昨日阅读3h,累计 714.5 h
==================
《思想的力量:哲学导论》
452. 如果你被迫为他人的福利做贡献,那么你自己的权利就遭到了侵犯;如果你非常需要某件东西--包括那些对于保护你自身权利而言是非常关键的东西----而他人没有把它提供给你,这本身并不构成对你权利的侵犯,尽管这给他人侵犯你的权利造成了便利。
453. 社群主义者对罗尔斯的回应
罗尔斯认为,正义的社会中,个人的这种权利是收到保障的:他们可以追求自身的目标,只要这种追求不影响他人追求自身目标的权利。他认为,为了任何所谓更高的善而牺牲这一基本的个人自由权利,都是不可接受的;而且这样的善实际上根本不是善。他认为个人的自由权利比“善性”更为根本,这一观点也是自由主义者普遍认同的。
批评罗尔斯的认为:存在着这样一个普遍的善,对它的追求应当优先于个人的自由。这些人被称为“社群主义者”(communitarian)
著名的人物有:Michael Sandel(《自由主义及正义的局限》作者)
Michael Walzer(《正义诸领域》)、《厚与薄》
阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔(Alasdair MacIntyre)(最为人知的著作:《德性之后》(After Virtue,1984))
桑德尔:社群是一个主体间的、共同的自我,因为人的自我领会所包含的内容不仅仅限于纯粹的个体存在,还包含人的家庭、族群、国家、同胞。
即包含那属于整个社群的共同的目标、价值观,彼此的理解、领会。Lawlse的平等自由原则属于从属地位。
沃尔泽(对正义和非正义战争的理论表述很著名)
=================
Blockchain:
Yet, those services are still centralized because, with no input from other stakeholders, Facebook can change the rules. Millions of small businesses use and depend on Facebook for advertising. Groups that have migrated to Facebook could suddenly find their old messages, work, and ability to connect revoked—with no recourse. Facebook has become a platform others depend on but with no reciprocal agreement of dependability. This is a terrible situation for all those groups, businesses, and organizations that depend on the Facebook platform in part or on the whole.
The last decade has brought to the forefront a large number of highly distributed yet highly centralized platform companies —Facebook, Alphabet, AirBnB, Uber, and others—that provide a marketplace between peers but are also almost completely unbeholden to their users. Because of this situation,there is a growing desire for decentralized applications and services. In a decentralized system, there is no central overwhelming stakeholder with the ability to make and enforce rules without the permission of other network users.
=============
昨日阅读3h
累计 714.5 h