バートランド・ラッセル『ヒューマン・ソサエティ-倫理学から政治学へ』- Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954
* 原著:Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954* 邦訳書:バートランド・ラッセル(著),勝部真長・長谷川鑛平(共訳)『ヒューマン・ソサエティ-倫理学から政治学へ』(玉川大学出版部,1981年7月刊。268+x pp.)
第4章:善(善い)と悪(悪い) n.1 |
Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954, chapter 4: Good and Bad, n.1 | |||
功利主義者は、快楽が唯一の善であり、苦痛が唯一の悪であると主張する。これには疑問があるかもしれないが、いずれにせよ、私がこの言葉を使いたい意味では、ほとんどの快楽は「善」であり、ほとんどの苦痛は「悪」である。快楽と苦痛について少し考えれば、この議論において重要な目的と手段の違いが浮かび上がってくるだろう。 |
"Good" and "bad", "better" and "worse", are terms which may or may not have a verbal definition, but in any case first come to be understood ostensively. Let us then begin with an attempt to indicate their meaning, leaving the question of verbal definition to a later stage. A thing is "good", as I wish to use the term, if it is valued for its own sake, and not only for its effects. We take nasty medicines because we hope they will have desirable effects, but a gouty connoisseur drinks old wine for its own sake, in spite of possible disagreeable effects. The medicine is useful but not good, the wine is good but not useful. When we have to choose whether a certain state of affairs is to exist or not, we have of course to take account of its effects. But the state of affairs, as well as each of its effects, has an intrinsic quality which inclines us to choose it or not to choose it, as the case may be. It is this intrinsic quality that I call “good” when we incline to choose it and “bad” when we incline to reject it. Utilitarians maintain that pleasure is the only good and pain the only evil. This may be questioned, but in any case most pleasure is "good" and most pain is "bad", in the sense in which I wish to use these words. A little consideration of pleasure and pain will help to bring out the difference between ends and means, which is important in this discussion. |