本文的主要任務是解決功利主義能否容納偏愛性關係(the relations of partiality)的問題。由於功利主義承諾了一種不偏不倚(impartiality)的觀點和偏愛性關係強調偏愛，二者之間是一種緊張的衝突關係。面對這一衝突，功利主義的辯護者提出了一些策略試圖容納偏愛性關係，然而他們的這種嘗試是不成功的。一種具有義務論特徵的人權理論看來較有可能容納合理的偏愛性關係。當然，對這一人權理論也須給予恰當的界定和解釋。
基本介紹
- 中文名：功利主義與偏愛性關係
- 外文名：the relations of partiality
- 內容：由於以往那些基於偏愛性關係
- 主要任務：解決功利主義能否容納偏愛性關係
中文摘要,外文摘要,
中文摘要
本文的主要任務是解決功利主義能否容納偏愛性關係(the relations of partiality)的問題。由於功利主義承諾了一種不偏不倚(impartiality)的觀點和偏愛性關係強調偏愛，二者之間是一種緊張的衝突關係。面對這一衝突，功利主義的辯護者提出了一些策略試圖容納偏愛性關係，然而他們的這種嘗試是不成功的。一種具有義務論特徵的人權理論看來較有可能容納合理的偏愛性關係。當然，對這一人權理論也須給予恰當的界定和解釋。
由於以往那些基於偏愛性關係的批評往往建立在日常直覺認識的基礎上，為了使這個批評成為一個有效的責難，我們首...>> 詳細
由於以往那些基於偏愛性關係的批評往往建立在日常直覺認識的基礎上，為了使這個批評成為一個有效的責難，我們首...>> 詳細
本文的主要任務是解決功利主義能否容納偏愛性關係(the relations of partiality)的問題。由於功利主義承諾了一種不偏不倚(impartiality)的觀點和偏愛性關係強調偏愛，二者之間是一種緊張的衝突關係。面對這一衝突，功利主義的辯護者提出了一些策略試圖容納偏愛性關係，然而他們的這種嘗試是不成功的。一種具有義務論特徵的人權理論看來較有可能容納合理的偏愛性關係。當然，對這一人權理論也須給予恰當的界定和解釋。
由於以往那些基於偏愛性關係的批評往往建立在日常直覺認識的基礎上，為了使這個批評成為一個有效的責難，我們首先需要對偏愛性關係和好生活(well-being)或幸福之間的關係進行論證。通過論證，我們看到偏愛性關係在人類對好生活的理解中占據一個重要的地位。既然道德是為了人而不是人為了道德，那么一種合理的道德理論就應該容納被恰當理解的偏愛性關係。
功利主義是道德不偏不倚理論的一個典型代表，因此它分享了這一理論的基本特徵：平等、無偏私性和道德正確性標準。道德正確性標準的內容即最大化一般幸福原理體現了功利主義的獨特性。據此，功利主義與偏愛性關係的衝突從三個層面體現出來：第一個層面是功利主義忽視或禁止了友誼等偏愛性關係價值；第二個層面是功利主義導致了道德主體的一種異化狀態；第三個層面相關於兩者在具體情境中的衝突。這種衝突涉及到優先性問題．
針對這一衝突，功利主義的辯護者進行了積極的回應。這些回應包含：兩個層次區分的思想；對“一般幸福”這個“善”的精緻化理解的思想；功利主義和偏愛性關係的衝突在道德之外而不在道德之內的思想；謝夫勒的“以主體為中心”的特權思想。功利主義辯護者的這些回應方式都是有問題的，都沒能充分解決功利主義與偏愛性關係的衝突問題。儘管這些回應方式是不成功的。但是其中也存著我們可以借鑑的合理地方，為我們建立一種合理的道德理論做了理論準備。
一種合理的道德就是要在個人觀點與非個人觀點之間尋求一種恰當的平衡。這是本文最後一章的內容。一方面，在某些基本的層而，合理的道德要堅持非個人觀點萇至是平等的非個人觀點：在有些方面，合理的道德要保證個人觀點的優先性和道德地位。總之，這種合理的道德所堅持的原則或標準不是只有一個，而是一個有著內在次序的層級式的原則。這種道德的一種可能形式就是恰當解釋的基本人權理論。
關鍵字：功利主義 偏愛性關係 衝突 容納 人權理論
由於以往那些基於偏愛性關係的批評往往建立在日常直覺認識的基礎上，為了使這個批評成為一個有效的責難，我們首先需要對偏愛性關係和好生活(well-being)或幸福之間的關係進行論證。通過論證，我們看到偏愛性關係在人類對好生活的理解中占據一個重要的地位。既然道德是為了人而不是人為了道德，那么一種合理的道德理論就應該容納被恰當理解的偏愛性關係。
功利主義是道德不偏不倚理論的一個典型代表，因此它分享了這一理論的基本特徵：平等、無偏私性和道德正確性標準。道德正確性標準的內容即最大化一般幸福原理體現了功利主義的獨特性。據此，功利主義與偏愛性關係的衝突從三個層面體現出來：第一個層面是功利主義忽視或禁止了友誼等偏愛性關係價值；第二個層面是功利主義導致了道德主體的一種異化狀態；第三個層面相關於兩者在具體情境中的衝突。這種衝突涉及到優先性問題．
針對這一衝突，功利主義的辯護者進行了積極的回應。這些回應包含：兩個層次區分的思想；對“一般幸福”這個“善”的精緻化理解的思想；功利主義和偏愛性關係的衝突在道德之外而不在道德之內的思想；謝夫勒的“以主體為中心”的特權思想。功利主義辯護者的這些回應方式都是有問題的，都沒能充分解決功利主義與偏愛性關係的衝突問題。儘管這些回應方式是不成功的。但是其中也存著我們可以借鑑的合理地方，為我們建立一種合理的道德理論做了理論準備。
一種合理的道德就是要在個人觀點與非個人觀點之間尋求一種恰當的平衡。這是本文最後一章的內容。一方面，在某些基本的層而，合理的道德要堅持非個人觀點萇至是平等的非個人觀點：在有些方面，合理的道德要保證個人觀點的優先性和道德地位。總之，這種合理的道德所堅持的原則或標準不是只有一個，而是一個有著內在次序的層級式的原則。這種道德的一種可能形式就是恰當解釋的基本人權理論。
關鍵字：功利主義 偏愛性關係 衝突 容納 人權理論
外文摘要
The main task of this paper is to deal with the question of whether Utilitarianism could accommodate the relations of Partiality or not. Since Utilitarianism is committed to a kind of impartiality point of view, while the relationships of Partiality emphasize a kind of partiality point of view, there are some conflicts and tension between them. Confronting this conflict, some defenders of Utilitarianism suggested some strategies to accommodate the relations of Partiality; however, in my opinio...>> 詳細
The main task of this paper is to deal with the question of whether Utilitarianism could accommodate the relations of Partiality or not. Since Utilitarianism is committed to a kind of impartiality point of view, while the relationships of Partiality emphasize a kind of partiality point of view, there are some conflicts and tension between them. Confronting this conflict, some defenders of Utilitarianism suggested some strategies to accommodate the relations of Partiality; however, in my opinion, their suggestions are not successful. A kind of Human Rights theory which is characterized by Deontology is more likely to accommodate reasonable relationships of Partiality. Of course, proper definition and explanation are required for this theory.
Since those previous criticisms of the relations of Partiality are mostly based on our common sense intuition, in order to make this criticism being valid, we need to argue for the connection between the relations of Partiality and well-being or happiness first. Through argument, we could see that the relations of Partiality play an important role in our understanding of a good human life. Since morality is for human beings, not vice versa, a reasonable moral theory has reason to accommodate the relations of Partiality which is understood appropriately.
Utilitarianism is typical of a moral theory of Impartiality, so it shares the basic characteristics of this theory: equality, the absence of bias and the standard of moral rightness. The principle of Maximizing Utility as the standard of moral rightness is the unique characteristic of Utilitarianism. Accordingly, the conflicts between Utilitarianism and the relations of Partiality are embodied in three levels: firstly, Utilitarianism ignored or forbid the value of the relations of Partiality; secondly, Utilitarianism led to the state of moral alienation of the agent; thirdly, their conflicts in specific situations, this kind of conflicts refer to the problem of priority.
In the face of this conflict, the defenders of Utilitarianism responded positively. These Strategies conntains the thought of two-level distinction, a sophisticated understanding of "common happiness", the conflicts between Utilitarianism and the relations of Partiality outside of morality, and Scheffler''s Agent-centered prerogative theory. All these ways of responses of the defenders of Utilitarianism are problematical, not being able to solve the conflicts adequately. Though these responses are not successful, we still could learn a lot from them to establish a reasonable moral theory
A reasonable morality should find a kind of proper balance between personal and impersonal point of view. This is the content of the last chapter. On the one hand, in some basic aspects, a kind of reasonable morality should insists impersonal or even equally impersonal point of view; in some other aspects, a kind of reasonable morality ought to guarantee the priority and moral status of personal point of view. In short, the principles or standards of this reasonable morality could not be single, but with internal hierarchy. One possible form of this kind of morality is Human Rights theory.
Key words: Utilitarianism, the relations of Partiality, conflicts, accommodation, Human Rights Theory.
Since those previous criticisms of the relations of Partiality are mostly based on our common sense intuition, in order to make this criticism being valid, we need to argue for the connection between the relations of Partiality and well-being or happiness first. Through argument, we could see that the relations of Partiality play an important role in our understanding of a good human life. Since morality is for human beings, not vice versa, a reasonable moral theory has reason to accommodate the relations of Partiality which is understood appropriately.
Utilitarianism is typical of a moral theory of Impartiality, so it shares the basic characteristics of this theory: equality, the absence of bias and the standard of moral rightness. The principle of Maximizing Utility as the standard of moral rightness is the unique characteristic of Utilitarianism. Accordingly, the conflicts between Utilitarianism and the relations of Partiality are embodied in three levels: firstly, Utilitarianism ignored or forbid the value of the relations of Partiality; secondly, Utilitarianism led to the state of moral alienation of the agent; thirdly, their conflicts in specific situations, this kind of conflicts refer to the problem of priority.
In the face of this conflict, the defenders of Utilitarianism responded positively. These Strategies conntains the thought of two-level distinction, a sophisticated understanding of "common happiness", the conflicts between Utilitarianism and the relations of Partiality outside of morality, and Scheffler''s Agent-centered prerogative theory. All these ways of responses of the defenders of Utilitarianism are problematical, not being able to solve the conflicts adequately. Though these responses are not successful, we still could learn a lot from them to establish a reasonable moral theory
A reasonable morality should find a kind of proper balance between personal and impersonal point of view. This is the content of the last chapter. On the one hand, in some basic aspects, a kind of reasonable morality should insists impersonal or even equally impersonal point of view; in some other aspects, a kind of reasonable morality ought to guarantee the priority and moral status of personal point of view. In short, the principles or standards of this reasonable morality could not be single, but with internal hierarchy. One possible form of this kind of morality is Human Rights theory.
Key words: Utilitarianism, the relations of Partiality, conflicts, accommodation, Human Rights Theory.
