How many think that it does succeed of arguing within utilitarian terms for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

有多少人觉得它成功地,在功利主义范畴区分了高级和低级快乐？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Who's to say, a Benthamite might argue, who is to say which of these pleasures, whose pleasures are higher, worthier, nobler than others?

边沁主义者也许会问，谁能说这些快乐中，谁的更高级，更有价值或者更高贵呢？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

He called the North a, quote, "Happy state of mediocrity, a hardy race of free, independent republicans."

他说北方是,"快乐的平庸之地,这里住着一群自由独立的共和主义者"

耶鲁公开课 - 美国内战与重建课程节选

Hedonism is a version of the neutral container theory.

快乐主义就是中性容器理论的一种。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But then, page eight, also in chapter two, he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish higher from lower pleasures.

但在第八页，即第二章中，他提出功利主义者可以区分,高级和低级快乐。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

How can a utilitarian distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures from lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones? Yes?

功利主义者何以将性质上更高级的快乐,与较低级，基本无价值的区分开呢，请说？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

In his book Utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.

在穆勒的《功利主义》中，他试图证明，与批判者所言相反,在功利主义的框架下,是能区分高级和低级快乐的。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

All right, Is there anyone who disagrees with Joe and who thinks that our experiment disproves Mill's test, shows that that's not an adequate way, that you can't distinguish higher pleasures within the utilitarian framework?

好，有没有人不同意乔,谁认为我们的实验推翻了穆勒的检验，说明它并不足以证明，在功利主义范畴内可以分辨出高级快乐？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选