送交者: apate 于 2005-1-17, 14:36:50:

回答: 为汪永晨打抱不平 由 Enlighten 于 2005-1-17, 13:19:47:

teleological (or consequentialist) theory of moral obligation should be understood side by side with deontological theory of moral obligation. one gets to do what is deemed good (consequential) but may end up with denying what is right.

justice should be understood in the relationship between equality vis-a-vis liberty. one gets to compete in the market or in the natural world freely, but may end up with unfair distribution of sources.

these are all moral issues.

• Whatever is GOOD for human being is RIGHT. - Enlighten (0 bytes) 2005-1-17, 14:59:02
  • i take you to be ironic - apate (406 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:15:17
    • of course you can refute - apate (369 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:23:11
      • I was not talking about man vs. man - Enlighten (157 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:39:07
        • also - apate (361 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:45:01
        • how can you talk about "man"? - apate (200 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:42:11
          • The topic derives from the discussion about - Enlighten (151 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:52:04
            • there you go again - apate (568 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:56:22
              • You are confused - Enlighten (952 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:12:25
                • don't want to waste my time here, but mark this: - apate (946 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:43:34
                  • You are still confused - Enlighten (336 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:58:06
                    • well... - apate (2795 bytes) 2005-1-17, 18:27:36
                • so. what's your vocabulary, without using - apate (292 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:29:17
                  • It's a scientific matter, so use the language of science - Enlighten (154 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:41:15
                    • ok - apate (860 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:53:21
                    • "any" should be "all" - Enlighten (0 bytes) 2005-1-17, 16:42:30
              • correction - apate (135 bytes) 2005-1-17, 15:58:11

加跟贴