后果主义与苛求性反驳——对后果主义的一个辩护

Consequentialism and Demandingness Objection A Defense of Consequentialism

苛求性问题(Demandingness Objection)是后果主义一直以来面临的几个主要问题之一。该反驳意见认为后果主义关于行为正确性的评价标准对我们来说太严苛了,它比我们日常的道德直觉要更高。许多学者采取了不同的策略来回应这一反驳为后果主义辩护,但这些辩护都或多或少存在一些问题。发展一种行为者中心(agent centred)的整体后果主义或许能更好地回应苛求性反驳,其一方面考虑了行为者中心的多重因素;另一方面,从后果产生的整体角度对行为者的行为进行评价。这种策略可以在保留后果主义“选择更好的事态总是更好的”这一非常有吸引力的主张同时,试图为后果主义面对苛求性问题提供一个更好的辩护。

The problem of Demandingness is one of several major problems that consequentialism has been facing.The objection is that consequentialism's criterion for evaluating the correctness of an act is too demanding for our purposes.This criterion requires that 1.the consequences of the set of states of affairs produced by the chosen act are those that maximize the consequences compared to the consequences of other alternative acts,and 2.an impartial stance on the ordering of consequences.This standard is clearly higher than,and thus not consistent with,our moral intuitions.If the consequentialist view is to be defended,it becomes inevitable and important to respond well to the question of Demandingness.In response to this rebuttal in defense of consequentialism,many scholars have taken different strategies,with extremists such as Kagan,Singer,Sobel,Sosa,Unger,and others arguing that it is our everyday moral intuitions that are at fault,and that for all of us,it is always appropriate to do what has the consequence of maximizing the consequences of being impartial,such as donating all of one's money in order to help with the world's famines(Of course different scholars have different views on the extent to which agents should give,suggesting that they should give all of it or all of their other possessions only on the basis of preserving their basic survival needs,etc.,but in general they all assert that the rightness of our behavior should meet a standard that seems to be very demanding in everyday morality),and that if we don't do this then just thinking about the people who are suffering from disaster will naturally lead to a conscience of condemnation;while some scholars have modified the standards or forms of consequentialism,such as Slote,Scheffler,Mulgan,Norcross,Hooker,andothers,who have weakened the force of the Demandingness objection by incorporating agent-centered considerations,or by reducing absolute distinctions between right and wrong to a degree of satisfaction,or by setting up rules to maximize consequences to thereby making possible the rationality of consequentialism;other scholars have argued that the relationships among people and people and institutions in reaching consequences should be reexamined,such as Murphy,Tanyi,and others,who argue that the problem of Demandingness arises as a result of the fact that not everyone has assumed their responsibilities that it should have assumed,or who argue that decisions to maximize consequences should be taken in larger institutions rather than individuals and behavior.However,all of these defenses are more or less problematic,and the development of an agent-centered holistic consequentialism may be a better idea for a response.This agent-centered overall consequentialism begins by distinguishing between the“ideal best consequence”where the agent's choice to maximize the consequences of a decision or behavior is made in a completely impersonal way without regard to social factors,the agent's own relationships,commitments,or special values and the“actual best consequence”.The former refers to the consequences of the choice made by the agent to maximize consequences,which leaves room for ultra-responsible behaviours;the latter serves as a criterion for determining the correctness of an act.In the“best practical consequence”,on the one hand,the“total state of affairs”of the consequence is considered from the point of view of its single meaning(the overall state of affairs resulting from a single act),and the value of the state of affairs comprises a wide range of intrinsic values,including not only the value of the agent's special relationship,identity,emotions,etc.,in the consideration of the consequences of each action,but also the value and influence of the agent's cognition,psychology,state of mind,character,etc.;on the other hand,the value of the“total state of affairs”in the overall sense of the consequences of the choices made by an agent each time it encounters such a situation,and considering the“total state of affairs”in an overall sense,and taking into account the consequences of an agent's choices each time it encounters such a situation,as well as the consequences of each other agent's choices each time it encounters such a situation as a whole,it is possible to evaluate a single act X by reflecting on the balance of the best possible overall consequences of all such acts performed by the agent itself and by all agents.This approach can provide a better defense of consequentialism against demandingness by circumventing to some extent the problems faced by the other strategies described above,and by preserving consequentialism's appealing idea that“choosing a better state of affairs is always preferable to choosing a lesser state of affairs”.This paper attempts to clarify this new line of solution to better respond to the problem of Demandingness by first briefly reconstructing the line of argumentation for Demandingness objections,clarifying the overall argumentative structure of the rebuttals,then elucidating different scholars'strategies for responding to the problem and the problems they face,and finally explaining the details of agent-centered overall consequentialism in concrete terms,as well as the advantages it has and the rebuttals and responses it may face.