Literature and Moral Feeling argued that ethics is best understood as a constraint on egocentric self-interest. That constraint is specified variously by groups or individuals who set parameters differently within common ethical principles, and who use a range of emotion-guided narrative genres to imagine and evaluate possible actions. Though it covers many ethical concerns (collectively termed “morality”), this account leaves out fairness (alternatively, justice). The following essay seeks to make up for that deficit. Framing its analysis by reference to a well-known problem in Milton's Paradise Lost, it distinguishes two systems of ethical response organized around first- and third-person perspectives. Like the first-person concerns of morality, third person concerns of justice are specified by setting parameters within common principles. In treating these principles and parameters, the essay articulates cognitive and affective components of third-person ethical evaluation. These, then, help to resolve the problem with Milton's poem. That resolution, in turn, suggests further complications in the account of ethical evaluation.

中文翻译：

---

公平、等级制度和道德合理化，还​​是失乐园出了什么问题？

文学和道德情感认为，道德最好被理解为对以自我为中心的利己主义的约束。这种约束是由团体或个人以不同的方式指定的，他们在共同的道德原则内设定不同的参数，并使用一系列情感引导的叙事体裁来想象和评估可能的行动。尽管它涵盖了许多伦理问题（统称为“道德”），但这种解释忽略了公平（或者正义）。下面的文章试图弥补这一缺陷。它通过参考弥尔顿的《失乐园》中的一个众所周知的问题来进行分析，区分了围绕第一人称和第三人称视角组织的两种道德反应系统。与第一人称对道德的关注一样，第三人称对正义的关注是通过在共同原则内设定参数来具体化的。在处理这些原则和参数时，本文阐明了第三人称道德评价的认知和情感组成部分。那么，这些有助于解决弥尔顿诗歌的问题。反过来，该决议表明伦理评估的情况进一步复杂化。