Suppose that a person, call him Andrew, has a desire to drink a cup of tea. He boils the kettle, pours the hot water into the teacup, places the teacup on a side table, and sits down next to it to wait for the tea to brew. When Andrew looks away, and before he is able to satisfy his desire, Beata quickly pours Andrew’s tea into a nearby plant pot because she believes that caffeine is bad for Andrew’s health. Let us call this example Tea Plant. Now imagine a different case. Andrew has the desire to drink a cup of tea, and then, rather than pouring away the tea, Beata sprays a chemical in the air that stops Andrew drinking that cup of tea: as Andrew begins to lift the cup to his lips, the spray extinguishes his desire to drink the tea. Andrew knows that Beata’s spray was the cause of this change. Let us call this example Tea Spray. In both Tea Plant and Tea Spray, Beata prevents Andrew’s desire to drink the cup of tea from being satisfied, and in both cases, this is plausibly pro tanto wrong— that is, Beata’s action in each case possesses some feature or features that render it

中文翻译：

---

挫败欲望的两种方法

假设一个叫他安德鲁的人想要喝一杯茶。他把水壶烧开，把热水倒进茶杯里，把茶杯放在边桌上，坐到旁边等茶泡好。当安德鲁把目光移开时，在他能够满足自己的欲望之前，贝塔迅速将安德鲁的茶倒入附近的花盆里，因为她认为咖啡因对安德鲁的健康有害。让我们称这个例子为茶厂。现在想象一个不同的案例。Andrew 想喝一杯茶，然后，Beata 没有倒掉茶，而是向空气中喷洒了一种化学物质，使 Andrew 不再喝那杯茶：当 Andrew 开始将杯子举到唇边时，喷雾熄灭了他喝茶的欲望。Andrew 知道 Beata 的喷雾是造成这种变化的原因。让我们称这个例子为茶喷雾。