行為者的意圖影響行為的可允許性嗎？

行為者的意圖與行為的可否允許相關嗎？這是規範倫理學中的重要議題之一。為了回答這個問題，筆者主張有必要刻劃並且區分五種立場，分別是極端無關論、溫和無關論、極端相關論、溫和相關論、先知後意的無關論。之所以有必要，不只是因為意圖如果會影響行為的可否允許，其影響的方式可區分為直接或間接，也因為對於意圖之善惡的理解有兩種，且兩種理解有時會有出入。根據第一種的理解，善意指的是意圖助人，而惡意指的是意圖傷人。根據第二種理解，善意指的是行為者意圖做其主觀認知為可允許的行為，而惡意指的是行為者意圖做其主觀認知為不可允許的行為。對於這五種立場，筆者不僅分別表述其核心的主張，並一一分析其核心主張之間的蘊含關係。本文目的不在於論證五種立場當中何者會成立，而是在於釐清這些立場的異同。只有當有助於立場的釐清時，筆者才給予必要的評論。

關鍵字

意圖；可允許性；規範倫理學；雙果說

並列摘要

One of the central issues in normative ethics concerns the relevance of intention to the permissibility of action. Does an agent's intention affect the permissibility of her action? In order to answer this question, I argue that it is necessary to distinguish between five theses, namely extreme-irrelevance, moderate irrelevance, extreme-relevance, moderate relevance, and irrelevance due to assessment-prior-to-intention. My argument is based on the fact that if intention affects the permissibility, the way it affects can be divided into directly and indirectly. My argument is also based on the fact that good/bad intention can be understood in two ways. According to one way of understanding, an agent's intention is good if and only if she intends to do good/allow good things to happen; and her intention is bad if and only if she intends to do harm/allow harm. According to the other way of understanding, an agent's intention is good if and only if she intends to do what she believes it is permissible to do; and her intention is bad if and only if she intends to do what she believes it is impermissible to do. In this paper, I characterize each of the five theses in terms of their core ideas, and make it clear how some core ideas follow from the others. The purpose of my paper is limited. Rather than argue for any of the five theses, I distinguish between them as clearly as possible. I make no commentary on any of the five theses except when my commentary helps to shed light on them.

並列關鍵字

intention ； permissibility ； normative ethics ； doctrine of double effect

參考文獻

孫效智（2002）。論意圖的道德無關性。臺大文史哲學報，56，393-436。 DOI: 10.6258/bcla.2002.56.13 【Sun, H.-C. (2002). On the moral irrelevance of intention. Humanitas Taiwanica, 56, 393- 436. DOI: 10.6258/bcla.2002.56.13】

FitzPatrick, W. J. (2012). The doctrine of double effect: Intention and permissibility. Philosophy Compass, 7(3), 183-196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00474.x

Kamm, F. M. (2004). Failures of just war theory: Terror, harm and justice. Ethics, 114, 650- 692. DOI: 10.1086/383441

Kaufman, W. R. P. (2016). The doctrine of double effect and the trolley problem. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 50, 21-31. DOI: 10.1007/s10790-014-9479-0

Liao, S. M. (2012). Intention and moral permissibility: The case of acting permissibly with bad intentions. Law and Philosophy, 31, 703-724. DOI: 10.1007/s10982-012-9134-5

主題瀏覽