• Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.11-18
• /
• 2018

The beauty is like the bubble of beer, and behavior scholars have been regarded as worthless to study. As a result, the aesthetic in construction projects has resulted in underestimation or neglect. The fundamental cause of this result is that it is not easy to estimate the value of the aesthetic. The hedonic calculus by Bentham has a possibility to valuating the intangible or invisible goods. In this context, this study proposes a method to valuate architectural aesthetic based on the hedonic calculus by Bentham. As a precondition for suggesting the valuation method, this study defined the architectural aesthetic as the value of attraction that affects the value of the built environment. As the concept of beauty that conforms to the architectural aesthetic, it has established the concept of beauty as 'the phenomenon of combining the foreground and background of Hartmann'. In addition, the scope of the value measurement is defined as 'built environment' so as to include not only the building but also the surrounding environment. We have reinterpreted the seven dimension of the hedonic calculus proposed by Bentham and systematized the method of valuation of the architectural esthetic based on the seven dimension. The result of this study is meaningful in that it presents a new perspective and approach to architectural aesthetic. And it will be used as grounds for valuation and analytical approach to architectural aesthetic and will be used as a basis for expanding the field of study from aesthetic to value.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.9 no.10
• /
• pp.102-109
• /
• 2009

What Michel Foucault has interpreted about Jeremy Bentham' Panopticon in the point of power relationship of ones's gaze is put in comparison with the characteristics shown in the modern media and mutual meanings are interpreted in the respect of a power relationship of modern gaze. Modern people communicating through media are placed in certain type of power relationship. This study analyzed the difference of it in the respect of the power of gaze in Panopticon and the consumption of information. Panopticon assumes single-network supervision, that is, one-way gaze. However, in modern media, interactive communication is possible based upon the development of information telecommunication technology. Therefore, this study aims to compare and study modern single-network supervision and multi-networks supervision based on information telecommunication technology. The development of various media such as internet, mobile phone and smart card has changed the single-network supervision system structured since modern times into the multi-network supervision system. 'Gaze-power' presented in the relationship to media enables us to discuss the problem of mutual receptiveness, the presence of various powers according to information structure and consumption power. In particular, the form provided by modern media has the complexity of mutual communication in the relationship of multi-networks, rather not assuming only one-way nature of single-network. Therefore, the approach of communication issue provided by modern media in the respect of multi-networks relationship was done by the power relationship of gaze in the respect of information communication. Gaze determines the power of watching. In addition, the visualization format aims at the power.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.123
• /
• pp.379-407
• /
• 2012

The main purpose of this paper is to make a case for the availability of pragmatist ethics by showing the differences between utilitarianism and pragmatism. In this paper, drawing on Dewey's view, I show that Bentham and Mill were doomed to failure because they both regarded moral conduct not as a process but as a fixed act, the remarkable differences between their views notwithstanding. Besides, I also show that pragmatism distinguishes itself from utilitarianism by its focus on the aspect of the amendment of a conduct rather than its attainment. Pragmatist ethics works on the assumption that moral conduct arises only in conscious experience. What pragmatists mean by consciousness is not an ability just given to haman, but a function emerging from the human interaction with his environment. Therefore, morality is extended from and restricted by experience, because it is grounded in concrete experience, but not in the transcendental nor a priori realm. Since pragmatism suggests the possibility of "ethics without principles" in that it works through the way which successfully rejects the traditional absolutist ethics, while avoiding the downslide to a nihilistic form of skepticism. Thus, it may serve as a third view that overcomes a seriously divergent situation of the current ethical arguments. In other words, starting from the very nature of experience, pragmatist ethics offers a 'bottom-up' ethics, instead of a 'top-down' one. This reconstructive reading of pragmatism away from utilitarianism is expected to offer a more comprehensive account of our moral experience in the pluralistic world of diverged values.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.93
• /
• pp.175-199
• /
• 2011

The development of contemporary utilitarianism can be taken to be an aggregation of many attempts to surmount the limitations of classical utilitarianism. In these attempts, contemporary utilitarianism suggests alternatives to 'hedonism' and 'act-utilitarianism' which have been regarded as the common essential elements of classical utilitarianism. First, contemporary utilitarianism replaces the concept of 'happiness' or 'pleasure' in the classical utilitarianism with that of 'desire-fulfillment' or 'preference-satisfaction'. Through this replacement, contemporary utilitarianism tries to avoid the skeptical challenge to the mental state theory inherent in the classical concept of utility, and also to provide a more extensive conception of utility for a more satisfactory explanation of human welfare. Second, the development of rule-utilitarian theories which can evade the criticisms about 'counter-productivity' and 'counter-intuitiveness' of act-utilitarianism constitutes another important trend of contemporary utilitarianism. Characteristically, rule-utilitarian theories developed in the contemporary utilitarianism grope for some utilitarian system that can embrace socially accepted general norms. Lastly, contemporary utilitarianism responds to the criticisms related the problem of justice by reinterpreting the first principle of utilitarianism. This reinterpretation is an attempt to explain the egalitarian basis of utilitarianism through Bentham's dictum 'everyone counts for one, none for more than one'. It seems true that many influential criticisms in the latter half of 20th century cast a deep shadow on utilitarianism. But through the above attempt, contemporary utilitarianism proceeds to a better explanation of human welfare.