题目内容
国家审计署驻省的特派办，其正副特派员由国家审计署决定任命。 ( )
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
1998年诺贝尔经济学奖得主阿马蒂亚森在《伦理学与经济学》一书中，对经济学与伦理学的关系问题进行了可贵的探索．他认为，从亚里士多德开始，经济学本来就具有两种根源，即两种人类行为的目的：一种是对财富的关注，一种是更深层次上的目标追求．由此产生两种方法，一种是“工程学"的方法，也就是数学、逻辑的方法；一种是伦理的方法．这两种根源或方法，本来应是平衡的．但不同的学者重视的方面有所不同．从亚里士多德到亚当·斯密，比较注重伦理问题，而威廉·配第、大卫·李嘉图等更注重工程学方面．现代经济学则大大发展了工程学方面，却忽略了伦理方面．科学研究总是把人们当作完全理性的对象，这样逻辑的方法才能有效．但具体的人，都是活生生的，有情感的，有许多非理性的东西．单纯的理性的逻辑方法，难以避免现实上的失误．人们的感情、人们的意志、人们的理想和道德，在经济行为中，也会起到巨大的作用．单纯的工程学或逻辑方法，是不够用的．亚当·斯密指出，人们的活动是受自利引导，市场则以互利为原则，这一点被现代经济学家所继承和发展了，但人们却忽略了他的另一些观点，即人们的同情心、伦理考虑在人类行为中的作用．一般来讲，个人有或至少应当有追求自利的自由，但并不意味着这种追求就一定有伦理正当．当这种追求损害他人和社会利益时，就违背了伦理正当，从而成为应受谴责的不道德行为．离开伦理学的经济学只能使经济学贫困，正如离开经济学的伦理学，只能使伦理学空洞一样．经济学和伦理学的结合，其中也包括借助经济学所使用的各种方法和应用程序，使伦理学问题得到进一步的说明和解释．关于道德权利的分析便可证明这一点．人们常常从义务论的角度来看待权利，即表现为他人必须遵守约束．这类义务论结构可能不大适用于对道德中普遍存在的相互依赖性等复杂问题的解释．例如，甲侵犯了乙的权利，那么丙有义务去制止吗丙有权利，但不一定出于义务．如果借助经济学的一些原理去解释丙的行为，可能更有 利．用福利主义的根据事物状态的好坏来判断行为的原则，又用结果主义的根据效用结果来 判断事物状态好坏的原则，那么丙去制止甲，因其结果是好的，他便有道德权利去行事．评价一个道德行为，不应只看内在价值(自我完善)，还要看结果(与人为善)．显然，用结果主义的逻辑推理来分析道德权利，不见得完全充分，但却十分必要．由此可见，经济学应具有伦理的方法，伦理学也可引进经济学的方法．伦理学与经济学之所以有相通之处，可以相互联系相互引进，是由人们的经济行为和道德行为本身相互关联决定的．例如在工业生产中，人们的创造能力不仅取决于知识和技术水平，也取决于是否肯于奉献的道德水平．任何人的行为都带有社会性，不管你是否自觉到这一点．而这种社会性既包含经济因素，也包含伦理因素． 依据原文的论证分析，以下判断不恰当的一项是_____．
Most of you would probably say that what makes you truly happy is your family and the love you share in your relationships, and I couldn’t agree more. But money comes into play in those relationships. When I talk about money this way to a group, there is always someone who comes up to me and says, "Suze, you are so wrong. Money isn’t the key to life—this is!" At which point their wallet flies open and they show me a photo of their family. That’s when things get interesting, because I start asking them questions: Did you take that photo with your own camera It looks like a beautiful beach, was the photo taken on a family vacation Do you hope to help those beautiful boys and girls go to college As their answers are "yes", I ask them how they provide all of that for their family. That’s when they understand that I had it right. I totally agree that family and friends are of great importance to our well being; without meaningful relationships, there’s no chance of ever being truly happy. That’s why, every Saturday night, I end my CNBC show with the following words: "People first. Then money. Then things." How we deal with the money we have also plays into our happiness. Over the past few decades (十年), the percentage of Americans who say they’re happy hasn’t changed much, while at the same time the average income has doubled. So we have more money, but we’re not much happier on average. A paradox (悖论) Far from it. My sense is that while we’re making more money, we aren’t making more of the money we make. We have to pay for a lot of things, and we have to worry about saving for retirement (退休) in a way that our parents and grandparents never did. And as many of you know, it’s really hard to increase your happiness when you’ve got a lot of money worries. Do you agree, or am I way off base I’d love to know what do you think about the money/ happiness connection. Why do people often show the author their family photos
What does the man want to order Where are the two speakers
When is their flight Why do the speakers need to stop off in Hong Kong
微信支付 
支付宝支付