Moral judgements . . . are, like other judgements, always accountable. We can reasonably be asked - sometimes by others and always by ourselves-to give reasons for them. We can then be expected to give those reasons from a system, however rough and incomplete, with which the rest ives coheres, and which is understandable both to outward and inward questioners. 道德判断......与其他判断一样，总是要负责任的。我们有理由被要求--有时是别人，有时是我们自己--说明理由。然后，人们可以期待我们从一个体系中给出这些理由，无论这个体系多么粗糙和不完整，但其余部分与这个体系是一致的，而且对内对外的提问者都能理解这个体系。
Mary Midgley 玛丽-米奇利
An ethical theory is a comprehensive perspective on morality that clarifies, orgamoral reflection. If successful, it provides a framework for makong moral choices and resolving moral dilemmas-not a simple formula, bu rather a comprehensive way to identify, structure, and integrate moral reasons Ethical theories also ground the requirements in engineering codes of ethics by reference to broader moral principles. In doing so, they illuminate connections between engineering codes of ethics and "ordinary" morality-that is, the justified moral values that play a role in all areas of life. 伦理理论是一种全面的道德观，它阐明并组织道德反思。如果成功，它就为做出道德选择和解决道德困境提供了一个框架，而不是一个简单的公式，而是一种识别、构建和整合道德理由的综合方法。 伦理理论还通过参照更广泛的道德原则，将工程伦理规范中的要求建立在基础之上。这样，它们就阐明了工程伦理准则与 "普通 "道德--即在生活各个领域发挥作用的合理的道德价值观--之间的联系。
We discuss five types of ethical theories (and traditions) that have been especially influential: utilitarianism, rights ethics and duty ethics (discussed together), virtue ethics, and self-realization ethics. Utilitarianism says that we ought to maximize the overall good, taking into equal account all those affected by our actions. Rights ethics says we ought to respect human rights, and duty ethics says we ought to respect individuals' autonomy. Virtue ethics says that good chace is central to morality. Self-realization ethics enpon a consensus, and each has 我们将讨论五种特别有影响力的伦理学理论（和传统）：功利主义、权利伦理学和义务伦理学（一起讨论）、美德伦理学和自我实现伦理学。功利主义认为，我们应该最大限度地实现整体利益，平等地考虑所有受我们行为影响的人。权利伦理学认为我们应该尊重人权，义务伦理学认为我们应该尊重个人的自主权。美德伦理学认为，良好的行为是道德的核心。自我实现伦理学是一种共识，每种伦理学都有自己的观点。
different versions. Nevertheless, suitably modified, the theories complement and enrich each other to the extent that they usually agree with respect to the right ac tion in particular situations. Taken individually and together, they provide illuminating perspectives on engineering ethics. 不同的版本。尽管如此，经过适当的修改，这些理论相互补充、相互丰富，在特定情况下的正确做法上通常是一致的。这些理论单独或共同为工程伦理提供了富有启发性的视角。
3.1 UTILITARIANISM 3.1 功利主义
3.1.1 Utilitarianism versus Cost-Benefit Analysis 3.1.1 功利主义与成本效益分析
Utilitarianism is the view that we ought always to produce the most good for the most people, giving equal consideration to everyone affected. The standard of right conduct is maximization of good consequences. "Utility" is sometimes used to refer to these consequences, and other times it is used to refer to the balance of good over bad consequences. 功利主义认为，我们应该始终为最多的人创造最大的利益，平等地考虑每个受影响的人。正确行为的标准是善果最大化。"效用 "有时用来指这些后果，有时用来指好坏后果的平衡。
At first glance, the utilitarian standard seems simple and plausible. Surely morality involves producing good consequences-especially in engineering! Utilitarianism even seems a straightforward way to interpret the central principle in most engineering codes: "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties." After all, "welfare" is a rough synonym for "overall good" (utility), and safety and health might be viewed as especially important aspects of that good. But what exactly is the good to be maximized? And should we maximize the good effects of individual actions or the good effects of general rules (policies, laws, principles in codes of ethics)? Depending on how these questions are answered, utilitarianism takes different forms. 乍一看，功利主义标准似乎简单而可信。道德当然要产生好的结果，尤其是在工程领域！功利主义甚至似乎可以直接解释大多数工程规范中的核心原则："工程师在履行其专业职责时，应将公众的安全、健康和福利放在首位"。毕竟，"福利 "是 "整体利益"（效用）的大致同义词，而安全和健康可能被视为这种利益的特别重要的方面。但究竟什么是需要最大化的善呢？我们应该最大化个人行为的善的效果，还是最大化一般规则（政策、法律、道德准则中的原则）的善的效果？根据对这些问题的回答，功利主义有不同的形式。
Before discussing these different forms, let us compare and contrast utilitarianism with cost-benefit analyses familiar in engineering. A typical cost-benefit analysis identifies the good and bad consequences of some action or policy, usually in terms of dollars. It weighs the total goods against the total bads, and then compares the results to similar tallies of the consequences of alternative actions or rules. This sounds just like utilitarianism, but often it is not. To see this, we need to look closely at whose good and bad is considered and promoted, as well as how good and bad are measured. Usually the answers center around the good of a corporation, rather than the good of everyone affected, considered impartially. 在讨论这些不同的形式之前，让我们先将功利主义与工程学中熟悉的成本效益分析进行对比。 典型的成本效益分析确定了某些行动或政策的好坏后果，通常以美元为单位。它权衡总的好处和总的坏处，然后将结果与其他行动或规则的类似后果进行比较。这听起来就像功利主义，但往往并非如此。要看到这一点，我们需要仔细研究考虑和提倡谁的好与坏，以及如何衡量好与坏。答案通常围绕着公司的利益，而不是公正地考虑受影响的每个人的利益。
Consider the cost-benefit analysis performed by Ford Corporation in developing its Pinto automobile, which for years was the largest-selling subcompact car in America. During the early stages of its development, crashworthiness tests revealed that the Pinto could not sustain a front-end collision without the windshield breaking. A quick-fix solution was adopted: The drive train was moved backward. As a result, the differential was moved very close to the gas tank. Thus many gas tanks collapsed and exploded upon rear-end collisions at low speeds. 福特公司在开发 Pinto 汽车时进行了成本效益分析，该车多年来一直是美国销量最大的超小型汽车。在开发的早期阶段，耐撞性测试表明，Pinto 无法在挡风玻璃不破碎的情况下承受前端碰撞。于是，一个快速解决的办法被采用：传动系统向后移动。因此，差速器被移到非常靠近油箱的位置。 因此，许多油箱在低速追尾碰撞时发生坍塌和爆炸。
In 1977, Mark Dowie published an article in Mother Jones magazine that divulged the cost-benefit analysis developed by Ford Motor Company in 1971 to decide whether to add an part per car that would greatly reduce injuries by protecting the vulnerable fuel tank-a tank that exploded in rear-end collisions under 5 miles per hour. The seems an insignificant expense, even adjusting 1977 年，马克-多维（Mark Dowie）在《琼斯母亲》杂志上发表了一篇文章，披露了福特汽车公司在 1971 年进行的成本效益分析，以决定是否在每辆车上增加一个 部件，通过保护易受伤害的油箱来大大减少伤害事故--油箱在时速低于 5 英里的追尾碰撞中会发生爆炸。 似乎是一笔微不足道的费用，即使调整后也是如此。
to current dollars, but in fact it would make it far more difficult to market a car that was to be sold for no more than . Moreover, the costs of installing the part on 11 million cars and another 1.5 million light trucks added up. The cost of not installing the part, and instead paying out costs for death and injuries from accidents, was projected using a cost-benefit analysis. The analysis estimated the worth of a human life at about , a figure borrowed from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The cost per non-death injury was . These figures were arrived at by adding together such costs as a typical worker's future earnings, hospital and mortuary costs, and legal fees. In addition, it was estimated that about 180 burn deaths and another 180 serious burn injuries would occur each year. Multiplying these numbers together, the annual costs for death and injury was million, far less than the estimated million for adding the part, let alone the lost revenue from trying to advertise a car for the uninviting figure of , or else reducing profit margins. 但事实上，这将大大增加汽车销售的难度，因为汽车的销售价格不会超过 。此外，在 1100 万辆轿车和另外 150 万辆轻型卡车上安装该部件的费用也是一笔不小的开支。通过成本效益分析，我们预测了不安装该部件而支付事故伤亡费用的成本。该分析估计一条人命的价值约为 ，这一数字借自美国国家公路交通安全管理局。每次非死亡伤害的成本为 。这些数字是将典型工人的未来收入、医院和停尸房费用以及法律费用等成本加在一起得出的。此外，据估计，每年约有 180 人因烧伤死亡，另有 180 人严重烧伤。将这些数字相乘，每年的死伤成本为 百万美元，远远低于增加该部件的估计成本 百万美元，更不用说试图以 这个不诱人的数字为汽车做广告，或者降低利润率所造成的收入损失了。
Ford's cost-benefit analysis is usually understood to be a utilitarian calculation, and certainly it was much like one. It appealed solely to the sum of good and bad consequences, and it sought to maximize the good over the bad. To be sure, its calculations were seriously flawed. The deaths and injuries turned out to be more than were estimated-Dowie estimated 3000 per year. Also, juries awarded larger damage verdicts once Dowie's article appeared, and the negative publicity Ford received greatly damaged its reputation and adversely affected all of its sales for a decade. Even if it had been accurate, however, the cost-benefit analysis was not strictly a utilitarian calculation. It implicitly focused on the costs and benefits to Ford Motor Company. In particular, it omitted the bad consequences of not informing consumers of known dangers. It also focused on costs that could be quantified in dollars, rather than taking into account additional good consequences such as human happiness, and it calculated costs in the short run, for each year, rather than in the long run. 福特的成本效益分析通常被理解为一种功利主义的计算，当然它也很像一种功利主义的计算。它只诉诸于好的和坏的后果的总和，并力图使好的方面大于坏的方面。可以肯定的是，它的计算存在严重缺陷。死亡和受伤的人数比估计的要多--道威估计每年有 3000 人。此外，道威的文章一经发表，陪审团就做出了更大的损害赔偿判决，福特公司受到的负面宣传极大地损害了其声誉，并对其十年来的销售造成了不利影响。然而，即使成本效益分析是准确的，它也不是严格意义上的功利计算。它隐含地侧重于福特汽车公司的成本和收益。特别是，它忽略了不告知消费者已知危险的不良后果。它还只关注了可以用金钱量化的成本，而没有考虑到额外的良好后果，如人类的幸福，而且它计算的是每年的短期成本，而不是长期成本。
andes consider the costs and benefits to everyone affected by a project or proposal. They weigh the interests of each person affected equally, giving no preference to members of a corporation. They adopt a longerm view, and they usually do not reduce good and bad to dollars. With these observations in mind, us turn to the main versions of utilitarianism. 政府会考虑项目或建议对每个受影响者的成本和收益。他们平等地权衡每个受影响者的利益，不偏袒公司成员。他们采用长远观点，通常不会将好坏归结为金钱。有了这些看法，我们再来看看功利主义的主要版本。
3.1.2 Act-Utilitarianism versus Rule-Utilitarianism 3.1.2 行动至上主义与规则至上主义
Act-utilitarianism focuses on each situation and the alternative actions possible in the situation. A particular action is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most people in a given situation, compared to alternative choices that might be made. The standard can be applied at any moment, and according to act-utilitarian it should be. Right now, should you continue reading this chapter? You might in stead take a break, go to sleep, see a movie, or pursue any number of other op tions. Each option would have both immediate and long-term consequences that can be estimated. The right action is the one that produces the most overall good, taking into account everyone affected. 行为功利主义关注的是每种情况以及在这种情况下可能采取的其他行动。在特定情况下，与可能做出的其他选择相比，如果某一行动可能为最多的人带来最大的好处，那么该行动就是正确的。这个标准在任何时候都可以适用，而且根据行为功利主义的观点，它也应该适用。现在，你应该继续阅读本章吗？相反，你可以休息一下、睡觉、看电影，或者选择其他任何选项。每种选择都会产生可以估算的近期和长期后果。正确的行动是考虑到每个受影响的人，能产生最大整体利益的行动。
Of course, even the time spent in making such calculations needs to be considered, and usually we operate according to rules of thumb, such as "complete assignments on time." Such rules, however, provide only rough guidance based on past experience. According to John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the same is true of everyday moral rules such as "do not deceive" and "keep your promises." These are rules of thumb that summarize past human experience about the types of actions that usually maximize utility. The rules should be broken whenever doing so will produce the most good in a specific situation. The same is true regarding rules stated in engineering codes of ethics. 当然，即使是计算所花费的时间也需要考虑在内，通常我们会根据经验法则来操作，比如 "按时完成作业"。然而，这些规则只能根据以往的经验提供粗略的指导。约翰-斯图亚特-密尔（1806-1873 年）认为，"不要欺骗 "和 "信守承诺 "等日常道德规则也是如此。这些经验法则总结了人类过去的经验，即哪类行为通常能使效用最大化。 只要在特定情况下打破这些规则能产生最大的益处，就应该打破这些规则。工程道德规范中的规则也是如此。
An alternative version of utilitarianism says we should take rules, rather than isolated actions, much more seriously. Justified rules are morally authoritative, rather than loose guidelines. According to this view, called rule-utilitarianism, right actions are those required by rules that produce the most good for the most people. Because rules interact with each other, we need to consider a set of rules. Thus, Richard Brandt (1910-1997), who introduced the term rule-utilitarianism, argued that individual actions are morally justified when they are required by an optimal moral code - that set of rules which maximizes the public good more than alternative codes would (or at least as much as alternatives). Brandt had in mind society-wide standards, but the same idea applies to engineering codes of ethics. In particular, an engineering code of ethics is justified in terms of its overall good consequences (compared to alternative codes), and so engineers should abide by it even when an exception might happen to be beneficial. For example, if codified rules forbidding bribes and deception are justified, then even if a particular bribe or deception is beneficial in some situations, one should still refrain from them. 功利主义的另一个版本认为，我们应该更认真地对待规则，而不是孤立的行为。合理的规则在道德上具有权威性，而不是松散的指导方针。根据这种被称为 "规则功利主义 "的观点，正确的行动是规则所要求的、能为最多的人带来最大利益的行动。由于规则之间是相互影响的，因此我们需要考虑一系列规则。因此，提出 "规则-功利主义 "一词的理查德-勃兰特（1910-1997 年）认为，如果个人行为是最优道德准则所要求的，那么这些行为在道德上就是正当的--这套规则比其他准则更能使公共利益最大化（或至少与其他准则一样）。 勃兰特想到的是全社会的标准，但同样的想法也适用于工程道德规范。特别是，工程道德规范从其整体的良好结果（与其他规范相比）来看是合理的，因此工程师应该遵守它，即使在例外情况下也可能是有益的。例如，如果禁止贿赂和欺骗的成文规定是合理的，那么即使某种贿赂或欺骗在某些情况下是有益的，人们也应该避免。
There are philosophical debates over precisely how much rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism differ from each other, but at least sometimes they seem to point in different directions. Indeed, rule-utilitarianism was developed during the twentieth century primarily as a way of correcting several problems with actutilitarianism. 关于规则-功利主义与行为-功利主义之间究竟有多大的差异，哲学上存在争论，但至少有时它们似乎指向不同的方向。事实上，规则-功利主义是在二十世纪发展起来的，主要是为了纠正行为-功利主义的一些问题。
One problem, just noted, is that act-utilitarianism apparently permits some actions that we know (on other grounds) are patently immoral. Suppose that stealing a computer from my employer, an old one scheduled for replacement anyway, benefits me significantly and causes only miniscule harm to the employer and others. We know that the theft is unethical, and hence act-utilitarianism seems to justify wrongdoing. Rule-utilitarians express this moral knowledge by demonstrating the overall good is promoted when engineers heed the principle, "Act as faithful agents or trustees of employers." 刚刚提到的一个问题是，行为功利主义显然允许一些我们知道（基于其他理由）明显不道德的行为。假设从我的雇主那里偷了一台电脑，这台电脑已经很旧了，反正也要更换，但我却从中获益良多，而对雇主和其他人造成的伤害却微乎其微。我们知道偷窃是不道德的，因此行为功利主义似乎可以为不法行为辩护。规则功利主义者通过证明当工程师遵守 "作为雇主忠实的代理人或受托人行事 "这一原则时，整体利益会得到促进，来表达这种道德认知。
A special problem concerns justice. Act-utilitarianism seems to permit injustice by promoting social good at the expense of individuals. Suppose that in a particular situation more good is promoted by keeping the public ignorant about serious dangers, for example, by not informing them about a hidden fault in a car or building. Or suppose it will improve company morale if several disliked engineers are fired after being blamed for mistakes they did not make. Doing so is unfair, but the overall good is promoted. Rule-utilitarians avoid this result by 一个特殊的问题涉及正义。行为功利主义似乎允许以牺牲个人利益为代价来促进社会公益的不公正行为。假设在某一特定情况下，让公众对严重的危险一无所知（例如，不告诉他们汽车或建筑物中隐藏的故障）会带来更多的好处。又或者，如果几名不受欢迎的工程师被指责犯了不是他们造成的错误而被解雇，这样做会提高公司的士气。这样做虽然不公平，但却能促进整体利益。规则功利主义者通过以下方法避免这种结果
emphasizing the general good in heeding rules like "corporations should inform the public of dangers," "discipline or punish only the guilty." 强调遵守 "公司应向公众通报危险"、"只惩戒或惩罚有罪者 "等规则的普遍好处。
Yet another problem, ironically, is that act-utilitarianism seems to require too much of us. Right now, each of us could promote the overall good by foregoing luxuries and redirecting our careers in order to give to worthy causes, such as alleviating world hunger. Our own well-being might be adversely affected, but surely saving people from starvation produces more good than missing a few movies and driving a less expensive car. But, using iterative reasoning, it follows that we should abandon virtually all luxuries and give in a degree that only saints could consider mandatory. To avoid this result, rule-utilitarians agree that relatively wealthy people should increase their philanthropic giving, but they also think the general good is promoted by allowing individuals to act in accord with a rule such as "Give to help others, while keeping sufficient resources for the security and reasonable luxuries for oneself and one's family." 然而，具有讽刺意味的是，另一个问题是，行为功利主义似乎对我们的要求过高。现在，我们每个人都可以通过放弃奢侈品和调整职业方向来促进整体利益，从而为有价值的事业做出贡献，比如减轻世界饥饿。我们自己的福祉可能会受到不利影响，但肯定比错过几场电影和开一辆不那么贵的车更能拯救人们免于饥饿。但是，通过迭代推理，我们可以得出这样的结论：我们应该放弃几乎所有的奢侈品，以一种只有圣人才会认为是强制性的方式进行捐赠。为了避免这种结果，规则功利主义者同意相对富裕的人应该增加慈善捐赠，但他们也认为，允许个人按照 "捐赠以帮助他人，同时为自己和家人的安全和合理的奢侈品保留足够的资源 "这样的规则行事，可以促进普遍的善。
3.1.3 Theories of Good 3.1.3 美好理论
There is another area of disagreement among utilitarians. Justified actions or rules should maximize good consequences, but what is the standard for "good" consequences? In particular, what is intrinsic good - that is, good considered just by itself (apart from its consequences)? All other good things are instrumental goods in that they provide means (instruments) for gaining happiness. 功利主义者之间还有另一个分歧点。合理的行动或规则应该最大限度地实现善的结果，但 "善 "的结果的标准是什么？特别是，什么是内在的善--即仅从其本身（除其后果之外）考虑的善？所有其他的好东西都是工具性的，因为它们提供了获得幸福的手段（工具）。
Some utilitarians consider pleasure to be the only intrinsic good. But that seems counterintuitive-there is nothing good about the pleasures of rapists and sadistic torturers! More plausibly, Mill believes that happiness is the only intrin sic good, and hence he understands utilitarianism as the requirement to produce the greatest amount of happiness. But what is happiness? Mill thinks of it as (a) a life rich in pleasures, mixed with some inevitable pains, plus (b) a pattern of ac tivities and relationships that one can affirm as valuable overall, as the way one wants one's life to be. 一些功利主义者认为快乐是唯一的内在善。但这似乎有违直觉--强奸犯和施虐者的快乐并没有什么好的！更合理的说法是，密尔认为快乐是唯一的内在善，因此他将功利主义理解为要求产生最大程度的快乐。但什么是幸福呢？密尔认为它是：(a) 一种充满快乐的生活，其中夹杂着一些不可避免的痛苦；(b) 一种活动和关系的模式，人们可以肯定这种模式总体上是有价值的，是人们所希望的生活方式。
Especially in his book On Liberty, Mill emphasized the importance of individual choices in charting a path to happiness. Nevertheless, he also believed tha the happiest life is rich in higher pleasures, those that are preferable in kind or quality. For example, Mill contended that the pleasures derived from love, friend ship, intellectual inquiry, creative accomplishment, and appreciation of beauty are inherently better than the bodily pleasures derived from eating, sex, and exercise. That contention is questionable, however. How, after all, do we determine which pleasures are better than others, apart from their subjective "feel"? Mill suggested that one pleasure is higher than another if it is favored by the majority of people who have experienced both, but why should the majority view matter here (Mill's Victorian peers supported his view that physical pleasures have less worth than mental ones, but probably most people today would question such a genera ranking.) If we rank pleasures, it is probably because we are actually ranking the types of activities and relationships that generate them, thereby shifting to a new theory of good as a list of especially valuable activities and relationships. 特别是在他的《论自由》一书中，密尔强调了个人选择在通往幸福之路中的重要性。然而，他也认为，最幸福的生活富含更高层次的快乐，即那些在种类或质量上更可取的快乐。例如，密尔认为，从爱情、友谊、智力探索、创造性成就和对美的欣赏中获得的快乐，本质上要好于从饮食、性和运动中获得的身体快乐。然而，这一论点值得商榷。毕竟，除了主观 "感觉 "之外，我们如何确定哪种快乐比其他快乐更好呢？密尔认为，如果一种快乐得到了大多数体验过这两种快乐的人的青睐，那么这种快乐就比另一种快乐高，但为什么大多数人的观点在这里很重要呢（密尔在维多利亚时代的同龄人支持他的观点，认为身体上的快乐不如精神上的快乐有价值，但今天的大多数人可能会质疑这种属相排序）。如果我们对快乐进行排序，那可能是因为我们实际上是在对产生快乐的活动和关系的类型进行排序，从而转向一种新的善的理论，即对特别有价值的活动和关系进行排序。
In contrast, Brandt argues that things like love and creativity are good beause they satisfy rational desires. Rational desires are those that we can affirm after fully examining them in light of all relevant information about the world and our own deepest needs. Some self-destructive desires, such as the desire to use dangerous drugs, are not rational since if we saw their full implications we would not approve of them. Desires (and pleasures) such as those of rapists and sadists are also not rational. 与此相反，勃兰特认为，爱和创造力等东西之所以是好的，是因为它们满足了理性的欲望。所谓理性欲望，是指我们在根据世界的所有相关信息和自身最深层次的需求对欲望进行充分审视之后能够确认的欲望。一些自我毁灭的欲望，如使用危险药物的欲望，是不理性的，因为如果我们看到它们的全部含义，我们就不会赞同它们。强奸犯和虐待狂的欲望（和快乐）也是不理性的。
Mill and Brandt both try to use an objective standard on what counts as good. Other utilitarians, especially economists, adopt a "preference theory": What is good is what individuals prefer, as manifested in their choices in the marketplace. Economists base their cost-benefit analyses on the preferences that people express through their buying habits. In this version, utilitarianism becomes the view that right actions produce the greatest satisfaction of the preferences of people affected. 密尔和勃兰特都试图用客观标准来衡量什么是好。其他功利主义者，尤其是经济学家，则采用 "偏好理论"：什么是好的，就是个人在市场选择中表现出来的偏好。经济学家根据人们通过购买习惯表达的偏好来进行成本效益分析。在这一版本中，功利主义成为这样一种观点，即正确的行动能够最大程度地满足受影响者的偏好。
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 讨论问题
Apply act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism in resolving the following moral problems. Do the two versions of utilitarianism lead to the same or different answers to the problems? 运用行为功利主义和规则功利主义解决下列道德问题。这两种功利主义对问题的回答是相同还是不同？
a. George had a bad reaction to an illegal drug he accepted from friends at a party. He calls in sick the day after, and when he returns to work the following day he looks ill. His supervisor asks him why he is not feeling well. Is it morally permissible for George to lie by telling his supervisor that he had a bad reaction to some medicine his doctor prescribed for him? a.乔治在一次聚会上从朋友那里接受了一种非法药物，产生了不良反应。他第二天请了病假，第二天上班时，他看上去病怏怏的。他的上司问他为什么不舒服。乔治告诉上司他对医生给他开的药有不良反应，这样做在道德上允许吗？
b. Jillian was aware of a recent company memo reminding employees that office supplies were for use at work only. Yet she knew that most of the other engineers in her division thought nothing about occasionally taking home notepads, pens, computer disks, and other office "incidentals." Her eight-year-old daughter had asked her for a company-inscribed ledger like the one she saw her carrying. The ledger costs les than , and Jillian recalls that she has probably used that much from her persona stationery supplies during the past year for work purposes. Is it all right for her to take home a ledger for her daughter without asking her supervisor for permission? b.吉莉安知道公司最近发布了一份备忘录，提醒员工办公用品只能在工作时使用。但她知道，她所在部门的大多数其他工程师对偶尔将记事本、笔、电脑磁盘和其他办公 "杂物 "带回家的行为不以为然。她八岁的女儿曾向她索要一个公司刻字的分类账，就像她看到的她随身携带的那个分类账一样。这本账簿的价格比 还贵，吉莉安回忆说，在过去的一年里，她大概从个人文具用品中拿出了这么多钱用于工作。她可以不经上司同意就把账本带回家给女儿吗？
Can utilitarianism provide a moral justification for engineers who work for tobacco companies, for example, in designing cigarette-making machinery? In your answer take account of the following facts (and others you may be aware of). Cigarettes kill more than 400,000 Americans each year, which is more than the combined deaths caused by alcohol and drug abuse, car accidents, homicide, suicide, and AIDS. Cigarette compa nies do much good by providing jobs (Philip Morris employs more than 150,000 people worldwide), through taxes (over billion paid by Philip Morris in a typical year), and through philanthropy. Most new users of cigarettes in the United States ar teenagers (under 18). There is disagreement over just how addictive cigarettes are, but adults have some choice in deciding whether to continue using cigarettes, and they may choose to continue using for reasons beyond the addictive potential of nicotine. 功利主义能否为为烟草公司工作的工程师提供道德理由，例如设计卷烟机？在回答时，请考虑以下事实（以及你可能知道的其他事实）。 香烟每年造成40多万美国人死亡，比酗酒、吸毒、车祸、凶杀、自杀和艾滋病造成的死亡总和还要多。香烟公司通过提供工作岗位（菲利普-莫里斯公司在全球雇用了 15 万多名员工）、税收（菲利普-莫里斯公司每年缴纳的税收超过 亿美元）和慈善事业做了很多好事。在美国，大多数新的香烟使用者是青少年（18 岁以下）。人们对香烟的成瘾性存在分歧，但成年人在决定是否继续使用香烟时有一定的选择权，他们选择继续使用香烟的原因可能不只是尼古丁的成瘾潜力。
Some cost-benefit analyses place a price tag on the loss of life. Is doing so inherently offensive, or can it be a reasonable procedure for limited purposes? In the Pinto case 一些成本效益分析给生命损失贴上了价格标签。这样做本质上是否具有攻击性，或者说，对于有限的目的而言，这是否是一种合理的程序？在 Pinto 案中
even if Ford was justified in making the cost-benefit analysis, were there additional moral considerations that they should have used in deciding whether to improve the safety of the car? 即使福特公司有理由进行成本效益分析，他们在决定是否提高汽车的安全性时，是否还应该考虑其他的道德因素？
Make a list of the things (activities, relationships, etc.) that are intrinsically good. Do you believe that every intelligent person would agree with your list? How much of your list is either culture bound or applicable only to individuals who share your interests? Is there any reason why engineers should adopt a particular theory of (intrinsic) good as either pleasure, a list of desirable activities and relationships, happiness, satisfaction of rational goods, or preference satisfaction? 请列出一份内在美好事物（活动、人际关系等）的清单。你相信每个聪明人都会同意你的清单吗？你的清单中有多少是受文化约束的，或者只适用于与你有共同兴趣的人？工程师们是否有理由采用一种特定的（内在）善理论，将其视为快乐、一系列理想的活动和关系、幸福、理性商品的满足或偏好的满足？
3.2 RIGHTS ETHICS AND DUTY ETHICS 3.2 权利伦理和义务伦理
Rights ethics regards human rights as fundamental, and duty ethics regards duties of respect for autonomy as fundamental. Historically, the theories developed as distinct moral traditions, but their similarities are far more pronounced than their differences. Both theories emphasize respect for individuals' dignity and worth, in contrast with utilitarians' emphasis on the general good. Furthermore, rights ethics and duty ethics are largely mirror images of each other: Because you have a right to life, I have a duty not to kill you; and if I have a duty not to deceive you then you have a right not to be deceived. 权利伦理学将人权视为根本，而义务伦理学则将尊重自主权的义务视为根本。从历史上看，这两种理论是作为不同的道德传统发展起来的，但它们的相似之处远远多于不同之处。这两种理论都强调尊重个人的尊严和价值，与功利主义者强调普遍利益形成鲜明对比。此外，权利伦理学和义务伦理学在很大程度上互为镜像：因为你有生命权，所以我有义务不杀你，如果我有义务不欺骗你，那么你就有权利不被欺骗。
3.2.1 Human Rights 3.2.1 人权
Rights enter into engineering in many ways. Holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public can be interpreted as having respect for the public's rights to life (by producing safe products), rights to privacy, rights not to be injured (by dangerous products), and rights to receive benefits through fair and honest exchanges in a free marketplace. In addition, the basic right to liberty implies a right to give informed consent to the risks accompanying technologica products, an idea developed in chapter 4. Again, employers have rights to faithfu service from employees, and employees have rights to reciprocal fair and respect ful treatment from employers, as discussed in chapter 6 . And rights to life imply a right to a livable environment, an idea explored in chapter 8 . 权利以多种方式进入工程学。把公众的安全、健康和福利放在首位，可以解释为尊重公众的生命权（通过生产安全的产品）、隐私权、不受伤害的权利（通过危险的产品），以及通过自由市场中公平和诚实的交换获得利益的权利。此外，基本的自由权意味着对技术产品的风险给予知情同意的权利，这一观点在第 4 章中有所阐述。同样，雇主有权要求雇员提供诚信服务，雇员也有权要求雇主给予公平和尊重的对等待遇，这在第 6 章中有所论述。生命权意味着享有宜居环境的权利，第 8 章探讨了这一观点。
Nearly all ethical theories leave room for rights. Thus, rule-utilitarians construe rights as those areas of liberty that are so important as to deserve specia safeguards in society. Rights ethics is distinctive, however, in that it makes human rights the ultimate appeal-the moral bottom line. At its core, morality is about re specting the inherent dignity and worth of individuals as they exercise their liberty. Human rights constitute a moral authority to make legitimate moral demand on others to respect our choices, recognizing that others can make similar claims on us. As such, rights ethics provides a powerful foundation for the special ethical requirements in engineering and other professions. 几乎所有的伦理理论都为权利留有余地。因此，规则-功利主义者将权利解释为那些重要到值得在社会中给予特别保障的自由领域。然而，权利伦理学的独特之处在于，它将人权作为终极诉求--道德底线。道德的核心是在个人行使其自由时，重新审视其固有的尊严和价值。人权是一种道德权威，它要求他人尊重我们的选择，同时承认他人也可以对我们提出类似的要求。因此，权利伦理为工程学和其他专业的特殊伦理要求奠定了坚实的基础。
Rights ethics should sound familiar, for it provides the moral foundation of the political and legal system of the United States. Thus, in the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Unalienable-or inalienable, natural, human-rights cannot be taken away (alienated) from us, although of course they are sometimes violated. Human rights have been appealed to in all the major social movements of the twentieth century, including the women's movement, the civil rights movement, the farm workers' movement, and the gay rights movement. Human rights have been used as the basis for critiquing the violation of rights in other countries, such as the former Soviet Union and current dictatorships. They are also embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. Indeed, the idea of human rights is the single most powerful moral concept in making cross-cultural moral judgments about customs and laws. 权利伦理听起来似曾相识，因为它是美国政治和法律制度的道德基础。因此，托马斯-杰斐逊在《独立宣言》中写道："我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的；人人生而平等；造物主赋予他们某些不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。不可剥夺的权利--或者说不可剥夺的、自然的、人类的权利--是不能被剥夺（转让）的，当然有时也会受到侵犯。二十世纪的所有主要社会运动都呼吁人权，包括妇女运动、民权运动、农场工人运动和同性恋权利运动。人权被用作批评其他国家（如前苏联和当前的独裁政权）侵犯权利行为的依据。1948 年联合国大会宣布的《世界人权宣言》也体现了人权。事实上，在对习俗和法律进行跨文化道德判断时，人权观念是最有力的道德概念。
As this point indicates, the notions of human rights and legal rights are distinct. Legal rights are simply those the law of a given society says one has. Human rights are those we have as humans, whether the law recognizes them or not. 正如这一点所示，人权和法定权利的概念是不同的。法律权利只是特定社会的法律所规定的权利。人权则是我们作为人所拥有的权利，无论法律是否承认这些权利。
3.2.2 Two Versions of Rights Ethics 3.2.2 权利伦理的两个版本
Rights ethics gets more complex as we ask which rights exist. Thus, human rights might come in two forms: liberty rights and welfare rights. Liberty rights are rights to exercise one's liberty, and they place duties on other people not to interfere with one's freedom. (The "not" explains why they are also called negative rights.) Welfare rights are rights to benefits needed for a decent human life, when one cannot earn those benefits (perhaps because one is severely handicapped) and when the community has them available. (As a contrast to negative rights, they are sometimes called positive rights.) 当我们询问存在哪些权利时，权利伦理就变得更加复杂。因此，人权可能有两种形式：自由权和福利权。自由权是一个人行使自由的权利，它要求其他人有义务不干涉一个人的自由（"不 "解释了为什么它们也被称为消极权利）。(福利权是获得体面生活所需的福利的权利，当一个人无法赚取这些福利时（也许是因为他有严重的残疾），当社会提供这些福利时。(与消极权利相对，它们有时也被称为积极权利）。
The extent of welfare rights is controversial, especially when they enter into the law. But most rights ethicists affirm that both liberty and welfare human rights exist. Indeed, they contend that liberty rights imply at least some basic welfare rights. What, after all, is the point of saying that we have rights to liberty if we are utterly incapable of exercising liberty because, for example, we are unable to obtain the basic necessities, such as jobs, worker compensation for serious injuries, and health care? Shifting to legal rights, most Americans also support selective welfare rights, including a guaranteed public education of kindergarten through twelfth grade, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. 福利权利的范围是有争议的，尤其是当它们进入法律时。但大多数权利伦理学家都肯定，自由和福利人权都是存在的。事实上，他们认为自由权至少意味着一些基本的福利权。毕竟，如果我们完全无法行使自由，因为我们无法获得基本的生活必需品，例如工作、重伤工人赔偿和医疗保健，那么说我们有自由权又有什么意义呢？在法律权利方面，大多数美国人也支持选择性福利权利，包括有保障的幼儿园到十二年级的公共教育、医疗保险和医疗补助、社会保障以及为残疾人提供合理便利。
This first version of rights ethics conceives of human rights as intimately related to communities of people. A. I. Melden, for example, argues that having moral rights presupposes the capacity to show concern for others and to be accountable within a moral community. Melden's account, like that of most rights ethicists, allows for more "positive" welfare rights to community benefits needed for living a minimally decent human life (when one cannot earn those benefits on one's own and when the community has them available). Thus it lays the moral groundwork for recognizing the limited welfare system in the United States. The extent of welfare rights, just like that of liberty rights, always has to be determined 权利伦理学的第一个版本认为人权与人的群体密切相关。例如，梅尔登（A. I. Melden）认为，拥有道德权利的前提是有能力关心他人，并在道德社群中承担责任。 梅尔登的论述与大多数权利伦理学家的论述一样，允许人们享有更多的 "积极 "福利权，以获得过上最起码体面的人类生活所需的社区福利（当一个人无法靠自己的力量获得这些福利，而社区又拥有这些福利时）。因此，它为承认美国有限的福利制度奠定了道德基础。福利权利的范围与自由权利的范围一样，始终需要确定
contextually-for example, by what the community has available by way of resources and the severity of the obstacles to freedom confronted by various individuals. 这取决于具体情况--例如，社区可利用的资源以及不同个人所面临的自由障碍的严重程度。
A second version of rights ethics denies there are welfare human rights. Libertarians believe that only liberty rights exist; there are no welfare rights. John Locke (1632-1704), who was the first philosopher to carefully articulate a rights ethics, is often interpreted as a libertarian. believed that the three most basic human rights are to life, liberty, and property. His views had an enormous impact at the time of the French and American revolutions and provide the moral foundation of contemporary American society. Indeed, Jefferson simply modified Locke's triad of basic rights, changing property to the pursuit of happiness. 权利伦理的第二个版本否认存在福利人权。自由主义者认为只存在自由权利，不存在福利权利。约翰-洛克（1632-1704 年）是第一位认真阐述权利伦理的哲学家，他通常被解释为自由主义者。 认为，生命权、自由权和财产权是人类最基本的三项权利。他的观点在法国和美国革命时期产生了巨大影响，并为当代美国社会提供了道德基础。事实上，杰斐逊只是修改了洛克的三项基本权利，将财产权改为追求幸福。
Locke's version of a human rights ethics was highly individualistic. He viewed rights primarily as entitlements that prevent other people from meddling in one's life. He thought of property as whatever we gain by "mixing our labor" with things-for example, coming to own lumber by going into the wilderness and cutting down a tree. Today, our understanding of property is far more complex. Many believe that property is largely what the law and government specify as to how we can acquire and use material things. 洛克版本的人权伦理是高度个人主义的。他认为权利主要是防止他人干涉自己生活的权利。他认为财产是我们通过与事物 "混合劳动 "而获得的任何东西--例如，通过到野外砍伐一棵树而拥有木材。今天，我们对财产的理解要复杂得多。许多人认为，财产在很大程度上是法律和政府对我们如何获取和使用物质财富的规定。
The individualistic aspect of Locke's thought is reflected in the contemporary political scene in the Libertarian political party and outlook, with its emphasis on the protection of private property and the condemnation of welfare systems. Libertarians take a harsh view of taxes and government involvement beyond the bare minimum necessary for national defense and the preservation of free enterprise. Locke's followers tend to insist that property is sacrosanct and that governments continually intrude on property rights, particularly in the form of excessive taxation and regulation. They also oppose extensive government regulation of business and the professions. Thus, Milton Friedman (discussed in chapter 1) is a leading libertarian thinker who argues against both government regulation and requiring corporations to accept responsibilities beyond maximizing profit (within the bounds of minimum laws, such as forbidding fraud). 洛克思想中个人主义的一面反映在当代政治舞台上的自由主义政党和观点中，它强调保护私有财产，谴责福利制度。自由主义者对税收和政府干预持严厉的态度，认为这只是国防和维护自由企业所必需的最低限度。洛克的追随者倾向于坚持财产神圣不可侵犯，政府不断侵犯财产权，特别是以过度征税和监管的形式。他们还反对政府对企业和行业进行广泛的监管。因此，米尔顿-弗里德曼（在第一章中讨论过）是一位主要的自由主义思想家，他既反对政府监管，也反对要求公司承担利润最大化以外的责任（在最低限度的法律范围内，如禁止欺诈）。
We have been speaking of human rights, but there are also special moral rights-rights held by particular individuals rather than by every human being. For example, engineers and their employers have special moral rights that arise from their respective roles and the contracts they make with each other. Special rights are grounded in human rights, however indirectly. Thus, contracts and other types of promises create special rights because people have human rights to liberty that are violated when the understandings and commitments specified in contracts and promises are violated. And when the public purchases products, there is an implicit contract, based on an implicit understanding, that the products will be safe and useful. 我们一直在谈论人权，但也有特殊的道德权利--由特定个人而不是每个人拥有的权利。例如，工程师和他们的雇主拥有特殊的道德权利，这些权利源于他们各自的角色以及他们之间的契约。特殊权利以人权为基础，尽管是间接的。因此，合同和其他类型的允诺会产生特殊权利，因为人们享有自由的人权，而当合同和允诺中规定的理解和承诺遭到违反时，这些权利就会受到侵犯。而当公众购买产品时，存在着一种隐含的契约，这种契约基于一种隐含的理解，即产品将是安全和有用的。
Finally, few rights are absolute, in the sense of being unlimited and having no justifiable exceptions. Libertarians and other rights ethicists agree that members of the public do not have an absolute right not to be harmed by technological products. If people purchase hang gliders and then injure themselves by flying them carelessly or under bad weather conditions, their rights have not been violated—assuming that advertisements about the joys of hang gliding did not contain misleading information. But human rights to pursue one's legitimate interests do imply rights not to be poisoned, maimed, or killed by technological products whose dangers are not obvious or are deliberately hidden. These rights also imply a right to informed consent when purchasing or using products or services that might be dangerous, for example, buying an airline ticket. We might think of this as a right to make an "informed purchase." 最后，很少有权利是绝对的，即不受限制和没有正当例外的。自由主义者和其他权利伦理学家都认为，公众并不享有不受科技产品伤害的绝对权利。如果人们购买了滑翔机，却因为不小心或在恶劣天气条件下飞行而受伤，他们的权利并没有受到侵犯--前提是关于滑翔机乐趣的广告没有包含误导性信息。但是，追求个人合法利益的人权确实意味着不被那些危险不明显或被故意隐藏的技术产品毒害、致残或致死的权利。这些权利还意味着，在购买或使用可能具有危险性的产品或服务（例如购买机票）时，有知情同意的权利。我们可以将其视为 "知情购买 "的权利。
3.2.3 Duty Ethics 3.2.3 义务道德
Duty ethics says that right actions are those required by duties to respect the liberty or autonomy (self-determination) of individuals. One writer suggests the following list of important duties: "1. Don't kill. 2. Don't cause pain. 3. Don't disable. 4. Don't deprive of freedom. 5. Don't deprive of pleasure. 6. Don't deceive. 7. Keep your promise. 8. Don't cheat. 9. Obey the law. 10. Do your duty [referring to work, family, and other special responsibilities]."12 义务伦理学认为，正确的行动是尊重个人自由或自主（自决）的义务所要求的行动。一位作家提出了以下重要义务清单："1. 不杀人。2.不要造成痛苦。3.不致残。4.不要剥夺自由5.不要剥夺快乐6.不要欺骗7.信守诺言8.不要欺骗9.遵守法律10.尽职尽责（指工作、家庭和其他特殊责任）"12。
How do we know that these are our duties? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the most famous duty ethicist, argued that all such specific duties derive from one fundamental duty to respect persons. Persons deserve respect because they are moral agents-capable of recognizing and voluntarily responding to moral duty (or, like children, they potentially have such capacities). Autonomy-moral selfdetermination or self-governance-means having the capacity to govern one's life in accordance with moral duties. Hence, respect for persons amounts to respect for their moral autonomy. 我们如何知道这些就是我们的义务？最著名的义务伦理学家伊曼纽尔-康德（Immanuel Kant，1724-1804 年）认为，所有这些具体的义务都源于尊重人这一基本义务。人之所以值得尊重，是因为他们是道德主体--能够认识到并自愿回应道德义务（或者说，像儿童一样，他们潜在地具有这种能力）。自主--道德自决或自治--意味着有能力根据道德义务管理自己的生活。因此，尊重人就等于尊重他们的道德自主权。
Immorality occurs when we "merely use" others, reducing them to mere means to our ends, treating them as mere objects to gratify our needs. Violent acts such as murder, rape, and torture are obvious ways of treating people as mere objects serving our own purposes. We also fail to respect persons if we fail to provide support for them when they are in desperate need and we can help them at little inconvenience to ourselves. Of course we need to "use" one another as means all the time: business partners, managers and engineers, and faculty and students use each other to obtain their personal and professional ends. Immorality involves treating persons as "mere" means to our goals, rather than as autonomous agents who have their own goals. 当我们 "仅仅利用 "他人，把他们贬低为达到目的的手段，把他们仅仅当作满足我们需求的物品时，不道德就发生了。谋杀、强奸和酷刑等暴力行为显然就是把他人当作满足我们自身目的的物品。如果我们不在人们亟需帮助而我们又能帮助他们的时候为他们提供支持，那么我们也没有做到尊重他人。当然，我们总是需要 "利用 "彼此作为手段：商业伙伴、经理和工程师、教师和学生都在利用彼此来达到个人和职业目的。不道德就是把人当作实现我们目标的 "单纯 "手段，而不是有自己目标的自主主体。
We also have duties to ourselves, for we, too, are rational and autonomous beings. As examples, Kant says we have a duty not to commit suicide, which would bring an end to a valuable life; we have duties to develop our talents, as part of unfolding our rational natures; and we should avoid harmful drugs that undermine our ability to exercise our rationality. Obviously, Kant's repeated appeal to the idea of rationality makes a number of assumptions about morally worthy aims. After beginning with the minimal idea of rationality as the capacity to obey moral principles, he builds in a host of specific goals as part of what it means to be rational. 我们对自己也有责任，因为我们也是理性和自主的存在。例如，康德说我们有责任不自杀，因为自杀会结束有价值的生命；我们有责任发展自己的才能，因为这是展现我们理性本性的一部分；我们应该避免有害的药物，因为这些药物会削弱我们发挥理性的能力。显然，康德对理性理念的反复诉求为道德上有价值的目标做出了许多假设。康德从理性是遵守道德原则的能力这一最起码的理念出发，提出了一系列具体的目标，作为理性含义的一部分。
In a famous sentence, Kant stated the fundamental duty of respect for persons as rational and autonomous beings: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means 康德用一句名言阐述了尊重作为理性和自主存在的人的基本义务："行动起来，无论是你自己还是他人，都要把人性当作目的，而绝不是手段
only."13 As a moral "end," each person (including ourselves) places moral limits on our conduct. These limits are itemized by all valid moral rules stating obligations to others. Some obligations are to refrain from interfering with a person's liberty, and some express requirements to help them when they are in need, thereby paralleling the distinction between liberty and positive rights. 13 作为一种道德 "目的"，每个人（包括我们自己）都会对我们的行为施加道德限制。这些限制由所有有效的道德规则逐项列出，其中规定了对他人的义务。有些义务是不干涉他人的自由，有些义务则要求在他人需要帮助时给予帮助，这与自由和积极权利之间的区别类似。
Kant also emphasized that duties are universal: They apply equally to all rafional beings (including all humans and supernatural beings like angels and God-whom Kant believed to exist). He stated this idea in another famous sentence: "Act only according to that maxim [that is, rule of action] by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."14 Here again, the idea is that valid principles of duty apply to all rationally autonomous beings, and hence valid duties will be such that we can envision everyone acting on them. This idea of universal principles is often compared to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; or, in its negative version, Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do to you. 康德还强调，义务具有普遍性：它们平等地适用于所有有神论者（包括所有人类以及天使和上帝等超自然存在者--康德相信他们是存在的）。他在另一句名言中阐述了这一观点："14 这里的意思同样是，有效的义务原则适用于所有理性自主的存在，因此，有效的义务将是我们可以设想每个人都能按其行事的。这种普遍原则的理念常常被比作黄金法则：己所不欲，勿施于人；或者反过来说，己所不欲，勿施于人。
Finally, Kant insisted that moral duties are "categorical imperatives." As imperatives, they are injunctions or commands that we impose on ourselves as well as other rational beings. As categorical, they require us to do what is right because it is right, unconditionally and without special incentives attached. For example, we should be honest because honesty is required by duty; it is required by our basic duty to respect the autonomy of others, rather than to deceive and exploit them for our own selfish purposes. "Be honest!" says morality-not because doing so benefits us, but because honesty is our duty. Morality is not an "iffy" matter that concerns hypothetical (conditional) imperatives, such as "If you want to prosper, be honest." A businessperson who is honest solely because honesty pays-in terms of profits from customers who return and recommend their services, as well as from avoiding jail for dishonesty-fails to fully meet the requirements of morality. In this way, morality involves attention to motives and intentions, an idea also important in virtue ethics 最后，康德坚持认为道德义务是 "绝对命令"。作为 "命令"，它们是我们强加给自己以及其他有理性的人的指令或命令。作为绝对命令，它们要求我们做正确的事，因为它是正确的，是无条件的，不附带任何特殊激励。例如，我们应该诚实，因为诚实是义务的要求；我们的基本义务要求我们尊重他人的自主权，而不是为了一己私利欺骗和利用他人。道德说："要诚实！"--不是因为这样做对我们有利，而是因为诚实是我们的责任。道德不是一个 "不确定 "的问题，它涉及到假设性（条件性）的要求，比如 "如果你想繁荣，就要诚实"。一个商人如果仅仅因为诚实会带来回报--从客户回头和推荐他们的服务中获利，以及避免因不诚实而坐牢--而诚实，那么他就没有完全达到道德的要求。因此，道德涉及对动机和意图的关注，这也是美德伦理中的一个重要思想
3.2.4 Prima Facie Duties 3.2.4 初步职责
Kant thought that everyday principles of duty, such as "Do not lie" and "Keep your promises," are absolute in the sense of never having justifiable exceptions. In doing so, he conflated three ideas: (1) universality-moral rules apply to all rational agents; (2) categorical imperatives-moral rules command what is right because it is right; and (3) absolutism-moral rules have no exceptions. Nearly all ethicists reject Kant's absolutism, even ethicists who embrace his ideas of universality and categorical imperatives. 康德认为，"不要撒谎 "和 "信守承诺 "等日常义务原则是绝对的，因为它们从来没有正当的例外。他这样做混淆了三个概念：(1)普遍性--道德规则适用于所有理性主体；(2)绝对命令--道德规则命令什么是正确的，因为它是正确的；(3)绝对主义--道德规则没有例外。几乎所有伦理学家都反对康德的绝对主义，即使是接受康德的普遍性和绝对命令思想的伦理学家也不例外。
The problem with absolutism should be obvious. As we have emphasized, moral reasons are many and varied, including those expressed by principles of duty. Given the complexity of human life, they invariably come into conflict with each other, thereby creating moral dilemmas. Contemporary duty ethicists recog. nize that many moral dilemmas are resolvable only by recognizing some valid exceptions to simple principles of duty. Thus, engineers have a duty to maintain confidentiality about information owned by their corporations, but that duty can be overridden by the paramount duty to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public. 绝对主义的问题应该是显而易见的。正如我们所强调的，道德理由多种多样，包括义务原则所表达的理由。鉴于人类生活的复杂性，这些理由总是会相互冲突，从而造成道德困境。当代义务伦理学家认识到，只有承认简单的义务原则有一些有效的例外，许多道德困境才能得到解决。因此，工程师有义务为其公司所拥有的信息保密，但这一义务可以被保护公众安全、 健康和福利的首要义务所推翻。
To emphasize that most duties have some justified exceptions, the philosopher David Ross (1877-1971) introduced the expression prima facie duties. In this technical sense, prima facie simply means "might have justified exceptions" (rather than "at first glance"). Most duties are prima facie ones-they sometimes have permissible or obligatory exceptions. Indeed, the same is true of most rights and other moral principles, and hence today the term prima facie is often applied to rights and rules. 为了强调大多数义务都有一些合理的例外情况，哲学家戴维-罗斯（1877-1971 年）提出了 "表面义务 "一词。在这种技术意义上，表面义务只是指 "可能有正当的例外"（而不是 "乍一看"）。大多数义务都是表面义务--它们有时有允许的或强制性的例外。事实上，大多数权利和其他道德原则也是如此，因此，今天 "初步证据 "一词经常被用于权利和规则。
Ross believed that prima facie duties are intuitively obvious, much like Jefferson said that human rights are self-evident. He emphasized, however, that it is not always obvious how best to balance conflicting duties, so as to arrive at our actual duty-our duty in a situation, all things considered. How, then, do we tell which duties should override others when they come into conflict? Ross noted that some principles, such as "Do not kill" and "Protect innocent life," clearly involve more pressing kinds of respect for persons than other principles, such as "Don't lie." Usually, however, general priorities cannot be established. Instead, he argued, we must simply reflect carefully on particular situations, weighing all relevant duties in light of all the facts, and trying to arrive at a sound judgment or intuition. 罗斯认为，表面义务是直观明显的，就像杰斐逊说人权是不言而喻的一样。然而，他强调，如何平衡相互冲突的责任，从而得出我们的实际责任--我们在某一情况下的责任，并不总是显而易见的。那么，当义务与其他义务发生冲突时，我们如何判断哪些义务应优先于其他义务呢？罗斯指出，与 "不撒谎 "等其他原则相比，"不杀人 "和 "保护无辜生命 "等一些原则显然涉及更紧迫的对人的尊重。但通常情况下，无法确定一般的优先次序。他认为，我们只需认真思考具体情况，根据所有事实权衡所有相关义务，并努力得出合理的判断或直觉。
When I am in a situation, as perhaps I always am, in which more than one of these prima facie duties is incumbent on me, what I have to do is to study the situation as fully as I can until I form the considered opinion (it is never more) that in the circumstances one of them is more incumbent than any other; then I am bound to think that to do this prima facie duty is my duty sans phrase in the situation [i.e., my actual duty, all things considered]. 当我处于一种情况下（也许我总是处于这种情况下），在这种情况下，这些表面责任中不止一项是我必须履行的，我必须做的就是尽可能全面地研究这种情况，直到我形成一种经过深思熟虑的观点（绝不是更多的观点），即在这种情况下，其中一项责任比任何其他责任都更重要；然后，我必然会认为，在这种情况下，履行这项表面责任就是我的责任，而不是一句空话[即，我的实际责任，一切都要考虑到]。
In emphasizing the need to reflect contextually, as well as acknowledging human fallibility in doing that reasoning, Ross greatly improves on Kant's version of duty ethics. Nevertheless, Ross relies heavily on intuition, and persons sometimes differ in their moral intuitions. Hence, Ross is often criticized for not providing sufficiently detailed moral guidance (a criticism aimed at other ethical theories as well). Most contemporary duty ethicists seek ways to minimize the need for intuitions (immediate judgments) in morality-for example, by underscoring the need for rational dialogue with others and periodic reflection in connecting general rules with specific applications. 罗斯强调了根据上下文进行反思的必要性，并承认了人类在进行推理时的不确定性，这大大改进了康德版本的义务伦理学。然而，罗斯在很大程度上依赖于直觉，而人与人之间的道德直觉有时是不同的。因此，罗斯经常被批评为没有提供足够详细的道德指导（这也是针对其他伦理学理论的批评）。大多数当代义务伦理学家都在设法尽量减少道德中对直觉（即时判断）的需求--例如，强调在将一般规则与具体应用联系起来时，需要与他人进行理性对话和定期反思。
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 讨论问题
In the Pinto case, did Ford Motor Company have a duty to inform the public of the haz ard with its gas tank, and did the public have rights to be so informed? If so, how migh such information have been made available to the public? 在 Pinto 案中，福特汽车公司是否有义务告知公众其油箱的危险性，公众是否有被告知的权利？如果有，应该如何向公众提供这些信息？
Revisit the Citicorp tower case in chapter 1. Identify the rights of the various stake holders involved in the case. How might a rights ethicist proceed in resolving what should have been done? 重温第 1 章中的花旗银行大厦案例。确定案件中各利益相关者的权利。权利伦理学家如何着手解决本应采取的行动？
Suppose that you or your family owns, free and clear (without debt) a piece of land. Does a right to property permit you, morally speaking, to do anything you please with it, and are laws that say otherwise immoral? Some philosophers argue that what i 假设你或你的家人拥有一块土地，而且是无偿的（没有债务）。从道义上讲，财产权是否允许你对它为所欲为？一些哲学家认为
means to say it is your property is largely a matter of what the law says you can and cannot do with it. What would Locke say, and do you agree with him? In your response, which will clarify your conception of what property is, consider right-of-way laws that allow the government to purchase your land at market value in order to construct a road or railway path, environmental laws forbidding pollution of the land, limitations on the height of buildings on the land, etc. 说它是你的财产，主要是指法律规定你可以做什么，不可以做什么。洛克会怎么说，你同意他吗？在你的回答中，你可以考虑允许政府以市场价值购买你的土地以修建公路或铁路的路权法、禁止污染土地的环境法、对土地上建筑物高度的限制等，这将澄清你对什么是财产的概念。
Present and defend your view concerning the relative strengths and weaknesses of the views of libertarian rights ethicists and those rights ethicists who believe in both liberty and welfare rights. In doing so, comment on why libertarianism is having considerable influence today, and yet why the Libertarian Party repeatedly cannot win widespread support for its goals to dismantle all welfare programs, such as guaranteed public education from kindergarten to twelfth grade and health care for the elderly and low income families. 就自由主义权利伦理学家和那些既相信自由又相信福利权利的权利伦理学家的观点的相对优缺点提出你的看法并为之辩护。在此过程中，请评论为什么自由主义在当今具有相当大的影响力，而自由党却一再无法赢得广泛的支持，以实现其废除所有福利计划的目标，如保障从幼儿园到十二年级的公共教育以及老年人和低收入家庭的医疗保健。
Write down a list of duties that you believe all reasonable persons should recognize as absolute, that is, as having no justified exceptions. Is the list very long? Explain why your list is short or long, and defend your view against possible criticism. 写下你认为所有有理智的人都应承认为绝对义务，即没有正当例外的义务清单。这份清单很长吗？解释你的清单是短还是长的原因，并针对可能的批评为你的观点辩护。
Americans are sometimes criticized for being too individualistic, and in particular for approaching moral issues with too great an emphasis on rights. Although we said that rights and duties are usually correlated with each other, what difference (if any) do you think would occur if Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all people are created equal; that they owe duties of respect to all other persons, and are owed these duties in return'"? 美国人有时被批评过于个人主义，特别是在处理道德问题时过于强调权利。虽然我们说过权利和义务通常是相互关联的，但如果杰斐逊写道："我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的；人人生而平等；他们对所有其他人负有尊重的义务，而这些义务也是对他们的回报'"，你认为会有什么不同（如果有的话）？
What does the Golden Rule imply concerning how engineers and corporations should behave toward customers in designing and marketing products? As a focus, discuss whether crash-test information should be made available to customers concerning the possibly harmful side effects of a particular automobile. Does it matter whether the negative or positive version of the Golden Rule is used? And does either version provide an answer that everyone might find morally reasonable? 关于工程师和企业在设计和营销产品时应如何对待客户，"黄金法则 "意味着什么？作为重点，请讨论是否应向客户提供有关某款汽车可能产生的有害副作用的碰撞测试信息。使用 "黄金法则 "的消极版还是积极版是否重要？无论是哪种版本，是否都能提供一个人人都认为在道德上合理的答案？
3.3 VIRTUE ETHICS 3.3 美德伦理
Virtue ethics emphasizes character more than rights and rules. Character is the pattern of virtues (morally desirable features) and vices (morally undesirable features) in an individual. Virtues are desirable habits or tendencies in action, commitment, motive, attitude, emotion, ways of reasoning, and ways of relating to others. Vices are morally undesirable habits or tendencies. The words virtue and vice sound a bit old-fashioned. Words for specific virtues, however, remain familar, both in engineering and in everyday life-for example, competence, honesty courage, fairness, loyalty, and humility. Words for specific vices are also familiar: incompetence, dishonesty, cowardice, unfairness, disloyalty, and arrogance. 相比权利和规则，美德伦理更强调品格。品德是一个人的美德（道德上可取的特征）和恶德（道德上不可取的特征）的模式。美德是在行动、承诺、动机、态度、情感、推理方式以及与他人相处的方式方面的理想习惯或倾向。恶习是道德上不可取的习惯或倾向。美德和恶习这两个词听起来有点过时。然而，无论是在工程领域还是在日常生活中，有关具体美德的词汇仍然很常见，例如能力、诚实、勇气、公平、忠诚和谦逊。具体恶习的词也很熟悉：无能、不诚实、懦弱、不公平、不忠诚和傲慢。
3.3.1 Virtues in Engineering 3.3.1 工程学中的美德
As noted in chapter 1, the Greek word arete can be translated as "virtue," "ethics," and "excellence," an etymological fact that reinforces our theme of ethics and excellence going together in engineering. The most comprehensive virtue of engineers is responsible professionalism. This umbrella virtue implies four (overlapping) categories of virtues: public well-being, professional competence cooperative practices, and personal integrity 正如第 1 章所述，希腊文 arete 可译为 "美德"、"道德 "和 "卓越"，这一词源学上的事实强化了我们的主题，即工程学中的道德与卓越是相辅相成的。工程师最全面的美德是负责任的职业精神。这一总括性美德包含四类（相互重叠的）美德：公众福祉、专业能力、合作实践和个人品德。
Public-spirited virtues are focused on the good of clients and the wider pub lic. The minimum virtue is nonmaleficence, that is, the tendency not to harm others intentionally. As Hippocrates reportedly said in connection with medicine, "Above all, do no harm." Engineering codes of professional conduct also call for beneficence, which is preventing or removing harm to others and, more positively, promoting the public safety, health, and welfare. Also important is a sense of community, manifested in faith and hope in the prospects for meaningful life within professional and public communities. Generosity, which means going beyond the minimum requirements in helping others, is shown by engineers who voluntarily give their time, talent, and money to their professional societies and local communities. Finally, justice within corporations, government, and economic practices is an essential virtue in the profession of engineering. 最起码的美德是不伤害他人，即不故意伤害他人。据报道，希波克拉底在谈到医学时曾说过："最重要的是不伤害他人"。工程专业行为准则也要求 "有益"（beneficence），即防止或消除对他人的伤害，更积极的是促进公共安全、健康和福利。同样重要的是社区意识，表现为对专业和公共社区内有意义生活前景的信心和希望。慷慨，即超出最低要求帮助他人，表现为工程师自愿为其专业协会和当地社区奉献时间、才智和金钱。最后，企业、政府和经济实践中的公正是工程专业的基本美德。
Proficiency virtues are the virtues of mastery of one's profession, in particular mastery of the technical skills that characterize good engineering practice. Following Aristotle, some thinkers regard these values as intellectua virtues rather than distinctly moral ones. As they contribute to sound engineering, however, they are morally desirable features. The most general proficiency virtue is competence: being well prepared for the jobs one undertakes. Also important is diligence: alertness to dangers and careful attention to detail in per forming tasks by, for example, avoiding the deficiency of laziness and the excess of the workaholic. Creativity is especially desirable within a rapidly changing technological society. 能力美德是指掌握自己专业的美德，尤其是掌握作为良好工程实践特征的技术技能。继亚里士多德之后，一些思想家将这些价值视为智力美德，而不是明显的道德价值。然而，由于它们有助于健全的工程学，因此在道德上是可取的。最普遍的能力美德是胜任：为所从事的工作做好充分准备。同样重要的是勤奋：对危险保持警惕，在完成任务时注意细节，例如，避免懒惰的缺陷和工作狂的过度。在瞬息万变的科技社会中，创造力尤为重要。
Teamwork virtues are those that are especially important in enabling pro fessionals to work successfully with other people. They include collegiality, cooperativeness, loyalty, and respect for legitimate authority. Also important are leadership qualities that play key roles within authority-structured corporations, such as the responsible exercise of authority and the ability to motivate others to meet valuable goals. 团队合作美德是指那些对专业人员与他人成功合作尤为重要的美德。这些品德包括同事情谊、合作精神、忠诚和尊重合法权威。同样重要的还有在权力结构企业中发挥关键作用的领导素质，如负责任地行使权力和激励他人实现有价值目标的能力。
Finally, self-governance virtues are those necessary in exercising moral responsibility. Some of them center on moral understanding and perception: for example, self-understanding and good moral judgment-what Aristotle called practical wisdom. Other self-governance virtues center on commitment and on putting understanding into action: for example, courage, self-discipline, perseverance, fidelity to commitments, self-respect, and integrity. Honesty falls into both groups of self-direction virtues, for it implies truthfulness in speech and belief and trustworthiness in commitments 最后，自治美德是行使道德责任所必需的美德。 其中一些美德以道德理解和感知为中心：例如，自我理解和良好的道德判断--亚里士多德称之为实践智慧。其他自我管理美德则以承诺和将理解付诸行动为中心：例如，勇气、自律、毅力、忠于承诺、自尊和正直。诚实属于这两类自我指导美德，因为它意味着言语和信仰的真实性以及承诺的可信性。
3.3.2 Florman: Competence and Conscientiousness 3.3.2 Florman：能力与自觉性
Like rights ethics, duty ethics, and utilitarianism, virtue ethics takes alternative forms, especially in the particular virtues emphasized and their roles in morally good lives. As an illustration, let us contrast Samuel Florman's emphasis on loyalty to employers with Aristotle's emphasis on loyalty to community, referring as 与权利伦理学、义务伦理学和功利主义一样，美德伦理学也有其他形式，特别是在所强调的特定美德及其在道德上美好生活中的作用方面。举例说明，让我们将塞缪尔-弗洛曼强调的对雇主的忠诚与亚里士多德强调的对社会的忠诚作一对比，后者指的是
well to Alasdair MacIntyre, who applied Aristotle's perspective to contemporary professions. 以及阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔（Alasdair MacIntyre），他将亚里士多德的观点应用于当代职业。
Florman is most famous for his celebration of the "existential pleasures" of engineering-the deeply rooted and elemental satisfactions in engineering that contribute to happiness. These pleasures have many sources. There is the desire to improve the world, which engages individuals' sense of personal involvement and power. There is the challenge of practical and creative effort, including planning, designing, testing, producing, selling, constructing, and maintaining, all of which bring pride in achieving excellence in the technical aspects of one's work. There is the desire to understand the world-an understanding that brings wonder, peace, and sense of being at home in the universe. There is the sheer magnitude of natural phenomena-oceans, rivers, mountains, and prairies-that both inspires and challenges the design of immense ships, bridges, tunnels, communication links, and other vast undertakings. There is the presence of machines that can generate a comforting and absorbing sense of a manageable, controlled, and ordered world. Finally, engineers live with a sense of helping, of contributing to the wellbeing of other human beings. 弗洛曼最著名的是他对工程学 "存在的乐趣 "的赞美--工程学中根深蒂固的、基本的满足感会带来幸福感。 这些快乐有许多来源。改善世界的愿望会激发个人的参与感和力量感。我们面临着实践和创造性努力的挑战，包括规划、设计、测试、生产、销售、建设和维护，所有这些都会让我们为自己的工作在技术方面取得卓越成就而感到自豪。人们渴望了解这个世界--这种了解会带来惊奇、平和以及在宇宙中安居乐业的感觉。海洋、河流、山脉和草原等自然现象的巨大规模，既激发了设计巨轮、桥梁、隧道、通信链路和其他巨大工程的灵感，也对其提出了挑战。还有机器的存在，它们能让人感到世界是可管理的、可控制的和有序的，从而产生一种令人欣慰和沉醉的感觉。最后，工程师生活在一种助人为乐的氛围中，为其他人类的福祉做出贡献。
In elaborating on these pleasures, Florman implicitly sets forth a virtue ethics. In his view, "the essence of engineering ethics" is best captured by the word conscientiousness. Engineers who do their jobs well are morally good engineers, and doing their jobs well is to be understood in terms of the more specific virtues of competence, reliability, inventiveness, loyalty to employers, and respect for laws and democratic processes. Competence and loyalty are the two virtues Florman most emphasizes. 在阐述这些乐趣时，弗洛曼含蓄地提出了一种美德伦理。在他看来，"工程伦理的精髓 "最好地体现在 "自觉性 "这个词上。 做好本职工作的工程师是道德上的好工程师，而做好本职工作应从能力、可靠性、创造性、对雇主的忠诚以及尊重法律和民主程序等更具体的美德来理解。能力和忠诚是弗洛曼最强调的两种美德。
On the one hand, conscientious engineers are competent. Florman estimates that 98 percent of engineering failures are caused by incompetence. The other 2 percent involve greed, fraud, dishonesty, and other conventional understandings of wrongdoing, often in addition to sloppiness. "Competent" does not mean minimally adequate, but instead performing with requisite skill and experience. It implies exercising due care, persistence and diligence, and attention to detail and avoiding sloppiness. In addition to competence, conscientious engineering often requires creative problem solving and innovative thinking. 一方面，认真负责的工程师是称职的。Florman 估计，98% 的工程失败都是由不称职造成的。另外 2% 的原因则包括贪婪、欺诈、不诚实和其他传统意义上的不法行为，通常还有马虎。"胜任 "并不意味着最低限度的合格，而是指具备必要的技能和经验。它意味着尽职尽责、坚持不懈、兢兢业业、注重细节、避免马虎。除了能力之外，认真负责的工程往往还需要创造性地解决问题和创新思维。
On the other hand, conscientious engineers are loyal to their employers, within the boundaries of laws and democratic institutions. At first glance, this idea sounds like the libertarian view of Milton Friedman discussed in chapter 1. But whereas Friedman called for minimum government regulation, Florman places great emphasis on laws as setting the basic rules governing engineering. Within a democratic setting in which laws express a public consensus, economic competition among corporations makes possible technological achievements that benefi the public. Competition depends on engineers who are loyal to their organizations, which is analogous to how members of a baseball team work together in competition. Like attorneys defending clients, engineers need not believe that their company is always best serving the interests of humanity at large. In fact, engineers should keep their personal commitments largely to themselves, although it is gratifying when they can match their personal convictions to the goals of their companies. Professional restraints should be laws and government regulations rather than personal conscience. In this view, even professional codes of ethics are largely ceremonial expressions, and "a code with real meaning and teeth is beyond the realm of possibility. "20 另一方面，有良知的工程师会在法律和民主制度的范围内忠于雇主。乍听之下，这种观点很像第一章中讨论的米尔顿-弗里德曼的自由主义观点。不过，弗里德曼呼吁政府尽量减少监管，而弗洛曼则非常强调法律是管理工程的基本规则。在法律表达公众共识的民主环境中，企业间的经济竞争使造福公众的技术成就成为可能。竞争有赖于忠于组织的工程师，这就好比棒球队成员在比赛中如何团结协作。就像为客户辩护的律师一样，工程师不必相信自己的公司总是最符合全人类的利益。事实上，工程师应将他们的个人承诺主要留给自己，尽管当他们能将个人信念与公司目标相匹配时，他们会感到欣慰。职业约束应该是法律和政府法规，而不是个人良知。在这种观点看来，即使是职业道德准则，在很大程度上也只是礼仪性的表达，"具有真正意义和影响力的准则是不可能实现的 "20。"20
We can agree that engineers should be conscientious in meeting their responsibilities, but the question is which responsibilities take priority. Florman defends the priority of duties to employers, in opposition to professional codes that require engineers to hold "paramount" the safety, health, and welfare of the public. His competence-and-loyalty credo could easily be used to encourage engineers to be passive in accepting the dictates of employers and relying on laws as sufficient to protect the public. Rather than "filtering their everyday work through a sieve of ethical sensitivity," he tells us, professionals have the task of meeting the expectations of their clients and employers. Yet, in some important sense, such "filtering" is exactly what should be expected of engineers in exercising their professional judgment. 我们可以同意，工程师应该认真履行自己的责任，但问题是哪些责任是优先的。弗洛曼维护对雇主的优先责任，与要求工程师将公众的安全、健康和福利放在 "首位 "的职业准则背道而驰。他的 "能力与忠诚 "信条很容易被用来鼓励工程师被动地接受雇主的指令，并依赖法律来保护公众。他告诉我们，专业人士的任务是满足客户和雇主的期望，而不是 "用道德敏感性的筛子过滤日常工作"。 然而，在某些重要的意义上，这种 "过滤 "恰恰是工程师在行使其专业判断力时应达到的要求。
3.3.3 Aristotle: Community and The Golden Mean 3.3.3 亚里士多德：共同体与黄金分割
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) defined the moral virtues as habits of reaching a proper balance between extremes in conduct, emotion, desire, and attitude. To use the phrase inspired by his theory, virtues are tendencies to find the Golden Mean between the extremes of too much (excess) and too little (deficiency) with regard to particular aspects of our lives. Thus, truthfulness is the appropriate middle ground (mean) between revealing all information in violation of tact and confidentiality (excess) and being secretive or lacking in candor (deficiency) in dealing with truth. Again, courage is the mean between foolhardiness (the excess of rashness) and cowardice (the deficiency of self-control) in confronting dangers. The most important virtue is practical wisdom, that is, morally good judgment, which enables one to discern the mean for all the other virtues. 亚里士多德（公元前 384-322 年）将美德定义为在行为、情感、欲望和态度的极端之间达到适当平衡的习惯。 根据他的理论，美德就是在我们生活的某些方面，在过多（过度）和过少（不足）这两个极端之间找到黄金分割点的倾向。因此，在违反机智和保密原则而透露所有信息（过度），以及在处理真相时遮遮掩掩或缺乏坦诚（不足）之间，诚实是适当的中间点（平均值）。同样，在面对危险时，勇气是愚笨（鲁莽过度）和怯懦（自制力不足）之间的中间值。最重要的美德是实践智慧，即良好的道德判断力，它使人能够辨别所有其他美德的平均值。
Virtues enable us to pursue a variety of public goods within a community a concept that was especially important for citizens of ancient Greek city-states, since the city-state's survival depended on the close cooperation of its citizens. Taken together, the moral virtues also enable us to fulfill ourselves as human beings. They enable us to attain happiness, by which Aristotle meant self-fulfillment through an active life in accordance with our reason (rather than a life of mere contentment or pleasure) 美德使我们能够在社区内追求各种公共利益，这一概念对古希腊城邦的公民尤为重要，因为城邦的生存有赖于其公民的密切合作。综上所述，道德美德还能让我们实现作为人的自我价值。它们使我们能够获得幸福，亚里士多德所说的幸福是指通过符合我们理性的积极生活（而非仅仅满足或享乐的生活）来实现自我价值。
What exactly is the morally good judgment required in discerning the mean in particular circumstances? Aristotle tells us it arises from the development of good habits as achieved through proper training within families and communities. This answer, however, merely pushes the question a step backward: How do we identify proper training, and how do we ensure that it results in good judgment? Aristotle's appeal to good judgment conceals the specific moral requirements and ideals, much like an appeal to "reasonable person" in the law conceals a great complexity of legal rules. The ultimate reference, however, is to goods made possible within particular communities. 在特定情况下辨别中庸之道所需的良好道德判断力究竟是什么？亚里士多德告诉我们，它源于良好习惯的养成，而良好习惯的养成则是通过家庭和社区中的适当训练来实现的。然而，这个答案只是把问题向后推了一步：我们如何确定适当的训练，又如何确保训练的结果是良好的判断力？亚里士多德对良好判断力的呼吁隐藏了具体的道德要求和理想，就像法律中对 "合理的人 "的呼吁隐藏了大量复杂的法律规则一样。然而，其最终指向的是在特定社区内成为可能的商品。
More recently, Alasdair MacIntyre applied Aristotle's themes, including his emphasis on community and public goods, to the professions. MacIntyre conceives of professions as valuable social activities, which he calls social practices. A social practice is 最近，阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔（Alasdair MacIntyre）将亚里士多德的主题，包括他对社区和公益的强调，应用到了职业中。 麦金太尔将职业视为有价值的社会活动，他称之为社会实践。社会实践是
any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systematically extended. 任何连贯而复杂的、由社会确立的人类合作活动形式，通过这种活动形式，在努力实现与该活动形式相适应并部分确定了该活动形式的卓越标准的过程中，实现该活动形式的内部产品，从而系统地扩展人类实现卓越的能力以及人类对相关目的和产品的概念。
There are three key ideas in this definition: internal goods, standards of excellence, and human progress ("extension"). Internal goods are good things (products, activities, experiences, etc.) that are so essential to a social practice that they partly define it. Some internal goods are public goods-benefits provided to the community. Thus, health is the internal good of medicine, and legal justice the internal good of law. The internal goods of engineering, abstractly stated, are safe and useful technological products-products that can be further specified with regard to each area of engineering. 这个定义有三个关键概念：内部产品、卓越标准和人类进步（"扩展"）。内部产品是对社会实践至关重要的好东西（产品、活动、经验等），它们部分地定义了社会实践。有些内部物品是公共物品--提供给社会的福利。因此，健康是医学的内部物品，法律公正是法律的内部物品。抽象地说，工程学的内部产品是安全和有用的技术产品--这些产品可以在工程学的各个领域进一步具体化。
Other internal goods are personal goods connected with meaningful work. As an illustration, MacIntyre says that portrait painters discover "the good of a certain kind of life . . . as a painter" through "participation in the attempts to sustain progress and to respond creatively to problems," and more generally in the pursuit of excellence as an artist. Similarly, personal meaning in working as an engineer connects with personal commitments to create useful and safe public goods and services. 其他内部物品是与有意义的工作相关联的个人物品。麦金太尔举例说，肖像画家通过 "参与维持进步和创造性地应对问题的尝试"，以及更广泛地作为艺术家追求卓越的过程，发现了 "某种生活的好处......作为一个画家"。 同样，工程师工作的个人意义与创造有用、安全的公共产品和服务的个人承诺相联系。
Social practices produce external goods, which are goods that can be earned through engaging in a variety of practices. External goods include money, power, self-esteem, and prestige. External goods are, of course, vitally important to individuals and to organizations, and, although MacIntyre does not say so, sometimes they also partly define practices. Thus, we could not understand professions as forms of work without mentioning the money they make possible. Nevertheless, excessive concern for external goods, whether by individuals or organizations threatens internal goods (both public and personal goods). In extreme instances, they thoroughly corrupt institutions and undermine social practices, as when managers use corporate resources for private gain or when engineers become so demoralized that they fail to maintain standards of professionalism. 社会实践会产生外部物品，即通过参与各种实践可以获得的物品。外部物品包括金钱、权力、自尊和声望。当然，外部物品对个人和组织都至关重要，虽然麦金太尔没有这么说，但有时它们也部分地界定了实践。因此，如果我们不提及金钱，就无法理解作为工作形式的职业。然而，无论是个人还是组织，对外部物品的过度关注都会威胁到内部物品（包括公共物品和个人物品）。在极端的情况下，它们会彻底腐蚀机构，破坏社会实践，比如经理们利用公司资源谋取私利，或者工程师们士气低落，无法保持专业水准。
Standards of excellence enable internal goods to be achieved (consistent with other important values within democracies). In professions like engineering these standards include technical guidelines that specify state-of-the-art quality Most important, they also include the requirements stated in professional codes of ethics, which are incumbent on all members of a profession. The codes promote internal goods positively by encouraging engineers to commit themselves to cod ified standards of conduct. Codes are also used to impose penalties for dishonesty, destructive types of conflicts of interest, and other failures of professionalism. 卓越标准使内部产品得以实现（与民主国家的其他重要价值观一致）。最重要的是，这些标准还包括职业道德准则中规定的要求，这些准则是所有职业人 员义不容辞的责任。职业道德准则通过鼓励工程师遵守规定的行为标准，积极促进内部商品的发展。守则还用于对不诚实行为、破坏性的利益冲突和其他专业失误进行处罚。
The virtues enable engineers to meet standards of excellence and thereby achieve internal goods, especially public or community goods, without allowing The virtues there as money and power to distract their public commitments. work by linking ind the personal meaning that engineers find in their virtues play key roles in engineers' commitments. All four categories of the welfare of the public. That is safety, health, and and self-governance virtues, but it is equally the public-spirited, proficiency, required within the organizations that is equally true of the teamwork virtues development. 美德使工程师能够达到卓越标准，从而实现内部利益，特别是公共利益或社区利益，而不会让金钱和权力等美德分散他们对公共事业的承诺。所有四类公共福利。这就是安全、健康和自治美德，但这同样也是组织内部所要求的热心公益、精通业务和团队合作美德。
Finally, progress is made possible through social practices. Nowhere is this truer than in the professions, which systematically expand our understanding and achievement of public and private goods. Think how dramatically engineers have improved human life during the past century by developing the internal combustion engine, computers, the Internet, and a host of consumer products. In this way, engineering and other professions are embedded in wider circles of meaning, in 最后，社会实践使进步成为可能。这一点在各行各业体现得淋漓尽致，它们系统地扩展了我们对公共和私人物品的理解和成就。想想看，在过去的一个世纪里，工程师们通过开发内燃机、计算机、互联网和大量消费品，极大地改善了人类的生活。通过这种方式，工程学和其他专业被嵌入了更广泛的意义圈，包括
particular within communities and traditions. 特别是在社区和传统中。
We conclude by noting two challenges to virtue ethics, or rather areas needing refinement. The first is that virtue ethicists often talk as if virtues are all or nothing. Indeed, Aristotle held that to have one cardinal virtue-wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice-implied having all the others. This doctrine of "the unity of the virtues" is now widely criticized. Just as rights can conflict with rights, duties with duties, and goods with goods, virtues can conflict or be in tension with each other. For example, complete honesty with others is often in tension with being considerate and sensitive. The person who is ruthlessly candid is likely to say derogatory things about other people's dress, talents, or accomplish ments. Moreover, all of us have gaps in our character-stronger in some areas about being virtuous. Hence, virtue ethics needs to avoid all-or-nothing claims 最后，我们要指出美德伦理学面临的两个挑战，或者说需要完善的领域。第一个挑战是，美德伦理学家经常说美德要么全有，要么全无。事实上，亚里士多德认为，拥有一种基本美德--智慧、勇气、节制和正义--就意味着拥有其他所有美德。这种 "美德合一 "的学说现在受到广泛批评。就像权利与权利、义务与义务、商品与商品之间可能存在冲突一样，美德之间也可能存在冲突或矛盾。 例如，对他人完全诚实往往与体贴和敏感相冲突。无情坦率的人很可能会贬低他人的衣着、才能或成就。 此外，我们每个人的性格中都有缺陷--在某些方面强于美德。 因此，美德伦理学需要避免全有或全无的主张。
The second probic 第二个概率
by itself, too vague. Critics of virtue ethics seems incomplete and, when taken ments of virtues need to be ethics argue that the meaning and requirerules, lest the virtues fail to suidelines or honesty requires implies a disposition, among of actions, done from certain kinds of motives. It cation) because lying disrespers (without special justifi- 这本身就太模糊了。美德伦理的批评者认为，美德的含义和要求必须符合伦理，否则美德就不能起到指引或诚实的作用。因为说谎是一种不负责任的行为（如果没有特别的正当理由--......）。
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 讨论问题
Apply Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean in understanding these virtues of engineers: 运用亚里士多德的黄金分割思想来理解工程师的这些美德：
(a) loyalty to employers, (b) courage in arsing lustration of excess Mean illuminating (too much) and defect (too little). Do you find his idea of the Golden (a) 对雇主的忠诚，(b) 勇于摒弃多余的淫秽手段，即照亮（太多）和缺陷（太少）。你是否认为他的黄金
different versions. Nevertheless, suitably modified, the theories complement and enrich each other to the extent that they usually agree with respect to the right ac tion in particular situations. Taken individually and together, they provide illuminating perspectives on engineering ethics.
virtue of engineering competence?