전통적으로 공리주의는 크게 두 가지 비판 즉, ‘행위의 결과를 계산할 시간이 없다는 문제(the no-time-to-calculate problem)’와 ‘미래의 결과를 예측하기 힘들다는 문제(the future-consequence-are-hard-to-forsee problem)’로부터 자유로울 수 없었다. 그것은 공리주의 이론이 숙명처럼 안고 있는 근본적인 한계이기도 하다. 그런 점에서 공리주의자와 반-공리주의자들 사이의 논쟁은 대부분 이 문제를 둘러싸고 벌어지는 비판과 반론 다시 재반박으로 이어지는 지루한 논리싸움의 연속이다. 이 논문은 밀(J. S. Mill)이 관습도덕의 일종인 ‘부차적 원리(secondary principles)’란 개념을 통해 위의 비판들에 대응하는 과정을 중점적으로 소개해 본 것이다. 여기서 논자는 브링크(David O. Brink)와 크리스프(Roger Crisp)의 견해를 재구성하는 방식을 통해 밀의 공리주의를 보다 입체적으로 분석하고자 했다. 브링크의 말을 빌리면 밀의 공리주의는 “심사숙고한 흔적이 보이지만 일관성을 갖추는 데는 실패한 행위공리주의(considered, but not consistent, act utilitarianism)”였다. 논자도 표현은 다르지만 큰 맥락에서 그의 평가에 동의한다. 논자가 보기에 밀의 공리주의는 형식은 불완전했지만 내용은 완전주의에 가까운, 따뜻한 휴머니즘이었다. 밀이 누구나 동의할 수 있는 관습도덕(customary morality), 즉 부차적 원리들의 준수를 강조한 것은 우선 가능한 일부터 하나씩 실천하면서 조금이라도 더 최대행복의 집(공리주의의 궁극적 목적)에 가깝게 도달하자는 공리주의적 제안이었을 것으로 생각한다. 그런 점에서 밀은 현실주의자이면서도 이상주의자였다. 여기서 밀의 공리주의는 이론적 비판과 함께 실천적 희망을 동시에 함축하게 되었다. 이 논문에서 미진한 부분은 기회가 주어지는 대로 같은 문제를 규칙공리주의(rule utilitarianism)의 입장에서 다시 한 번 더 검토한 다음 수정, 보완할 계획임을 미리 밝혀 둔다.
Traditionally, Utilitarianism could not be free from two criticism, which are "the no-time-to-calculate problem" and "the future-consequence-are-hard-toforsee problem". It is a fundamental limitations that utilitarianism are having as fate. Controversies between the utilitarian and anti-utilitarian are a continuous battles of boring logics which have been criticism, rebuttal and surrebuttal. This paper introduced the course of arguments briefly that corresponds to the criticism of the above through the concept of Secondary Principles as one of the customary morality from J. S. Mill. On this study, the author analyzed various aspects of Mill’s Utilitarianism through reorganizing the thought of David O. Brink and Roger Crisp. In the words of Blink, Mill's Utilitarianism is the one that "considered, but not consistent, act utilitarianism". The author agrees with his assessment in the large context even though the expression is little bit different. Thinking personally, Mill’s Utilitarianism was incomplete, but it was warm humanism. What Mill emphasized on customary morality namely, compliance with the secondary principles that everyone can agree was thought to be utilitarian suggestions, which first of all tried to reach to the Home of the Greatest Happiness (The ultimate goal of utilitarianism) while practicing one by one from the possible work. In this sense, Mill is both a realist and an idealist. In this point, Mill's Utilitarianism was implied both theoretical criticism and practical hope at the same time. Next time I will try to organize again the same problem from the standpoint of Rule-Utilitarianism.
Traditionally, Utilitarianism could not be free from two criticism, which are "the no-time-to-calculate problem" and "the future-consequence-are-hard-toforsee problem". It is a fundamental limitations that utilitarianism are having as fate. Controversies between the utilitarian and anti-utilitarian are a continuous battles of boring logics which have been criticism, rebuttal and surrebuttal. This paper introduced the course of arguments briefly that corresponds to the criticism of the above through the concept of Secondary Principles as one of the customary morality from J. S. Mill. On this study, the author analyzed various aspects of Mill’s Utilitarianism through reorganizing the thought of David O. Brink and Roger Crisp. In the words of Blink, Mill's Utilitarianism is the one that "considered, but not consistent, act utilitarianism". The author agrees with his assessment in the large context even though the expression is little bit different. Thinking personally, Mill’s Utilitarianism was incomplete, but it was warm humanism. What Mill emphasized on customary morality namely, compliance with the secondary principles that everyone can agree was thought to be utilitarian suggestions, which first of all tried to reach to the Home of the Greatest Happiness (The ultimate goal of utilitarianism) while practicing one by one from the possible work. In this sense, Mill is both a realist and an idealist. In this point, Mill's Utilitarianism was implied both theoretical criticism and practical hope at the same time. Next time I will try to organize again the same problem from the standpoint of Rule-Utilitarianism.