章节大纲

  • 常规

    全部折叠 展开全部

  • 伦理理论和伦理道德主义

    Ethical Theories
    ::伦理理论

    lesson content

    If Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed and cannot provide for a basis for moral society for humans on planet earth, then what is to provide that basis? What would provide a basis for universal moral codes?
    ::如果规范的道德相对论有缺陷,不能为地球上的人类提供道德社会的基础,那么什么可以提供这种基础?什么能为普遍道德准则提供基础?

       On Morality by Lowell Kleiman
    ::关于道德问题,Lowell Kleiman著

    If by "morality" we mean a code of conduct that is universally valid, then the basic issue in the study of ethics is--Is there a universally valid code of conduct?  Are there rules of behavior that prescribe how a person should conduct themselves in all places and all times?   For example, when anybody adds 2 + 2 the result should be 4.  If any other answer is obtained, the person made a mistake.  2 + 2 does not equal 5 or 3 or anything other than 4.  To say otherwise reveals an ignorance of addition, not an alternative but equally valid code of mathematics.
    ::如果“道德”是指普遍有效的行为守则,那么道德研究中的基本问题是:是否有普遍适用的行为守则?是否有行为守则规定一个人在任何地方和所有时间的行为方式?例如,当任何人增加2+2时,结果应该是4。如果得到任何其他答案,该人犯了错误。2+2不等于5或3,或者除了4之外的其他任何东西。换句话说,对添加的无知,不是替代的,而是同等有效的数学守则。

    The rules of mathematics are universally valid.  The same rule, for example, 12 + 19 = 31, tells us how to add, whether we are living on Long Island or Timbuktoo, in the late 20th century or the 4th century BC.   An Izbekustany peasant who counts 12 goats on this side of the pasture and 19 goats on that side of the pasture, concluding that there are 32 goats in the pasture, makes the same mathematical error as an instructor at Suffolk Community College who counts 12 students on this side of the room, 19 students on that side of the room, concluding that there are 32 students in the room.  That the peasant and instructor live several thousand miles apart, are brought up in different cultures, are of different ethnic backgrounds, subscribe to different religious and political traditions, is irrelevant in determining the rights and wrongs of their behavior.  The only relevant considerations are whether they are using the correct rule and whether they are applying that rule in the correct way.  For example, if either instructor or peasant thinks that 12 + 19 = 32, then one of them does not know arithmetic, and the other does not know how to count. 
    ::数学规则是普遍适用的。比如,12+19=31,同样规则告诉我们如何添加,无论是在20世纪末还是公元前4世纪,我们生活在长岛还是Timbuktoo。一个Izbekustanny农民,在牧场这一侧有12只山羊,在牧场这一侧有19只山羊,得出的结论是牧场有32只山羊,这与萨福克社区学院教员的数学错误相同,该教师在教室这一边有12名学生,在教室的这一边有19名学生,结论是房间里有32名学生。农民和教员生活在相隔数千里处,在不同的文化中长大,具有不同的种族背景,信奉不同的宗教和政治传统,在决定其行为的权利与错误方面是无关的。唯一的相关考虑是,他们是否使用正确的规则,以及他们是否以正确的方式应用了这一规则。例如,教官或农民认为12+19=32,他们中有一个不知道算术,另一个不知道如何算术。

    The same is true of morality.  Just as any proposed rule of addition that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of mathematics, so any proposed rule of conduct that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of morality.  For example, cultures that have practiced incest, ritual human sacrifice, matricide, patricide, slavery or female sexual mutilation are immoral since their creeds are not universally valid.  Clearly, mutilation, slavery or any of these other modes of conduct are not valid here, certainly not at Suffolk Community College, certainly not on Long Island, New York State, California, the Mid-West, Canada, Mexico, or any part of any country or state that comprises the "civilized" world.  Just as 2 + 2 does not = 5, so sexual mutilation does not = morality.
    ::道德也是如此。 任何拟议的补充规则,如果不是普遍有效的,都不能成为数学规则,因此任何拟议的行为规则,如果不是普遍有效的,也不能成为道德规则。 例如,实行乱伦、仪式性人类牺牲、杀妻、杀父、杀父、奴役或女性性残割的文化是不道德的,因为它们的信仰并不普遍有效。 显然,残割、奴役或任何其他行为方式在这里都是无效的,在苏福克社区学院,当然不是在长岛、纽约州、加利福尼亚州、中西部、加拿大、墨西哥,或构成“文明”世界的任何国家或州的任何部分。 正如2+2并不=5,因此性残割并不代表道德。

    It may be objected that the argument above makes us; students, teachers, residents of the United States, followers and proponents of Western Civilization, arbiters of right and wrong.  We are imposing our values on the rest of the world, or at least on those few countries, such as Libya and the Sudan where slavery and mutilation are still practiced.  We are judging people by standards that are not their own; we are committing the "ethnocentric fallacy."
    ::也许有人反对,因为上述论点使我们;学生、教师、美国居民、西方文明的追随者和支持者、对与错的仲裁者。 我们正在将我们的价值观强加给世界其他国家,至少是强加给那些少数国家,比如利比亚和苏丹,这两个国家仍在实行奴隶制和残割。 我们用的标准不是他们自己的,而是用标准来评判人;我们犯下了“种族中心谬误 ” 。

    Perhaps we are.  Perhaps we have no right to condemn killing, maiming, brutalizing and destroying when other people do these things.   Perhaps our beliefs about right and wrong are limited, provincial, and naive, uninformed.  Maybe slavery for others is not so bad after all; perhaps child abuse for other people's children should be encouraged; murder in other societies condoned, rape in foreign countries commended.  Perhaps we must rethink our beliefs about right and wrong.  Maybe we don't know the difference.
    ::也许我们是。也许我们没有权利谴责杀戮、残害、残暴和毁灭,当其他人做这些事情的时候。也许我们关于对与错的信念是有限的、省级的、幼稚的、不知情的。也许对他人的奴役毕竟不是那么糟糕;也许应该鼓励虐待他人儿童;在其它社会中宽恕谋杀、在外国强奸。也许我们必须重新思考我们对对与错的信念。也许我们不知道区别。

    But if we don't know what we think we know, how can we be certain? How can anyone be sure that aside from mathematics there is no universally valid code of conduct?  If we don't know that incest was wrong among the ancients, then we don't know that it is wrong today.  Aside from the fact that the Egyptians who practiced incest lived many years ago, the act itself has not changed since then.  Nor has rape, enslavement, mutilation or murder.  If we cannot condemn the acts of others, then neither can we condemn the same acts when performed by those among us.  And if we cannot condemn our own rapists and murderers, then rape and murder, and all the rest, are not just to be condoned for others, but condoned for everyone.  So there is a universally valid code of conduct, although it seems very different from what we naively take it to be.  The question is, which code is correct, the one that condemns ritual mutilation, or the one that condones it?  To answer that question we must turn away from the theory of normative ethical relativism.
    ::如果我们不知道我们所知道的,我们如何确定呢?除了数学之外,谁还能确信除了数学之外,没有普遍有效的行为守则?如果我们不知道乱伦在古代人中是错的,那么我们就不知道它今天是错的。除了这一事实外,实施乱伦的埃及人多年前就已存在,自那以后,该行为本身没有改变。强奸、奴役、残害或谋杀也没有改变。如果我们不能谴责他人的行为,那么当我们中间的人实施这些行为时,我们也不能谴责同样的行为。如果我们不能谴责自己的强奸犯和杀人犯,那么强奸和谋杀,以及所有其他人,不仅仅是容忍别人,而是宽恕每个人。因此,有一个普遍有效的行为守则,尽管它似乎与我们天真地认为它是什么截然不同。问题是,哪个守则是正确的,哪个守则谴责了仪式性残害,还是一个宽恕它的人?回答这个问题,我们必须回避规范伦理相对论的理论。

    If the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism is flawed then what is the alternative?  Can there be an ethics?  Can there be a basis for moral rule making?  Since Socrates, Philosophers have sought that basis in reason .  All humans have reason and if through the use of reason certain principles of ethics, the principle of the good , can be discerned or discovered, then all humans would have contact with the basis for the moral life that all cultures and societies need.  Plato believed he had found those principles.  After him several others in the West have reached similar conclusions concerning the existence of principles that might have universal application.  Unfortunately, they have not all agreed as to what those principles are.
    ::如果规范性伦理相对论理论有缺陷,那么还有什么其他选择?是否有道德?是否有道德?是否有道德?是否有道德规则的基础?自苏格拉底以来,哲学家理性地寻求这一基础;所有的人都有理性,如果通过运用理性,某些道德原则,即善的原则,可以辨别或发现,那么所有的人都会与所有文化和社会需要的道德生活的基础发生联系;柏拉图相信他找到了这些原则;在他之后,西方的若干人就是否存在可以普遍适用的原则达成了类似的结论;不幸的是,他们并不都同意这些原则是什么。

    There are some fundamental distinctions to be made in the approaches taken to thinking about the good .  What makes something, an action, good ?  Is it something in the act or in the intention behind the act?  Is it the result of the act or what is in the act itself?
    ::在思考好的事情的方法上,有一些根本的区别。什么使某事,什么行动,什么好处?它究竟是在行为中,还是在行为背后的意图中?它是行为的结果还是行为本身的结果?

    For example, there is a terrorist with a gun pointed at a group of innocent hostages being held.  There is the declaration that he will kill them.  Someone nearby has a gun and points it at the terrorist and shoots.  The would-be hero misses the target and kills one of the innocent hostages.  Now is the act of the would-be hero good or bad?  Is it the intention behind the act or the result of the act that makes it good or bad?  If something is good, is it good because of what it is or because of what it results in?
    ::例如,有一个恐怖分子用枪指着一群被扣留的无辜人质。有一个人声称他会杀死他们。附近有人拿着枪,把枪指向恐怖分子并开枪射击。准英雄错过目标,杀死一个无辜的人质。准英雄的行为是好的还是坏的?是好还是坏的?是预英雄的行为?行为背后的意图,还是使行为好还是坏的结果?如果事情是好的,是好的,是因为它是好的,还是因为它的结果?

    Intrinsic vs Instrumental value
    ::内在对工具值

    • Something is said to have intrinsic value if it is good "in and of itself'' i.e., not merely as a means for acquiring something else.
      ::据说有些东西有内在价值, 如果它“本身和自身”是好的, 也就是说,不只是作为获得其他东西的手段。
    • Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value.
      ::据说,某事如果是好的,就具有工具价值,因为它提供了获得其他有价值的东西的手段。

    Consequentialist vs   Non-Consequentialist Theories of Ethics
    ::道德理论

    There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the source of value: consequentialist and non-consequentialist
    ::有关价值来源的伦理理论有两大类:间接论和非间接论。

    • A consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has.
      • The most familiar example would be utilitarianism -- "that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number'' (Jeremy Bentham)
        ::最熟悉的例子就是功利主义——“最能为最多的人创造最大利益的最佳行动”(杰里米·本特汉姆)
      • Teleological theories
        ::传神学理论

      ::一种间接价值理论根据一项行动的后果来判断一项行动的正确性或错误性。最熟悉的例子将是功利主义 — — “最能为最大多数人带来最大好处的行动是最佳行动 ” ( Jeremy Bentham) 的“神学理论 ” ( Jeremy Bentham ) 。
    • A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences.
      • Libertarianism --People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.
        ::自由主义 - - - 人民应该自由做他们喜欢做的事,只要他们尊重他人做同样事情的自由。
      • Contractarianism --No policy that causes uncompensated harm on anyone is permitted.
        ::- 不允许对任何人造成无补偿伤害的政策。

      ::一种非连带性价值理论判断基于行动固有属性的行动的正确性或错误性,而不是其后果。 自由主义-人民只要尊重他人的同样自由,就应该自由地做他们喜欢做的事。 契约主义-不允许对任何人造成无补偿伤害的政策。

    Philosophical Theories Based on Principles and Reason
    ::基于原则和理由的哲学理论

    Teleological Theories
    ::神学神学理论

    Deontological Theories
    ::肾学理论论

    Consequential
    ::相对相对

    Non-Consequential
    ::非相关

    Egoism
    ::种族主义

    Kantian-Categorical Imperative
    ::康德语- 康德语分类要求

    Act-Utilitarianism
    ::行动-实用主义

    Rawl’s Theory of Justice
    ::Rawl的正义理论

    Rule Utilitarianism
    ::规则 功利主义

    Divine Command Theory
    ::神圣指挥神令理论

    Situation Ethics
    ::情况道德操守

    Natural Law Theory
    ::自然法理论

    -theistic
    ::- 有神论

    -non-theistic
    ::-非神论

     

    Post Modern Relativism
    ::后现代相对论

     

    Existentialism
    ::存在主义

     

    Pragmatism
    ::实用主义

     

    Feminism
    ::女女权主义

    Teleological Theories
    ::神学神学理论

    lesson content

    In this approach to ethics it is the consequence of the act that is the basis for determining its worth. One of the most basic of consequences is the impact on people and one of the most basic of all values for determining whether something is good or not is the pleasure that it brings to someone. Some think that emotional and physical pleasure  is the  only basis for determining what is g ood.
    ::在这种道德观念中,行为的后果是决定其价值的基础,最基本的后果之一是对人的影响,而决定某物是否好的最基本价值之一是它给某人带来的快感,有人认为情感和身体上的快感是决定什么是好的唯一基础。

    Theories of the  good based on pleasure are termed  hedonism .  There are two popular theories of the good  based on pleasure
    ::以快感为基础的善理论被称之为享乐主义。 有两种流行的关于享乐的善理论。

    1. E goism   is based on pleasure to one self.  
      ::Egoism是建立在一个人的快乐之上的。
    2. Utilitarianism   is based on the pleasure that results for all humans in the world. 
      ::功利主义的基础是 给全世界所有人带来快乐

     This section will focus on E goism .
    ::本节将着重论述 " 种族主义 " 问题。

    Read
    ::已读

    lesson content

    EPISD Informed Problem Solvers Goal
    ::EPISD 信息化解决问题者目标

    •  

    Ethical Egoism
    ::伦理道德主义

    lesson content

    1. Common-sense Egoism : is the view that  egoism is a vice. It involves putting one’s own concerns over those of others. One’s behavior is egoistic if it involves putting one’s own interests over those of others to an immoderate degree.
      ::常识的自大主义:是自我主义是一种恶习的观点。 它涉及到将一个人的顾虑置于他人的顾虑之上。 如果一个人的自大行为涉及将一个人的自身利益置于他人的利益之上,而将他人的利益置于中等程度,那么它就是自大行为。
    2. Psychological Egoism :  is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest , even in what seem to be acts of altruism . It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so.
      1. Argument For Psychological Egoism : Human agents (at least on a deep-down level) are all egoists; insofar as our behavior explainable in terms of our beliefs and desires are always aimed at what we believe is our greatest good.
        ::主张心理自负论:人类的代理人(至少在深层次上)都是自以为是的;只要我们的行为从我们的信仰和欲望中可以解释,总是针对我们认为最伟大的利益。
      2. Objection to Psychological Egoism : The psychological egoist confuses egoistic desires with motivation. An agent may act contrary to his desires and what is in his own best interest. People often act in ways that they know are detrimental to their well-being. Moreover, what one most wants may not be in their own self-interest (e.g., giving money to Amnesty International rather than buying a new CD). Even if it were shown that we often act for the sake of our own interest, this is not enough to prove that psychological egoism is true. According to this theory, we must show that people always act to promote their own interests. If we can find only one counterexample to psychological egoism, then it is not true.
        ::反对心理自食其力:心理自利主义者混淆了自我主义的欲望和动机。代理人的行为可能违背他的愿望和符合他自己最大利益的行为。人们往往以他们知道的方式行事,损害他们的福祉。此外,人们最想要的东西可能不符合他们自己的利益(例如,把钱捐给大赦国际,而不是购买新的光盘 ) 。 即使表明我们经常为了我们自己的利益行事,但这不足以证明心理自利主义是真实的。 根据这一理论,我们必须表明人们总是采取行动促进他们自己的利益。 如果我们只找到一个反心理自利主义的例子,那它就不是真的了。

      ::心理自食其果:认为人类总是以自我利益为动机,甚至似乎属于利他主义的行为。它声称,当人们选择帮助他人时,他们之所以这样做,最终是因为他们自己希望从这样做中直接或间接获得个人利益。 主张心理自食其果:人的代理人(至少在深层次上)都是自私自利主义者;从我们的信仰和愿望的角度来解释我们的行为总是针对我们认为最有利的东西。反对心理自食其果:心理自足主义将自我欲与动机混为一谈。代理人的行为可能违背他的愿望和符合他自己最佳利益的东西。人们往往以他们知道的有害自身福祉的方式行事。此外,大多数人所希望的东西可能不符合他们自己的私利(例如,向大赦国际提供资金而不是购买新的CD ) 。即使我们经常为了自己的利益行事,但这不足以证明心理自利主义是真实的。根据这种理论,我们必须表明我们的行为是真实的。如果我们的行为,我们只能证明自己的利益是真实的。
    3. Egoism as a Means to the Common Good
      1. Argument for Egoism as a Means to the Common Good:  According to the economist, Adam Smith, when entrepreneurs are unimpeded by legal or self-imposed moral constraint to protect the good of others, they are able to promote their own good and, as a result, provide the most efficient means of promoting the good of others. Such a view leads to the doctrine that, if each pursues her own interest as she conceives of it, then the interest of everyone is promoted.
        ::经济学家亚当·史密斯认为,当企业家不受保护他人利益的法律或自我道德约束的阻碍时,他们能够促进自己的利益,从而提供促进他人利益的最有效手段。 这一观点引出这样的理论,即如果每个人追求她所想象的自身利益,那么每个人的利益就会得到促进。
      2. Objection to Egoism as a Means to the Common Good : Apart from positing an "invisible hand" guiding the market processes, the common-good egoist makes the fallacy because if each person promotes her own interest, then everyone else’s interests are thereby promoted. Clearly this is a fallacy, for the interests of different individuals or classes may, and under certain conditions (of which the scarcity of necessities is the most obvious) do conflict. Then the interest of one is the detriment of the other.
        ::反对以自我主义作为实现共同利益的手段:除了假定“看不见的手”来指导市场进程之外,共同善良的自我主义还制造了谬论,因为如果每个人促进自己的利益,那么其他人的利益就会因此得到提升。 显然,这是谬论,因为不同的个人或阶层的利益可能不同,在某些条件下(最明显的是缺乏必需品)会发生冲突。 那么,一个人的利益就会损害另一个人的利益。

      ::经济学家亚当·史密斯认为,当企业家不受法律或自我施加的道德约束的阻碍以保护他人的利益时,他们能够促进自己的福利,从而提供最有效的促进他人利益的手段。 这一观点导致这样的学说,即如果每个人追求自己的利益,正如她所想象的那样,那么每个人都会得到促进。 反对以“不可见的手”指导市场进程,共同的好利己主义者则作出谬误,因为如果每个人促进自己的利益,那么其他人的利益就会因此得到促进。 显然,这是谬误的,因为不同的个人或阶层的利益可能不同,在某些条件下(最明显的是缺乏必需品)冲突。 然后,一个人的利益就会损害另一个人的利益。
    4. Rational Egoism : Rational egoism is concerned with reasonable action.
      1. Strong Rational Egoism : It is always rational to aim at one’s own greatest good, and never rational not to do so.
        ::强烈的理性主义:追求自己最大的利益总是理性的,不这样做从来就没有道理。
      2. Weak Rational Egoism : It is always rational to aim at one’s own greatest good, but not necessarily never rational not to do so.
        ::虚弱的理性主义:追求自己最大的利益总是理性的,但是,不这样做并不一定永远是理性的。
      3. Argument for Rational Egoism : When doing something does not prima facie appear to be in our interest, our doing said act requires that we justify our action by showing that it is in our interest, thereby justifying our action.
        ::理性的意识形态的论据:当做表面看来不符合我们利益的事情时,我们的行为要求我们证明我们的行动符合我们的利益,从而证明我们的行动符合我们的利益。
      4. Objection to Rational Egoism : Such an approach to justifying actions in our own interest may be abused if we do not have criteria established to determine what the interests of agent’s amount to. If such criteria are established, such actions may be reasonable so long as they do not result in conflicts between agents. In such cases, creative middle ways are called for.
        ::反对理性的主观主义:如果我们没有制定标准来确定代理人的利益数额,这种为符合我们自身利益的行动辩护的做法可能会被滥用。 如果确定了这样的标准,只要它们不会导致代理人之间的冲突,这种行动可能是合理的。 在这种情况下,需要创造性的中间方式。

      ::理性的自我主义:理性的自我主义与合理的行动有关。强烈的理性的自我主义:追求自己的最大利益,总是理性的,而从来就没有理性的不这样做。 虚弱的理性主义:追求自己的最大利益,总是理性的,但不一定是理性的不这样做。 理性的自我主义的论据:当做某些事情表面上似乎不符合我们的利益时,我们的行为要求我们证明我们的行动符合我们的利益,从而证明我们的行动是合理的。 反对理性的理性主义:如果我们没有确定标准来确定代理人的利益,那么,这种为我们自己的利益辩护的做法可能会被滥用。 如果确定这样的标准,只要它们不会造成代理人之间的冲突,这种行动就可能是合理的。 在这种情况下,需要创造性的中间方式。
    5. Ethical Egoism : Coupled with ethical rationalism is the doctrine that if a moral requirement or recommendation is to be sound or acceptable, complying with it must be in accordance with reason—rational egoism implies ethical egoism.
      1. Strong Ethical Egoism : It is always right to aim at one’s own greatest good , and never right not to do so.
        ::强烈的道德自负主义:追求自己最大的利益总是对的,不这样做永远是对的。
      2. Weak Ethical Egoism : It is always right to aim at one’s own greatest good, but not necessarily never right not to do so.
        ::弱点道德自负主义:追求自己最大的利益总是对的,但不一定永远有权利不这样做。
      3. Argument for Ethical Egoism : If we accept rational egoism and if we accept ethical rationalism, then we must accept ethical egoism. This is true  because if acting in one’s own self-interest is reasonable, then it is a moral requirement that one acts in one’s own self-interest.
        ::伦理主义的论据是:如果我们接受理性自我主义,如果我们接受伦理理性主义,那么我们必须接受伦理自我主义。 这是正确的,因为如果出于自身利益行事是合理的,那么道德要求就是一个人出于自身利益行事。
      4. Objection to Ethical Egoism : Ethical egoism is incompatible with ethical conflict-regulation. For example, would  it  be morally wrong for me to kill my grandfather so that he will be unable to change his will and disinherit me? Assuming that my killing him will be in my best interest but detrimental to my grandfather, while refraining from killing him will be to my detriment but in my grandfather’s interest, then if ethical conflict-regulation is sound, there can be a sound moral guideline regulating this conflict (presumably by forbidding this killing). But then ethical egoism cannot be sound, for it precludes the interpersonally authoritative regulation of interpersonal conflicts of interest, since such a regulation implies that conduct contrary to one’s interest is sometimes morally required of one and conduct in one’s best interest is sometimes morally forbidden to one. Thus, ethical egoism is incompatible with ethical conflict-regulation .
        ::反对伦理主义:伦理自我主义与伦理冲突规范不相容。 比如,我杀死我的祖父,使他无法改变意愿并剥夺我的继承权,这在道德上是错误的吗?假设我杀死他符合我的最佳利益,但却有损我祖父的利益,同时不杀死他将损害我的利益,但符合我祖父的利益,那么如果道德冲突规范是健全的,那么,道德自我主义可能有一个规范这场冲突的健全的道德准则(可以推论禁止这种杀戮 ) 。 但是,道德自我主义是不合理的,因为它排除人与人之间利益冲突的权威规范,因为这种规范意味着违背一个人的利益的行为有时在道德上是必须的,而为了一个人的最佳利益的行为有时在道德上是被禁止的。 因此,道德自我主义与伦理冲突规范不相容。

      ::道德伦理主义:如果道德要求或建议是合理或可接受的,那么遵守道德要求或建议就必须符合理性 — — 理性自我主义意味着道德自负主义。 强烈道德自负主义:追求自己最大的利益总是对的,而绝无不这样做的权利。 弱道德自负主义:追求自己最大的利益总是对的,但不一定有不这样做的权利。 道德自负主义的论据是:道德自负主义:如果道德自负主义的理论是正当的,如果道德自负主义的理论是合理或可接受的,那么遵守道德自负主义的理论必须是正当的。 道德自负主义:道德自负主义与道德冲突规范不相容。 比如,我杀死我的祖父,使他无法改变自己的意志,也不一定违背我的私责意识? 假设我杀了他,而道德自负道德自负的自负道德自负责任的道德自负责任,那么,道德自负道德自负道德自负的自负责任的自负责任,那么,道德自负道德自负道德自负责任的自负责任的自负责任的自责。

    Ethical Egoism vs. Altruistic Egoism
    ::道德Egoism 与 Altruism Egoism 的伦理 Egoism 和 Altruism Egoism 的伦理 Egoism 和 Altruism Egoism 种族主义

    Rational Egoism is Redundant but Necessary
    ::理性的种族主义是多余的,但有必要

    Read
    ::已读

    lesson content

    EPISD Informed Problem Solvers Goal
    ::EPISD 信息化解决问题者目标

    •  

     

    lesson content

    EPISD Critical Knowledge and Creative Thinking Goal
    ::EPISD 关键知识和创造性思维目标

    Arguments for Ethical Egoism
    ::伦理种族主义的论据

    1. An altruistic moral theory that demands total self-sacrifice is degrading to the moral agent.
    ::1. 要求完全自我牺牲的利他主义道德理论对道德代理人是有辱人格的。

    Objection :
    ::反对:

    This is a false dilemma: there are many non-egoistic moral theories that do not demand total self-sacrifice.
    ::这是一个错误的两难处境:有许多非主观的道德理论并不要求完全自我牺牲。

    2. Everyone is better off if each pursues his or her self-interest.
    ::2. 每个人追求自己的私利,就更好了。

    Objection :
    ::反对:

    • This probably is not true in practice
      ::在实践中可能并非如此
    • True egoism isn't concerned with what will make everyone better off. 
      ::真正的自我主义并不关心什么能让每个人都好过些。

    Arguments Against Ethical Egoism
    ::反对道德伦理主义的论据

    1. Provides no moral basis for solving conflicts between people.
      ::没有为解决人民之间的冲突提供道德基础。
    2. Obligates each person to prevent others from doing the right thing.
      ::每个人有义务防止他人做正确的事情。
    3. Has the same logical basis as racism.
      ::与种族主义有着相同的逻辑依据。
    4. The egoist cannot advise others to be egoists because it works against the first egoist’s interest.
      ::利己主义者不能建议他人是利己主义者,因为它违背第一位利己主义者的利益。
    5. No one person can expect the entire world’s population to act in such a way as to produce the most benefit (pleasure) for that one person.
      ::任何人都不能指望全世界人口的行为方式能给这一人带来最大利益(喜悦)。

    So although we all know people who attempt to live their lives as egoists, they are not generally well liked.  Being so totally focused on the self is not likely to make someone many friends.  Egoists can have friends but most people avoid egoists as they are thought to be untrustworthy.   Egoism  is not the basis for the moral foundation needed for social life.  
    ::因此,尽管我们都知道有人试图以自我主义者的身份生活,但他们普遍并不太受欢迎。 如此专注于自我不可能让某个人成为许多朋友。 自我主义者可以有朋友,但大多数人可以避免自我主义者,因为他们被认为不可信。 自我主义者不是社会生活所需的道德基础的基础。

    There are other options that we will explore in the next section.
    ::下一节将探讨其他选择。

    Philosophy Applications
    ::哲学应用

    lesson content

    EPISD Critical Knowledge and Creative Thinking Goal
    ::EPISD 关键知识和创造性思维目标

    Vocabulary
    ::词汇表

    lesson content

    EPISD Effective Bilingual Education Goal
    ::EPISD 有效双语教育目标