Oxford Utilitarianism Scale牛津功利主义量表
12th January 2018 By jimaceverett
回答这9个问题，看看你的功利程度。分数是为了你自己的利益，不会用于研究目的。对于每一个问题，表明你同意或不同意下面的陈述。
The scale is drawn from the paper:
该量表来自于以下论文：
Kahane, G**., Everett, J.A.C.**, Earp, B.D., Caviola, L., Faber, N.S., Crockett, M.J., & Savulescu, J. (In Press). Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review.
量表共9个问题，你的选择可以是
强烈反对
不同意
有点不同意
不同意也不反对
部分同意
同意
强烈同意
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、“如果在紧急情况下挽救他人生命的唯一方法是牺牲自己的腿，那么在道德上就需要做出这样的牺牲。”
2.“It is morally right to harm an innocent person if harming them is a necessary means to helping several other innocent people.”
2、“如果伤害一个无辜者是帮助其他几个无辜者的必要手段，那么伤害无辜的人在道义上是对的。”
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、“从道德的角度来看，我们应该有义务把两个肾脏中的一个捐献给肾衰竭的人，因为我们不需要两个肾脏存活，但实际上只有一个是健康的。”
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、“如果要确保人民的福祉和幸福，唯一的办法就是在短时间内使用政治压迫，那么就应该使用政治压迫。”
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、“从道德的角度来看，人们应该关心地球上所有人类的幸福，他们不应该偏爱那些在身体上或情感上特别接近他们的人的幸福。”
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弹爆炸会造成数百人死亡，那么就可以对无辜者施以酷刑。”
7.“It is just as wrong to fail to help someone as it is to actively harm them yourself.”
7、“不帮助别人也是错误的，因为这就像是主动伤害自己一样。”
8.“Sometimes it is morally necessary for innocent people to die as collateral damage—if more people are saved overall.”
8、.“有时候，无辜的人在灾难中的附带死亡在道德上是必要的——如果有更多的人得到整体拯救的话 。”
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、“如果一个人留着自己真的不需要的钱，而不捐给那些因此受益匪浅的人，为他们提供有效的帮助，这是不道德的。”
评分标准
（待补充）
评定的三个维度
全面功利主义
根据古典功利主义，我们应该以最大化总体幸福感的方式行事。这意味着决定一种行为在道德上是否正确的唯一标准是，从可用的选项中，是否考虑到人类或动物的所有福利的福利，它将导致世界上最幸福和最痛苦的行为。一种不能以这种方式最大化福利的行为在道德上是错误的。
在这个道德观上，没有人比其他任何人更重要：我们自己的利益和需要，以及我们的家人和朋友的利益和需要，永远比任何其他人的利益和需要都重要，不管我们离我们多么遥远。根据功利主义，唯一重要的是我们的行为如何影响世界上的幸福。如果违反规则或原则，会带来更好的结果，这在道义上总是正确的。
你在量表上得分越高，你自己的观点越接近古典功利主义所说的。如果你熟悉伦理理论，我们可以说，如果你是一个不合格的行为功利主义，那么你应该在量表上得分非常高。如果你更像是一个功利主义者，或者是一个结果论者，其价值论不仅仅包括福利，那么你就没有多少功利性了——但仍然很高。远离量表的顶端，一个人对道德的偏爱程度越高，他们接受的道义上的约束越多（越强），你应该得到的分数越低。如果你被W. D. Ross多元主义的道义论所吸引，你的等级就低了。如果你持有一个绝对有限的康德理论，它对后果产生有限的影响，或者是一个高度传统的道德观，那么你应该把它放在最底层。
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 W. D. 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
功利主义的哲学核心在于大善的公正最大化——我们称之为公正的善行。你在这个维度上的得分越高，你越有可能认为采用一个完全公正的道德立场来对待每个人的幸福同样重要。如果我们完全接受功利主义的积极、公正、仁慈的维度，我们就不应该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动物放在非人的身上。公正的善行通常意味着自我牺牲的高要求形式，无论是成为素食主义者还是素食主义者，将大部分钱捐给慈善机构，旨在减轻远方国家的痛苦，甚至捐献自己的肾脏。事实上，功利主义指导道德代理人牺牲他们自己的幸福，即使只是在他们自己失去了其他人的幸福只是一个微小的增量。当然，有多少人接近这个公正的理想是一个程度的问题-甚至宣称功利主义者承认，他们没有实现它没有资格。
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 have 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.
工具性伤害
功利主义虽然需要一种完全公正的道德观（“公正的仁慈”），但它是不够的。人们可以采取这样的观点，但仍然认为，最大限度地实现每个人的幸福目标必须遵循各种道德规则，限制我们从某些方式伤害无辜的人、说谎、违背诺言等。换言之，即使一个人赞同这个公正的道德目标，也可能认为我们被禁止采取某些手段来实现它。古典功利主义的消极成分是否认有这样的限制。当然，我们应该经常说实话，信守诺言，拒绝伤害无辜的人——但是只有当（因为）这些行为才可能导致一个更好的公正结果。当他们妨碍实现这样的结果时，这种熟悉的道德规则可以而且应该被打破。你在功利主义的“消极”维度上得分越高——“工具性伤害”——你越有可能认为当我们需要达到更好的结果时，我们应该愿意造成伤害甚至杀害他人。在经典思想实验中，有人把一个无辜的人从人行道上推下，以拯救更多的生命。但在更现实的例子中也可以看到，例如当有人认为，如果需要减少重大恐怖袭击的风险，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/
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网
