In accordance with the methodological maxim that I laid down

In accordance with the methodological maxim that I laid down at the beginning ,I shall approach the question of the demands of intergenerational justice via the question of the demands of distributive justice among contemporaries.The premiss from which start is one of the fundanmental equality of hunman beings(It is precisely because this premiss dose mot make moral standing valid for contemporaries are prima facie valid for intergenerational justice too.)Fundamental equality is ,as John Stuart Mill said,"the first principle of morals".Bentham's dictum,"everybody to count for one ,nobody for more than one"is ,as he noted a specific application of it to utilitarian calculus,telling us that pains and pleasures of equal intensity are to be given the same value in the calculus ,regardless of the identity of the person to whom they belong.An application that is not tied to utilitarianism is that different treatments of different people must be justified by adducing some morally relevant ground for different treatment.This is,of course,not saying a great deal until we know what are to count as morally relevant reasons.But even if we simply say that they are grounds which we ought reasonably to expect the person affected to accept freely,we shall rule out many historically prominent forms of domination and systematic inequality of rihgts,which have rested on nothing but the power of the beneficiaries to impose them.
I do not know of any way of providing a justification for the premiss of fundamental equality:its status is that of an axiom.I will point out,however,that it very widely accepted ,at least in theory ,and attempts to provide a rationale for unequal treatment at least pay lip service to the obligation to square it with the premiss of fundamental equality.Moreover,it seems to me that there is a good reason for this in that it is very hard to imagine any remotely plausible basis for rejecting the premiss.In any case ,it is presupposed in what follows.

与我首先提出的方法学格言符合,我通过分配性正义要求的问题将接近两代之间的正义要求的问题在当代之中的.前提开始是一个hunman生存(是精确地的它fundanmental平等,因为这前提药量mot做站立的道德合法为初步印象是合法为两代之间正义也是.)根本平等是的当代,约翰・斯图尔特磨房说,“道德的基本原理”.Bentham的宣言,“计数的大家为一个,没人为超过一个"是,他注意了一种具体应用它对功利主义的微积分,告诉我们将给相等的强度痛苦和乐趣在微积分的同一价值,不管他们属于人的身分.没有被栓对功利主义的应用是必须通过举例另外治疗的一些道德上相关的地面辩解另外人民的不同的治疗.这,当然,非常不说,直到我们知道什么将算作是道德上相关的原因.但是,即使我们说他们是我们的地面 应该合理地期待人受影响自由地接受,我们将排除控制权和rihgts的系统的不平等的许多历史上突出的形式,基于受益人的力量强加他们.
I不知道提供辩解任何方式为根本平等前提：它的状态是那公理.然而,我将指出它至少在理论和尝试上非常广泛接受了,为至少不同等的治疗薪水空口的应酬话提供理论基础给义务摆正它与根本平等前提.而且,以我所见有此的一个充足的理由因为想象为拒绝前提的所有遥远地振振有词的依据是非常难.无论如何,在什么被预料跟随