2026. Reading Is An Intelligent Sport.
Our mission is to make everything about sentences.
 Please stay here and make your dreams.
지문 분석결과
fico가 지문 학습에 필요한 것들을 구성하여 학습 효율성을 제공해 드립니다.
노트나 질문을 통해 자신만의 지문 노트를 만들어 관리해 보세요.
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과 외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과
2-5
print
문장 선택
문장을 클릭하면 해당 문장의 구문 분석 내용을 보여줍니다.
2-5
According to the textbook account, this question divides ancient and modern political thought. In one important respect, the textbook is right. Aristotle teaches that justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to determine who deserves what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. Aristotle maintains that we can't figure out what a just constitution is without first reflecting on the most desirable way of life. For him, law can't be neutral on questions of the good life. By contrast, modern political philosophers from Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century to John Rawls in the twentieth century argue that the principles of justice that define our rights should not rest on any particular conception of virtue, or of the best way to live. In-stead, a just society respects each person's freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life. So you might say that ancient theories of justice start with virtue, while modern theories start with freedom. And in the chapters to come, we explore the strengths and weaknesses of each. But it's worth noticing at the outset that this contrast can mislead. For if we turn our gaze to the arguments about justice that animate contemporary politics not among philosophers but among ordinary men and women we find a more complicated picture. It's true that most of our arguments are about promoting prosperity and respecting individual freedom, at least on the surface. But underlying these argu-ments, and sometimes contending with them, we can often glimpse another set of convictions-about what virtues are worthy of honor and reward, and what way of life a good society should promote. Devoted though we are to prosperity and freedom, we can't quite shake off the judgmental strand of justice. The conviction that justice involves virtue as well as choice runs deep. Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about the best way to live.
지문 노트목록 지문단위의 해석이나 의미 등 내용에 대한 설명입니다.
지문에 대한 질문목록 이 지문과 관련된 질문이 있다면 이곳에서 등록해 보세요. (예를들면, 이 지문과 관련된 문제 풀이가 궁금할 때)
지문에 사용된 특정 문장에 대한 궁금증은 해당 문장의 헬프fico쌤에 등록하는 것이 좋습니다.
등록된 질문이 없습니다.
fico 문장 분석
이 지문에 대해 AI는 다음과 같은 문장들로 구분하였습니다.
문장 구분과 분석의 정확성을 높이려면 'fico 정확성을 높이려면'을 참고하세요
list_alt해석 목록
여러 AI의 해석들을 제공해 드립니다.
inventory_2단어 목록 ● 단어 목록에 OpenVocas로 등록된 구가 있습니다.
문장에서 등장하는 단어를 fico가 대신 검색하여 제공해 드립니다. 단어를 눌러서 발음을 들어보세요.
해당 문장에서 fico AI가 설정한 난이도 이상의 단어를 찾지 못했습니다.
sticky_note_2노트 메모
학습에 필요한 나만의 메모를 남겨보세요.
tips_and_updates인덱스 핑거
현재 문장과 유사한 구조를 가지거나 보충 학습할 수 있는 예문들을 추천합니다.
원문과 유사한 fico score 및 구문 구조를 갖는 문장이 없을 경우 검색되지 않을 수 있습니다.
해당 문장에서 fico AI가 설정한 난이도 이상의 단어를 찾지 못했습니다.
듣기
상세한 구문 분석을 보고 싶은 문장을 선택하세요.
1 According to the textbook account, this question divides ancient and modern political thought. 2 In one important respect, the textbook is right. 3 Aristotle teaches that justice means giving people what they deserve. 4 And in order to determine who deserves what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. 5 Aristotle maintains that we can't figure out what a just constitution is without first reflecting on the most desirable way of life. 6 For him, law can't be neutral on questions of the good life. 7 By contrast, modern political philosophers from Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century to John Rawls in the twentieth century argue that the principles of justice that define our rights should not rest on any particular conception of virtue, or of the best way to live. 8 In-stead, a just society respects each person's freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life. 9 So you might say that ancient theories of justice start with virtue, while modern theories start with freedom. 10 And in the chapters to come, we explore the strengths and weaknesses of each. 11 But it's worth noticing at the outset that this contrast can mislead. 12 For if we turn our gaze to the arguments about justice that animate contemporary politics not among philosophers but among ordinary men and women we find a more complicated picture. 13 It's true that most of our arguments are about promoting prosperity and respecting individual freedom, at least on the surface. 14 But underlying these argu-ments, and sometimes contending with them, we can often glimpse another set of convictions-about what virtues are worthy of honor and reward, and what way of life a good society should promote. 15 Devoted though we are to prosperity and freedom, we can't quite shake off the judgmental strand of justice. 16 The conviction that justice involves virtue as well as choice runs deep. 17 Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about the best way to live.