公共课英语一模拟题2020年(139)
(总分100,考试时间180分钟)
阅读理解
When it came to moral "reasoning," we like to think our views on right and wrong are rational, but ultimately they are grounded in emotion. Philosophers have argued over this claim for a quarter of a millennium without resolution. Time's up! Now scientists armed with brain scanners are stepping in to ttle the matter. Though reason can shape moral judgment, emotion is often decisive.
Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene does brain scans of people as they ponder the so-called trolley problem. Suppo a trolley is rolling down the track toward five people who will die unless you pull a lever that diverts it onto another track—where, unfortunately, lies one person who will die instead. An easy call, most people say: minimizing the loss of life—a "utilitarian" goal, as philosophers put it—is the right thing to do.product是什么意思
mighty rivers run
But suppo the only way to save the five people is to push someone el onto the track—a bystander who body will bring the trolley to a halt before it hits the others. It's still a one-for-five swap, and you still initiate the action that dooms the one—but now you are more directly involved; most people say it would be wrong to do this deal. Why? According to Greene's brain scans, the cond scenario more thoroughly excites parts of the brain linked to emotion than does the lever-pulling scenario. Apparently the intuitive aversion to giving someone a deadly push is stronger than the aversion to a deadly lever pull.
Further studies suggest that in both cas the emotional **petes for control with more rational parts of the brain. In the cond scenario the emotions are usually strong enough to win. And when they lo, it is only after a tough wrestling match. The few people who approve of pushing an innocent man onto the tracks take longer to reach their decision. So too with people who approve of smothering a crying baby rather than catching the attention of enemy troops who would then kill the baby along with other innocents.
Princeton philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should re-examine our moral intuitions and ask whether that logic merits respect in the first place. Why obey moral impuls that evolved to rve the "lfish gene"—such as sympathy that moves toward kin and friends? Why not worry more about people an ocean away who suffering we could cheaply alleviate? Isn't it better to save 10 starving African babies than to keep your 90-year-old father on life support? Singer's radically utilitarian brand of moral philosophy has its work cut out for it. In the abnce of arduous cranial wrestling matches, reason may indeed be "slave of the passions."
1. 1.From the first two paragraphs, we can learn that
托福考试报名费用A. moral "reasoning" is actually bad on reason, not on emotion.政如农工
B. philosophers have resolved the dilemma between reason and emotion.
C. emotion plays a more important role than reason in moral judgment.
D. most philosophers pursue the utilitarian goal in the trolley problem.
2. 2.The word "swap" (Line 3, Paragraph 3) is clost in meaning to
A. change.
B. gamble.
丰台二中C. exchange.
D. choice.
3. 3.It is stated in Paragraph 4 that tho who support pushing the bystander to stop the trolley
A. are brutal and relentless.
B. display the same emotional aversion.
C. feel guilty about doing that.
D. have struggled to make the decision.
4. 4.Peter Singer ems to suggest that
A. we should cast away our logic and respect emotion in the first place.
B. we should not only concern about ourlves but start help each other.
ibelieve是什么意思C. people who live in abundance should give a hand to tho in poverty.
D. we should cut off life support for the old to achieve the utilitarian goals.
5. 5.The text intends to tell us that
jre是什么A. emotion plays the decisive role when we make moral judgment.
B. the struggle between reason and emotion is an antique topic.
asuraC. we always struggle to make life and death decisions in our life.英语语法练习题
D. emotion is more important and influential in our life than is reason.
headlines
Familiar as it may em, gravity remains a mystery to modern physics. Despite veral decades of trying, scientists have failed to fit Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes how gravity holds big objects together, with the quantum mechanics (an extension of statistical mechanics bad on quantum theory) he pioneered, which describes the tiny fundamental particles of which matter consists and the forces by which they interact. Recent discoveries have highlighted further problems.
