GRE写作Issue部分精品素材分享之实用主义

北京GRE培训,GRE备考资料,GRE网课,GRE培训机构,GRE保分班,GRE真题,GRE课程

想要在GRE作文部分的考试中写出优秀的文章，论据素材是重要的一环。好的论据不仅能帮助你支撑观点，加强说服力，还能体现出考生在阅读量上的积累和深厚扎实的语言功底基础。特别是ISSUE作文，更是需要大量好素材作为储备，才能保证考生无论遭遇那种题目，都能游刃有余地完成一篇高分作文的写作。小编为大家整理了GRE

ISSUE作文各类题目的精品优质素材，一起来看吧。

关于公正的实用主义标准不可靠

We are continually informed that utility is an uncertain standard, which

every different person interprets differently, and that there is no safety but

in the immutable, ineffaceable, and unmistakable dictates of justice, which

carry their evidence in themselves, and are independent of the fluctuations of

opinion. One would suppose from this that on questions of justice there could be

no controversy; that if we take that for our rule, its application to any given

case could leave us in as little doubt as a mathematical demonstration. So far

is this from being the fact, that there is as much difference of opinion, and as

much discussion, about what is just, as about what is useful to society. Not

only have different nations and individuals different notions of justice, but in

the mind of one and the same individual, justice is not some one rule,

principle, or maxim, but many, which do not always coincide in their dictates,

and in choosing between which, he is guided either by some extraneous standard,

or by his own personal predilections.

快乐的权利与司法公正

The equal claim of everybody to happiness in the estimation of the moralist

and the legislator, involves an equal claim to all the means of happiness,

except in so far as the inevitable conditions of human life, and the general

interest, in which that of every individual is included, set limits to

the maxim; and those limits ought to be strictly construed. As every other

maxim of justice, so this is by no means applied or held applicable universally;

on the contrary, it bends to every person’s ideas of social expediency. But in

whatever case it is deemed applicable at all, it is held to be the dictate of

justice. All persons are deemed to have a right to equality of treatment, except

when some recognized social expediency requires the reverse. And hence all

social inequalities which have ceased to be considered expedient, assume the

character not of simple inexpediency, but of injustice, and appear so

tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder how they ever could have been

tolerated, forgetful that they themselves perhaps tolerate other inequalities

under an equally mistaken notion of expediency, the correction of which would

make that which they approve seem quite as monstrous as what they have at last

learnt to condemn. The entire history of social improvement has been a series of

transitions, by which one custom or institution after another, from being a

supposed primary necessity of social existence to the rank of a universally

stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the distinctions of

slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and plebeians and so it will

be, and in part already is, with the aristocracies of color, race, and sex.

实用主义的道德和公正

The considerations which have now been adduced resolve the only real

difficulty in the utilitarian theory of morals. It has always been evident that

all cases of justice are also cases of expediency: the difference is in the

peculiar sentiment which attaches to the former, as contradistinguished from the

latter. If this characteristic sentiment has been sufficiently accounted for, if

there is no necessity to assume for it any peculiarity of origin, if it is

simply the natural feeling of resentment, moralized by being made coextensive

with the demands of social good, and if this feeling not only does but ought to

exist in all the classes of cases to which the idea of justice corresponds, that

idea no longer presents itself as a stumbling-block to the utilitarian ethics.

Justice remains the appropriate name for certain social utilities which are

vastly more important, and therefore more absolute and imperative, than any

others are as a class (though not more so than others may be in particular

cases), and which, therefore, ought to be, as well as naturally are, guarded by

a sentiment not only different in degree, but also in kind, distinguished from

the milder feeling which attaches to the mere idea of promoting human pleasure

or convenience, at once by the more definite nature of its commands, and by the

sterner character of its sanctions.