them and When We Don't. London, Cambridge University Press, 2002 Grassian, Victor. Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary Moral Problems. New York, Prentice-Hall, 1981 Hare, R. M. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method And Point. New York, Oxford University Press, 1981 Harrison, Johnathan. Ethical Essays: Volume 1. England, Ashgate Publishing Company, 1993 Hodgson, D. H. Consequences of Utilitarianism: a Study in Normative Ethics and Legal Theory. New York, Oxford University Press, 1967 Hooker, Brad. Ideal Code, Real World. New York, Oxford University Press, 2002 Hooker Brad. “Rule-Consequentialism” Mind, New Series, vol. 99, no. 393, Jan 1990, pp. 67-77 Howard-Snyder, Frances. “Rule Consequentialism Is A Rubber Duck”, American Philosophical Quarterly, v. 30, no. 3, July 1993, pp. 271-278 Johnson, Conrad D. Moral Legislation : a Legal-political Model for Indirect Consequentialist Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 1991 Lyons, David. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1965 Kagan, Shelly. Normative Ethics. U.S.A., Westview Press, 1998 Mackie, J. L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London, Penguin Group, 1990 MacNiven, Don. Creative Morality. New York, Routledge, 1993 Mill, J. S. Collected Works: A System of Logic. (edited by J. M. Robson) Canada, University of Toronto Press, 1974 a Mill, J. S. Collected Works: Taylor’s Statement. (edited by J. M. Robson) Canada, University of Toronto Press, 1974 b Mill, J. S. On Liberty and Other Essays. (edited by John Gray), New York, Oxford University Press, 1998 Mill, J. S. Utilitarianism and On Liberty. (edited by Mary Warnock), Oxford, Blackwell, 2003 Mulgan, Tim. The Demands of Consequentialism. Clarendon, Oxford University Press, 2001 Nagel, Thomas. The View From Nowhere. New York, Oxford University Press, 1986 Nussbaum, Martha. Love’s Knowledge. New York, Oxford University Press, 1990 Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont, Wadsworth, 1995 Pojman, Louis P. (ed.) Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Indianapolis, Ind. Hackett Pub., 1998 Railton, Peter. “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol. 13, No. 2, 1984, pp. 134-171 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. New York, Oxford University Press, 1999 Rawls, John. Collected Papers. Boston, Harvard University Press, 2001 Ross, W. D. The Right and The Good. (edited by Philips Stratton-Lake) Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2002 Scarre, Geoffrey Utilitarianism. New York, Routledge, 1996 Shaw, William H. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Oxford, Blackwell, 1999 Sheffler, Samuel. The Rejection of Consequentialism. New York, Oxford University Press, 2003 Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. London, Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1907 Singer, Peter (ed.) A Companion to Ethics. London, Blackwell, 2003 Smart, J.J.C. and Williams, Bernard Utilitarianism: For and Against. London, Cambridge University Press, 1973 Smart, J.J.C. “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism”, Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1956, pp. 344-354 Thiroux, Jacques P. Theory and Practice. London, Collier Macmillan, 1986 Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics. New York, Routledge, 2000 Wellman, Carl. Morals and Ethics. New York, Prentice Hall, 1988 中文資料: 林火旺,<<倫理學>>,臺北,五南出版社,1999 孫效智,<與他者的關係>,收錄於沈清松,<<哲學概論>>,臺北,五南出版社,2004, pp. 41-66 陳特,<<倫理學釋論>>,臺北,東大出版社,2000 黃慶明編著,<<倫理學講義>>,臺北,洪葉出版社,2000 釋聖嚴,<<動靜皆自在>>,臺北,法鼓文化,1999 | zh_TW |
item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
item.openairetype | thesis | - |
item.languageiso639-1 | en_US | - |
item.grantfulltext | open | - |
item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
item.fulltext | with fulltext | - |
顯示於: | 哲學系 |
檔案 | 描述 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ntu-94-R90124012-1.pdf | 23.53 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
在 IR 系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。