放开我╭(╯^╰)╮我要水！

vegetable03UID：3761455

“The first part of this book discusses what this argument achieves. As I shall explain, all of the best known theories are in certain ways self-defeating. What does this show? In some cases, nothing. In other cases, what is shown is that a theory must be developed further, or extended. And in other cases what is shown is that a theory must be either rejected or revised. This is what is shown about the moral theories that most of us accept.”

摘录来自: Parfit, Derek. “Reasons and Persons (Oxford Paperbacks)”。 iBooks.

vegetable03UID：3761455

“I start with the best-known case.”

摘录来自: Parfit, Derek. “Reasons and Persons (Oxford Paperbacks)”。 iBooks.

vegetable03UID：3761455

1. THE SELF-INTEREST THEORY

vegetable03UID：3761455

“We can describe all theories by saying what they tell us to try to achieve. According to all moral theories, we ought to try to act morally. According to all theories about rationality, we ought to try to act rationally. Call these our formal aims. Different moral theories, and different theories about rationality, give us different substantive aims.”

摘录来自: Parfit, Derek. “Reasons and Persons (Oxford Paperbacks)”。 iBooks.

vegetable03UID：3761455

“By ‘aim’, I shall mean ‘substantive aim’. This use of aim is broad. It can describe moral theories that are concerned, not with moral goals, but with rights, or duties. Suppose that, on some theory, five kinds of act are totally forbidden. This theory gives to each of us the aim that ”

摘录来自: Parfit, Derek. “Reasons and Persons (Oxford Paperbacks)”。 iBooks.

vegetable03UID：3761455

“he never acts in these five ways.”

摘录来自: Parfit, Derek. “Reasons and Persons (Oxford Paperbacks)”。 iBooks.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Bill Gipson is a bus driver for the Swank Transport Company. A number of years ago, when Gipson was walking to a restaurant from work, Michael Sawyer, an old intimate friend of his, stopped and offered him a ride. They had not seen each other for several year since Sawyer had moved to another state. They carried on a warmly talk as Sawyer drove. Suddenly a car ran through a red light and struck Sawyers car, whose driver is William Tord, a resident of an adjacent state. All the three individuals are badly injured and were taken to hospital. Miserably Sawyer died from injures received in the crash a week later.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Several days after the accident, Gipson’s boss, David Swank telephoned him, dur- ing their conversation, Swank said that he had learned that the police had found about an ounce of heroin under the front seat of Sawyer’s car and were going to charge Gip- son with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute. Swank also stated that the company had made a decision to fire Gipson that morning.

vegetable03UID：3761455

There are at least two legal disputes involving Gipson that could arise out of this situation:
1. A dispute among Gipson, Tord, and Sawyer’s estate regarding liability for the accident.
2. A dispute between Gipson and the government regarding the criminal charges.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Digest 1
Gipson underwent substantial injury as a result of the crash. He cold ask dam- ages1from whom, who was liable for the accident. Was Sawyer at fault? Told? Was each of them jointly and severally liable2? Gipson hired Adrian Neff to represent him. Once Gipson signed the retainer3, Neff could later enter an appearance4 and then be come the attorney of record5.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Digest 2
The attorney then clearly explained that some factors should be considered before deciding on the forum6. Gipson might be able to bring the suit in several places (a) in a state trial court where Gipson lives, (b) in a state trial court where Tord lives, (c) in a state where Sawyers estate7 is located, (d) in the deferral trial court sitting in Gipsons state, (e) in the federal trial court sitting in the Tords sate, or (f) in the federal trial court sitting in the state where Sawyers estate is located. The reason Gipson could sue in a federal court was the existence of diversity of citizenship8. Neff suggested Gipson to sue in federal court. The suit would be brought in the U.S. District Court sitting in Gipsons own state since this would be most convenient venue9 for Gipson.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Digest 3
Having decided on a court, Neff was prepared for the suit subsequently: he drafted a complaint10, the first pleading11 of the case, naming Gipson as the plaintiff12 and stating a cause of action13 in tort for negligence against Tord and Sawyers estate as codefendants14. In the complaint, Neff summarized the facts that he felt stabilized a cause cause of action for negligence. Some of the allegations15 were based upon personal knowledge of Gipson, while other were based upon information and belief 16 . The ad amnum17 clause of the complaint demanded $100,000 in damages. Then he attached a written demand for a jury trial18 to the complaint and filed19 both documents with the court.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Digest 4
The next proceeding is service of process20. It was achieved when a copy of the complaint and the summons21 was served on both Tord and on the legal representa- tive of Sawyer’s estate. Neff need not serve these parties himself. He asked a process server22 who then filed an affidavit23 of service with the court indicating the circum- stances under which service was accomplished. Service was made before the statute of limitations24. Once the defendants were properly served, the court acquired in per- sonam jurisdiction25 over them. Tord filed a motion to dismiss26 for Gipson’s failure to state a cause of action27. The court denied the motion.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Digest 5
Because the suit had been brought in a federal court, the procedural law28 gov- erning the case would be found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure29. Tord and Sawyer’s estate were each ordered to file an answer to Gipson’s complaint within twenty days, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedural. Tord filed his an- swer almost immediately. Since Sawyer was dead and unable to communicate with his attorney about the accident, the attorney for the estate had a number of difficulties in drafting and filing an answer30 within twenty days. For the purpose of avoiding a de- fault judgment31 against the estate, the attorney filed a motion32 asking for an extension of thirty days. The motion was granted by the court.

vegetable03UID：3761455

Digest 6
The answer filed on behalf of Sawyer’s estate denied the allegation of negligence and raised an affirmative defense33 of contributory negligence against Gipson. It as- serted that if Sawyer had been partially liable for the accident, it was mainly because Gipson had distracted him through his conversation in the car. Certainly, the answer of Sawyer’s estate also stated a cross-claim34 against the codefendant Tord, alleging that the accident had been caused solely by Tord’s negligence. Tord’s answer also raised the defense35 of contributory negligence against Gipson and a cross-claim against Sawyer’s estate, alleging that the accident had been caused solely by the negligence of Sawyer and Gipson together. On this same theory, Tord also raised a counterclaim36 against Gipson.