澳洲莫纳什代写作业:模式理论家

2018-12-30 18:02

诺齐克在试图建立(2)时遇到了一个更严重的问题，因为它似乎回避了模式理论家提出的问题。因为模式理论家所否认的正是，每个人对分配给他的商品都拥有绝对的财产权。当货物在次被告之后重新分配，以纠正威尔特和他的客户造成的无模式分配时，这不是对威尔特自由的侵犯，因为他对自己的货物没有绝对权利。如果他对自己的财产没有绝对权利，那么当“他的”财产被夺走时，威尔特就不能抱怨他的自由受到了侵犯。他的自由和他的商品的愿望只是右手按他喜欢的方式去与他的货物,如果他没有绝对的权利在他的商品(这正是花纹理论家否认)然后他没有违反自由在任何情况下它是如不违反按照图案的理论。为了确立自由与任何模式理论的矛盾性，诺齐克必须对绝对财产权给予独立的支持。诺齐克确实为绝对财产权给出了独立的理由，而这些理由并不是模式理论家必须否认的。虽然模式理论家必然否认绝对财产权，但他们并不一定否认每个人都是自己身体的所有者这一原则，即自我所有权原则。即使诺齐克在这方面的尝试失败了，他也没有向模式理论者提出问题，因为否定自我所有权并不是模式理论者在威尔特·张伯伦的论点中所否认的，澳洲莫纳什代写作业:模式理论家相反，他所否认的是绝对财产权。如果自主性确实包含绝对产权，那么模式理论家就必须通过推理否定自主性，正如他们必然否定绝对产权一样。但是，你不能通过提出一个条件来回避对方的问题，这个条件必须否定对方的观点，否则所有的哲学都是在回避问题!诺齐克提供了一个新的论点模式理论家否认这一点是为了否认威尔特·张伯伦的论点。
澳洲莫纳什代写作业:模式理论家
A more serious problem for Nozick arises in trying to establish (2) because it seems to beg the question against the patterned theorist. For exactly what the patterned theorist denies is that each individual has absolute property rights over the goods that have been distributed to him. When goods are redistributed after D2 in order to correct the unpatterned distribution that Wilt and his customers caused then this is not a violation of Wilt’s liberty because he had no absolute rights over his goods. If he had no absolute rights over his goods then when ‘his’ goods are taken from him then Wilt cannot complain that his liberty has been violated. His liberty to do with his goods as he wishes is only his right to do with his goods as he pleases and if he has no absolute rights over his goods (which is exactly what the patterned theorist denies) then his liberty has not been violated under any circumstance in which it is taken e.g. not violated when in accordance with the patterned theory. In order to establish the incompatibility of liberty and any patterned theory non-question-beggingly then Nozick must give independent support for absolute property rights. Nozick does give independent reasons for absolute property rights and these are not reasons that the patterned theorist necessarily denies. Whilst the patterned theorist necessarily denies absolute property rights they don’t necessarily deny the principle that each person is the owner of their own bodies i.e. the principle of self-ownership. Even if Nozick fails in his attempt at this he has not begged the question against the patterned theorist because the denial of self-ownership is not what the patterned theorist has denied in the Wilt Chamberlain argument, rather, what he has denied are absolute property rights. If self-ownership does entail absolute property rights then the patterned theorist must, by modus tollens, deny self-ownership as they necessarily deny absolute property rights. But you don’t beg the question against an opponent by asserting a conditional that entails the denial of your opponent’s point otherwise all of philosophy would be question-begging! Rather Nozick has provided a new argument and it is for the patterned theorist to deny this in order to deny the Wilt Chamberlain argument.

• 上一篇：澳洲莫纳什代写作业:视频游戏的犯罪行为
• 下一篇：澳洲莫纳什Essay代写: 糖尿病患者