我和我的失智妈妈 港台原版 陆晓娅 宝瓶 pdf 下载 txt 阿里云 lit rtf azw3 免费

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：我和我的失智妈妈 港台原版 陆晓娅 宝瓶在线阅读

在线听书地址：我和我的失智妈妈 港台原版 陆晓娅 宝瓶在线收听

在线购买地址：我和我的失智妈妈 港台原版 陆晓娅 宝瓶在线购买

Now, it makes a big assumption—that everyone is going to be "reasonable." This is definitely one of those moments in philosophy where we have to back up and define something in order to feel like we know what the hell we're talking about. Scanlon doesn't give a quick, pithy definition of "reasonable," in part because...there isn't one. But in essence he says this: I'm reasonable if, when you and I disagree, I'm willing to constrain or modify my pursuit of my own interests to the same degree that you're willing to constrain or modify your pursuit of your interests. When we come together to suggest our rules, then, we aren't just "looking out for number one." Rather, we both want to design a world where we accommodate each other's needs, so that when we don't see eye to eye on something, fin...

A person who self-abnegates to the point where he cannot risk laughing at something that others might not find funny, or who can't risk making an observation about the world out of the fear that someone else might not share a similar view, is a snooze.

For the utilitarian, the solution is obvious: Jim should kill the one local and save nine lives. But the problem, for Williams, is that this utilitarian answer ignores Jim. What becomes of a man who was out for a nice walk and then stumbled into a situation where he was forced to murder an innocent person in cold blood, simply to achieve some kind of maximal hedon/dolor ratio? How does Jim just go back to his normal life?

He says that their worldview causes a crack in the r of an individual's being—the sense that "each of us is specially responsible for what he does, rather than for what other people do." Ten people might die because Sheriff Pete thinks mass murder is a good way to maintain law and order—but that's on Pete. If Jim kills a guy, that's on Jim, even if he does it for the sake of some kind of "greater good." Jim's integrity has to matter, at some level-his sense of being a holistic entity who's not required to compromise himself by acting in a way that divides him into parts, some of which he won't recognize as his own. Jim has to think it's permissible for him—not just for "someone"—to shoot an innocent person if it saves nine others, or to shove a weightlifter off a bridge if it stops a runaw...

Confronting our behavior may be painful and annoying, but it’s also a remedy for apathy, which is the enemy of improvement. We can hardly hope to hit an Aristotelian mean of civil engagement if we feel no consequences when we underperform.

We just learned a bad lesson from a good outcome—we think offering our students marshmallows helped to achieve a greater good, but in fact they largely achieved the intended result despite our action, and we’re now inclined to continue doing something that actually makes us worse teachers. The great majority of human actions involve incomplete information, either on the front end (before we do it) or on the back end (when we observe the results), so determining the moral value of an action based on the results seems like a risky proposition. (And worse, a true consequentialist might not even care that the result was achieved in an unintended way—we got the result we wanted, so who cares how it happened?) If we’re declaring an action “good" or “bad" based on its results, and results are oft...

暂无其它内容！