功利主义的

Imagine all the women of England elevated to the high level of masculine intellectuality; superior to crinoline; above pearl powder and Mrs. Rachael Levison; above taking the pains to be pretty; above making themelves agreeable; above tea-tables, and that cruelly scandalous and rather satirical gossip which even strong men delight in; and what a dreary, utilitarian, ugly life the sterner sex must lead.

请想象英国全体妇女都达到了男性理智的高水平，超越了支撑女裙的衬架的水平，超越了珍珠粉和拉契尔·莱维逊夫人②的水平；超越了煞费苦心打扮自己的水平；超越了使她们自己讨人喜欢的水平；超越了茶桌的水平，超越了连强壮的男子汉也喜欢的、残酷地诽谤人讽刺人的闲言阐语的水平；如果女性达到了这种高水平，严峻的男子汉们必将过着一种多么沉闷乏味，多么功利主义和多么丑陋邪恶的生活啊。

But if some kind of very crueI crime becomes common, and none of the criminals can be caught, it might be highly expedient, as an example, to hang an innocent man, if a charge against him could be so frame that he were universally thought guilty; indeed this would only fail to be an ideal instance of utilitarian 'punishment' because the victim himself would not have been so likely as a real felon to commit such a crime in the future ; in all other respects it would be perfectly deterrent and therefore felicific.

但是如果有些非常残忍的犯罪成为常见，并且没有一个被抓获，这是有利的，例如，吊死一个无辜的人，如果对他的指控的诬陷程度可以使普遍的人认为他有罪的；事实上，这将成为一个证明功利主义惩罚失败的例子，因为再将来，受害人自己不可能犯此种重罪；在所有的其它方面中，他是最好的威慑因此能带来最多的幸福。

To our tolerance of such a system there would indeed be some limit; but even if we were convinced that the social danger of the evasion of punishment through false pleas were overwhelming, and were forced to extend the area of strict liability, we would wittingly be choosing between two distinct principles: the utilitarian principle which justifies punishment by its propensity to protect society from harm, and a principle of justice which requires us to confine punishment to those who have broken the law and had at least some minimum capacity to comply with it.

对我们之于这样一种制度的容忍，确实有某种限度，但是，即使我们确信，通过虚假的辩解逃避惩罚的社会危险是无法抵抗的，并被迫扩大严格义务的范围，我们也会有意地在两个不同的原则中选择：通过保护社会免受损害的倾向来征明惩罚之正当性的功利主义原则，以及要求我们将惩罚只限于已违反法律并至少具有遵守法律的某种最低限度的能力的人的正义原则。

The paper focuses on the theme of nature and childhood as well as its social significance in the 19 th century British Romantic literature.The theme signifies that in a modern society dominated by mechanical civilization,humanity seems inevitably to be metamorphosed materialistically,utilitarianistically,and pragmatistically,and separated altogether from the world of freedom,kind-heartedness,grand imagination,pure curiosity and emotional intensity.

本文着重论述了英国 19世纪浪漫主义文学的自然与童心主题及其深刻的社会历史意义，认为在大机器文明主宰下的现代社会里，人性不可避免地趋向物化、实用主义和功利主义化，丧失了原本在自然状态下充分拥有的自由和善良的意志、崇高的想象力、纯真的好奇心和强烈的情感世界，使人变得封闭、迟钝和缺乏创造力，而这将导致整个人类文明的匮乏与衰退。

Starting from the right of equality, Rawls animadverts utilitarianism and substitutes it for "two principles as fairness and justice" in which rational people choose under the "original position", and thinks everyone should be equal and people should distribute wealth according to "the principle of justice as fairness", unless you have the enough reasons that can justify everyone should be unequal. He understands the distributive object as a series of public resources and systems of liberty, including the positions and offices, opportunity, natural endowment, honor, safety, freedom of life and action, freedom of thought and conscience. The aims of distributive principle of justice are to realize rational distribution of these public resources in a cooperative and well-ordered society. Starting from inalienable rights of man, Nozick thinks that everyone should be unequal, unless you have sufficient reasons that can justify everyone should be equal and without the consent of the individual, others can not infringe upon his property and rights with any excuses. He advances the justice of "holding" with a theory of qualification and entitlement, and maintains individual economic and free rights and the right of property.

罗尔斯从平等的权利出发，通过&原初状态&下的理性人自主选择&公平正义的两个原则&来取代功利主义，认为除非有充足理由证明应当不平等，否则就应当平等，并根据公平的正义原则分配公共资源和自由体系，包括职务、机会、天赋、荣誉、安全、人生行动自由、思想自由和良心自由等，&分配的正义观&就是要实现这些公共资源在一个合作且秩序良好的自由体系里的合理分配；诺齐克从人的不可剥夺的权利出发，认为除非你有充足理由证明应当平等，否则就应当不平等，没有个体的同意，任何人也不能以任何借口侵犯他的财产和权利，通过&资格&理论确立&持有&的正当性，维护个人的经济自由权利和财产权利。

How is collective action brought about? This perennial question has been approached from different angles. Structuralists insist that structure is the source of collective action, that structure gives rise to ideology which in turn determines collective action. Utilitarians maintain that only the community with shared benefits can engender collective action, and rational individuals may throw collective action into predicament. Constructionists are of the opinion that people act on the basis of the meanings derived from social construction, and that social mobilization is needed for such collective action.

结构主义者认为结构才是集体行动的本源，结构决定了意识形态从而也决定了集体行动；功利主义认为有着共同利益的群体成员才有集体行动的可能，但个人理性会令集体行动陷入困境；而建构主义则认为人们是依据意义的社会建构来采取行动的，但集体行动所需的共同意识、资源、成员都需要组织者积极动员，除了群体的意义建构在影响集体行动，行动者的理性也仍然在考察不断变化的周围世界的基础上参与行动抉择。

The split between the two groups can hardly be papered over.

这两个团体间的分歧难以掩饰。

This approach not only encourages a greater number of responses, but minimizes the likelihood of stale groupthink.

这种做法不仅鼓励了更多的反应，而且减少跟风的可能性。