Since ethics is not an optional theme or an area of knowledge itself, the divisions of Scope, Perspectives, Methods and tools and Ethics are themselves not fully applicable here and are not used as headings in the online ‘Introduction to Ethical Theory’ that accompanies the student book. In this teacher’s resource, however, they will be used as they might have been used, in the hope that this will help teachers navigate through their treatment of ethical knowledge. The student resource on ethics is not designed to give a full TOK treatment of ethical knowledge but it is an attempt to develop some preliminary concepts that can then be used to unpack ethical considerations of the optional themes and the areas of knowledge. 由于伦理学本身并非可选主题或独立的知识领域，因此在随学生用书配套的在线版《伦理理论导论》中，并未完全采用"范围、观点、方法与工具、伦理"的划分框架，也未将其作为章节标题。但在本教师资源中，我们仍沿用这一框架结构，以期帮助教师系统梳理伦理知识体系。学生用伦理资源并非旨在对伦理知识进行全面 TOK 式探讨，而是尝试构建若干基础概念，用以解析后续可选主题及各知识领域涉及的伦理议题。
In previous iterations of the course, the fact that ethics was optional meant that it was possible for students to work their way through the TOK course without ever having to deal directly with ethics as a type of knowledge or explore the ethical consequences of knowledge in the AOKs. This has been changed. Because ethics now is part of the knowledge framework in every AOK and optional theme, it is expected that students will engage with it on a regular basis and might be explicitly asked about ethical issues relating to the AOKs in the titles for the essay on a prescribed title. If this element is not discussed in the context of your teaching, it may result in a genuine disadvantage if one of the prescribed titles asks the student to explore ethics: they will have fewer real choices if they have not studied it in class. They can, of course, choose any title they wish, but they place before themselves a much greater challenge if they have to work through some of the ethical issues without ever practising them in class. 在本课程的前期版本中，由于伦理模块属于选修内容，学生有可能在完成整个知识论课程时，既无需直接处理作为知识类型的伦理学，也无需探究各知识领域中的伦理后果。这一情况现已改变。鉴于伦理学现已成为每个知识领域和选修主题中知识框架的组成部分，学生需要定期接触相关内容，并可能在指定论文题目中被明确要求探讨与知识领域相关的伦理问题。若教学中未涉及该要素，当指定题目要求学生探讨伦理议题时，这将成为实质性的劣势：未在课堂学习该内容的学生将面临更少的选择空间。当然，学生仍可自由选择任何题目，但若需在未经课堂训练的情况下处理某些伦理议题，他们将为自己设置更大的挑战。
TOK TRAP 知识论陷阱
In the ‘Introduction to Ethical Theory’ that accompanies the student book we take a fair bit of time to highlight a trap that many students (and teachers) fall into, namely mistaking the solving of an ethical dilemma with TOK second-order analysis. Teachers should take real care in their management of ethical discussions because very often the discussion becomes focused on what the right solution to the dilemma is, rather than a second-order analysis of how the principles used in such a solution are constructed. 在随学生用书附赠的《伦理理论导论》中，我们花费了大量篇幅来警示学生（及教师）常陷入的一个误区——将解决伦理困境与知识论二阶分析混为一谈。教师必须谨慎引导伦理讨论，因为这类讨论往往聚焦于"如何正确解决困境"，而非对解决方案所依据原则构建过程的二阶分析。
Scope 范畴
Ethical knowledge represents quite a different sort of knowledge in the world and it is not entirely clear just how to treat it in relation to other established approaches to constructing knowledge. Ethical knowledge, however it relates to other forms of knowledge, clearly is about two things: 伦理知识代表着世界上一种独特的知识形态，我们尚不完全清楚应如何将其与其他既有的知识构建方法相关联。但无论伦理知识与其他知识形式存在何种联系，它显然涉及两个核心维度：
ethical claims provide claims about value, ie, what is ‘good’ or ‘right’ 伦理主张提出了关于价值的论断，即何为"善"或"正当"
ethical claims provide guidance for our behaviour. 道德主张为我们的行为提供指引。
In terms of value, we are not referring to monetary value; we mean judgments about the goodness or rightness of actions. Saying something is ‘good’ is to say that it should be done, that there is something about the action that somehow obligates us to do that action. But the way in which this obligates us is not like how social convention or laws obligate us, because we can also understand clearly that a law might be an ethically good or bad law. Even if we are obligated by law to do certain things (such as not allow certain people to vote or require possible voters to prove eligibility), we might still ask, ‘is it ethically right to follow this law?’ The obligations imposed by ethical claims are therefore distinct from the obligations imposed by law. 在价值层面，我们并非指金钱价值；而是指对行为善恶或正当性的判断。称某事物为"善"，即意味着应当践行该行为，该行为具有某种使我们负有践行义务的特质。但这种义务的约束方式不同于社会习俗或法律的强制，因为我们同样能清晰认识到，一项法律在道德上可能是良法或恶法。即便法律强制我们履行某些行为（如禁止特定人群投票或要求潜在选民证明资格），我们仍可追问："遵守此法在道德上是否正确？"因此，道德主张所施加的义务有别于法律规定的义务。
Ethics and morality 伦理与道德
One thing to guide our understanding of ethics might be to unpack the differences between ethics and morality. In common usage they are often treated interchangeably. The word ‘morality’ derives from the Latin word mos, meaning habit or custom. The Latin is a translation of the Greek word ethos (from where we get ‘ethics’) meaning roughly the same thing. Etymologically, then, there seems to be little difference between the two. 理解伦理的一个切入点或许是厘清伦理（ethics）与道德（morality）的差异。在日常使用中，这两个词常被混为一谈。"道德"一词源自拉丁语 mos，意为习惯或习俗；而该拉丁词又是对希腊语 ethos（即"伦理"的词源）的翻译，两者含义大致相同。从词源学来看，二者似乎并无本质区别。
Traditionally, however, ‘morality’ has tended to refer to the specific values and customs of a particular community. It is these mores (‘MOR-ays’) that we are meant to be sensitive towards when we travel around the world and engage with communities and cultures different from our own, and which are sometimes codified in local laws. For example, it might create awkwardness to invade another’s intimate space in Japan by indiscriminate hugging. The social mores or habits are generally articulated by cultures in clear rules or prohibitions. 然而传统上，"道德"往往指向特定社群的价值观与习俗规范。当我们周游世界、接触异质文化时，需要敏锐感知的正是这些习俗（mores），它们有时会被编入地方法律。例如在日本，随意拥抱侵入他人亲密距离可能引发尴尬。这类社会习俗通常以明确的规则或禁忌形式存在于文化体系中。
‘Ethics’ on the other hand tends to refer to rational principles and general values about what would make particular actions right and wrong. Ethics is about theories which provide rational agents the ability to make decisions in real time and generally take the form of abstract systems of value, rather than specific admonitions. Consider the discussion of ethical principles in Chapter 2 and in the Ethics section of Chapter 6 of the student book. There we meet principles like, ‘maximize the greatest good’ or ‘act in accordance with virtue’. These principles are rational in the sense that they are accessible by any rational being, and defensible, in the sense that they are developed through argument and reason. They might, at their origin, be related to emotional or intuitive principles (‘feelings of pleasure are good’ for instance), but the theory is built up through appeal to rational argument and analysis. These principles then become universal decision-making tools for the individual when faced with the prospect of having to make decisions about how to behave in the world. 另一方面，“伦理”往往指代关于何种行为正确或错误的理性原则与普遍价值观。伦理关乎为理性主体提供实时决策能力的理论体系，通常表现为抽象的价值系统，而非具体的行为规训。可参阅学生用书第二章及第六章"伦理"章节中关于伦理原则的讨论，其中涉及"实现最大善"或"依德性而行"等原则。这些原则具有理性特质——任何理性存在都能理解，且经得起推敲——因其通过论证与推理形成。虽然这些原则最初可能与情感或直觉相关（例如"愉悦感即善"），但理论构建过程完全依托理性论证与分析。当个体面临行为抉择时，这些原则便成为普适的决策工具。
A TOK treatment of ‘ethical’ knowledge will most likely focus on this notion of a rationally defensible theoretical understanding of what makes actions right or wrong, rather than a discussion of social mores. This is because theories are generally justified and analysed against rational principles rather than social mores, which are primarily about behavioural norms and are established through other principles like customs, environmental context, history and circumstance. This is not to say that there is little feedback between social norms and ethical theory. Ethical theories articulating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy for instance, have been heavily influenced by the strengthening of women’s social status. There can be a lot of good TOK analysis in the exploration of how social norms have influenced the creation of ethical theory (and any other theory in AOKs_("for that matter). ")\mathrm{AOKs}_{\text {for that matter). }} 知识论对"伦理"知识的探讨很可能会聚焦于对行为对错本质的理性辩护式理论理解，而非社会习俗的讨论。这是因为理论通常依据理性原则而非社会习俗来论证分析——后者主要关乎行为规范，并通过风俗习惯、环境背景、历史情境等其他原则确立。但这并非否认社会规范与伦理理论之间存在互动反馈。例如阐述女性身体自主权的伦理理论，就深受女性社会地位提升的影响。在探究社会规范如何影响伦理理论（及任何其他理论）形成方面，知识论可提供大量有价值的分析。
Please note the words of caution here. Harris says nothing obviously offensive, but he does use contentious and sensitive examples (Muslim women in burqas) that may need some careful treatment. 请注意此处的谨慎措辞。哈里斯虽未发表明显冒犯性言论，但他使用了颇具争议的敏感案例（穿罩袍的穆斯林女性），可能需要审慎处理。
Science and ethics 科学与伦理
One general type of question that cuts right to the heart of the scope of ethical knowledge has to do with its relationship to scientific knowledge. Since the Enlightenment, scientific knowledge has really become the basic paradigm for what knowledge can be. The precision of its claims, the clarity of its method and the success of its use are all good reasons to sing its praises. However, the success of science and its basic assumptions about the role of observation and measurement have put other forms of knowledge under strain, particularly in terms of ethical knowledge. It is not at all clear just what is being explained or described through the use of claims like ‘capital punishment is wrong’ or ‘charity is good’. Whereas science certainly focuses on phenomenon that can be observed, or (as in the case of atoms or nano-particles) have some influence on the world which can be measured, ethical theories appear to deal with ideas and concepts that are not measurable in any way. 有一种直指伦理知识核心范畴的普遍性问题，关乎其与科学知识的关系。自启蒙运动以来，科学知识确实已成为认知范式的基准。其论断的精确性、方法的明晰性以及应用的成功性，都值得称道。然而科学的成功及其对观察与测量作用的基本假设，使其他知识形式——尤其是伦理知识——承受着巨大压力。诸如"死刑是错误的"或"慈善是善举"这类论断究竟在解释或描述什么，至今仍无定论。科学无疑聚焦于可观测现象（或如原子、纳米粒子般对世界产生可测量影响的存在），而伦理理论处理的却是完全无法量化的理念与概念。
We will explore some knowledge questions around the notion of ‘moral facts’ and whether they are real things in the world later, but for now we might offer one solution to the nature of ethical claims, by suggesting that, really, they are just a different sort of scientific claim. 稍后我们将围绕"道德事实"的概念及其是否真实存在于世展开探讨，但此刻不妨提出一种关于伦理主张本质的解决方案——它们或许只是另一种形式的科学论断。
The lesson below might be helpful to explore the relationship between science and ethics. 以下课程可能有助于探究科学与伦理学之间的关系。
LESSON PLAN: CAN SCIENCE PROVIDE ETHICAL GUIDANCE? 教案：科学能否提供伦理指导？
Introduction 引言
This lesson will provide students the opportunity to explore the extent to which ethical claims about what is right or wrong might be grounded in natural truths about human ‘flourishing’ and the consequences of this in terms of making moral judgments and the notion of ‘moral experts’. 本课程将让学生有机会探讨：关于是非对错的伦理主张在多大程度上可以基于人类"繁荣"的自然真理，以及这种关联性对道德判断和"道德专家"概念的影响。
The lesson is based around a TED talk by Sam Harris, a philosopher and neuroscientist, which can be watched using the QR code in the margin. 课程围绕哲学家兼神经科学家山姆·哈里斯（Sam Harris）的 TED 演讲展开，可通过页边二维码观看。
The lesson should be considered in two parts: 本课程应分为两部分进行思考：
the first part exploring the argument that ethical value can be tied to a notion of human flourishing 第一部分探讨伦理价值可与人类繁荣概念相关联的论点
the second part exploring applications of these concepts in various domains. 第二部分探索这些概念在不同领域的应用实践
We suggest stopping the video and discussing the first part carefully and thoroughly before moving on to the second part (if at all). At the beginning of the second part, Harris starts his application with a very evocative image of women in the full burqa in what looks like Afghanistan under the Taliban. If you don’t stop before that to discuss the ideas Harris is actually defending, this image and his clear antipathy towards Islam (and religion more generally) will derail the discussions: students will only want to talk about his position on Islam or his use of the example of women in the burqa, and not on the idea that ethical values can be grounded in an understanding of human flourishing. 建议暂停视频，在进入第二部分（如果有的话）之前，先仔细深入地讨论第一部分内容。在第二部分开头，哈里斯用了一个极具冲击力的画面展开论述——塔利班统治下的阿富汗地区身着罩袍的妇女形象。若不在观看此处前停下来探讨哈里斯真正捍卫的观点，这个画面以及他对伊斯兰教（乃至更广泛意义上的宗教）的明显反感将使讨论偏离轨道：学生们只会想谈论他对伊斯兰教的立场或使用罩袍妇女例证的方式，而非关于伦理价值观可根植于对人类繁荣理解这一核心观点。
You must watch the whole video to decide the best way to manage this activity for your context and for your students. 您需要完整观看视频，才能根据具体教学情境和学生特点，决定如何最佳安排这项课堂活动。
Because there is not a single section on ethics, these have been drawn from different sections of the subject guide. 由于伦理学内容并非集中呈现，这些知识点是从学科指南的不同章节中提取整合的。
Perhaps bringing to mind Hume’s ‘Is/ Ought’ distinction (discussed in more detail in the sample answer later in this document). 这或许会让人联想到休谟提出的"实然/应然"区分（本文档后附的参考答案部分会有更详细讨论）。
These are helpful exercises to bring out initial thoughts - best practice would be to revisit them after the learning to see how students’ thoughts have changed or developed. 这些练习有助于激发初步思考——最佳实践是在学习后重新审视它们，观察学生的想法如何变化或发展。
Aims 目标
Students will: 学生将：
understand the possible distinction between ‘scientific fact’ and ‘ethical value’ 理解"科学事实"与"伦理价值"之间可能存在的区别
understand one argument that the distinction is an ‘illusion’ 理解"这种区分是一种'错觉'"的论点
understand that ‘expertise’ is a concept that can be applied to ‘ethical knowledge’ 理解"'专业知识'这一概念可应用于'伦理知识'"
be able to critically evaluate Harris’ own position. 能够批判性地评估哈里斯的立场
Objectives 学习目标
Students will be able to: 学生将能够：
prepare a preliminary argument about whether there can be a science of ethics 初步论证伦理学是否可能成为一门科学
listen to and watch a TED talk by Harris 观看并聆听哈里斯（Harris）的 TED 演讲
discuss the video using guiding questions. 通过引导性问题讨论该视频内容
Knowledge questions from the TOK subject guide TOK 学科指南中的知识问题
In what ways do moral judgments differ from other kinds of judgments? (Knowledge and the Knower) 道德判断与其他类型的判断在哪些方面存在差异？（知识与认知者）
Can moral disagreements be resolved with reference to empirical evidence? (Knowledge and the Knower) 道德分歧能否通过经验证据来解决？（知识与认知者）
Is there such a thing as a moral fact? (Knowledge and the Knower) 是否存在所谓的道德事实？（知识与认知者）
Do/how do established values change in the face of new knowledge? (Knowledge and the Knower) 既有价值观如何/会在新知识面前发生改变？（知识与认知者）
If moral claims conflict, does it follow that all views are equally acceptable? (Knowledge and the Knower) 如果道德主张相互冲突，是否意味着所有观点都同样可接受？（知识与认知者）
What role do religious leaders and authority figures play in influencing ethical debates? (Religious Knowledge Systems) 宗教领袖和权威人物在影响伦理辩论中扮演什么角色？（宗教知识体系）
Is science, or should it be, value free? (The Natural Sciences) 科学是否（或应当）价值中立？（自然科学）
Do we tend to exaggerate the objectivity of scientific facts and the subjectivity of moral values? (The Natural Sciences) 我们是否倾向于夸大科学事实的客观性与道德价值的主观性？（自然科学）
Do human rights exist in the same way that the laws of gravity exist? (The Natural Sciences). 人权是否像万有引力定律那样真实存在？（自然科学）
Relevant course concepts 相关课程概念
Explanation, justification and objectivity. 解释、论证与客观性
Prior learning 前置知识
It might be useful to introduce or review the position that Harris is challenging - that science and ethics represent different domains and/or that there is a sharp distinction between facts (science) and values (ethics). 介绍或回顾哈里斯所挑战的观点可能很有帮助——即科学与伦理代表不同领域，和/或事实（科学）与价值（伦理）之间存在明显区别。
Required resources 所需资源
Equipment to watch video (whiteboard and projection). 观看视频的设备（白板和投影仪）。
You can use the QR code on the left to view some discussion notes that accompany the video. 您可以用左侧的二维码查看视频配套的讨论笔记。
Activities 课堂活动
Opening questions: 开场问题：
1 Three-minute essay: independently, students write for three minutes on the following title: Do you think there can be a science of Ethics? Why or why not? 1 三分钟短文：学生独立就以下题目写作三分钟——你认为伦理学能成为一门科学吗？为什么？
Encourage students to develop an argument as opposed to guesses and speculation. They need to be offering reasons for their answers (their answer is less important than their reasons): ‘Yes, because …’ or ‘No, because …’ 鼓励学生提出有依据的论点，而非猜测和臆断。他们需要为自己的答案提供理由（理由比答案本身更重要）：“是的，因为……”或“不是，因为……”
2 Share to identify main positions. The video’s argument then can serve as a foil to the students’ own arguments. How does Harris’ argument relate to their own? 分享观点以识别主要立场。视频中的论点可以与学生自己的论点形成对照。哈里斯的论点与他们自己的有何关联？
Splitting the video in half is a good way to make sure that the principles being discussed are understood before more contentious material is discussed. 将视频分成两部分是确保在讨论更具争议性的内容前，学生已理解所讨论原则的有效方法。
This first half of the video is easily an hour’s lesson. 仅视频前半部分的内容就足以支撑一小时的课程。
More teacher guidance is needed for the second half of the talk. 演讲后半部分需要更多教师引导。
3 Watch the Harris video up to 10:00 (up to before the slide of the women in their burqas). Assign the following guiding questions to different groups before the video begins. They will report back afterwards. (You might write these out on cards and have students pick a card). 3 观看哈里斯视频至 10:00 处（即出现罩袍女性幻灯片之前）。在视频开始前为不同小组分配以下引导性问题，观后汇报。（可将问题写在卡片上让学生抽取）
What is the illusion Harris is challenging? 哈里斯挑战的错觉是什么？
Harris says, ‘There’s no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I’ve ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes.’ What does he mean by this? 哈里斯说："我从未见过任何人类道德和价值观的概念或版本，在某个层面上不能归结为对意识体验及其可能变化的关注。"他这句话想表达什么？
Harris argues that there are objective facts about human flourishing: ‘There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths.’ What does he mean by this? 哈里斯认为人类繁荣存在客观事实："关于人类社会如何繁荣的真理是存在的，无论我们是否理解这些真理。"他这句话想表达什么？
Harris develops a comparison with the concept of ‘health’ and ‘healthy food’. What is that comparison? What is that comparison meant to point out? 哈里斯将这一概念与"健康"和"健康食品"进行类比。这个类比是什么？这个类比旨在说明什么？
Harris says, ‘Notice that the fact that the concept of health is open, genuinely open for revision, does not make it vacuous.’ What is the point he is making about morality? 哈里斯指出："请注意，健康这个概念具有开放性，真正开放接受修正，但这并不使其变得空洞。"他关于道德的观点是什么？
Harris suggests that one myth people believe is, ‘if it’s really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie, and if you can find an exception, well then there’s no such thing as moral truth. Why would we think this?’ What is his response to this worry? 哈里斯提出，人们存在一个认知误区："如果说撒谎真的错误，那么撒谎在任何情况下都必须是错误的；如果你能找到例外情况，那就说明不存在道德真理。我们为什么会这样想？"他对这种担忧作出了怎样的回应？
What are the strengths of his argument so far? 目前为止，他的论点有哪些优势？
What are the weaknesses of his argument so far? 目前为止，他的论点存在哪些不足？
Have the thoughts you captured in your three-minute essay at the start of the lesson changed at all? If so, how? 你在课程开始时三分钟短文练习中记录的想法是否有所改变？如果有，是怎样的改变？
4 Give the students some time in their groups to prepare their response and then to discuss in plenary. 4 给学生们一些时间在小组内准备回答，然后进行全体讨论。
This first half of the lesson (the three-minute essay, video, think, share, discuss) can easily fill an hour’s lesson. 课程的前半部分（三分钟短文、视频、思考、分享、讨论）可以轻松填满一小时的课时。
5 The class participates in a close listen of the second half of the talk. One option is to listen to the second half all the way through once, then return to the midpoint and start and stop the video and discuss the various sections one by one. You might use the notes to help identify some key points. 5 全班参与对演讲后半部分的精听。一种方式是先完整听一遍后半部分，然后回到中点位置，分段播放视频并逐一讨论各个部分。可以使用笔记辅助识别关键要点。
Some guiding questions: 一些引导性问题：
a What are the principles that Harris is articulating here? a 哈里斯在此阐述的原则是什么？
b How effective are the use of his examples in illustrating those principles? b 他使用的例子在阐释这些原则时效果如何？
c How does he ground his belief that the notion of ‘moral expert’ is as useful as the notion of ‘expert’ in other AOKs (like physics)? c 他如何证明"道德专家"这一概念与其他知识领域（如物理学）中的"专家"概念同样有用的信念？
d If Harris is right about our reluctance to offer moral judgment of other cultural practices, where do you think that reluctance comes from? d 如果哈里斯关于我们不愿对其他文化习俗进行道德评判的看法是正确的，你认为这种不情愿源于何处？
e How convincing do you find this argument about moral or ethical experts? e 你觉得这个关于道德或伦理专家的论点有多大的说服力？
f How might Harris’ use of language, and the ways in which he frames the discussion, suggest other beliefs of his that might be shaping his overall approach (this question is about analysing how he goes about making the argument rather than just the argument itself). 哈里斯运用的语言及其构建讨论框架的方式，可能暗示了哪些其他信念正在塑造他的整体研究路径？（本题旨在分析他如何展开论证，而非论证内容本身）
6 Here we suggest that you run a class discussion because the students are likely to lose sight of the central principle that Harris is articulating and defending. Students are often too focused on the examples that Harris uses to illustrate the principles, rather 6 我们建议在此开展课堂讨论，因为学生容易忽视哈里斯所阐述与捍卫的核心原则。学生们往往过度关注哈里斯用于说明原则的案例
than the principles themselves (this is not to suggest that considering examples is not part of the process by which we reflect on principles). In your management, encourage the students to continually ask ‘what point is this example meant to illustrate?’ 而非原则本身（这并非否定案例思考在原则反思过程中的作用）。在引导讨论时，应鼓励学生不断追问"这个案例旨在说明什么观点？"
The discussion in the second half focuses largely on two points: that our assumptions about the relativity of ethical values, leads us to a reluctance for offering moral judgments of others’ practices and behaviours and that this implies an ‘anything goes’ sort of approach to ethics. Harris argues both are mistaken and conflict with the types of discussions around moral behaviours that we do, in fact, have. 后半部分的讨论主要聚焦两点：我们关于伦理价值相对性的假设导致不愿对他人的实践行为作出道德评判；这暗示着某种"放任自流"的伦理观。哈里斯认为这两种观点都是错误的，且与我们实际进行的道德行为讨论相矛盾。
His conclusions are basically: 他的结论基本可以概括为：
that science can tell us what promotes human flourishing (first half) 科学能告诉我们什么能促进人类繁荣（前半部分）
concepts of right and wrong should be tied to those scientific facts (first half) 是非观念应当与这些科学事实相关联（前半部分）
the concept of ‘expert’ is still useful in the context of ethical principles - some people have more expertise when it comes to making claims about what sorts of actions promote human flourishing 在伦理原则的语境下，"专家"概念依然有效——当涉及判断哪些行为能促进人类繁荣时，某些人确实具备更专业的见解
knowing what we know about human flourishing and suffering, and knowing that we value human flourishing, means we should be challenging cultural practices (from all cultures) that limit human flourishing (and this is something we already recognize in terms of female body-image). 基于我们对人类繁荣与苦难的认知，以及我们珍视人类繁荣的价值观，意味着我们应当质疑那些限制人类繁荣的文化习俗（无论来自何种文化）——这一点在女性身体形象问题上已得到普遍认同。
Harris’ strategy, however, is to illustrate his point by use of others’ cultural practices, specifically women wearing the full burqa in areas under the control of the Taliban. His judgment of this practice can make some people uncomfortable for two reasons: first, because it is sometimes assumed that other cultural practices are off-limits when it comes to moral judgment, and second, because it is sometimes assumed that there are no objective grounds upon which to stand to say that one view is better or worse than another. 然而，哈里斯的论证策略是通过引用其他文化习俗（特别是塔利班控制地区女性穿戴罩袍的习俗）来阐明观点。他对此习俗的评判可能引发双重不适：首先，人们常认为其他文化习俗应免受道德评判；其次，人们常假定不存在客观标准能断言某种观念优于另一种。
In many cases, the choice of example (Muslim women in the burqa) becomes the focus of the discussion rather than the principles which the example is meant to represent. (Indeed, this is seen in the very first question Chris Anderson (the head of TED) asks in the short Q&A at the end.) If your class has fully discussed the first half of the talk and embedded that argument, then the second half is less likely to get derailed. Students (and teachers) need not agree with Harris’ principles but knowing what those principles are (that science can tell us what promotes human flourishing and that concepts of right and wrong should be tied to those scientific facts), can help navigate the difficult waters of the second half. 在许多情况下，讨论焦点往往会偏离事例本应体现的原则，而转向事例本身的选择（如穿着罩袍的穆斯林女性）。（这一点在 TED 负责人克里斯·安德森于结尾简短问答环节提出的首个问题中就有所体现。）如果课堂已充分讨论过演讲前半部分并理解其核心论点，后半部分的讨论就不容易偏离轨道。学生（及教师）无需认同哈里斯的观点原则，但明确这些原则的内容（即科学能揭示促进人类繁荣的要素，且善恶概念应与这些科学事实相关联），将有助于驾驭后半段讨论中的复杂议题。
Follow up 延伸活动
As a follow-up activity, students could do some or all of the following: 作为后续拓展，学生可选择完成以下部分或全部任务：
Build on the three-minute essay starter activity by developing it into a full essay. 将三分钟短文开篇练习扩展成完整文章。
With a partner, create a job advertisement for the following (these are purposefully vague): ‘An expert in science’ and ‘An expert in ethics’. What sorts of things would you expect applicants for these positions to have? Would they have certain training or education? Would they have experience and what sorts of things would you expect to see to demonstrate such experience? Would they be comparable to real people who may already have such experience? Would they be a certain age? Would they be from (or not be from) a particular background or already have a particular job? What would those transferable skills be? How similar or dissimilar do you think the job descriptions would be across different AOKs? 与搭档合作，为以下两个模糊职位撰写招聘广告："科学专家"和"伦理专家"。你认为这些职位的申请人应具备哪些条件？他们是否需要特定培训或教育背景？需要哪些经验来证明其资质？这些要求是否与现实中有类似经验的人相当？是否有年龄限制？是否需要（或不需要）特定背景或现有职业？哪些是可迁移技能？你认为不同知识领域（AOKs）的职位描述会有多大差异？
Pressure presentation: over the course of one lesson, prepare a short presentation where a student and their partner answer the question: ‘Can there be a science of ethics?’ 限时演讲：在一节课的时间内，与搭档共同准备简短演讲，回答"伦理学能否成为一门科学？"这个问题。
Perspectives 多元视角
In the ‘Introduction to Ethical Theory’ for students we offer a discussion of three ‘normative’ ethical theories that have been developed in order to help solve ethical dilemmas or to guide ethical decision-making. The theories are called ‘normative’ theories because they offer ‘laws’ to follow (Greek nomos for ‘law’ and Latin norma for ‘rule’ or ‘precept’, also referring to a carpenter’s square). They are offered there as a way of promoting understanding of the nature of constructing and using ethical principles, but teachers must remember that the practice of applying the theories to a concrete situation in order to make the choice is first-order ethics. The second-order point to explore is not a solution to a dilemma but the nature of theory itself, its assumptions, its use of various sources of knowledge, and its reliability. 在面向学生的《伦理学理论导论》课程中，我们探讨了三种为解决伦理困境或指导伦理决策而发展的"规范性"伦理理论。这些理论之所以被称为"规范性"理论，是因为它们提供了可遵循的"法则"（希腊语 nomos 意为"法律"，拉丁语 norma 意为"规则"或"戒律"，亦指木匠的直角尺）。这些理论的引入旨在促进对构建和运用伦理原则本质的理解，但教师必须牢记：将理论应用于具体情境以做出选择的过程，才是真正的一阶伦理实践。需要探讨的二阶问题并非困境的解决方案，而是理论本身的本质——其基本假设、对不同知识来源的运用方式及其可靠性。
Normative theory 规范性理论
Some (but not all) TOK points worth exploring 值得探讨的部分（非全部）TOK 知识点
- Origins are in the basic principle that pleasure is good (emotions)
- Calculation/mathematical reason is used heavily in the counting up of pleasure (reason)
- Assumptions:
- that happiness/pleasure is the sort of thing that can be measured (but by what? Science?)
◻\square that consequences of actions have predictable outcomes (eg, use of thalidomide)
- that future happiness can be predicted (science?)
- Ends justifying the means can be used in all sorts of ways by whomever is doing the measuring (eg, Tuskegee Syphilis experiments):
- is this a way of maintaining majority power structures?
- who decides whose happiness is measured?
- Origins are in the basic principle that pleasure is good (emotions)
- Calculation/mathematical reason is used heavily in the counting up of pleasure (reason)
- Assumptions:
- that happiness/pleasure is the sort of thing that can be measured (but by what? Science?)
◻ that consequences of actions have predictable outcomes (eg, use of thalidomide)
- that future happiness can be predicted (science?)
- Ends justifying the means can be used in all sorts of ways by whomever is doing the measuring (eg, Tuskegee Syphilis experiments):
- is this a way of maintaining majority power structures?
- who decides whose happiness is measured?| - Origins are in the basic principle that pleasure is good (emotions) |
| :--- |
| - Calculation/mathematical reason is used heavily in the counting up of pleasure (reason) |
| - Assumptions: |
| - that happiness/pleasure is the sort of thing that can be measured (but by what? Science?) |
| $\square$ that consequences of actions have predictable outcomes (eg, use of thalidomide) |
| - that future happiness can be predicted (science?) |
| - Ends justifying the means can be used in all sorts of ways by whomever is doing the measuring (eg, Tuskegee Syphilis experiments): |
| - is this a way of maintaining majority power structures? |
| - who decides whose happiness is measured? |
- Developed as an attempt to avoid the use of emotions in moral thinking
- Prioritizes the role of reason in identifying moral rules and duties
- Prioritizes the individual as an autonomous rational being and assumes people will make rational choices
- Assumes that 'rational' and 'reasonable' are universal. Do different people or cultures necessarily see the same things as 'rational'?
- Might be a challenge to use in real-life situations where the rule needing to be followed, or the duty to be fulfilled, is not clear. Does this form of knowledge help guide us in the real world?
- Developed as an attempt to avoid the use of emotions in moral thinking
- Prioritizes the role of reason in identifying moral rules and duties
- Prioritizes the individual as an autonomous rational being and assumes people will make rational choices
- Assumes that 'rational' and 'reasonable' are universal. Do different people or cultures necessarily see the same things as 'rational'?
- Might be a challenge to use in real-life situations where the rule needing to be followed, or the duty to be fulfilled, is not clear. Does this form of knowledge help guide us in the real world?| - Developed as an attempt to avoid the use of emotions in moral thinking |
| :--- |
| - Prioritizes the role of reason in identifying moral rules and duties |
| - Prioritizes the individual as an autonomous rational being and assumes people will make rational choices |
| - Assumes that 'rational' and 'reasonable' are universal. Do different people or cultures necessarily see the same things as 'rational'? |
| - Might be a challenge to use in real-life situations where the rule needing to be followed, or the duty to be fulfilled, is not clear. Does this form of knowledge help guide us in the real world? |
- Shifts focus on to the 'character' of the individual
- Prioritizes reason to identify the types of virtues that an individual should be enacting
- Assumes that virtues or 'virtuous' behaviour is equally recognizable across cultures: would everyone accept one culture's virtues as their own?
- Does virtue ethics avoid making any claims about the world, and if so, how useful is it as a form of knowing?
- Shifts focus on to the 'character' of the individual
- Prioritizes reason to identify the types of virtues that an individual should be enacting
- Assumes that virtues or 'virtuous' behaviour is equally recognizable across cultures: would everyone accept one culture's virtues as their own?
- Does virtue ethics avoid making any claims about the world, and if so, how useful is it as a form of knowing?| - Shifts focus on to the 'character' of the individual |
| :--- |
| - Prioritizes reason to identify the types of virtues that an individual should be enacting |
| - Assumes that virtues or 'virtuous' behaviour is equally recognizable across cultures: would everyone accept one culture's virtues as their own? |
| - Does virtue ethics avoid making any claims about the world, and if so, how useful is it as a form of knowing? |
Normative theory Some (but not all) TOK points worth exploring
Consequentialism "- Origins are in the basic principle that pleasure is good (emotions)
- Calculation/mathematical reason is used heavily in the counting up of pleasure (reason)
- Assumptions:
- that happiness/pleasure is the sort of thing that can be measured (but by what? Science?)
◻ that consequences of actions have predictable outcomes (eg, use of thalidomide)
- that future happiness can be predicted (science?)
- Ends justifying the means can be used in all sorts of ways by whomever is doing the measuring (eg, Tuskegee Syphilis experiments):
- is this a way of maintaining majority power structures?
- who decides whose happiness is measured?"
Deontology "- Developed as an attempt to avoid the use of emotions in moral thinking
- Prioritizes the role of reason in identifying moral rules and duties
- Prioritizes the individual as an autonomous rational being and assumes people will make rational choices
- Assumes that 'rational' and 'reasonable' are universal. Do different people or cultures necessarily see the same things as 'rational'?
- Might be a challenge to use in real-life situations where the rule needing to be followed, or the duty to be fulfilled, is not clear. Does this form of knowledge help guide us in the real world?"
Virtue ethics "- Shifts focus on to the 'character' of the individual
- Prioritizes reason to identify the types of virtues that an individual should be enacting
- Assumes that virtues or 'virtuous' behaviour is equally recognizable across cultures: would everyone accept one culture's virtues as their own?
- Does virtue ethics avoid making any claims about the world, and if so, how useful is it as a form of knowing?"| Normative theory | Some (but not all) TOK points worth exploring |
| :--- | :--- |
| Consequentialism | - Origins are in the basic principle that pleasure is good (emotions) <br> - Calculation/mathematical reason is used heavily in the counting up of pleasure (reason) <br> - Assumptions: <br> - that happiness/pleasure is the sort of thing that can be measured (but by what? Science?) <br> $\square$ that consequences of actions have predictable outcomes (eg, use of thalidomide) <br> - that future happiness can be predicted (science?) <br> - Ends justifying the means can be used in all sorts of ways by whomever is doing the measuring (eg, Tuskegee Syphilis experiments): <br> - is this a way of maintaining majority power structures? <br> - who decides whose happiness is measured? |
| Deontology | - Developed as an attempt to avoid the use of emotions in moral thinking <br> - Prioritizes the role of reason in identifying moral rules and duties <br> - Prioritizes the individual as an autonomous rational being and assumes people will make rational choices <br> - Assumes that 'rational' and 'reasonable' are universal. Do different people or cultures necessarily see the same things as 'rational'? <br> - Might be a challenge to use in real-life situations where the rule needing to be followed, or the duty to be fulfilled, is not clear. Does this form of knowledge help guide us in the real world? |
| Virtue ethics | - Shifts focus on to the 'character' of the individual <br> - Prioritizes reason to identify the types of virtues that an individual should be enacting <br> - Assumes that virtues or 'virtuous' behaviour is equally recognizable across cultures: would everyone accept one culture's virtues as their own? <br> - Does virtue ethics avoid making any claims about the world, and if so, how useful is it as a form of knowing? |
Normative ethics vs meta-ethics 规范伦理学与元伦理学
Another way of discussing ethical knowledge is described as ‘meta-ethics’ (‘meta’ coming from the Greek for ‘above’ or ‘beyond’). Whereas normative ethical theories aim at constructing ethical guidelines for use in the real world, meta-ethics entails a different sort of conversation, this time about the meaning of ethical terms and the nature of ethical properties. In normative ethics we might ask, 'What course of action does this theory say 讨论伦理知识的另一种方式被称为"元伦理学"（"meta"源自希腊语，意为"超越"或"之上"）。规范伦理学理论旨在构建适用于现实世界的伦理准则，而元伦理学则涉及另一种对话——这次是关于伦理术语的含义和伦理属性的本质。在规范伦理学中我们可能会问："根据该理论，应采取什么行动方案"
is the “good” action and therefore the one to follow in this circumstance?" Meta-ethics, however, would ask, ‘What does the word “good” mean?’ Or, ‘What is the nature of a moral fact?’ Or, ‘What are ethical claims actually saying?’ 在这种情况下，"善"的行为是什么，因此应该遵循哪一种？"而元伦理学则会问："'善'这个词是什么意思？"或者，"道德事实的本质是什么？"又或者，"伦理主张实际上在说什么？"
Some of the knowledge questions in the subject guide are more meta-ethical than normative. ‘Is there such a thing as a moral fact?’ is an example. No normative theory can even begin until this question is answered, for if there are no moral facts then no theory will ever be able to say anything about what is ‘good’ or ‘right’! This is similar to how in other disciplines there are certain concepts and terms that must be defined and agreed upon before work in the discipline can begin, or at least before application or use of the theories can begin. Chemists, for instance, need to move pretty quickly beyond a discussion of what ‘atomic mass’ means or what ‘chemical bonds’ are if they are to get on with the business of doing chemistry. Mathematicians need to understand the rules of inference in algebra if they have any hope of using algebra. Part of becoming an expert in these fields has to do with learning these terms and their importance. This could be why students might not even consider themselves apprentices; they have so little experience in the actual construction of knowledge, because they are caught up in learning the basics. Before an ethicist can even begin applying the theories, therefore, they must already have made some decisions about the preliminary terms, definitions and assumptions. 学科指南中的一些知识性问题更偏向元伦理学而非规范伦理学。"是否存在道德事实？"便是一例。若不先回答这个问题，任何规范理论都无从谈起——因为倘若不存在道德事实，任何理论都无法界定何为"善"或"正确"！这与其他学科中必须先定义并达成共识的基础概念类似，至少要在理论应用之前明确。例如化学家若想开展研究，就必须快速越过"原子量"或"化学键"的定义讨论；数学家要运用代数，就必须先理解代数推理规则。成为领域专家的部分素养，正在于掌握这些术语及其重要性。这或许解释了为何学生常不自视为学徒——他们困于基础知识的学习，对实际构建知识的体验实在有限。 因此，伦理学家在运用理论之前，必须首先对基本术语、定义和假设做出某些界定。
The following section offers a possible response to the question, 'Is there such a thing as a moral fact?" and then investigates the notion of ethical relativity, another meta-ethical theory. 下一节将尝试回应"道德事实是否存在"这一问题，继而探讨伦理相对性这一元伦理学理论。
SAMPLE RESPONSE TO A KNOWLEDGE QUESTION 知识问题示范性解答
Is there such a thing as a moral fact? 道德事实是否真实存在？
Traditionally there are two main approaches to whether we can find moral facts in the world around us. Firstly, we have ethical ‘realism’, which is the view that there are genuine facts in the world that have to do with the moral or ethical status of an action. Claims like ‘charity is good’ or ‘killing is wrong’ express objective truths about charity and killing and can be as true as ‘compasses point north’ or ‘mitochondria provide energy to cells’. 关于能否在周遭世界中发现道德事实，传统上存在两种主要观点。其一是伦理"实在论"，该理论认为世界上确实存在与行为道德或伦理状态相关的事实。诸如"行善是好的"或"杀戮是错误的"这类论断，表达了关于慈善与杀戮的客观真理，其真实性不亚于"指南针指向北方"或"线粒体为细胞提供能量"这类科学事实。
Clearly, though, a tension arises when we ask how we are meant to identify those facts, particularly in the face of clear disagreement (though perhaps ‘charity is good’ is less contentious than, say, ‘capital punishment is wrong’ or ‘wealth redistribution is good’). In TOK terms, we might ask another knowledge question here: ‘What sources of knowledge should we use to identify and articulate moral truths?’ Some people (‘ethical naturalists’) think that ethical truths are, at their most basic level, really just normal or ‘natural’ observable truths in the world. For example, utilitarianists think that if you can show that an action will result in a person’s greater wellbeing (mostly observable), then that is the same as showing that that action is ‘good’. Perhaps you can prove that donating the 然而，当我们追问该如何识别这些道德事实时，矛盾便显而易见——尤其在面对明显分歧时（尽管"慈善是善举"的争议性或许小于"死刑是不道德的"或"财富再分配是好事"这类命题）。用知识论术语来说，我们在此可以提出另一个知识问题："我们应当运用哪些认知来源来识别和阐明道德真理？"部分学者（"伦理自然主义者"）认为，伦理真理在最根本层面上，其实就是世界上普通可观察的"自然"事实。例如功利主义者主张，若能证明某个行为将提升个人福祉（这大多可被观察），便等同于证明该行为是"善"的。或许你能通过实证数据证实，向慈善机构捐款确实会
organs of a patient who recently died will create more happiness for patients who would otherwise die. If you can, then this is the same as proving that this action is good. If you can prove that destroying a natural landscape so you can mine some natural resources will be worse than having that natural resource, then you have shown that the action is wrong. In other words, ethical values like ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are really just different ways of understanding observable facts about the world. 移植一位新近逝者的器官，将为那些原本会死亡的病患创造更多幸福。若能如此，便等同于证明这一行为是善举。反之，若能证明破坏自然景观开采矿产的恶果超过资源本身的价值，则说明该行为是谬误。换言之，"正确"或"错误"、"善"或"恶"这类伦理价值，本质上都是理解客观世界现象的不同表述方式。
One problem with the ethical naturalist’s form of ethical realism was articulated by David Hume in his famous ‘Is/Ought’ distinction or what we might also call the ‘Fact/Value’ distinction. 伦理自然主义者所持的伦理现实主义存在一个缺陷，大卫·休谟在其著名的"实然/应然"二分法（或称"事实/价值"二分法）中已明确阐明这一难题。
Hume argued that no amount of description of some phenomenon will ever logically lead to a moral claim. No matter how well you describe something by using ‘is’ statements like 'water is H_(2)O\mathrm{H}_{2} \mathrm{O} ’ or ‘the charge of a nucleus is positive’ or ‘if you are worth 4210 USD you are richer than half the world’s population’ (Elkins), you won’t observe some ethical value nestled in among all the facts. For the argument to move from a set of descriptions to an ethical claim, you need to find an ethical principle which tells you the sorts of things 休谟认为，无论对某种现象进行多么详尽的描述，都无法从逻辑上推导出道德主张。即便你使用"是"字句（例如"水的 H_(2)O\mathrm{H}_{2} \mathrm{O} "或"原子核带正电荷"或"若你拥有 4210 美元就比全球半数人口更富有"（埃尔金斯语））对事物作出再精确的描述，也无法从这些事实中窥见任何伦理价值。若要从一系列描述性陈述过渡到道德主张，就必须找到一条能指明事物性质的伦理原则。
which are bad. Then you can derive an ethical claim related to your facts. 这些都是不好的。然后你可以根据这些事实推导出一个相关的伦理主张。
Consider the following: 请思考以下内容：
1 Fact: Half the world’s population has a net worth of less than 4210 USD. 1 事实：全球半数人口的净资产不足 4210 美元。
2 Definition: This is an example of severe wealth inequality. 2 定义：这是严重财富不平等的典型案例。
3 Ethical principle: Severe wealth inequality is wrong. 3 伦理原则：严重的财富不平等是错误的。
4 Ethical claim: It is ethically wrong that half the world’s population has a net worth of less than 4210 USD (and we should do something about it). 4 伦理主张：全球半数人口净资产不足 4210 美元在道德上是错误的（我们应当采取行动改变这一现状）。
What is the relationship between premises 1 and 2 on the one hand and premise 3 on the other? Does the truth of 1 and 2 have any bearing on the truth of 3 ? Hume argued no, that these claims represent fundamentally different types of knowledge. 前提 1 和前提 2 与前提 3 之间存在何种关系？1 和 2 的真实性是否会影响 3 的真实性？休谟认为不会，这些主张代表着根本不同类型的认知。
To arrive at the ethical claim in number 4, we needed an ethical principle to bridge the gap between the ethical claims and the facts and definitions. Hume’s claim was that no amount of observation or definitions of ‘natural’ (observable or measurable) features of the world (premises 1 and 2 ) will ever provide an ethical principle. So, premise 3 is not the logical outcome or conclusion of premises 1 and 2; premise 3 must be brought in from somewhere else. Hume thought it came from the emotions, while some religious believers will suggest that our ethical principles are derived from God. 为了得出第 4 点中的伦理主张，我们需要一个伦理原则来弥合伦理主张与事实定义之间的鸿沟。休谟的核心观点是：无论对世界"自然"特征（可观察或可测量的）进行多少次观察或定义（前提 1 和 2），都无法推导出伦理原则。因此，前提 3 并非前提 1 和 2 的逻辑结果或结论；前提 3 必须从其他领域引入。休谟认为它源自情感，而某些宗教信徒则会主张我们的伦理原则来自上帝。
Hume’s use of the term ‘ought’ to identify ethical claims points to the odd quality of action tied to ethical claims. If we suggest something is ‘good’, then we imply that we ought to promote it; if we think something is ‘wrong’, then we ought to avoid it. We could call these types of claims ‘prescriptive’ in that they prescribe a certain form of behaviour. They do not (merely) describe the world, their function is to tell us what we ought to do. The claim here is that science cannot be the source of these prescriptive claims. 休谟用"应当"一词来界定伦理主张，揭示了这类主张与行为之间特殊的联结关系。当我们称某事物为"善"时，即暗示应当弘扬它；若判定某事物为"恶"，则意味着应当规避之。这类主张可称为"规范性"陈述，因其规定了特定行为模式。它们（不仅）描述世界，其核心功能在于指示我们应当如何行动。此处要论证的是：科学不可能是这些规范性主张的源头。
The TOK-related points related to this discussion focus on the scope of scientific and ethical claims. The ethical naturalists will try to argue that just by observing and measuring some natural aspect of the world (how much happiness an action produces, for example), we can thereby find out whether we ought to do that action. In other words, the scope of science is to provide ethical claims about how we ought to behave. 与本次讨论相关的 TOK（知识论）要点聚焦于科学主张与伦理主张的范畴。伦理自然主义者会试图论证：仅通过观察和测量世界的某些自然属性（例如某个行为能产生多少幸福感），我们就能由此判断是否应当采取该行为。换言之，科学的范畴应包含为人类行为提供伦理指导的主张。
If this were true, however, it would make little sense to say things like, ‘Torturing a prisoner for information will result in a better outcome (saving more lives), but is it right to torture the prisoner?’ The naturalist would claim that knowing that more lives will be saved is the same as knowing it is the right thing to do. If you think it is still a good question to ask whether torture is acceptable, even if you also know that torture will result in a better outcome, you are not an ethical naturalist (or at least not a utilitarian). 但若此说成立，类似"刑讯逼供能获得更优结果（拯救更多生命），但这样做对吗？"的质疑就失去意义。自然主义者会主张，知晓能拯救更多生命等同于知晓这是正确的行为。如果你认为即便刑讯能带来更好结果，仍需要质疑其正当性，那么你就不是伦理自然主义者（至少不是功利主义者）。
When you see a difference between facts and values you might argue that the scope of science is limited to these observations and measurements and that they alone will never tell us what to do. When considering carefully the sorts of things that scientists do in fact describe we find that there are never any obviously ethical facts. I might measure happiness all I want, but never see ‘right’ or ‘ought’ mixed in. I can clearly see the happiness that playing a horrifically violent video game (or any other grim pleasure-inducing behaviour) might bring to some, but we might still claim that that sort of behaviour is wrong. Ethical naturalism has a difficult task to overcome this intuition. 当你发现事实与价值观之间存在差异时，可能会认为科学的范畴仅限于这些观察和测量，而它们本身永远无法告诉我们该做什么。仔细思考科学家实际描述的事物类型时，我们会发现其中从未包含任何明显的伦理事实。我可以随心所欲地测量幸福，但永远看不到"正确"或"应当"掺杂其中。我能清楚地看到玩极度暴力的电子游戏（或任何其他令人毛骨悚然的快乐诱发行为）可能给某些人带来的快乐，但我们仍可能声称这类行为是错误的。伦理自然主义要克服这种直觉面临着艰巨的任务。
Another ethical realist view, one that doesn’t seem to fall into the critique of the Is/Ought distinction, is to claim that while ethical values are genuine facts about our world, we cannot simply measure them in the way suggested previously; we need a different source of this knowledge. ‘Intuitionism’ is one such view. It suggests that we have a way of directly perceiving the rightness or wrongness of an action through a sort of intuitive sense. This view certainly has common sense and general experience on its side: we often appeal to personal feelings or unanalysable intuitions to justify our ethical values (‘it feels wrong’). So ethical claims like ‘it is wrong to torture the prisoner for information’ can be considered true, but the justification of this claim would appeal to our ethical intuitions, not to measurements of some feature in the world. 另一种伦理实在论观点——似乎并未陷入"实然/应然"区分的批判——主张虽然伦理价值是关于我们世界的真实事实，但我们不能简单地用前述方式进行测量；我们需要不同的知识来源。"直觉主义"便是此类观点之一。它认为我们能够通过某种直觉感知直接觉察行为的对错。这种观点无疑符合常识和普遍经验：我们常诉诸个人感受或不可分析的直觉来证明伦理价值（"感觉不对"）。因此诸如"为获取信息而折磨囚犯是错误的"这类伦理主张可被视为真命题，但其正当性依据在于我们的伦理直觉，而非对世界某些特征的测量。
This view, however, comes under heavy criticism when trying to make sense of how ethical values differ across people and cultures: if ethical facts are ‘real’ facts then why can’t we agree? It seems that our intuitions depend heavily on our education, our social context and even our political beliefs. This inability to pin down any objective intuitions across populations of people either leads to ‘intuitive’ ethical claims which are utterly vacuous (‘be kind’) but with no direction of how to really enact them, or to the admission that our intuitions are socially 然而，当试图理解伦理价值观为何因人而异、因文化而异时，这种观点遭到了强烈质疑：如果伦理事实是"真实"存在的事实，为何我们无法达成共识？显然，我们的道德直觉深受教育背景、社会环境甚至政治信仰的影响。这种无法确定跨人群客观直觉的困境，要么导致"直觉性"伦理主张沦为空洞口号（如"与人为善"）却缺乏具体实践指引，要么迫使我们承认直觉具有社会
dependent, which undermines any claims to truth for ethical claims, making moral facts impossible to identify. 依赖性——这从根本上动摇了伦理主张的真实性宣称，使得道德事实变得无法确证。
An opposing view to the claim that there are moral facts is called ethical anti-realism. As you can guess by the name, it is the opposite of ‘realism’. Here the suggestion is that there are no moral facts and moral claims cannot be true, or if they are considered ‘true’ they are not considered genuine descriptions of the world. Moral claims might simply be expressions of personal commitments, for instance, ‘Vegetarianism is right’, is synonymous with the phrase, ‘One of my beliefs is that vegetarianism is right’. In other words it describes my beliefs, not some feature of the world (this is called ‘ethical subjectivism’). So the claim that there are ‘moral facts’ or moral claims that can be ‘true’ in this view, are just descriptions of what the speaker happens to believe. There are no moral truths or facts in the world. 针对"存在道德事实"这一主张的相反观点被称为伦理反实在论。顾名思义，这是"实在论"的对立面。该理论认为不存在道德事实，道德主张不可能为真，即便某些主张被视作"真实"，也不构成对世界的真实描述。道德主张可能只是个人信念的表达，例如"素食主义是正确的"这句话，等同于"我的信念之一是素食主义正确"。换言之，它描述的是我的信念，而非世界的某种特征（这被称为"伦理主观主义"）。因此在这种观点下，所谓"存在道德事实"或"道德主张可为真"的说法，仅仅是对说话者个人信念的描述。世界上并不存在道德真理或事实。
Alternatively, other ethical anti-realists might say that ‘charity is good’ is nothing more than a way of showing approval for charity. It is like saying, ‘Charity! Yay!’ and giving a thumbs up, or pumping your fists and shouting ‘Go Dodgers!’ On the other hand, claiming ‘torture is wrong’ is nothing more than saying, ‘Boo, torture!’ with your thumbs down and furrowed brows (this is called ‘ethical emotivism’). These claims do not make true or false claims, they are merely outpourings of emotional approval or disapproval. 另一种伦理反实在论者可能会说，"慈善是好的"不过是表达对慈善行为的赞许。这就像竖起大拇指说"慈善！太棒了！"，或是挥舞拳头高喊"道奇队加油！"。而声称"折磨是错误的"也无非是竖起拇指皱眉说"折磨，呸！"（这种观点被称为"伦理情感主义"）。这些表述并不构成真伪判断，仅仅是情感上赞同或反对的宣泄。
These positions, however, are shown to be exceedingly weak when we consider the phenomenon of ethical debate. On the anti-realist view, there can be no genuine ethical debate, if by debate we mean something like weighing up various arguments in order to reach a conclusion. On the ‘subjectivist’ account, when we claim opposing positions, we are doing nothing more than just stating and then re-stating our beliefs. On the ‘emotivist’ view, we are just jumping up and down and giving thumbs up and 然而当我们审视伦理辩论现象时，这些立场就显得极其脆弱。按照反实在论的观点，如果我们将辩论理解为权衡各种论点以得出结论的过程，那么真正的伦理辩论就不可能存在。在"主观主义"解释下，当我们提出对立观点时，不过是在重复申明各自的信念；而"情感主义"视角下，我们只是在手舞足蹈地比划着赞成与反对的手势。
Some people would argue that saying something is ‘ethically good’ is nothing more than cheering for it 有人认为宣称某事物"在伦理上是好的"，不过是在为之喝彩
thumbs down while making ethical statements. In neither of these scenarios is there anything like debate happening. 一边发表道德声明一边竖起大拇指。在这两种情况下，都没有发生任何类似辩论的情况。
However, we do engage in genuine ethical debates. We marshal evidence and offer reasoned positions about what is right or wrong or what we ought and ought not do. In other words, we do engage in the activity of trying to construct ethical knowledge; knowledge that, even if we cannot find the conditions under which some ethical claim is ‘true’, we can at least recognize better or worse ethical principles. We have pretty strong intuitions that ‘it is right that women have full political engagement in society’ is a better ethical position than the claim ‘it is right that men are the only political agents’. It is better to say, ‘IB examiners ought to mark fairly’ than it is to say, ‘IB examiners ought to randomly assign grades’. 然而，我们确实在进行真正的道德辩论。我们收集证据，并就什么是对错或我们应该做什么和不应该做什么提出合理的立场。换句话说，我们确实参与了试图构建道德知识的活动；这种知识即使我们无法找到某些道德主张“真实”的条件，至少可以识别出更好或更糟的道德原则。我们有一种相当强烈的直觉，即“女性充分参与社会政治是正确的”这一道德立场比“男性是唯一的政治代理人”的主张更好。说“IB 考官应该公平评分”比说“IB 考官应该随机分配分数”更好。
Any ethical view has to make sense of the ethical values we do hold and make sense of the ethical debates that we engage in, or else we have to give up on the task of constructing ethical knowledge entirely. However, just looking at the debates around social equality, individual freedom and human rights shows that we simply cannot accept an ethical theory which says these are not genuine areas of human knowledge. Claiming that there are no moral facts leads in this direction, so is unacceptable. 任何伦理观点都必须能解释我们持有的伦理价值观，并阐明我们所参与的伦理辩论，否则我们就得完全放弃构建伦理知识的任务。然而，仅从围绕社会平等、个人自由和人权的争论来看，我们显然无法接受那种声称这些领域不构成人类真正知识范畴的伦理理论。宣称不存在道德事实的观点正是导向这一方向，因此不可接受。
This is not to say that moral facts are the same as any other fact, though. It might be that we have not yet identified an agreed upon method by which to identify moral facts or truths. Much like how the sciences are engaged in a continual search for truths about how the world works, perhaps ethical knowledge is also in a continual search. Any theory which denies from the outset that this project is impossible, just because the search is challenging, is a theory that cannot be accepted. 但这并不意味着道德事实与其他事实完全相同。或许我们尚未找到公认的方法来识别道德事实或真理。正如科学持续探索世界运行规律一般，伦理知识可能也处于持续探索之中。任何仅因探索过程充满挑战，就预先断言这项事业不可能成功的理论，都是无法被接受的。
Note: This exploration of the knowledge question is, as always, only one way in which the question might be explored. This response did not, for example, explore more deeply the various ways in which ethical knowledge is built, including the role of the emotions or reason. Nor did it seek to uncover more about how we do accept ethical claims, even if we don’t know how to clearly justify them. Someone using different examples would approach the question in a different way. The nature of a knowledge question is that it is open ended, and so there is not a ‘right’ answer; there are just well-supported responses or badly supported responses. 需要注意的是，对知识问题的探讨一如既往地只呈现了其中一种可能的探索路径。例如，本回应并未更深入地探讨伦理知识构建的多种方式，包括情感或理性在其中扮演的角色；也未曾试图进一步揭示我们为何会接受某些无法明确论证的伦理主张。若采用不同案例，人们完全可能以另一种方式切入该问题。知识问题的本质在于其开放性——不存在所谓"正确"答案，只有论证充分或欠缺说服力的回应。
TOK TRAP 知识论陷阱
Ethical relativism 伦理相对主义
‘Ethical relativism’ is a position that takes a number of forms, but these largely all overlap in the two claims that: "伦理相对主义"这一立场包含多种形式，但其核心主张可归纳为两点：
1 there are no universally agreed upon ethical values (ie, people have different and sometimes conflicting ethical beliefs). 1 不存在普遍认同的道德价值观（即人们持有不同且有时相互冲突的道德信念）。
2 there can be no one true ethical viewpoint; there will always be a variety of ‘true’ claims (or, never any ‘true’ claim). 2 不可能存在唯一正确的道德观点；总会存在多种"正确"的主张（或者说，永远不存在任何"正确"的主张）。
These are importantly different claims for reasons we will discuss now. 这两种主张存在重要差异，我们接下来将探讨其原因。
We suggest that ethical relativism is a ‘trap’, not because we necessarily think it is true or false, but because the vast majority of students will think it is obviously true. As TOK teachers, we do not need to convince students that any particular ethical framework is the right one, but we do need to challenge students anytime they offer a position that is not reflected upon. Ethical relativism is one such opportunity. 我们认为道德相对主义是一个"陷阱"，并非因为我们必然认定其真伪，而是因为绝大多数学生会不假思索地认为它显然正确。作为 TOK（知识论）教师，我们不需要说服学生接受某个特定道德框架的正确性，但当学生提出未经反思的立场时，我们确实需要予以质疑。道德相对主义正是这样一个值得探讨的契机。
First, what is the difference between the two claims above? 首先，上述两种主张有何区别？
Claim 1 is a description of the world as we find it. It just so happens to be the case that people all over the world disagree about what acts are right and wrong, and they disagree on just how we should decide which actions are right and wrong. The evidence for this claim is overwhelming. 主张 1 是对我们所处世界的描述。事实情况就是，世界各地的人们对哪些行为正确或错误存在分歧，并且对如何判定行为对错也意见不一。这一主张的证据确凿无疑。
Claim 2, however, is a different sort of claim. It tells us what should be the case rather than describing what is the case. Claim 2 provides a rule which limits the discussion. We might call this a normative claim in the sense that it provides a law or rule (a ‘norm’, from the Greek for ‘law’ or ‘custom’). 而主张 2 则是另一种类型的主张。它告诉我们世界应当如何，而非描述现状。主张 2 提供了一条限制讨论范围的规则。我们可称之为规范性主张，因为它确立了一条法则或规则（"norm"源自希腊语，意为"法律"或"习俗"）。
The point about breaking up the main claims within ethical relativism in the way we have is so we can now ask a question about the evidence for each claim. What evidence do you have for the claim that there can be no true ethical viewpoint? The clear fact that there is a lot of disagreement in the world is really only an argument for the first claim above. There is still a possibility that many of those people who disagree are simply mistaken in their beliefs, but there is, in fact, one ethical position that is correct. We make a similar point when discussing how normative claims in the human sciences are interpretations of the economic facts available, and how these normative claims constitute quite different ‘paradigms’ in economics (student book, Chapter 10, page 344). 我们之所以以这种方式拆分伦理相对主义中的主要主张，是为了现在能够针对每个主张提出证据问题。你如何证明"不存在真实的伦理观点"这一主张？世界上存在大量分歧这一明显事实，实际上只能支持上述第一个主张。仍存在一种可能性：许多持不同意见的人可能只是信念有误，而事实上存在一种正确的伦理立场。我们在讨论人文科学中的规范性主张如何解读现有经济事实时也提出过类似观点，这些规范性主张在经济学中形成了截然不同的"范式"（学生用书第 10 章第 344 页）。
Consider an analogous case in, say, physics, which has similarities to the discussion we had of experts in the lesson above. There is some disagreement between physicists about whether string theory or loop quantum gravity will be the theory that physics will ultimately accept. However, the fact that some experts disagree in this field does not necessarily mean that there is not one answer that is the right answer or that there are not some answers that are better than others. The world is simply the way it is, and we might disagree about its nature, but ultimately we might work it out. In the meantime, we disagree. And that’s okay. 以物理学为例，这与我们前文关于专家讨论的情形颇为相似。物理学家们对弦理论或圈量子引力论哪个将成为物理学最终接纳的理论存在分歧。然而，该领域专家存在异议这一事实，并不意味着不存在唯一正确答案，也不意味着所有答案都同等正确。世界自有其客观规律，我们或许对其本质存在争议，但终有可能达成共识。在探索过程中存在分歧——这完全正常。
Imagine taking a classroom of middle school mathematics students, who have arrived at different answers after trying to solve a complicated equation, and concluding, 'Oh well, there is 想象一下，面对一教室的中学生，他们在解一道复杂方程后得出了不同答案，然后轻描淡写地说："哦，好吧，反正数学
The fact that there are different answers does not mean there cannot be one that is correct 存在不同答案并不意味着没有正确答案
disagreement so there must be no one right answer.’ Instead, we would accept that some of the students (or maybe even all of them) simply have it wrong. 存在分歧并不意味着没有唯一正确答案。相反，我们会认为部分学生（甚至可能是所有人）的理解本身就是错误的。
So, why shouldn’t this be the case with ethics? Just because I have a room full of people who have all come to different answers to an ethical dilemma or decision does not necessarily mean that there can be no right answer. Some of us (or maybe all of us) might simply have the wrong answer. So, any evidence for ethical relativism which relies on the fully accepted fact that people disagree, doesn’t necessarily mean that there can be no right answer. 那么，为什么伦理问题就不能如此呢？仅仅因为一屋子的人对某个伦理困境或决策得出不同答案，并不必然意味着不存在正确答案。我们中的一些人（或许所有人）可能只是得出了错误答案。因此，任何基于"人们存在分歧"这一公认事实的伦理相对主义论据，都无法证明正确答案不存在。
Of course, the advantage that the sciences and mathematics have over ethics here is that they have a clearly established and effective method. It is not clear just what method we should be using for our ethical deliberations, but again, this is not, itself, evidence that we cannot find one; it may be that we have simply not yet worked it out. 当然，科学和数学在此处的优势在于它们拥有明确建立且有效的方法论。而我们进行伦理思辨时应采用何种方法尚不明确，但这本身并不能证明我们无法找到这种方法——可能只是我们尚未研究出来。
Many very smart people do believe in ethical relativism. The point here is not to tell students that this is an unjustifiable position to hold. The point rather is to underscore the need to offer justifications for our positions, not to just assume we know what we need to know to make these claims. 许多非常聪明的人确实信奉伦理相对主义。这里的关键不是告诉学生这种立场站不住脚，而是要强调：我们必须为自己的立场提供合理依据，而非想当然地认为已掌握足够知识来支持这些主张。
This discussion is a fun one to have with students: it requires some sophisticated thinking about the scope of the sciences and mathematics and their methods, and it helps unpack the difficulties around finding the students’ own personal biases, assumptions or presumptions about the nature of ethical knowledge. 与学生探讨这个话题很有趣：它需要对科学和数学的范畴及其方法进行一些复杂的思考，并有助于揭示学生在理解伦理知识本质时自身存在的偏见、假设或预设所带来的困难。
The trap offered by ethics is mainly about students using their assumptions to make claims that are difficult to justify - challenge them! 伦理学设置的陷阱主要是学生利用自己的假设提出难以证实的观点——要挑战他们！
Methods and tools 方法与工具
Much of what we have been saying about the various perspectives in ethical theories and the relationship between scientific knowledge and ethical knowledge will apply to questions about the methods and tools used to explore ethical questions. An ethical naturalist (like a consequentialist or virtue ethicist), for instance, will use the methods and tools appropriate to their perspective. A utilitarian (consequentialist) will get on with the business of trying to work out how to measure happiness and use whatever tools they have at their disposal. A deontologist will focus on using reason to judge whether the rules being followed are rational. A virtue ethicist might appeal to the findings of psychology in order to gauge whether certain character traits like honesty, perseverance or gratitude are the sorts of virtues that lead to a well-lived life. 我们关于伦理学理论中不同观点以及科学知识与伦理知识之间关系的诸多讨论，同样适用于探讨伦理问题所使用的方法和工具。例如，伦理自然主义者（如结果论者或德性伦理学家）会采用与其观点相符的方法工具。功利主义者（结果论者）会致力于研究如何衡量幸福，并运用一切可支配的工具。义务论者则专注于运用理性来判断所遵循的规则是否合理。德性伦理学家可能会借鉴心理学研究成果，以评估诚实、坚毅或感恩等品格特质是否属于导向美好生活的德性范畴。
The worry of course, when it comes to ethical deliberation is that there is no consensus on what is the right method to follow. We saw in the discussion about ethical relativity that the worry about there not being an agreed upon method to use when thinking about ethics leads some to think that there can be no method that is agreed upon. This intuition is a hard one to shake but logically it does not necessarily hold up. One might bring to mind the physicists of the early twentieth century claiming that all of physics had been sorted by Newton. We cannot let a failure of imagination when it comes to ethical deliberation to lead us into a claim that there can be no better or worse ethical claims. 当然，在伦理思考中最令人担忧的是，对于应当遵循何种正确方法尚未达成共识。我们在关于伦理相对性的讨论中看到，由于缺乏公认的伦理思考方法，导致一些人认为根本不可能存在被普遍认可的方法。这种直觉难以摆脱，但从逻辑上讲它未必成立。人们或许会联想到二十世纪初的物理学家们宣称牛顿已解决全部物理学问题的情形。我们不能因为伦理思考中想象力的匮乏，就断言伦理主张不存在优劣之分。
TOK TRAP TOK 陷阱
The go-to position for most students when they are thinking about ethics is to start from their intuition that ethics is somehow only about how we feel about things or about what society says is the case, and never move beyond this. This is an inherently relativistic position and we discussed in the earlier TOK trap the challenge of finding evidence for the normative claim that ‘there can be no one true ethical viewpoint’. Discussing those claims might be a tool which students might use to begin the process of reflecting on that belief. Again, it might be true that ethics are relative to their culture or based on emotions, but without an argument we should not believe this. 大多数学生在思考伦理问题时，往往会固守这样一种直觉立场：认为伦理仅仅是关于我们对事物的感受，或是社会普遍认同的观点，而从未尝试突破这种认知局限。这种立场本质上是相对主义的——正如我们在前文"TOK 陷阱"中讨论过的，要为"不存在唯一正确的伦理观点"这一规范性主张找到证据面临着巨大挑战。对这些主张的探讨或许能成为学生开始反思这种信念的起点。诚然，伦理可能确实与文化背景相关或基于情感，但若缺乏论证过程，我们就不应轻信这种观点。
Ethics 伦理学
One of the main themes that we have developed throughout both the student and teacher books is based around the inherent ethical obligations that a knowledge producer is under when constructing knowledge. Whenever you discuss the nature of a discipline’s methods, or when evaluating the knowledge produced in an AOK in terms of reliability, certainty or justifiability, you are drawing on the basic assumptions that knowledge producers should be working towards quality knowledge. 贯穿学生用书和教师用书的核心主题之一，是知识生产者在构建知识过程中所承担的固有伦理义务。无论当你探讨某学科方法的本质时，还是从可靠性、确定性或可辩护性等维度评估特定知识领域产生的知识时，你都在运用这样一个基本前提：知识生产者应当致力于追求优质知识。
One interesting case study to bring this out is the case of Holocaust denier David Irving. Irving’s early career as an historian was characterized by developing historical narratives which were far more charitable to the Nazis than mainstream historians. He later claimed that the stories about the Auschwitz gas chambers were ‘fairy tales’ and that Hitler had actually been trying to protect Jews (Traynor). He spent time in an Austrian prison for denying the Holocaust. Ethically, we might want to judge him for his beliefs, his anti-Semitism and his prejudice, and we would be right to do so on any of the ethical theories discussed previously. But we might also judge him in a more TOKrelated way by pointing out that he seems to have wilfully ignored best practice when it comes to the construction of historical narratives. So whatever one may think about Irving as a person, his beliefs or ideologies, the fact of the matter seems to be that he is not a very good historian. This illustrates the point we are making here: that creators of knowledge are thought to be ethically obligated to act rightly in the search for quality knowledge. 一个有趣的案例研究是有关大屠杀否认者大卫·欧文的故事。欧文早期的历史学家职业生涯以构建对纳粹比主流历史学家宽容得多的历史叙事为特征。他后来声称关于奥斯威辛集中营毒气室的故事是"童话"，并称希特勒实际上一直在试图保护犹太人（特雷纳）。他因否认大屠杀而在奥地利监狱服刑。从伦理角度，我们可能会因他的信仰、反犹太主义和偏见而评判他，根据之前讨论的任何伦理理论，这样做都是正确的。但我们也可以用更贴近知识论的方式评判他，指出他在构建历史叙事时似乎故意无视最佳实践。因此，无论人们对欧文本人、他的信仰或意识形态有何看法，事实似乎表明他并不是一个优秀的历史学家。这说明了我们在此提出的观点：知识的创造者被认为在追求优质知识时有道德义务采取正确行动。
Use the QR code on the left to read excerpts from a UK High Court libel case in which the judge outlines numerous historical claims that are unjustified in terms of best historical practice. 使用左侧二维码阅读英国高等法院诽谤案节选，法官在判决中列举了多项不符合历史研究最佳实践标准的历史主张。
Of course, what makes a claim a ‘good’ or ‘quality’ claim in one AOK might not be the same in another, so the ways in which the ethical obligation is met may look different across different AOKs. Conflict might arise, however, if we use the rules from one AOK to judge the quality of work in another AOK, and indeed many of the discussions in this course are about avoiding this situation. History cannot be judged by the rules of knowledge construction in physics. Economics will fail against the criteria for good biology. Ethical knowledge will always fall short of the requirements imposed on it by the mathematical method. 当然，不同知识领域（AOK）对"优质主张"的评判标准各不相同，因此履行伦理责任的方式也会因领域而异。但如果我们用一个知识领域的标准去评判另一个领域的成果，就可能引发冲突——事实上本课程的许多讨论正是为了避免这种情况。不能用物理学的知识构建标准来评判历史学，经济学也达不到优秀生物学的评判要求，伦理知识永远无法满足数学方法强加的精确性标准。
Perhaps one of the moral tasks we are involved in as TOK teachers is that of making students aware of these ethical obligations. We, ourselves, could be said to be ethically obligated to reflect on just what principles we are developing to judge the quality of knowledge. Thou shalt not use the rules of one AOK to judge the knowledge of another? 作为知识论教师，我们承担的伦理任务之一或许是让学生意识到这些学术伦理责任。甚至可以说，我们自身也有伦理义务去反思：究竟该用哪些原则来评判知识的质量？"不可跨领域滥用评判标准"是否应成为铁律？
CONNECTION TO: THE CORE THEME 关联：核心主题
Individual knowers are prone to a whole host of logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Throughout the book we have discussed them when they were relevant, but it is worth highlighting them whenever you get the chance. Pointing out the ways in which individual knowers are prone to these cognitive biases is not enough, however. Make sure to push the discussion towards how the methods of the AOKs try to mitigate the effects of these biases. 个体认知者容易陷入各种逻辑谬误和认知偏差。本书在相关章节已讨论过这些问题，但抓住每个机会强调它们仍很有价值。不过，仅仅指出个体认知者易受这些认知偏差影响是不够的，还需将讨论引向各知识领域的方法如何试图减轻这些偏差的影响。
Use the QR code on the left to access a site devoted to the identification of logical fallacies and methods to avoid them (this site is also linked to in Chapter 1 of both the student book and the Teaching for Success book). 使用左侧二维码可访问专门识别逻辑谬误及规避方法的网站（该链接也出现在学生用书和《成功教学》教材第一章中）。
Works cited 参考文献
Elkins, Kathleen. ‘Here’s How Much Money It Takes to Be among the Richest 50 Percent of People Worldwide’. CNBC. CNBC. 19 Nov. 2018. Web. 25 Oct. 2019. www.cnbc.com/2018/11/19/how-much-money-it-takes-to-be-among-the-richest-50-percent-worldwide.html. Elkins, Kathleen. 《全球前 50%富豪的门槛金额是多少》。CNBC。2018 年 11 月 19 日。网络版。2019 年 10 月 25 日引用。原文网址：www.cnbc.com/2018/11/19/how-much-money-it-takes-to-be-among-the-richest-50-percent-worldwide.html。
Harris, Sam. ‘Science Can Answer Moral Questions’. TED. N.p. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2019. www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en. 哈里斯, 萨姆. 《科学能解答道德问题》. TED 演讲. 2010 年. 网络资源. 2019 年 10 月 25 日访问. www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en.
Traynor, Ian. ‘Irving Jailed for Denying Holocaust’. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. 21 Feb. 2006. Web. 26 Oct. 2019. www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/thefarright.highereducation. 特雷纳, 伊恩. 《否认大屠杀的欧文被判入狱》. 卫报. 卫报新闻与媒体. 2006 年 2 月 21 日. 网络资源. 2019 年 10 月 26 日访问. www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/thefarright.highereducation.
Acknowledgements 致谢
The publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright material. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked, the Publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity. 出版方谨此感谢以下机构允许复制受版权保护的内容。虽已尽力联系所有版权方，但若有任何疏漏之处，出版方将在第一时间作出必要安排。
