Oxford Utilitarianism Scale牛津功利主義 量表
12th January 2018 By jimaceverett
回答這9個問題，看看你的功利程度。 分數是為了你自己的利益，不會用於研究目的。 對於每一個問題，表明你同意或不同意下面的陳述。
The scale is drawn from the paper:
該量表來自於以下論文：
Kahane, G**., Everett, JAC**, Earp, BD, Caviola, L., Faber, NS, Crockett, MJ, & Savulescu, J. (In Press). Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review.
量表共9個問題，你的選擇可以是
強烈反對
不同意
有點不同意
不同意也不反對
部分同意
同意
強烈同意
1.“If the only way to save another person's life during an emergency is to sacrifice one's own leg, then one is morally required to make this sacrifice.”
1、“如果在緊急情況下挽救他人生命的唯一方法是犧牲自己的腿，那麼在道德上就需要做出這樣的犧牲。”
2.“It is morally right to harm an innocent person if harming them is a necessary means to helping several other innocent people.”
2、“如果傷害一個無辜者是幫助其他幾個無辜者的必要手段，那麼傷害無辜的人在道義上是對的。”
3.“From a moral point of view, we should feel obliged to give one of our kidneys to a person with kidney failure since we don't need two kidneys to survive, but really only one to be healthy.”
3、“從道德的角度來看，我們應該有義務把兩個腎臟中的一個捐獻給腎衰竭的人，因為我們不需要兩個腎臟存活，但實際上只有一個是健康的。”
4.“If the only way to ensure the overall well-being and happiness of the people is through the use of political oppression for a short, limited period, then political oppression should be used.”
4、“如果要確保人民的福祉和幸福 ，唯一的辦法就是在短時間內使用政治壓迫，那麼就應該使用政治壓迫。”
5.“From a moral perspective, people should care about the well-being of all human beings on the planet equally; they should not favor the well-being of people who are especially close to them either physically or emotionally.”
5、“從道德的角度來看，人們應該關心地球上所有人類的幸福，他們不應該偏愛那些在身體上或情感上特別接近他們的人的幸福。”
6.“It is permissible to torture an innocent person if this would be necessary to provide information to prevent a bomb going off that would kill hundreds of people.”
6、“如果有必要提供信息以防止炸彈爆炸會造成數百人死亡，那麼就可以對無辜者施以酷刑。”
7.“It is just as wrong to fail to help someone as it is to actively harm them yourself.”
7、“不幫助別人也是錯誤的，因為這就像是主動傷害自己一樣。”
8.“Sometimes it is morally necessary for innocent people to die as collateral damage—if more people are saved overall.”
8、.“有時候，無辜的人在災難中的附帶死亡在道德上是必要的——如果有更多的人得到整體拯救的話。”
9.“It is morally wrong to keep money that one doesn't really need if one can donate it to causes that provide effective help to those who will benefit a great deal.”
9、“如果一個人留著自己真的不需要的錢，而不捐給那些因此受益匪淺的人，為他們提供有效的幫助，這是不道德的。 ”
評分標準
（待補充）
評定的三個維度
全面功利主義
根據古典功利主義，我們應該以最大化總體幸福感的方式行事。 這意味著決定一種行為在道德上是否正確的唯一標準是，從可用的選項中，是否考慮到人類或動物的所有福利的福利，它將導致世界上最幸福和最痛苦的行為。 一種不能以這種方式最大化福利的行為在道德上是錯誤的。
在這個道德觀上，沒有人比其他任何人更重要：我們自己的利益和需要，以及我們的家人和朋友的利益和需要，永遠比任何其他人的利益和需要都重要，不管我們離我們多麼遙遠。 根據功利主義，唯一重要的是我們的行為如何影響世界上的幸福。 如果違反規則或原則，會帶來更好的結果，這在道義上總是正確的。
你在量表上得分越高，你自己的觀點越接近古典功利主義所說的。 如果你熟悉倫理理論，我們可以說，如果你是一個不合格的行為功利主義，那麼你應該在量表上得分非常高。 如果你更像是一個功利主義者，或者是一個結果論者，其價值論不僅僅包括福利，那麼你就沒有多少功利性了——但仍然很高。 遠離量表的頂端，一個人對道德的偏愛程度越高，他們接受的道義上的約束越多（越強），你應該得到的分數越低。 如果你被WD Ross多元主義的道義論所吸引，你的等級就低了。 如果你持有一個絕對有限的康德理論，它對後果產生有限的影響，或者是一個高度傳統的道德觀，那麼你應該把它放在最底層。
According to classical utilitarianism, we should always act in the way that would maximize aggregate well-being. This means that the only thing that determines whether an act is morally right is whether, out of the available options, it is the act that would lead to the most happiness and the least suffering in the world, taking into account the welfare of all sentient beings, whether human or animal. An act that doesn't maximize welfare in this way is morally wrong. On this moral view, no one counts for more than anyone else: our own interests and needs, and the interests and needs of our family and friends, never count for more than the interests and needs of any other person, however distant from us. According to utilitarianism, the only thing that matters is how our actions affect the amount of happiness in the world. It is always morally right to break a rule or principle if doing so would lead to the better outcome. The higher you score on the scale, the closer your own views fit with what classical utilitarianism says. If you are familiar with ethical theories, we could say that if you are an unqualified act utilitarian then you should score very highly this scale. If you are more of a rule utilitarian or a consequentialist whose axiology includes more than welfare then you are somewhat less utilitarian – but still high. Moving further away from the top end of the scale, the more a person thinks of morality in partial terms, and the more (and the stronger the) deontological constraints they accept, the lower scores you should have. If you are attracted to WD Ross's pluralist deontological theory you would rank low on this scale. If you hold an absolutist Kantian theory which gives limited weight to consequences, or a highly traditional moral view, then you should rank at the very bottom of the scale.
公正的仁慈
功利主義的哲學核心在於大善的公正最大化——我們稱之為公正的善行。 你在這個維度上的得分越高，你越有可能認為採用一個完全公正的道德立場來對待每個人的幸福同樣重要。 如果我們完全接受功利主義的積極、公正、仁慈的維度，我們就不應該把自己的利益放在首位，也不要把自己的家庭、朋友、同胞或甚至是非人的動物放在非人的身上。 公正的善行通常意味著自我犧牲的高要求形式，無論是成為素食主義者還是素食主義者，將大部分錢捐給慈善機構，旨在減輕遠方國家的痛苦，甚至捐獻自己的腎臟。 事實上，功利主義指導道德代理人犧牲他們自己的幸福，即使只是在他們自己失去了其他人的幸福只是一個微小的增量。 當然，有多少人接近這個公正的理想是一個程度的問題-甚至宣稱功利主義者承認，他們沒有實現它沒有資格。
The philosophical core of utilitarianism lies in the impartial maximization of the greater good – what we call impartial beneficence. The higher you score on this dimension, the more likely you are to think that to adopt a thoroughly impartial moral standpoint is to treat the well- being of every individual as equally important. If we fully accept the positive, impartially beneficent, dimension of utilitarianism we should give no priority to one's own good, nor to that of one's family, friends, compatriots, or even fellow humans over nonhuman animals. Impartial beneficence normally implies highly demanding forms of self-sacrifice—whether by becoming vegetarian or vegan, giving much of one's money to effective charities aiming to relieve suffering in distant countries, or perhaps even donating one's own kidney. Indeed, utilitarianism instructs moral agents to sacrifice their own well-being even if there is only a tiny increment in the well-being of others over what they themselves ha ve lost. Of course, however, how much one approximates this impartial ideal is a matter of degree— even avowed utilitarians admit that they fail to realize it without qualification.
工具性傷害
功利主義雖然需要一種完全公正的道德觀（“公正的仁慈”），但它是不夠的。 人們可以採取這樣的觀點，但仍然認為，最大限度地實現每個人的幸福目標必須遵循各種道德規則，限制我們從某些方式傷害無辜的人、說謊、違背諾言等。 換言之，即使一個人讚同這個公正的道德目標，也可能認為我們被禁止採取某些手段來實現它。 古典功利主義的消極成分是否認有這樣的限制。 當然，我們應該經常說實話，信守諾言，拒絕傷害無辜的人——但是只有當（因為）這些行為才可能導致一個更好的公正結果。 當他們妨礙實現這樣的結果時，這種熟悉的道德規則可以而且應該被打破。 你在功利主義的“消極”維度上得分越高——“工具性傷害”——你越有可能認為當我們需要達到更好的結果時，我們應該願意造成傷害甚至殺害他人。 在經典思想實驗中，有人把一個無辜的人從人行道上推下，以拯救更多的生命。 但在更現實的例子中也可以看到，例如當有人認為，如果需要減少重大恐怖襲擊的風險，酷刑在道德上是可以接受的。
Although a thoroughly impartial moral outlook (“impartial beneficence”) is necessary for utilitarianism, it is not sufficient. One can adopt such an outlook while still holding that the goal of maximizing everyone's well-being must only be pursued in line with various moral rules constraining us from certain ways of harming innocent people, lying, breaking promises, and the like. In other words, even if one endorses this impartial moral goal, one may still think that we are forbidden from taking certain means to achieve it. The negative component of classical utilitarianism is the denial that there are any such constraints. We should of course still usually tell the truth, keep our promises, and refuse to harm innocent people— but only when (and because) these acts are likely to lead to a better impartial outcome. When they get in the way of achieving such an outcome, such familiar moral rules can and should be broken. The higher you score on this 'negative' dimension of utilitarianism – “instrumental harm” – the more likely you are to think that we should be willing to cause harm and even kill others when this is needed to achieve a better outcome overall. Such a willingness can be seen when—as in the classic thought experiment—someone pushes an innocent person off a footbridge to save a greater number of lives. But it can also be seen in more realistic examples, such as when someone holds that torture is morally acceptable if needed to reduce the risk of a major terrorist attack.
http://www.jimaceverett.com/test/oxford-utilitarianism-scale/
