後果論（Consequentialism）和義務論（Deontology）是規範倫理學裏兩個基本理論。兩個理論之間的差異，經常成為討論基本倫理問題的框架。一方面，義務論認為後果論道德上容許任何能達到最好結果的行為，這是過於寬鬆。另一方面，後果論認為義務論是自相矛盾的；因為它既禁止某些行為，視之為不道德，但又不容許人們以違反義務為手段，整體減少這類行為發生的次數。 / 這篇論文的旨趣是研究用後果論的理論框架，來表達義務論的可能性。這將提供一個新的視角，以了解後果論和義務論的基本理論差異。 / 全文共分四個部分。第一章，我會檢視兩個理論的一些基本特徵。第二章，我第一次嘗試用後果論的理論框架來表達義務論。方法是給違反義務的行為分配一個負面道德價值。然而，這方法不能成功把義務論表達為一種後果論。因為它引申了一些義務論不接受的道德判斷。第三章，我會檢視義務論和道德價值之間的關係；並順著 Louise (2004) 提出的理論，論證後果論的理論框架可以用來表達義務論。方法是把遵從義務的行為視為把時間和行動者相對 (time-relative and agent-relative) 的道德價值最大化。第四章，我將嘗試回應對這理論可能提出的反駁。 / Discussions in basic ethical problems are often framed by the essential differences between consequentialism and deontology - two fundamental theories in normative ethics. Most arguments in those ethical problems are basically reiteration of how the two theories differs from each other: Deontology holds that consequentialism is too lax as it allows all actions that leads to the best outcome, while consequentialism holds that deontology is essentially paradoxical because it forbids agents to act against a constraint even when doing so can avoid more violations. / My interest in this thesis is to examine a possible alternative in characterizing the differences between consequentialism and deontology, namely the doctrine of "consequentializing deontology". This doctrine holds that all deontological theories can be given a representation in consequentialist form. / This thesis consists of four parts. In Chapter 1, I will first examine three essential features of consequentialism, namely it is structurally axiological, teleological and maximizing. Then I will examine various formulations of deontological constraints and argue that they are best formulated as agent-relative reasons for action. In Chapter 2, I will explicate the first attempt to consequentialize deontological constraints by assigning a negative weighing to any violation. I will show that this attempt is not satisfactory because it entails a number of implausible claims. In Chapter 3, I proceed to examine various accounts that explain the normative power of deontological constraints in terms of values. Following Louise (2004), I argue that deontology can be consequentialized by giving a consequentialist representation to deontology, so that when an agent acts upon a deontological constraint, he is maximizing values that are both agent-relative and temporal-relative in nature. In Chapter 4, I will examine possible challenges to consequentializing deontology and respond to them. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Chan, Pui Yee June. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references. / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstracts also in Chinese. / Chapter Chapter 1. --- Delineating Consequentialism and Deontology --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Consequentializing Deontology: A Possible Alternative to Characterizing the Differences between Consequentialism and Deontology --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- Thesis Overview --- p.4 / Chapter 1.3 --- What Makes a Theory in Normative Ethics Consequentialist? --- p.11 / Chapter 1.3.1 --- Conception of Outcome: Future-Oriented is Not a Necessary Principle for Consequentialism --- p.13 / Chapter 1.3.2 --- Maximizing is a Necessary Principle for Consequentialism --- p.17 / Chapter 1.3.3 --- Consequentialism Essentials Summarized --- p.25 / Chapter 1.4 --- Deontological Constraints --- p.25 / Chapter 1.4.1 --- Absolute and Threshold Deontological Constraints --- p.26 / Chapter 1.4.2 --- Agent-Relative & Agent-Neutral Reasons for Action: Two Approaches --- p.27 / Chapter 1.4.3 --- Deontological Constraints & Reasons for Action --- p.31 / Chapter Chapter 2. --- Attempt of Consequentializing Deontology without Agent-Relativity --- p.36 / Chapter 2.1 --- The Consequentialism/Deontology Distinction & the Agent-relative/Agent-neutral Distinction --- p.36 / Chapter 2.2 --- Consequentializing Deontology with Threshold Constraints --- p.39 / Chapter 2.3 --- Consequentializing Deontology with Absolute Constraints --- p.42 / Chapter 2.4 --- Limits and Problems with Consequentializing Deontology --- p.44 / Chapter 2.4.1 --- Perfect calculus leads to implausible implications --- p.44 / Chapter 2.4.2 --- Agent-relativity in Deontological Constraints --- p.46 / Chapter 2.5 --- Responding to Challenges --- p.48 / Chapter 2.5.1 --- Perfect calculus leads to implausible implications --- p.48 / Chapter 2.5.2 --- Agent-relativity in Deontological Constraints --- p.50 / Chapter 2.6 --- Summary: Consequentializing Deontology Fails --- p.52 / Chapter Chapter 3. --- Deontology and Agent-Relative Values --- p.54 / Chapter 3.1 --- Consequentializing Deontology and Agent-Relativity in Values --- p.54 / Chapter 3.1.1 --- The Deontology/Consequentialism Distinction and The Agent-Relative/Agent-Neutral Distinction in Values --- p.55 / Chapter 3.1.2 --- Consequentializing Deontology with Agent-Relative & Temporal-Relative Values --- p.58 / Chapter 3.2 --- Nagel: Agent-Relative Reasons and Agent-Relative Values --- p.59 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Reasons of Autonomy --- p.61 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- Reasons of Deontology --- p.63 / Chapter 3.3 --- Korsgaard: Deontology and Inter-subjectivity --- p.70 / Chapter 3.4 --- Pettit: The Honoring/Promoting Distinction as the Deontology/Consequentialism Distinction --- p.78 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Values that cannot be honored --- p.80 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- It is not always clear what counts as "honoring" a value --- p.82 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- Honoring is promoting agent-relative value --- p.83 / Chapter Chapter 4. --- Consequentializing Deontology - Its Limits and Implications --- p.88 / Chapter 4.1 --- Thesis Project Recap --- p.88 / Chapter 4.2 --- Consequentializing deontology and agent-relativity --- p.94 / Chapter 4.3 --- Extended application of consequentializing to other ethical theories --- p.99 / Chapter 4.4 --- Fragmentation of values and consequentializing --- p.101 / Chapter 4.5 --- Conclusion: How successful consequentializing contributes to moral discussions --- p.104 / Bibliography --- p.107
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:cuhk.edu.hk/oai:cuhk-dr:cuhk_328064 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Contributors | Chan, Pui Yee June., Chinese University of Hong Kong Graduate School. Division of Philosophy. |
| Source Sets | The Chinese University of Hong Kong |
| Language | English, Chinese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, bibliography |
| Format | electronic resource, electronic resource, remote, 1 online resource (iii, 109 leaves) |
| Rights | Use of this resource is governed by the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International” License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds