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!


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

  • 1 0 年前



    參考資料: 自己
    • Commenter avatar登入以對解答發表意見