第02讲 食人惨案

未能成功加载,请稍后再试
0/0

Like, in a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do?

You got to do what you got to do, pretty much. If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice. Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.

Alright, that's good. What's your name? - Marcus. - Marcus, what do you say to Marcus?

. . . . . . Last time, we started out last time with some stories, with some moral dilemmas about trolley cars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims of organ transplantation.

We noticed two things about the arguments we had, one had to do with the way we were arguing. We began with our judgments in particular cases.

We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments. And then confronted with a new case, we found ourselves reexamining those principles, revising each in the light of the other.

And we noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring into alignment our judgments about particular cases and the principles we would endorse on reflection. We also noticed something about the substance of the arguments that emerged from the discussion.

We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences, in the results, in the state of the world that it brought about. And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.

But we also noticed that, in some cases, we weren't swayed only by the result. Sometimes, many of us felt, that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act matters morally.

Some people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong even if they bring about a good result, even if they saved five people at the cost of one life. So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones.

下载全新《每日英语听力》客户端,查看完整内容