论文部分内容阅读
后果主义者认为,一项选择(包括作为和不作为)的道德重要性取决于它所产生的后果,因此不同类型的选择之间并没有内在的道德重要性差异,这被称为后果主义的等价性观点。义务论者卡姆对这一观点提出了批评,她认为不同类型的道德选择之间存在着道德重要性上的差异,这一差异对后果主义的道德要求构成了义务论约束,使得行为者至少在某些情形下不应当实行某个行为,即使这个行为能够产生后果主义者所认为的最好后果。卡姆进而通过诉诸人的不可侵犯性来对道德差异进行辩护。
Consequentialists argue that the moral importance of a choice (including acts and omissions) depends on the consequences it produces, so there is no inherent moral importance difference between the different types of choices, which is called consequenceism Equivalence point of view. The opinionator, Kamm, criticizes this point of view, arguing that there are differences in moral importance between different types of moral choices that constrain the moral requirements of consequences doctrine and at least allow the actors at least In some cases, no act should be practiced, even though this act can produce the best consequences that post-apocalypsers believe. Kamm, in turn, defends moral differences by invoking innocence.