功利와 公利

고봉진 한국법철학회 2023 법철학연구 Vol.26 No.2

I think there is a strong possibility of misunderstanding the core of utilitarianism because of the everyday meaning of the language that utility itself has if we do not consider “whose” utility it is. Utility is often misunderstood as synonymous with “efficiency,” and this misunderstanding is understandable in the everyday sense of the language. Many misunder- standings about utilitarianism originated here. If you ask again whose utility it is, the meaning of ‘utility’ is definitely different. The objective of utilitarianism, “freedom from pain and pleasure,” focuses on the majority rather than the individual. It is the sum of everyone’s happiness put together. In other words, utility means “social utility”. I think about what it would be like if the official name of utility was public interest. This goes against the setting of the names of the advocates of utilitarianism, but I think it will be a name that reflects the claims of the advocates of utilitarianism. Public interest means public interest. The public good is the promotion of public pleasure and the elimination of public pain. Since the enhancement of pleasure and the elimination of pain are called the enhancement of happiness, the enhancement of the public interest refers to the enhancement of public happiness. Utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill advocated ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ to solve the structure of ‘minority vs. majority’, and promoted policies to protect the oppressed majority from the minority. It is my opinion that the help of utilitarianism is needed to solve the problem of ‘minority vs. majority’ reproduced by today’s capitalism. Regarding the problem of ‘the (oppressive) majority versus the (oppressed) minority’, a different approach is required, not utilitarianism, which is not a contra- diction in my utilitarianism. ‘Utilitarianism’ that seeks to solve multiple problems is by no means exclusive. It goes hand in hand with a theory that solves a small number of problems. Mill said that his theory has ‘multifacetedness’. Solutions are different for each problem area, but one theory cannot be correct in all areas. A solution in one area may be a wrong solution in another. Policies for the majority and policies for the minority can and should coexist. Communism is linked to other theories in relation to securing minority human rights and diversity. 공리주의에 대한 오해는 공리주의자들이 주안점을 둔 ‘utility’와 ‘功利’가 진정으로 의미하는 바가 ‘public utility’와 ‘公利’라는 점을 도외시하고 ‘utility’와 ‘功利’를 일방적으로 해석한 데서 나온다. 이 논문에서 필자는 ‘공리주의적 개인주의’로 이해하는 입장, ‘총효용’으로 이해하는 입장, 전체를 위해 소수의 희생을 정당화한다는 주장을 살펴보았다. 필자는 “누구의” utility인가를 고려하지 않는다면 utility 자체가 가지고 있는 언어의 일상적인 의미 때문에 공리주의의 핵심을 잘못 짚을 가능성이 농후하다고 본다. utility는 ‘효율성’과 같은 뜻으로 오해되며, 이는 언어의 일상적인 의미에서 볼 때 그런 오해가 이해될 만하다. 공리주의에 대한 숱한 오해가 여기에서 비롯됐다. 누구의 효용인가를 다시 물어보면, ‘효용’의 뜻은 확실히 달리 다가온다. 공리주의의 목적인 “고통으로부터의 자유와 쾌락”이 중점을 두는 것은 개인보다는 다수의 사람이다. 모든 사람의 행복을 한데 합친 총량이다. 즉 효용(utility)은 “사회적 효용(social utility)”을 뜻한다. 필자는 공리의 정식 명칭을 公利로 하면 어떨까 생각해 본다. 이는 공리주의 주창자들의 명칭 설정에는 어긋나지만, 공리주의 주창자들이 주장하는 내용을 반영한 명칭이 될 거라고 생각한다. 公利는 공공의 이익을 뜻한다. 공공의 이익은 공공의 쾌락 증진과 공공의 고통 제거를 말한다. 쾌락 증진과 고통 제거를 합하여 행복 증진이라고 하기에, 공공의 이익 증진은 공공의 행복 증진을 말한다. 벤담, 밀 등 공리주의자들은 ‘소수 對 다수’의 구조를 해결하기 위해 ‘최대 다수의 최대 행복’을 주창하면서, 소수로부터 억압받는 다수를 보호하기 위한 정책을 추진했다. 오늘날 자본주의에 의해 다시 재현된 ‘소수 對 다수’의 문제를 해결하기 위해서 공리주의의 도움이 필요하다는 것이 필자의 생각이다. ‘(억압하는) 다수 對 (억압받는) 소수’의 문제에 대해서는 공리주의가 아닌 다른 접근을 요구하는데, 이는 필자의 공리주의에서는 모순되는 주장이 아니다. 다수의 문제를 해결하려는 ‘공리주의’는 결코 배타적이지 않다. 소수의 문제를 해결하는 이론과 병행한다. 밀은 자신의 이론이 ‘다면성(多面性)’을 가진다고 했다. 문제 영역에 따른 해결 방안이 다를 뿐이지, 하나의 이론이 모든 영역에서 옳을 순 없다. 한 영역에서 해결책이 다른 영역에서는 잘못된 해법이 되기도 한다. 다수를 위한 정책과 소수를 위한 정책은 공존할 수 있고, 공존하여야 한다. 公利主義는 소수자 인권 및 다양성 확보와 관련해 다른 이론과 연결된다.

전기사업법상 사업허가의 법적 쟁점 -특히 사업허가의 재산권성과 전기사업의 임의적 종료가능성 문제를 중심으로-

정남철 한국법학원 2024 저스티스 Vol.200 No.-

Energy security is emerging as a critical national challenge due to climate change and the demand for electricity is increasing gradually. As renewable energy is emphasized, the number of people who want to start an electric utility business is expanding. According to the Korean Electric Utility Act, those who wish to engage in electric utility business must obtain a license. However, there is no provision in the Electricity Utility Act that allows a licensed electric business to cease operations if it later determines that the business is unprofitable or there are unavoidable circumstances that prevent it from operating. The legal nature of business license under Article 7 of the Electric Utility Act is also an issue, but more research is needed. The permits used under the current statutes have various legal characteristics, but the case law requires a precise examination. A business utility license under Article 7 of the Electric Utility Act is equivalent to a special permit or concession(Konzession). The license itself is not a property right. Still, the licensed electric business has the nature of a ‘business right’ in that it is the right to operate an electric business. Although there are conflicting views on whether such business right falls within the scope of property rights, the content related to the existence of the electric business itself falls within the scope of constitutional property rights. Severely restricting the right to operate a licensed electric business or the activities of an electric business operator is a violation of the property rights or occupational freedom of an electric business operator. The Electric Utility Act shall provide for the electric business operator’s termination of the licensed electricity business. Besides, it is necessary to introduce a provision in the Electric Utility Act that allows a business to be abolished or suspended under specific requirements. It should also stipulate a procedure for “applying” for the withdrawal of a licensed electric utility.

흄의 정의론에서 유용성의 문제

김다솜 중앙대학교 중앙철학연구소 2024 철학탐구 Vol.73 No.-

흄의 윤리이론에서 도덕성의 원리는 사회적 유용성의 원리이다. 유용성을 도덕적 행위의 척도로 삼는다는 점에서 흄을 공리주의의 선구자로, 혹은 흄의 윤리이론을 공리주의로 해석하기도 한다. 하지만 분명한 것은 흄은 벤담이나 밀과 같은 공리주의자는 아니다. 그런데 이에 동의하는 사람들도 왜 흄이 공리주의자가 아닌지에 대해서는 명료한 이유를 제시하고 있다고 보기 어렵다. 흄은 발생적 관점에서 사람은 개인의 이익이나 선호를 넘어서 사회의 이익 즉 공공의 이익으로서 사회 전체의 선을 증진시키는 행위를 하려는 경향성을 갖고 있다고 주장한다. 흄은 이에 기초해서 정의를 공적 유용성의 규칙으로 이해한다. 흄의 정의론에서 유용성의 원리에는 두 가지 종류가 있는데, 하나는 사적 유용성이며, 다른 하나는 공적 유용성이다. 흄에게 전자는 자기애에 기초한 자기이익의 원리이며, 후자는 사회적 이익에 기초한 도덕성의 원리이다. 그런데 도덕성의 원리로서 사회적 유용성 또는 공적 유용성을 최대 다수를 위한 합리적 계산이 아니라 공감에 기초한 도덕적 시인의 산물로 간주한다는 점에서 흄은 기본적으로 공리주의가 아니다. 흄은 사회적 이익과 사회적 규범의 기초를 도덕적 시인의 감정을 일으키는 공감적 유용성에 두기 때문이다. 그러나 흄은 공적 유용성에 대한 공감적 시인이 어떻게 이루어지는지에 대해서는 만족스러운 설명을 제시하지 않고 있다. 따라서 흄의 정의론에서 별로 주목받지 못하고 있는 문제, 즉 공적 유용성과 도덕적 시인의 관계가 명료하게 규명될 필요가 있다. 이 논문은 이 점을 분명히 하려고 시도한다. In Hume’s ethics, the principle of morality is the principle of social utility. In that he takes utility as a measure of moral behavior, Hume is interpreted as a pioneer of utilitarianism, or Hume’s ethical theory as utilitarianism. But it is clear that Hume is not a utilitarian like Bentham or Mill. However, even those who agree to this generally do not provide a clear reason why it is difficult to see Hume as a utilitarian. Hume argues that justice as social morality is understood as a rule of public utility from a generational point of view, and that people tend to enjoy activities that promote social interests beyond individual interests or preferences. And Hume answers based on utility as to why he is pleased with the promotion of good in society as a whole as a public interest. For Hume, there are two types of principles of utility as a principle of action, the principle of self-interest and the principle of public utility. Hume understands the former as the principle of private utility, that is, self-interest, and the latter as a feeling of sympathy for human welfare, that is, the principle of morality as universal humanity. However, Hume is not fundamentally utilitarian in that it regards social interests or public utility as a principle of morality as the product of moral approval based on sympathy rather than rational calculations for the largest majority. In Hume’s theory of justice, there are two kinds of principles of utility : private utility and public utility. The former is the principle of self-interest based on self-love, and the latter is the principle of morality based on social interests. However, Hume is not fundamentally utilitarian in that social or public utility as a principle of morality is regarded as the product of a moral approval based on sympathy rather than a rational calculation for the greatest benefit of the greatest number. This is because, for Hume, social interests and social norms are based on the sympathetic utility and moral feelings that sympathize with them. However, a problem of the relation between public utility and moral approval has not received much attention in Hume’s theory of justice. This paper attempts to clarify this point.

The Effects of Franchise Customers’ Acquisition Utility and Exchange Utility on Customer Loyalty and Customer Citizenship Behavior

Sang-Duck Kim,Hyang-Mi Im,Ki-Hong Seo,Ok-Sook Yoon,Jong-Hun Kim 한국유통과학회 2019 The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business( Vol.10 No.2

Purpose - Customer loyalty and citizenship behavior are key success factors of franchise system. They make the management of franchisee more effective and efficient. Prior studies, however, mainly dealt with only acquisition utility of customer, such as perceived product/service quality and brand reputation to explain customer loyalty and citizenship behavior, which explains only on one side. We tried to investigate the effect of exchange utility of customer, such as relationship strength and psychological obligation together with the acquisition utility. In addition, we tried to investigate the relationship between customer loyalty and citizenship behavior in franchise context. Research design, data, and methodology - This study used data collected from the dining franchisee managers of 342 franchisors in South Korea. The franchisors consist of more than ten franchisees, the majority of which participated directly in the transaction with franchisor and have worked for more than six months. To test the hypotheses, the study used structural equation model analysis. Results - H1-1, 1-2, 1-3 predicted that acquisition utility would increase customer loyalty to franchisee. In support of H1-1, 1-2, 1-3, the results indicated that acquisition utilities such as perceived product value, perceived service value, and franchise brand reputation had positive effects on customer loyalty. H2-1, 2-2 predicted that exchange utility would increase customer loyalty to franchisee. In support of H2-2, the result indicated that psychological obligation had positive effects on customer loyalty like other acquisition utilities. However, H2-1 was not supported. Relationship strength had no significant effect on customer loyalty. H3 predicted that customer loyalty would increase customer citizenship behavior. In support of H3, the results indicated that customer loyalty had positive effect on customer citizenship behavior. Overall, the evidences generally supported the hypotheses. Conclusion - The results of the study show that not only acquisition utility but also exchange utility increases customer loyalty to franchisee and also show that customer loyalty increases customer citizenship behavior. Interestingly, however, relationship strength has no significant effect on customer loyalty. These results have two implications. The one is that increasing exchange utility can improve customer loyalty as acquisition utility can. The other one is that both of customer utilities can improve customer citizenship via customer loyalty.

ON THE EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL UNCERTAINTY ON PREDICTED UTILITY AND FORECASTING ERROR: THE UNCERTAINTY-PREDICTION ASYMMETRY (UPA) HYPOTHESIS

Athanasios Polyportis,Flora Kokkinaki 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

The present research examines the Uncertainty-Prediction Asymmetry (UPA) hypothesis, that low certainty incidental emotions, compared to their high certainty counterparts, lead to utility overprediction and to lower forecasting error. Introduction Cognitive appraisals of emotion have been included in the state-of-the-art theory of emotion and decision-making (Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam, 2015). For instance, Tiedens & Linton (2001) discuss how happiness involves appraisals of high certainty, and sadness involves appraisals of low certainty. In terms of forecasting, systematic processing is generally considered to lead to less forecasting error compared to heuristic processing. Tiedens & Linton (2001) argue that, if accuracy is the ultimate goal the individual needs to rely on more thoughtful processes. Seeking a state of certainty is more cognitively engaging and requires more cognitive resources. But how do people predict future utilities in the first place? Theoretical background Kahneman & Thaler (2006) analyze forecasting as a two-step procedure, encompassing a current prediction as well as a future event. Breaking down the present and future situation allows researchers to assess accuracy and detect how errors occur. Kahneman & Snell (1992) report that people tend to underpredict future utilities. Typically, the experienced utility is higher (i.e. more liked or less disliked) compared to the earlier prediction. In the present paper we argue that emotional uncertainty leads to utility overprediction and thus reduces forecasting error. This hypothesis is in line with the Appraisal-Tendency Framework (ATF-overview in Lerner et al., 2015). According to the ATF, an emotion may trigger a cognitive predisposition to assess future events in line with the central appraisal dimensions that triggered that emotion. Such appraisals provide a perceptual schema for interpreting subsequent situations. In the context of the present research, the certainty-uncertainty cognitive appraisal is hypothesized to trigger a predisposition that affects the utility prediction mechanism and leads to utility overprediction. This hypothesis is also in line with the uncertainty intensification hypothesis (Bar-Anan, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2009), according to which the uncertainty of experienced emotions makes unpleasant events more unpleasant and pleasant events more pleasant. The present research examines an Uncertainty-Prediction Asymmetry (UPA) hypothesis. In three experimental studies we test the hypotheses that low certainty incidental emotions, compared to their high certainty counterparts, lead to utility overprediction (H1) and to lower forecasting error (H2). Emotional certainty, as an appraisal dimension of emotions, is expected to create a prediction asymmetry through its effect on both predicted utility and forecasting error. The mediating role of heuristic processing in the relationship between emotional certainty and forecasting error is also investigated. Experiment 1 The first experiment examines the hypothesis that low emotional certainty leads to utility overprediction (H1). Eighty postgraduate students were randomly assigned to a high emotional certainty (disgust) vs. a low emotional certainty (fear) condition. Emotion induction involved exposure to pretested video clips (see Han et al., 2012). Following this manipulation, the experimental utility (a small candy bar) was distributed and participants were encouraged to consume it (see Kahneman & Snell, 1992). They were then asked to report on 13-point scales how much they liked the utility and to predict how much they would like it in the future consumption occasion (a week later). The results revealed a significant difference in predicted utility between the high (M = 2.22, SD = 1.33) and low (M =3.65, SD = 1.37) emotional certainty conditions (F = 4.43, p = 0.04, partial eta squared = 0.10). Experiment 2 The second experiment includes a “future event”, that is measures of the utility that was originally predicted, in order to also estimate forecasting error. The experiment therefore tests if (a) the main effect of emotional uncertainty on predicted utility is confirmed (H1) and (b) there is a significant main effect of emotional uncertainty on forecasting error (H2). In addition, this experiment examines whether these effects are independent of the valence appraisal dimension of emotions. Given that Experiment 1 involved two negatively valenced emotions, emotional valence (positive vs. negative) was included in the experimental design. Seventy three postgraduate students participated in a five-consecutive-days experiment. During the first day, participants were randomly assigned to a fear (negative valence, low certainty), disgust (negative valence, high certainty), hope (positive valence, low certainty) or happiness (positive valence, high certainty) condition. Specifically, participants were asked to report an experience in which they had felt this particular emotion through an Autobiographical Emotional Memory Task (AEMT) (as in Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Following this experimental manipulation, the experimental utility (a small chocolate bar) was distributed and they were again encouraged to consume. Subsequently, they were asked to rate how much they liked and how much they would like the utility on the fifth day. Depth of processing was assessed with four items (α=0.77), adjusted from Griffin et al. (2002). Specifically, these items measured the heuristic processing performed during the prediction process. Participants were contacted again on each of the remaining four days and were asked to consume the utility and to complete a short questionnaire (comprising ratings of the consumption experience and of the predicted utility on the fifth day). The results reported here involve only the data obtained on the first and final day of the experiment, and the forecasting error was estimated as the difference between the experienced utility of the last day and the predicted utility of the first day. In line with hypothesis H1, emotional certainty had a significant main effect on predicted utility (F = 6.18, p = 0.002, partial eta squared = 0.08). Specifically, predicted utility in the low emotional certainty condition was higher (M = 2.69, SD = 1.09), compared to that of the high certainty condition (M = 0.78, SD = 1.66). There was no significant interaction effect between certainty and valence. These findings provide further support for our H1 and indicate that emotional certainty influences utility prediction irrespective of the valence of incidental emotions. Moreover, a significant main effect of certainty on forecasting error was observed (F = 4.16, p = 0.045, partial eta squared = 0.06). Forecasting error was lower in the low certainty condition (M = 0.59, SD = 1.28) compared to the high certainty condition (M = 2.19, SD = 1.48). There was no significant interaction effect. Moreover, a mediation analysis revealed that heuristic processing mediated the effect of certainty on forecasting error (p**<0.05). Experiment 3 The previous two experiments indicate that the effects of incidental emotional states on predicted utility and forecasting error may be due to the certainty-appraisal dimension of these emotional states. A possible criticism and an inherent limitation of Experiments 1 and 2 might lie on the possibility that these effects are not independent of the other appraisal dimensions. This is related to a key methodological issue. In Experiments 1 and 2, the induced emotions were different in terms of certainty or uncertainty, but these emotions might have differed in other ways and across other appraisal dimensions as well. To eliminate this possibility and to strengthen our argument, we employ here a manipulation of the certainty appraisal of the same emotion. We therefore compare predicted utility and forecasting error in the same emotional state under conditions of low and high certainty. In Experiments 1 and 2 the emotions induced are strong representatives of each side of the certainty appraisal dimension. However, emotions located in the middle of this dimension provide an interesting opportunity since they might allow us to compare their effects when they are associated with lower or higher levels of certainty. In this experiment we have chosen to focus on the emotional state of sadness. Sadness was selected because it is near the middle of the certainty-uncertainty dimension (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Similar manipulations of sadness have been reported in the literature (Tiedens & Linton, 2001). Sixty postgraduate students were randomly assigned to a low vs. high certainty sadness condition. High certainty participants were asked to recall and report an experience or event in which they had felt high certainty sadness (i.e. during which they understood what was happening and could predict what was going to happen next), through an Autobiographical Emotional Memory Task (AEMT) as in Experiment 2. Similarly, low certainty participants were asked to recall and report an event or experience that had generated low certainty sadness. Following the experimental manipulation, the experimental utility (a small chocolate bar) was served. Participants were again encouraged to consume some of it and were asked to complete 13-point ratings of how much they liked it and how much they would like it in the future occasion (a week later). Eight items (α=0.81), adapted from Griffin et al. (2002), measured the heuristic processing performed during the prediction process. Participants also completed ten items adjusted from PANAS questionnaire (Watson et al., 1988). A week later, participants consumed the utility and completed a short questionnaire. The results revealed a significant main effect of certainty on the predicted utility (F = 4.00, p = 0.05, partial eta squared = 0.06). Predicted utility in the low certainty sadness condition was higher (M = 4.21, SD = 1.55) compared to that of the high certainty condition (M = 3.35, SD = 1.78). A significant main effect of certainty on forecasting error was also observed (F = 5.04, p = 0.03, partial eta squared = 0.10). Forecasting error in the low certainty condition (M = -0.10, SD = 1.65) was lower compared to that of the high certainty condition (M = 1.02, SD = 1.81). A mediation analysis revealed that heuristic processing again mediated the effect of certainty on forecasting error (p**<0.05). Conclusion The contribution of this research is mostly highlighted by the counter-intuitive findings that lower certainty emotions lead to judgment with higher accuracy, as well as to an overprediction of utilities, related to their certainty counterparts. Therefore, the current findings provide support for the proposed Uncertainty-Prediction dual Asymmetry (UPA) hypothesis. Future research needs to corroborate these findings, to clarify the mechanisms underlying the observed asymmetry and to identify boundary conditions.

Impact of Pursuing Goals on Customer Channel Preference: Mediating Effects of Product Utility and Process Utility

Li, Dao-sheng,Lee, Hyunjoung,Hong, Jinhwan Korean Marketing Association 2014 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL Vol.16 No.2

This paper explores the influence of pursuing goals on customer channel preference in Chinese rural market. With the rapid change in distribution channels and increase in multi-channels, it is necessary to understand the preference for channel choice as well as product choice. This study empirically validated the conceptual framework of the relationship between the pursuing goals and customer channel choice proposed by Balasubramanian, Raghunathan, and Mahajan (2005). Based on the survey data of 232 fertilizer customers in Chinese rural market, this study explores how economic, social, and psychological pursuing goals can impact customer channel preference by mediating variables of product utility and process utility. The results indicate that pursuing goals positively related with product utility and process utility, and product / process utility can mediate the relationship between pursuing goals and customer channel preference positively. Consequently, we can conclude that customers' economic-social-psychological pursuing goals can directly influence customer channel preference via their purchase process utility and product utility. This result also implies that product utility is effective on process utility during consumer's buying decision making, and process utility and product utility are not mutually independent. Therefore, purchase process utility is a "latent driving force" on customer's channel choice decision.

순자(荀子)의 의리론(義利論)과 경제윤리

박영진 ( Yeong Jin Bahk ) 한국윤리학회 2011 倫理硏究 Vol.82 No.1

Market economy and commodity society, the foundations of capitalist system, have settled down as parts of universal lifestyle today, when people can lead an economically stable life to some degree, while mammonism overwhelms the society due to people`s excessive admirer of material. The oppositions and conflicts among the members of society have manifested themselves in a marked fashion and social justice and ethics are ignored in the process of pursuing material gains. We can say that as people`s desire for profits grows stronger, practice of morality is more required. Issues about morality and profit concern justice and utility, which have consistently been discussed in the history of ancient ethical thought, ask questions about how to perceive and deal with relations between moral principles and material gains. Xunzi`s Theory of Justice and Utility intensively addresses diverse opinions on justice and utility. It will be very significant in establishing new ethics to guide the current economic activities if efforts are made to explore the elements of economic ethics fit for the contemporary times by making investigations into the theoretical nature of justice and utility, correlations between them, and their social actuality inherent in Xunzi`s Theory of Justice and Utility. While justice and utility are the two inevitable value categories of real life, there are discernment of fundamental and terminal or before and after or important and frivolous or first and second between them. Xunzi argued that justice claims the first significance, being fundamental, before, and important and that utility claims the second significance, being terminal, after, and frivolous. He, at the same time, saw utility as one of the basic elements of human life and emphasized the complementary relations between justice and utility, maintaining that humans should get utility based on justice. Xunzi`s Theory of Justice and Utility can still contribute to establishing guiding ideology and moral principles for today`s economic activities and building ethics of credit economy and serve as a moral standards for the nation`s roles regarding the subjects of economy and their economic activities. In particular, Xunzi believed that the maintenance of the complementary relations between justice and utility depended on the roles of the government and maintained that the leading class of society could help morality defeat personal profit by respecting morality and personal profit defeat morality by respecting personal profit. In that sense, research on Xunzi`s Theory of Justice and Utility is still valid in building new economic ethics, promoting the moral spirit of social members, and renovating the social morale today.

A Study on the Relationship between Nail Care Behavior and Revisiting Intention of Working Women: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Utility

이혜련,김은숙 한국비즈니스학회 2024 비즈니스융복합연구 Vol.9 No.2

The purpose of the study is to elucidate the mediating role of psychological utility in the relationship between nail care behavior among working women and their intention to revisit. The study participants consisted of 509 working women aged 20-60 who had experienced nail care at least once in a nail shop. The research findings indicated that nail care behavior could be classified into three categories: individual satisfaction type, individuality and basic care type, and social image pursuit type, as determined through exploratory factor analysis. Furthermore, psychological utility was delineated by three factors: social relational utility, self-efficacy, and emotional utility. Secondly, nail care behavior positively and significantly influenced social relational utility, self-efficacy, and emotional utility. Thirdly, nail care behavior, self-efficacy, and emotional utility positively and significantly influenced revisit intention, while social relational utility negatively impacted revisit intention. Fourthly, upon confirming the significance of the mediating effects in the relationship between nail care behavior and revisit intention, social relational utility exhibited a negative mediating effect, whereas self-efficacy and emotional utility showed positive mediating effects. The implications of this study are that it presents basic data to understand marketing and consumer behavior by deriving the relational results of psychological utility and the direction of revisiting, one of the factors that increase the intention to revisit nail care with a short management cycle, Future research should further analyze why the characteristics of social relational utility did not influence revisit intention and explore the differences between self-efficacy, emotional utility, and social relational utility. Furthermore, there is a need for thorough discussions on psychological factors to better understand how they contribute to revisit intention in subsequent studies.

사회복지기관 개인기부자들의 기부효용감이 기부지속의도에 미치는 영향

이원준(Lee, Wonjune) 한국사회복지학회 2014 한국사회복지학 Vol.66 No.1

본 연구는 대구시와 경북지역 사회복지기관 후원자들을 대상으로 이들의 기부효용감이 기부지속의도에 미치는 직접효과와, 기관신뢰도와 자기수용감의 매개효과, 그리고 경제수준이 미치는 조절효과를 검증하였다. 분석방법으로 구조방정식 모형을 토대로 변수간의 인과관계를 분석하였고, 인과관계에 대한 ‘경제수준’에 따른 비교를 위한 다집단 분석, 계수차이검증에 근거한 구조동일성 모형검증, 다중매개검증, 잠재평균분석을 실시하였다. 통계 패키지는 SPSS 18, Amos 19, Mplus 6을 사용하였다. 분석결과 밝혀진 주요내용은 다음과 같다. (1) ‘정서적 효용감’과 ‘가시적 효용감’은 각각 ‘기관신뢰도’, ‘자기수용’ 그리고 ‘기부지속의도’에 모두 정적 직접효과를 미쳤다. (2) ‘기관신뢰도’는 기부지속의도에 정적 직접효과와, ‘정서적 효용감’ 및 ‘가시적 효용감’이 ‘기부지속의도’에 미치는 영향, 그리고 ‘자기수 용감’에 미치는 영향을 각각 유의하게 매개하였다. (3) ‘자기수용감’은 ‘기부지속의도’에 직접적인 영향을 미치지 않았다. (4) ‘기관신뢰도’가 ‘기부지속의도’에 미치는 정적 효과는 경제형편이 저조한 경우에는 유의하지 않아, ‘경제수준’의 조절효과가 실증적으로 확인되었다. 기부행위를 통해 경험한 정서적, 가시적 효용감은 기부 지속의도를 높일 뿐만 아니라, 기부자들이 자기 수용감 증진에도 매우 긍정적인 기여한다는 사실이 실증적으로 규명되었다. 따라서 기부자들을 자원제공자로만 보던 시각에서 기부행위를 통한 수혜자(beneficiary)로까지 시각을 확대하였고, 연구결과를 토대로 사회복지적 함의를 논의 하였다. By viewing donors for social welfare organization as both givers and beneficiaries, this study aims to address the correlations between the continuity of donors' contributions and enhanced sense of satisfaction as a consequence of participating in donation activities. The predominant concern of this study centers on: (1) the direct effects of individuals' emotional utility, demonstrable utility, trust toward donee organization, self acceptance on the continuation of their donation; (2) the direct effects of individuals' emotional utility, demonstrable utility, trust toward donee organizations on individuals' self-acceptance; (3) the direct effects of individuals' emotional utility, demonstrable utility on their trust toward a donee organization; (4) the indirect effects of individuals' self acceptance on two paths i.e. emotional utility?trust?self acceptance, and demonstrable utility?trust?self acceptance; (5) the indirect effects of individuals' individuals' trust toward donee organization on self acceptance on four paths i.e. emotional utility?trust?continuity of donation; demonstrable utility?trust?continuity of donation; emotional utility? trust?self-acceptance, and demonstrable utility?trust?self-acceptance; (6) the moderating effects of 'financial status' on the causal relationships in the prescribed structural equation model(SEM). In order to verify the moderating effect of 'financial status', multi-group analysis between each of the two groups were conducted. Research is based on a survey among 1116 donors who had made charitable, monetary contributions to social welfare organizations in Daegu and Kyungpook province. Data was collected from 29 organizations. In order to address the research questions, structural equation were employed. A variety of tests are conducted(metric invariance, critical ratio for difference, structural invariance, multi-group analysis, bias-corrected boot-strapping, latent mean analysis including Cohen's effect test).

J. S. 밀의 『공리주의』에서 제재 적절성과 제재 공리주의

류지한 ( Lyou Jihan ) 한국윤리학회(구 한국국민윤리학회) 2021 倫理硏究 Vol.132 No.1

밀이 『공리주의』 5.14에서 도덕과 단순 편의의 구분으로 도입한 제재 적절성 논제는 밀의 공리주의 이론에 대한 다양한 독해를 검사하는 리트머스 시험지 역할을 한다. 크리스프는 밀이 행위의 공리만을 강조하고 제재의 공리를 주장하지 않았다고 본다. 이에 반해서 라이온스는 밀이 제재와 규칙의 공리를 강조하였지만, 행위의 공리 극대화를 주장하지는 않았다고 본다. 이 두 해석은 밀이 함께 강조한 행위 공리와 제재 공리의 일면만을 반영한다. 브링크는 밀이 행위 공리와 제재 공리를 일관성 없이 함께 주장했다고 본다. 콥의 중첩적 공리주의 독해는 행위 공리와 제재 공리를 적절히 반영하여 일관된 해석을 제시하는 장점이 있다. 하지만 콥의 해석은 밀의 다수준 공리주의 의사결정 이론을 반영하지 못한다. 밀은 삶의 기술의 일반 원리인 최대 행복의 원리와 도덕의 영역 특수적 원리인 제재 적절성을 중층적으로 결합하여 도덕의 기준을 구성한다. 그리고 이 옳음 이론을 다수준 의사결정 이론과 결합하여 ‘다수준 제재 행위 공리주의’를 전개한다. 이 ‘다수준 제재 행위 공리주의’ 해석은 도덕의 기준으로서 ‘행위 공리와 제재 공리’의 역할과 ‘의사결정 및 제재의 원천과 근거로서 도덕 규칙’의 역할을 모두 포괄하여 일관된 해석을 제공한다. J. S. Mill introduced sanction-appropriateness as “the turning point of the distinction between morality and simple expediency” in Utilitarianism 5.14. This claim serves as the litmus test for various interpretations of Mill’s utilitarian theory. R. Crisp interprets that Mill did not claim the utility of sanctions, but emphasized only the utility of act. In contrast, D. Lyons interprets that Mill emphasized the utility of sanctions and rules, but did not insist on maximizing the utility of act. These two interpretations reflect only one aspect of both act utility and sanction utility that Mill emphasized together. D. Brink comes to a rather hasty conclusion that Mill advocated two inconsistent criteria of act utility and sanction utility, whereas D. Copp’s reading of Mill’s utilitarianism as “iterated utilitarianism” has the advantage of presenting a consistent interpretation by appropriately reflecting act utility and sanction utility and presenting a consistent interpretation. However, Copp’s interpretation does not reflect Mill’s theory of multilevel utilitarian decision-making. According to my interpretation, Mill constructs the standard of morality by combining the greatest happiness principle, namely the domain-general principle in ‘Art of Life’, and the standard of sanction-appropriateness, namely the domain-specific principle of morality. And by combining this theory of rightness with the multilevel decision-making theory, Mill proposes ‘multilevel sanctions act utilitarianism’. By comprehending both the role of ‘act utility and sanction utility’ as the standard of morality and the role of ‘moral rules as a source of decision-making and sanctions’, this interpretation provides a consistent interpretation of Mill’s utilitarianism.