【一包養網倪培平易近】工夫倫理初探

According to Kant’s view, moral touch and conditional and absolute responsibility, while good deeds that have nothing to do with morality are conditional and depend on personal love. For example, “Don’t speak responsibilities” is conditional and has no room for space when 官网发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发发� If IAdding a to raise the Internet car and horse fee condition, saying, “If you hope others trust you, don’t speak up.” This has become a “fake word order” and a skill based on the condition that you want to gain trust from others. When we evaluate a moral order, the words we apply are “right” or “error”; but when we evaluate a hypothetical order, the words we apply are “useful” or “invalid”. “Not sensible” can be regarded as a time order to gain people’s trust, but as a means to achieve the goal, it does not belong to the moral sphere in nature. A person who uses honest practice as a martial arts can be said to be smart, but he cannot be said to be morally excellent, and of course he is not morally wrong – he is “moral” at this point. This is also the reason why Tadeusz Kotarbiński called the study of a happy career “felicitology” and the strict ethics science. This section is completely in line with Kant’s concept. According to this concept, the utilitarianism (utilitarianism, or utilitarianism) is strictly said to be unstoppable and moral theory. According to the general principle of efficacy, that is, the principle of “seeking the greatest level of happiness of all those related to it”, my English skills are also regarded as a moral shortcoming, because it does not allow the people related to me to receive the greatest happiness. If we equal ethics to morality, this conclusion is indeed absurd. To solve this problem, the efficacy philosopher J.S.Mill proposed a standard for morality and what he called “simple expediency”. The standard for the Mull plan to divide the two is: if in a certain matter, we think that the person who fails to bring happiness to all the people in connection should be punished, then this is an unethical problem; if we think that the work done by this person is not good but not to accept punishment, then this is a pure and unscrupulous problem. This standard was summarized from the usage of everyday language. “We will not call any work an unethical work unless we mean that the person who does this work should be punished for it – if it is not a decree, it is his or her own conscience. “Responsibility is something that can be asked for from a person, It’s like taking a debt. Unless we think we can get it from someone, we don’t call it his responsibility.” ⑤ Because we don’t think you can’t speak a spoiled Chinese, so even if you fail to make all the people concerned happy with the greatest restrictions, we still don’t say you are unethical. We believe that it is a wrong action in terms of morality, but weFor those who fail to bring more happiness due to poor work, they can only express regret, anxiety or sanity.

In terms of quality, effort and morality belong to the norm of differences. The quality of time is related to morality. You can imagine that a person with bad moral character can have better time than a person with high moral character. Hitler can be said to have skill – the time to create human disasters. In fact, this is not as absurd as it is at first glance, because it is not the same as saying that Hitler could have a better body than Gandhi. Hitler’s evil lies not in the talent of his stalwarts of followers, but in what he used this talent to do. In the eyes of a cow and the eyes of vegetarians, the chef in “The Legend of the Condor Heroes” should be punished. Regardless, his skills in solving the cow can still be regarded as a time of excellence – the kind of technical excellence that has nothing to do with morality.

Compared with Kant’s ethics and Mull TC: