Holm Søren
Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Med Health Care Philos. 2010 Nov;13(4):399-402. doi: 10.1007/s11019-010-9264-1.
In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate "agree to disagree". This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically problematic and will often lead to an unstable compromise.
在关于积极、自愿安乐死合法化的讨论中，有时有人声称，在一个自由的社会中应该发生的是，辩论的双方“求同存异”。本文探讨了求同存异所涉及的内容，并表明这比通常认为的情况要复杂得多。求同存异在哲学上存在问题，而且往往会导致不稳定的妥协。
