義利之辯—墨子思想與功利主義比較

Between Morality and Utility: A Comparative Study of Mohism and Utilitarianism

李政謀(Zheng-Mou Li)

指導教授 ： 李俊毅

國立中正大學/社會科學院/戰略暨國際事務研究所/碩士(2014年)

摘要

本文主旨為墨家和功利主義比較研究。以往對公共議題的辯論在比較正義和成本效益兩者之間的平衡關係。就此一方面而言，以「義，利也」為思想核心的墨學與「最大多數人的最大幸福」的功利主義被認為是兩個最具有代表性的學派。然而以往文獻傾向將墨學比附於功利主義加以闡釋，致使忽略墨家與功利主義兩者在基本假設和論證上的差異。本文首先透過分析墨子十論以重新建構墨學政治理論，其次探討功利主義主要人物邊沁與彌爾的著作。希望透過比較，能夠更明確說明墨家與功利主義兩派的特點和思想。

鑑此，本文突顯墨家與功利主義兩個學派在「利益與幸福的思想根源」、「行為的動機與結果」、「法的重要性」以及「正義的觀點」四項主要議題。並進一步探討在現代民主背景下兩者的優點和限制；一方面墨學訴諸立足於道德上的權利—「天志」此一抽象觀點，「天志」使得社會能不斷地維持對正義的追求，甚至為一種永無止境的過程，但「誰擁有天志的話語權」可能在政治領域上成為問題。另一方面功利主義似乎提供了決定許多公共議題的務實方針，然而某些情況下，決策不能簡單地以利益和幸福計算得出。因此，墨學與功利主義兩者皆擷取在現代政治生活不同但卻互補的重點。

關鍵字

彌爾 ； 邊沁 ； 功利主義 ； 墨子 ； 墨學 ； 政治哲學

並列摘要

This thesis conducts a comparative study of Mohism and Utilitarianism. More often than not debates on public issues have to confront the balance between justice and cost-effectiveness concerns. In this regard, Mohism and Utilitarianism, with their centering on “being morally right (yi) is promoting overall utility” and “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” respectively, are two most representative schools of thought. In the literature, Mohism tends to be interpreted in terms of Utilitarianism, rendering the differences of basic assumptions and argumentations between the two less noticed. This thesis first reconstructs the Mohist political theory through a close reading of Mozi’s ten doctrines, and then discusses the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the leading figures of Utilitarianism. It is hoped that through a comparison the features and logics of the two schools can be specified more clearly.

In so doing, this thesis highlights four major themes across the two schools: “the root of benefit and happiness,” “the motive and consequence of an act,” “the importance of law,” and “the view of justice.” It further explores the advantages and limits of both in the context of modern democracy. On the part of Mohism, the idea of morally right basing on an abstract notion of “Heaven’s will” (tian zhi) can keep the quest for justice in a society an ongoing or even endless process, although the issue of “who has the power to determine Heaven’s will” may become a problem in the political realm. On the part of Utilitarianism, it seems to offer pragmatic guidelines for determining many public issues, although there are certain instances where decisions cannot be made simply by the calculation of interests and happiness. As such, Mohism and Utilitarianism both capture important dimensions of modern political life, and are different but complementary.

並列關鍵字

John Stuart Mill ； Jeremy Bentham ； Utilitarianism ； Mozi ； Mohism ； Political philosophy

參考文獻

牛頓雜誌編輯部，核電真相（台北：牛頓出版，2000年）。

王讚源，墨子（台北：東大圖書，1996年）。

Bentham, Jeremy, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,” in John Bowring (ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham Vol. I (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1995), pp. 1-154.

Bentham, Jeremy, “Essay on the Influence of Time and Place in Matters of Legislation,” in John Bowring (ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham Vol. I (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1995), pp. 169-194.

一、中文部份