Re: [討論] 班 版好冷清.....

[gooogle79 (北風亂 夜未央)]

※ 引述《gooogle79 (北風亂  夜未央)》之銘言：
: 好冷清
: 那我來發   ㄜ  算廢文嗎?
: 請問
: 你們認為行動和意圖是可分開的嗎?
: 請作答!




公佈解答(請勿噓我  我已說過會是英文的   因為老師就是用英文教得嘛!)
(I)Is intention separable from an action?
1. Both proponents of intention-sensitive ethics and irrelevance thesis are
concerned with the question of whether intention is separable from action,
and this probably due to the fact that the truth of their claims turns much
on its answer.
2. From James Rachels’ viewpoint (irrelevance thesis):
  Intention is separable from action to the extent that two persons can do
one and the same thing with different intentions.
3. From Thomas D. Sullivan’s viewpoint (intention-sensitive ethics):
  An act drained of any intention can no more be understood as an act.

  Two examples:
(1)     Jack and Jill visited their lonely grandmother who is about to make her
will with intentions to cheer her up and to gain her favor to win inclusion
in her will respectively.
(2)     A dying person is beyond hope; further treatment offers little hope and
will only increase the suffering. Dr. White withdraw the treatment intending
to alleviate the patient's suffering though knowing that this decision will
hasten death. Dr. Black does the same thing intending to let the patient die
to end his affliction.
Irrelevance thesis: The same actions with different intentions. As a result,
intention and  action are separable.
Intention-sensitive ethics: Actions described as visiting, entertaining,
cheering up, or withdrawing- are all intentional. Actions are inseparable
from intentions.
5.      Actually, whether Sullivan is right in rejecting the separability thesis
has nothing to do with Rachel’s case in which the latter has another sense
of intention and of separability thesis in mind:
Irrelevance thesis: The “intention” refers to “intended ends.(最終意圖)”
   Intention-sensitive ethics: The “intention” can be labeled as
object-choosing intention (the intention when one says one “intends” to
perform a certain action.).
6.       Is object-choosing intention inseparable from the chosen action?
(1)     In the sense that if S does A, then S cannot but have the intention to do
A, the object- choosing intention is inseparable from the intended action.
(2)     chosen action: an action after the choice; there is no intentionless
action
action to be chosen: an action before the choice

intended end迳action to be chosen迳cognitive process and recognize objective
property迳objective-choosing intention(choose)迳chosen action

(3)     However, a chosen action doesn’t necessarily turn on the object-choosing
intention if the objective factors of the chosen action and the action to be
chosen are the same. Therefore, the object-choosing intention is separable
from what the person(S) chooses to do(i.e. chosen action).
7.      Is intended end separable from the chosen action?
(1)     Doing one and the same thing does not necessarily signify one and the
same “ intended end.” In this sense, what one intends to achieve is
separable from what one does.
(2)     An example trying to prove that actions are inseparable intention:
Action A: a clinician givse the patient with significant pain 10 mg of
morphine    everyday in order to soothe his pain.
Action B: a clinician gives the patient with significant pain 5000 mg of
morphine over 15 seconds in order to kill him.
It’s not perfect to say that different intentions make the respective chosen
actions. (the reasons are shown in (II)-2 )

(II)The asymmetrical correlation between intention and action
1.“S doing X in order to bring about E.”The sentence shows that it is not
perfect to think that intended ends have nothing to do with the choice of the
appropriate chosen action. S at least has to believe that it is possible to
bring about X by doing E. In this sense, intention as intended end and action
as the means to do it correlated to each other(i.e. inseparable).
2. An asymmetrical correlation between intention and action:
While intended ends guide the potential agent to search the most appropriate
means and to do it when found, what it is the action that ontologically is
the most appropriate means to achieve the intended ends is determined by the
action’s  objective  properties rather than the action itself.
In other words, although the chosen action reveals what intended end one has
, what it is that one chooses is not determined by one’s choosing it with a
specific intended end.(也就是說，雖然行動伴隨意圖，但行動的本質並非由我們決定
，所以若說行動和意圖是不可分似乎不大合理)




--------

企圖把班版變得很學術的李政霖留

--------

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 140.112.240.178
推 o11716nq:d掉啦
噓 z3388za:樓上的2壞掉摟?
噓 o11716nq:修好了
噓 z3388za:上課太無聊...
推 Cagesong:行動與意圖當然可以分開.....Freud的潛意識就是一個實證
推 Cagesong:(當然以哲學角度來說，Freud的理論根本就不值一哂)
推 bettyworld:A真的要修嗎?????
→ gooogle79:就修阿   管他去死  省得有人整天說我要拿XX
推 o11716nq:                                        書卷
推 j630510913:誰整天說你要拿XX
→ gooogle79:樓上明知故問
推 j630510913:是誰阿是誰阿 好顥碁喔好好奇喔 快說快說
→ bettyworld:快說快說~
推 j630510913:是誰是誰  快點千呼萬喚說粗來
→ j630510913:政妹都不公布答案 到底是誰毀謗你!!! 幫你揍他
→ j630510913:還可以請政妹最甲意的李組長出來調查案情