{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019656019656019656, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012285012285012285, 'mean_word_length': 4.659722222222222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
MORALS BY AGREEMENT DAVID GAUTHIER Chapter I OVERVIEW OF A THEORY

What theory of morals can ever serve any useful purpose, unless it can show that all the duties it recommends are also the true interest of each individual?1 David Hume, who asked this question, seems mistaken; such a theory would be too useful. Were duty no more than interest, morals would be superfluous. Why appeal to right or wrong, to good or evil, to obligation or to duty, if instead we may appeal to desire or aversion, to benefit or cost, to interest or to advantage? An appeal to morals takes its point from the failure of these latter considerations as sufficient guides to what we ought to. The unphilosophical poet Ogden Nash grasped the assumptions underlying our moral language more clearly than the philosopher Home when he wrote: