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_2 외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2
외고2 26년 1학기 원서 1,2과_2
1-3
print
문장 선택
문장을 클릭하면 해당 문장의 구문 분석 내용을 보여줍니다.
1-3
Second, even if, all things considered, the benefits do outweigh the costs, don't we have a nagging sense that killing and eating a defenseless cabin boy is wrong for reasons that go beyond the calculation of social costs and benefits? Isn't it wrong to use a human being in this way-exploiting his vulnerability, taking his life without his consent-even if doing so benefits others? To anyone appalled by the actions of Dudley and Stephens, the first objection will seem a tepid complaint. It accepts the utilitarian assumption that morality consists in weighing costs and benefits, and simply wants a fuller reckoning of the social consequences. If the killing of the cabin boy is worthy of moral outrage, the second objection is more to the point. It rejects the idea that the right thing to do is simply a matter of calculating consequences-costs and benefits. It suggests that morality means something more-something to do with the proper way for human beings to treat one another. These two ways of thinking about the lifeboat case illustrate two rival approaches to justice. The first approach says the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered. The second approach says that consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties and rights should command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequences. In order to resolve the lifeboat case, as well as many less extreme dilemmas we commonly encounter, we need to explore some big questions of moral and political philosophy: Is morality a matter of counting lives and weighing costs and benefits, or are certain moral duties and human rights so fundamental that they rise above such calculations? And if certain rights are fundamental in this way-be they natural, or sacred, or inalienable, or categorical-how can we identity them? And what makes them fundamental?
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 Second, even if, all things considered, the benefits do outweigh the costs, don't we have a nagging sense that killing and eating a defenseless cabin boy is wrong for reasons that go beyond the calculation of social costs and benefits? 2 Isn't it wrong to use a human being in this way-exploiting his vulnerability, taking his life without his consent-even if doing so benefits others? 3 To anyone appalled by the actions of Dudley and Stephens, the first objection will seem a tepid complaint. 4 It accepts the utilitarian assumption that morality consists in weighing costs and benefits, and simply wants a fuller reckoning of the social consequences. 5 If the killing of the cabin boy is worthy of moral outrage, the second objection is more to the point. 6 It rejects the idea that the right thing to do is simply a matter of calculating consequences-costs and benefits. 7 It suggests that morality means something more-something to do with the proper way for human beings to treat one another. 8 These two ways of thinking about the lifeboat case illustrate two rival approaches to justice. 9 The first approach says the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered. 10 The second approach says that consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties and rights should command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequences. 11 In order to resolve the lifeboat case, as well as many less extreme dilemmas we commonly encounter, we need to explore some big questions of moral and political philosophy: Is morality a matter of counting lives and weighing costs and benefits, or are certain moral duties and human rights so fundamental that they rise above such calculations? 12 And if certain rights are fundamental in this way-be they natural, or sacred, or inalienable, or categorical-how can we identity them? 13 And what makes them fundamental?