LaLa 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 1 0 年前

急急急........誰來幫我翻譯英文@___@ ~20點!

麻煩英文好的人幫我翻譯以下文章,不要用翻譯軟體翻出來的那種喔!!

This suggests, albeit indirectly, a strategy for investigating the question of voluntariness as it applies to health-related behavior.We will be concerned with the availability of meaningful choices, just as Daniels was.However, it would not do to simply take over Daniels’ analysis unchanged, since it is untrue that smokers and non-joggers lack suitable alternatives.Nevertheless, we might obtain what we need by means of a generalization of this strategy, considering instead the range of sets of choices available to each individual for accomplishing certain ends.The ends in question will be those for the sake of which people behave in unhealthy ways, such as stress reduction and enjoyment.The distribution of these sets of choices within society is, according to this suggestion, a matter of distributive justice.Each person is due a fair share of such choices.The strategy, then, would be to argue that although a smoker may have the option of not smoking, (and thus be in a different position from the coal miner), the smoker may be one of those individuals who lacks other avenues for stress reduction and enjoyment.Suppose that this person is entitled to a minimally decent set of such avenues.It follows that this individual cannot realize his entitlement (as determined by our general scheme of distributive justice) without accepting a certain risk, i.e., that risk associated with smoking.Though, like the coal miner, this individual makes a choice which results in being exposed to a certain known risk, we ought not regard such a choice as free.Its lack of voluntariness results from the fact that this person would not be given just treatment (i.e., receive the stress reduction and enjoyment he ought to have) unless the risk were taken.

2 個解答

評分
  • 1 0 年前
    最佳解答

    雖然這建議不直接,但卻是一個當應用在與健康相關的行為時,調查志願率問題的策略。我們會考慮有意義的選擇之有效性,如同Daniels一般。然而由於視吸煙者和不慢跑者缺乏適當選擇是不正確的,因此我們不能把Daniels的分析照單全收。不過我們可以藉由普遍化的方式來獲得我們需要的東西,轉而考慮當完成某目的時,對個人的選組範圍的有效性。問題的目的將會是,如何為做著不健康行為的人解決問題,例如疏壓和獲得樂趣。在社會上這些選擇組的分佈情形根據的是公平的分配。每個人都應該得到公平選擇的機會。此時策略要主張的是雖然吸煙者可以選擇不吸煙(如此,不把他當作煤礦礦工),吸煙者可能是在這些人當中找不到疏壓和獲得樂趣方法的人。設想這個人被授權獲得了最少的(疏壓)方法。這表示著個人在沒有接受特定危險的情況下,不理解他的權力(由我們的公平分佈的一般表決定),亦即這危險跟抽煙有關。儘管,就像煤礦礦工一樣,個人還是會作出會造成某種可知危險的選擇,我們不應該視這些選擇是自由的。自願率低的原因出於個人不願意只接受治療的事實(即:接受他應得的疏壓和樂趣),除非危險不再存在。

    參考看看吧

    參考資料: 自己
還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。