- 수업명: <윤리학 연습: 결과주의와 그 비판자들>
- 2014년 2학기
- 서울대 철학과 대학원
- 담당교수: 김현섭
■ 수업 목표
본 과목에서는 현대 규범 윤리학의 주요 이론 중 하나인 결과주의의 기본 개념 및 구조를 분석하고, 결과주의에 대한 비판과 다양한 형태의 결과주의 이론들을 살펴본 후, 이러한 비판을 극복할 수 있는 형태로 결과주의 이론이 발전할 수 있을지 검토한다.
■ 교재 및 참고 문헌
아래 강의일정에 표기된 필수・참고 문헌을 매주 pdf 파일로 강의 게시판에 업로드하거나 복사하여 수업 시간에 배부한다.
수업에서는 다루지 않으나 수업내용과 관련한 배경지식을 얻고자 하는 학생은 Shelly Kagan, Normative Ethics (Westview Press, 1998) 및 Julia Driver, Consequentialism (New Problems of Philosophy) (Routledge, 2011)을 읽어도 좋을 것이다.
■ 평가 방법
본 과목의 성적은 다음과 같은 방식으로 평가한다.
(1) 수업 참여 (20%)
(2) 과제물 (30%)
(3) 기말논문 (50%)
과제물 및 수업 참여: 매 수업 전 읽을 문헌에 관한 생각해 볼 문제(들)이 제시될 것인데, 수강생은 그 (중 일부) 또는 자신이 선정한 문제에 답하는 과제물 – A4 용지 두 쪽을 넘지 않음 – 을 매주 작성해야 한다. 과제물은 수업 전일 정오까지 담당교수의 이메일로 제출해야 한다. 제출된 짧은 과제물에 대해 담당 교수가 별도로 논평을 기재하여 수강생에게 반환하지는 않으나, 이를 기초로 수업 중 토론 및 질의•응답이 진행될 것이다.
기말논문: 수강생이 스스로 수업 중 다룬 내용과 관련된 주제를 선정하는바, 논문을 작성하기 전 담당 교수와 면담을 통해 주제를 상의할 것을 권장한다. 20,000-30,000자 내외(공백 포함) 분량으로, 12월 21일(일) 자정까지 담당교수의 이메일로 제출해야 한다. 보고서에서 표절이 발견될 경우에는 본 과목 전체 성적을 F로 처리하고 학칙에 따라 처벌한다. 제출된 논문은 간단한 논평을 덧붙여 수강생들에게 반환한다.
■ 수업 방식
담당교수가 지정된 문헌을 기초로 철학적 문제들을 제시하면, 이에 대해 함께 토론하는 방식으로 진행된다. 따라서 필수 문헌을 자세히 읽은 후 그에 관해 자신의 생각을 말할 준비를 하고 수업에 참여해야 한다. 참고 문헌을 읽는 것은 선택 사항이지만, 수업 중 토론에서 논의될 것이고 과제물 및 기말논문 작성시 적절히 활용하면 유익할 것이다.
■ 강의 일정 (학기 중 변경될 수 있음)
1주 - Introduction; The structure and appeal of consequentialism
∎ Suggested:
(1) Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “Consequentialism,” The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
(2) William Shaw, “The Consequentialist Perspective,” in James Dreier (ed.),
Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory (Blackwell, 2006), pp.5-20.
2주 - What reasons do we have to accept consequentialism? Arguments for consequentialism
∎ Required:
(1) Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics (Hackett, 7th edition, 1907),
Book III, ch.13; Book IV, ch.2.
(2) Brad Hooker, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-consequentialist Theory
of Morality (Oxford University Press, 2000), ch.1.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Peter Singer, “Sidgwick and Reflective Equilibrium,” Monist 58 (1974):
490-517.
(2) T. M. Scanlon, “Rawls on Justification,” in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Rawls (Cambridge University Press, 2003),
pp.139-167 (you may stop reading at p.153).
3주 - What is it that ought morally to be promoted? Theories of welfare and consequentialism
∎ Required:
(1) Derek Parfit, “What Makes Someone’s Life Go Best?,” in his Reasons
and Persons (Oxford University Press, 1984), Appendix I: pp.493-502.
(2) T. M. Scanlon, What we owe to each other (Harvard University Press,
1998), ch.3 “Well-being”.
∎ Suggested:
(1) L. W. Sumner, Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics (Oxford University Press,
1996), chs. 2-6.
(2) James Griffin, “The human good and the ambitions of
consequentialism”, Social Philosophy and Policy 9.2 (1992): 118-32.
(3) David Sobel, “Well-being as the Object of Moral Consideration,”
Economics and Philosophy 14 (1998): 249-81.
(4) Joseph Raz, “The Role of Well-being”, Philosophical Perspectives 18
(2004): 269-94.
4주 - Forms of consequentialism I: Sophisticated act-consequentialism; Esoteric morality
∎ Required:
(1) Peter Railton, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of
Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 13.2 (1984): 134-71.
(2) Michael Stocker, “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories,” The
Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976): 453-466.
(3) Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, pp.486-492.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Bernard Williams, “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” in J.J.C. Smart &
Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against (Cambridge University
Press, 1973), pp.93-135.
(2) Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons, sections 10, 11, 14-18.
(3) Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek & Peter Singer, “Secrecy in
Consequentialism: A Defence of Esoteric Morality,” Ratio 23 (2010):
34-58.
(4) Hooker, B., “Publicity in Morality: A Reply to Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek
and Peter Singer,” Ratio 23 (2010): 111-117.
5주 - Can consequentialists be friends? Consequentialism and partiality
∎ Required:
(1) Frank Jackson, “Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest
and Dearest Objection,” Ethics 101 (1991): 461-82.
(2) Dean Cocking & Justin Oakley, “Indirect Consequentialism, Friendship,
and the Problem of Alienation,” Ethics 106 (1995): 86-111.
∎ Suggested:
(1) N. Kapur Badhwar, “Why It Is Wrong to Be Always Guided by the Best:
Consequentialism and Friendship,” Ethics 101 (1991): 483-504.
(2) Elinor Mason, “Can an Indirect Consequentialist Be a Real Friend?,”
Ethics 108 (1998): 386-93.
(3) Michael Smith, “Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest
Objection,” in Ian Ravenscroft (ed.) Minds, Ethics, and Conditionals:
Themes from the Philosophy of Frank Jackson (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), pp.237-266.
6주 - Forms of consequentialism II: Rule Consequentialism and its critics
∎ Required:
(1) Brad Hooker, Ideal Code, Real World, chs. 3-5.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Richard Arneson, “Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple
Objections,” Philosophical Issues 15 (2005): 235–251.
(2) Brad Hooker, “Reply to Arneson and McIntyre,” Philosophical Issues 15
(2005): 264-81.
(3) Robert Card, “Inconsistency and the Theoretical Commitments of
Hooker’s Rule-consequentialism,” Utilitas 19 (2007): 243-58.
(4) Brad Hooker, “Rule-consequentialism and Internal Consistency: A Reply
to Card,” Utilitas 19 (2007): 514-9.
7주 - Forms of consequentialism III: Motive consequentialism, non-maximizing consequentialism
∎ Required:
(1) Robert M. Adams, “Motive Utilitarianism,” The Journal of Philosophy 73
(1976): 467-81.
(2) Dale Jamieson and Robert Elliot, “Progressive Consequentialism,”
Philosophical Perspectives 23 (2009): 241-251.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Julia Driver, Uneasy Virtue (Cambridge University Press, 2001), ch.4.
(2) Michael Slote, “Satisficing Consequentialism,” Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. 58 (1984): 139-163.
(3) Ben Bradley, “Against Satisficing Consequentialism,” Utilitas 18 (2006):
97-108.
8주 - Forms of consequentialism IV: Global consequentialism; rightness and consequentialism
∎ Required:
(1) Philip Pettit and Michael Smith, “Global Consequentialism,” in Brad
Hooker, Elinor Mason, and Dale Miller (eds.), Morality, Rules, and
Consequences: A Critical Reader (Edinburgh University Press, 2000),
pp. 121-133.
(2) Roger Crisp, “Utilitarianism and the Life of Virtue,” Philosophical
Quarterly 42 (1992): 139-60.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Peter Railton, “How Thinking about Character and Utilitarianism Might
Lead to Rethinking the Character of Utilitarianism,” Midwest Studies in
Philosophy 13 (1988): 398-416.
(2) Alastair Norcross, “Reasons without Demands: Rethinking Rightness,”
in James Dreier (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory
(Blackwell, 2006), pp.38-53.
9주 - Is consequentialism too demanding? Consequentialism and the authority of morality
∎ Required:
(1) David Sobel, “The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection,”
Philosophers’ Imprint 7.8 (2007): 1-17.
(2) Paul Hurley, “Does Consequentialism Make Too Many Demands, or
None at All?,” Ethics 116 (2006): 680‐706.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Sarah Stroud, “Overridingness and Moral Theory,” Pacific Philosophical
Quarterly 79 (1998): 170-189.
(2) Douglas Portmore, “Consequentialism and Moral Rationalism,” in Mark
Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Oxford University
Press, 2011), pp.120-142.
(3) Dale Dorsey, “Weak Anti-Rationalism and the Demands of Morality,”
Nous 46 (2012): 1-23.
10주 - Is consequentialism too permissive? The paradox of agent‐centered constraints
∎ Required:
(1) Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974),
pp.26-33.
(2) Philippa Foot, “Utilitarianism and the Virtues,” Mind 94 (1985): 196-209.
(3) Samuel Scheffler, “Agent-Centered Restrictions, Rationality and the
Virtues,” Mind 94 (1985): 409-19.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Paul Hurley, “Agent-Centered Restrictions: Clearing the Air of Paradox,”
Ethics 108.1 (1997): 120-146.
11주 - Forms of consequentialism IV: Agent-relative consequentialism; Consequentializing moral theories
∎ Required:
(1) Douglas Portmore, Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein morality
meets rationality (Oxford University Press, 2011), chs.4,5.
∎ Suggested:
(1) James Dreier, “The Structure of Normative Theories,” Monist 76 (1993):
22-40.
(2) Mark Schroeder, “Teleology, Agent‐Relative Value, and ‘Good’,” Ethics
117 (2007): 265-295.
(3) Benjamin Sachs, “Consequentialism’s Double-Edged Sword,” Utilitas 22
(2010): 258-271.
12주 - Is consequentialism repugnant? Consequentialism and future people
∎ Required:
(1) Tim Mulgan, “Utilitarianism and our obligations to future people,”
in Ben Eggleston & Dale Miller (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to
Rawls (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp.325-147.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons, ch.16 “The Non-Identity Problem”;
“Overpopulation and the Quality of Life,” in Peter Singer (ed.) Applied
Ethics (Oxford University Press, 1986), pp.145-64.
(2) Hyunseop Kim, “Existence-based Prerogatives,” draft.
13주 - Is consequentialism too indeterminate to guide action? Objective vs. Subjective consequentialism
∎ Required:
(1) James Lenman, “Consequentialism and Cluelessness,” Philosophy &
Public Affairs 29.4 (2000): 342-370.
∎ Suggested:
(1) Elinor Mason, “Consequentialism and the Principle of Indifference,”
Utilitas 16 (2004): 316-321.
(2) Fred Feldman, “Actual Utility, the Objection from Impracticality, and the
Move to Expected Utility,” Philosophical Studies 129.1 (2006): 49-79.
(3) Dale Dorsey, “Consequentialism, Metaphysical Realism, and the
Argument from Cluelessness,” The Philosophical Quarterly 62 (2012):
48-70.
(2015.10.19.)
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기