然而,对康德式绝对道德禁令的著名反对也来自对更为戏剧性的情景的考虑。 这是一种情况。 如果通过在第二次世界大战期间对某些纳粹士兵撒谎,您可以挽救某人的性命,而又不造成任何其他伤害,那么您似乎应该撒谎了。 或者,考虑某人发怒,失控的情况,问您在哪里可以找到您的熟人,以便杀死该熟人; 您知道相识在哪里,说谎会帮助您的朋友冷静下来:您是否应该说实话? 一旦开始考虑,在很多情况下撒谎似乎在道德上是可以原谅的。 而且的确,在道德上通常是免责的。 现在,当然有一个问题:谁要说这种情况是否可以原谅你说谎?

新加坡国立大学心理学Essay代写:道德免责

However, the famous objection to the Kantian absolute moral ban also comes from consideration of more dramatic scenarios. This is a situation. If by lying to certain Nazi soldiers during the Second World War you could save someone’s life without causing any other harm, then you seem to be lying. Or, consider someone angry and out of control, and ask where you can find your acquaintance to kill the acquaintance; you know where the acquaintance is, lying will help your friends calm down: should you tell the truth? Once you start thinking about it, in many cases lying seems morally forgivable. And indeed, it is usually morally exempt. Now, of course, there is a question: who wants to say whether this situation can forgive you for lying?

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注