2022年版 义务教育道德与法治课程标准+新版课程标准解析与教学指导 初中道德与法治 李晓东 道德与法治课标 阿里云 kindle 下载 pdf chm 百度云 azw3 umd

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：2022年版 义务教育道德与法治课程标准+新版课程标准解析与教学指导 初中道德与法治 李晓东 道德与法治课标在线阅读

在线听书地址：2022年版 义务教育道德与法治课程标准+新版课程标准解析与教学指导 初中道德与法治 李晓东 道德与法治课标在线收听

在线购买地址：2022年版 义务教育道德与法治课程标准+新版课程标准解析与教学指导 初中道德与法治 李晓东 道德与法治课标在线购买

Much of the moral fervor behind the drive for equality of outcome comes from the widespread belief that it is not fair that some children should have a great advantage over others simply because they happen to have wealthy parents. Of course it is not fair. However, unfairness can take many forms. It can take the form of the inheritance of property—bonds and stocks, houses, factories; it can also take the form of the inheritance of talent—musical ability, strength, mathematical genius. The inheritance of property can be interfered with more readily than the inheritance of talent. But from an ethical point of view, is there any difference between the two? Yet many people resent the inheritance of property but not the inheritance of talent.

Look at the same issue from the point of view of the parent. If you want to assure your child a higher income in life, you can do so in various ways. You can buy him (or her) an education that will equip him to pursue an occupation yielding a high income; or you can set him up in a business that will yield a higher income than he could earn as a salaried employee; or you can leave him property, the income from which will enable him to live better. Is there any ethical difference among these three ways of using your property? Or again, if the state leaves you any money to spend over and above taxes, should the state permit you to spend it on riotous living but not to leave it to your children?

The ethical issues involved are subtle and complex. They are not to be resolved by such simplistic formulas as "fair shares for all." Indeed, if we took that seriously, youngsters with less musical skill should be given the greatest amount of musical training in order to compensate for their inherited disadvantage, and those with greater musical aptitude should be prevented from having access to good musical training; and similarly with all other categories of inherited personal qualities. That might be "fair" to the youngsters lacking in talent, but would it be "fair" to the talented, let alone to those who had to work to pay for training the youngsters lacking talent, or to the persons deprived of the benefits that might have come from the cultivation of the talents of the gifted?

Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned. But it is also important to recognize how much we benefit from the very unfairness we deplore.

但必须严肃指出，在《自由选择》一书里中，弗里德曼在有的地方把我国的人民民主政权和希特勒的法西斯政权相提并论，有的地方甚至把我国说成是恐怖国家，这是非常错误的。

近几十年来，平等这一概念在美国出现了另一种含义，即“结果平等”。这种观念认为，人人都应当享有相同的生活水平或拥有相同的收入，同时应结束彼此之间的竞争。显然，结果平等与自由是相互冲突的。人们为促进结果平等做出了种种努力，这正是导致政府日益膨胀并对我们的自由强加越来越多的限制的主要原因。

暂无其它内容！