在前瞻式的视角和回溯式的视角的基础上结合电车难题来讨论后果主义,得出的结论认为:这两种视角是不可通约的,即从前瞻式的视角不能有效地证成回溯式的视角,根据所实现的后果又是无法证成事物发生过程是否合法的,同时注意区分道德上可被原谅与道德上正当,认为为了避免道德灾难而杀人作为一种权宜之计是可被原谅的,但是杀人本身不是道德上合法的。在此试图做的是提供一种新的评价方式,既通过道德上正当来保障义务论的要求,又通过道德上可被谅解这一概念为后果主义留下余地。 Based on the forward-looking perspective and the retrospective perspective, the article discusses the consequences of the tram in the light of the tram puzzle. The conclusion is that the two perspectives are not compatible, that is, from a forward-looking perspective, From the perspective of the realization of the law is unable to prove whether the process of occurrence of the law is legitimate, while paying attention to the distinction between morality can be forgiven and moral justification, in order to avoid moral disaster and murder as a stopgap measure can be forgiven But killing itself is not morally legal. What we are trying to do here is to provide a new way of assessing that not only guarantees the requirements of the doctrine of obligations through moral justification but leaves room for consequences doctrine through the notion of morally understandable.