澳洲哲学论文代写:否认和故意

工具是实现特定目标的工具。我的汽车允许我上下班;我的电脑让我不离开我的房间就能与世界交流。某些枪支是为猎取动物而定制的，另一些是为一个主要目的而设计的:毁灭人类。这种工具最常见的用途之一就是自卫。一些拥有枪支的人当然希望生活能让他们处于这样一种境地:他们可以使用自己的武器来达到预期的目的，但实际上有更少的人寻求这种情况。我们的第二修正案保护的不是“生命权”或“自决权”，而是拥有和携带武器的权利。矛盾的是，枪支只是工具;它们的使用取决于用户[8]的目的和特性。作为工具，它们既可以被用于善，也可以被用于恶。这个悖论，或者说张力，我们不能保护我们在人身上所珍视的东西，除非通过它的物理表达方式，但作为工具，它们的价值是完全中立的或模棱两可的。这是争论的主要原因;我们考虑我们个人权利的价值，以及限制这些权利的允许程度。约翰•华莱士(John Wallace)指出，赋予个人权力“应该导致更负责任地使用工具，而不是否认和故意无知”。因此，通过给予我们个人携带武器的权利，我们相信这些工具在道德上应该得到更恰当的使用。总之，所谓的“伤害原则”与枪支控制的争论无关，枪支只是工具，我们如何使用它们取决于扳机背后的角色。

澳洲哲学论文代写:否认和故意

A tool is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of a particular goal. My car permits me to get to and from work; my computer allows me to communicate to the world without leaving my room. Certain guns are customized for hunting of animals, others are designed for one major purpose only: destruction of human beings. One of the most common uses of this certain tool is in self defense. Some number of gun owners certainly hope that life will put them in a situation where they can use their weapon for its intended purpose, but a much smaller number has actually sought these circumstances [9]. Our Second Amendment protects not “the right to life,” or “self determination,” but the right to keep and bear arms. The paradox is firearms are fact only tools; their use depends on the purpose and character of the user [8]. As tools, they can be, and are, used for both good and evil. “This paradox, or tension, that we cannot protect what we value in man except through of the physical means of its expression, yet as tools their value is completely neutral or ambiguous” [8]. This is much of the cause of the debate; we contemplate the value of our individual rights, and the extent to which it is permissible to restrict those rights. John Wallace states that empowerment of the individual “should lead to more responsible use of the tool than denial and willful ignorance will” [9]. Thus we are lead to believe by granting us our individual right to bear arms should lead to more ethically proper use of these tools. In sum, the so called “harm principle” has no bearing on the debate over gun control, guns are merely tools and how we use them depends on the character behind the trigger.