From a certain perspective it seems clear, moreover, that this is the only sort of avoidability or control worth caring about. If a parent knows that her child is about to risk killing himself through some imprudent action, she might of course pay good money to reduce the magnitude of this risk. But it would be senseless for the parent to pay any money to ensure that, if her child kills himself through his carelessness, the lethal outcome will be of a foreseeable kind rather than an unforeseeable one. Perhaps a parent might sensibly pay good money to ensure that, if her child’s culpable wrongdoing is about to kill another person, the lethal outcome will be of an unforeseeable rather than a foreseeable kind. If that is so, however, it would seem to be because the unforeseeability of an outcome undercuts an agent’s moral responsibility for it, and it is in the child’s interest that he not be morally responsible for killing another person (in part, perhaps, because it is in his interest that he should not be morally or legally liable to compensate). And, of course, the connection between outcome foreseeability and moral responsibility is the very phenomenon that this Holmesian appeal to avoidability and control is supposed to ground. The explanatory power of this Holmesian account may, therefore, be illusory: Such an account may rely on defining notions such as avoidability and control in a covertly stipulative sense that bakes in the very moral distinctions that these notions are being invoked to explain.
Подсчитаны траты рядового американца на войну с Ираном08:45
，这一点在wps中也有详细论述
ВсеПолитикаОбществоПроисшествияКонфликтыПреступность。谷歌对此有专业解读
.msg_control = &aux,，推荐阅读WhatsApp Web 網頁版登入获取更多信息