找一篇合适的关于诚信的高中水平的英语演讲稿,最好带翻译,好的加分,长度三分钟以上。
1个回答
展开全部
since the quality of honesty applies to all behaviors, one cannot refuse to consider factual information, for example, in an unbiased manner and still claim that one's knowledge, belief or position is an attempt to be truthful. such a belief is clearly a product of one's desires and simply has nothing to do with the human ability to know. basing one's positions on what one wants — rather than unbiased evidence gathering — is dishonest even when good intentions can be cited — after all even hitler could cite good intentions and intended glory for a select group of people. clearly then, an unbiased approach to the truth is a requirement of honesty.
because intentions are closely related to fairness and certainly affect the degree of honesty/dishonesty, there is a wide spread confusion about honesty--and a general belief that being dishonest means that one always correctly understands if their behavior is either honest or dishonest. self-perception of our morality is non-static and volatile. it's often at the moment we refuse to consider other perspectives that there is a clear indication we are not pursuing the truth, rather than simply and exclusively at the moment we can muster up evidence that we are right. socrates had much to say about truth, honesty and morality, and explained that if people really understood that their behavior was wrong — then they simply wouldn't do it — by definition. unfortunately, honesty in the western tradition has been marginalized to specific
because intentions are closely related to fairness and certainly affect the degree of honesty/dishonesty, there is a wide spread confusion about honesty--and a general belief that being dishonest means that one always correctly understands if their behavior is either honest or dishonest. self-perception of our morality is non-static and volatile. it's often at the moment we refuse to consider other perspectives that there is a clear indication we are not pursuing the truth, rather than simply and exclusively at the moment we can muster up evidence that we are right. socrates had much to say about truth, honesty and morality, and explained that if people really understood that their behavior was wrong — then they simply wouldn't do it — by definition. unfortunately, honesty in the western tradition has been marginalized to specific
追答
因为诚实适用于所有的质量行为,一个人不能拒绝考虑事实信息,例如,以公正的方式,仍然声称,一个人的知识、信念或立场是诚实的一次尝试。
这种信念显然是一个产品的欲望,只是无关与人类认识的能力。
建立自己想要的东西,而不是上一个立场公正的证据收集,是不诚实的,即使善意甚至可以引用——毕竟希特勒可以引用的良好意图和目的的荣耀的人。
显然,一个公正的方法来诚实的真理是一个要求。
肯定因为意图密切相关的公平和影响程度的诚实/不诚实,有一个广泛的困惑关于诚实,一般认为不诚实意味着一个总是正确理解如果他们的行为要么是诚实的,亦可以是不诚实的。
自我道德非静态和稳定。
通常是目前我们拒绝考虑其他观点,表明我们不追求真理,而不是简单的,目前只鼓起的证据表明我们是对的。
苏格拉底关于真理,诚实和道德,解释说,如果人们真的明白,他们的行为是错误的,那么他们只是不会做——根据定义。
不幸的是,诚实的西方传统一直被边缘化的特定实例——也许是因为彻底理解诚实与各种类型的意识形态冲突。
意识形态和理想主义往往夸大和镇压的证据来支持他们的观点——为代价的真相。
这一过程侵蚀诚实的实践和理解。
一个思想家真相经常变得无关紧要,最重要的是他们的理想,永远支持他们的欲望享受和传播这些理想。
人类固有的偏见,他们认为什么是好的因为个人口味背景,但是一旦明白明显偏见的方法之一是真的——本质上是不诚实的,一个人可以理解理想主义和意识形态也不追求一个诚实的,道德的社会。
诚实和道德要求我们基地的看法在无偏的想法是好的,什么是真实的,而不是反之亦然(确定什么是真正基于我们感觉好),意识形态让我们相信所有的方式。
本回答被提问者采纳
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
推荐律师服务:
若未解决您的问题,请您详细描述您的问题,通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询