<サーヴェイ論文>規則帰結主義を巡る論争 --近年の動向--

Abstract

Rule-consequentialism is one of the most prevalent family of moral theories. It selects rules solely in terms of the goodness of their consequences and then claims that these rules determine the deontic status of an act. This survey paper reviews the development of rule-consequentialism in contemporary moral philosophy. In particular, it examines two groups of objections and responses to those objections. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the development of rule-consequentialism in contemporary moral philosophy by introducing a series of objections and responses. Sections 2 and 3 provide background knowledge before introducing the contemporary debates. Section 2 offers an overview of the emergence of rule-consequentialism as a prominent approach in contemporary moral philosophy. A form of rule-consequentialism emerged as a potential alternative to the classical utilitarianism. Section 3 provides a definition of the terms “consequentialism” and “rule-consequentialism”. The remaining sections will present a review of the recent debate on rule-consequentialism. Section 4 introduces two pivotal elements that are essential for constructing a concrete version of rule-consequentialism: the type of embedment and the manner of considering the rate of embedment. Section 5 addresses an objection previously considered fatal, namely the dilemma of collapse or incoherence, and presents responses to this objection. Section 6 introduces a set of objections that have gained renewed attention, namely Ideal World Objections and the Distant World Objection, and provides a response to them.