好的和坏的行为

A. Norcross
{"title":"好的和坏的行为","authors":"A. Norcross","doi":"10.2307/2998340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Should consequentialism simply equate rightness with goodness? It is usually assumed to be possible, and sometimes even desirable, for consequentialists to make judgments about the goodness of actions, in addition to states of affairs. Whether a particular action is good or bad, and how good or bad it is, are two such judgments. However, consequentialism cannot provide a satisfactory account of the goodness of actions, on the most natural approach to the question. Strictly speaking, a consequentialist cannot judge one action to be better or worse than another action performed at a different time or by a different person. Consequentialism is actually strengthened by the realization that actions can only be judged as better or worse than possible alternatives.","PeriodicalId":260075,"journal":{"name":"Morality by Degrees","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Good and Bad Actions\",\"authors\":\"A. Norcross\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/2998340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Should consequentialism simply equate rightness with goodness? It is usually assumed to be possible, and sometimes even desirable, for consequentialists to make judgments about the goodness of actions, in addition to states of affairs. Whether a particular action is good or bad, and how good or bad it is, are two such judgments. However, consequentialism cannot provide a satisfactory account of the goodness of actions, on the most natural approach to the question. Strictly speaking, a consequentialist cannot judge one action to be better or worse than another action performed at a different time or by a different person. Consequentialism is actually strengthened by the realization that actions can only be judged as better or worse than possible alternatives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":260075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morality by Degrees\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morality by Degrees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/2998340\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morality by Degrees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2998340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

结果主义应该简单地把正确等同于善良吗?结果主义者除了判断事物的状态外,还可以判断行为的好坏,这通常被认为是可能的,有时甚至是可取的。一个特定的行为是好是坏,是好是坏,就是两个这样的判断。然而,结果主义不能以最自然的方式,对行为的良善给出令人满意的解释。严格地说,结果主义者不能判断一个行为比另一个在不同时间或由不同人执行的行为更好或更差。结果主义实际上因为认识到行为只能被判断为比可能的选择更好或更坏而得到加强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Good and Bad Actions
Should consequentialism simply equate rightness with goodness? It is usually assumed to be possible, and sometimes even desirable, for consequentialists to make judgments about the goodness of actions, in addition to states of affairs. Whether a particular action is good or bad, and how good or bad it is, are two such judgments. However, consequentialism cannot provide a satisfactory account of the goodness of actions, on the most natural approach to the question. Strictly speaking, a consequentialist cannot judge one action to be better or worse than another action performed at a different time or by a different person. Consequentialism is actually strengthened by the realization that actions can only be judged as better or worse than possible alternatives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信