정도 공리주의의 주요 쟁점: 반론과 응답

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Maximizing utilitarianism, which posits the maximization of good as the standard for rightness, has faced criticism for its demandingness objection. This paper explores scalar utilitarianism as an attempt to overcome this critique, examining its principles, objections, and responses. The study begins by discussing Michael Slote's perspective, who coined the term ‘scalar morality’, and then delves into Alastair Norcross's theory that established scalar utilitarianism. Special attention is given to the persuasive argument and the demand-elimination argument proposed within the framework. Two key objections to scalar utilitarianism are considered: the dilemma of the persuasive argument and the critique regarding its lack of action-guidance. Additionally, Kevin Tobia's defense of scalar utilitarianism is analyzed. The author's proposal is as follows: to establish the internalized acceptance rule as the criterion for rightness. Compliance with the acceptance rule is deemed right, while non-compliance is deemed wrong. Moreover, actions that exceed compliance with the acceptance rule, achieving greater outcomes, are classified as supererogatory. The incorporation of the acceptance rule into scalar utilitarianism can address the excessive demands objection while contributing to the preservation of moral guidance.