“系统故障”能否可以成为一架违反日内瓦公约的机器战斗机强伤无辜市民正当的解释?
Is "system malfunction" a justifiable defence for a robotic fighter plane that contravenes the Geneva Convention and mistakenly fires on innocent civilians?
普罗泰戈拉的论点,如果加以正当的解释,并不包含着一种见解说我永远不犯错误,而只是说我错误的证据必须向我呈现出来。
The Protagorean position, rightly interpreted, does not involve the view that I never make mistakes, but only that the evidence of my mistakes must appear to me.
无论怎么解释,他的行为都不能说是正当的。
Now, is there someone who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent, can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference?
认为派克同意就属正当的,有没人能解释一下,为什么派克同意了,在道德上就有所不同呢?
应用推荐