Trump found himself in a furious row last year with Narendra Modi over his country’s oil deals with Moscow, only for fences to be partly mended when India’s biggest importer later capitulated.
But ultimately even this line of thought comes perilously close to restating what it purports to explain. To see why, suppose that an agent culpably imposes a moderate risk of death on another person through some prosaic means, such as playing around with explosive fireworks. If the agent causes harm to the other person in a predictable way (such as, blowing him up), then she will of course be morally responsible for this outcome and liable to compensate him for it. If, by contrast, she causes him equivalent harm through some freakish and unpredictable way (such as awakening a slumbering and murderous bear), she will not. But there is an obvious sense in which the agent is equally able to avoid the injurious and rights-infringing outcome in both cases: She can simply avoid playing with the fireworks, something that she is anyway obligated to do.
。业内人士推荐新收录的资料作为进阶阅读
Названа стоимость «эвакуации» из Эр-Рияда на частном самолете22:42
Disrupt 2026: The tech ecosystem, all in one room