哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
《公正与正义》公开课观后感
《公正与正义》公开课观后感学号：2011262138 商务1121班为了丰富我们的思想素养，我们的敬爱的胡老师给我们看了由哈佛大学哲学教授迈克尔*桑德尔（Michael Sandel）主讲的美国哈佛大学《公正与正义》公开课程的讲学视频的前六讲。
不得不说，看完之后，受益匪浅，感慨良多。
该讲座以哈佛教授迈克尔*桑德尔对道德和政治哲学的系列入门介绍。
邀请大家带着批判的观点来思考正义，公平，民主和公民权等基础问题。
看完了《公正与正义》前六讲，我似乎感觉到了其中所描述的是在一个秩序良好的理想的社会中探讨正义、阐述规则，正义的标准到底如何确定，我想这应该是一个很值得探讨的问题。
桑德尔教授对假设的理想社会的正义原则的理性设计，展示了其精密而理性的逻辑思维。
采用较为思辨的语言不见经传地阐述实质性的理论问题，而不是像分析哲学那样较多地集中于语言与形式方面。
在《公平与正义》中，桑德尔教授所假设出来的一切，都将重重的考验着我们每一次站在道德与法律、公平与正义上所做出的选择。
在这里，仅写下一点哲学赋予我的人生智慧，这也算是在对该讲学中某一个方面的感悟吧。
哲学的任务不是为了人对客观实际增加正面的知识，而是为了提高人的心智。
在学习中，我们面对事物，学会了用联系、发展、全面的观点看问题，避免了那些孤立的、静止的、片面的幼稚错误；我们认识到了世界的发展有其自身的规律，如果顺应规律将得到事半功倍的效果；我们明白量变质变的原理，懂得如果不防微杜渐，一点点小错误的积累都会导致严重的后果；我们明白矛盾的重点论，知道了面对纷繁复杂问题的时候，抓住其主要方面，其他都能迎刃而解。
学哲学可以养成清楚的思维，怀疑的精神，容忍的态度，开阔的眼界，我们要有这种眼界，不但可以做事，而且更能善于做事。
任何一个知识领域，只要你愿意深入，展现在你眼前的将是一种不一样的画面，而知识的真谛也往往蕴于其中。
另外，哲学以它巨大的智慧力量丰富着我们的内心，壮大了我们的力量，在哲学的引领下，我们明白了人生的目的，在我们的有生之年，学会智慧的面对这个世界。
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
最大化效用作为一个原则 不仅适用于个人
but also for communities
and for legislators.
而且还适用于社区及立法者.
"What, after all, is a community"
Bentham asks.
“毕竟,什么是社区” Bentham问道.
costs for people who develop
smoking-related diseases.
从而受到负面影响.
On the other hand,
there were positive effects
另一方面,这也有积极效应
and those were added up
on the other side of the ledger.
从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的.
What exactly should we maximize
我们究竟该如何最大化
Bentham tells us happiness,
or more precisely, utility -
Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用-
maximizing utility as a principle
pay pensions for as long -
养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-
and also, savings in
housing costs for the elderly.
还有,老年人住房费用.
And when all of the costs
and benefits were added up,
哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记
哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记第一课：谋杀的道德侧面——食人案件案例1：假设你是一名电车司机，你的电车以60英里/小时的速度在轨道上飞驰，突然发现在轨道的尽头有5名工人正在施工，你无法让电车停下来，因为刹车坏了。
你此时极度绝望，因为你深知如果电车撞向那5名工人，他们全都会死。
你极为无助，直到你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨，而在侧轨的尽头只有1名工人在那里施工。
而你的方向盘还没坏，只要你想就可以把电车转到侧轨上去，牺牲一人挽救五个人的性命。
第一个问题：何为正确的选择？换成你会怎么做？绝大多数人都选择转弯：牺牲一个人，保存五个是最好的选择。
不转弯的人的理由：类似于种族灭绝的思维方式。
案例2：这次你不再是电车司机，只是一名旁观者。
你站在一座桥上，俯瞰着电车轨道，电车沿着轨道从远处而来，轨道尽头有5名工人，电车刹车坏了，这5名工人即将被撞死。
但你不是电车司机，你爱莫能助。
直到你发现在你旁边，靠着桥站着的是个超级胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车，他必死无疑，但可以挽救那5个人的性命。
现在，又有多少人会选择把胖子推下桥？（大多人不会这么做）一个显而易见的问题出现了，我们“牺牲一人保全五人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题？第一种情况中大多数人赞同这条原则怎么了？两种情况都属于多数派的人，你们是怎么想的？应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢？学生1发言：第二种情况牵涉到主动选择推人，而被推的这个人本来跟这件事一点关系都没有，所以，从个人自身利益的角度来说，他是被迫卷入这种灾难的。
而第一种情况不同，第一种情况里的三方、电车司机以及两组工人，之前就牵涉进这件事本身了。
（在侧轨的那个人并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自己。
）学生2发言：在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个人，你只能在两者中选择，不管你做出的是哪一个选择，总得有人被电车撞死，而他们的死，并非是你的直接行为导致的，电车已经失控，而你必须在一瞬间做出选择。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18
哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18这是关于道德与政治哲学的一个入门系列课程，主要是围绕哈佛大学迈克尔·桑德尔教授法学系列课程《公正：该如何是好？》展开评议。
本课程旨在引导观众一起评判性思考关于公正、平等、民主与公民权利的一些基本问题，以拓展他们对于政治与道德哲学的认知理解，探究固有观念是与非。
学生们同时还将接触过去一些伟大哲学家——亚里士多德、康德、密尔、洛克。
然后，应用课程去分析复杂多变的现代问题：赞助性措施、同性婚姻、爱国主义、忠诚度与人权等。
桑德尔在教学中通过一些假设或真实案例的描述，置学生于伦理两难困境中，然后要他们做出决定：“该如何做是好？”他鼓励学生站出来为自己的观点辩护，这通常激发生动而幽默的课堂辩论。
桑德尔然后围绕伦理问题展开，更深层次地触及不同道德选择背后的假设。
这种教学法通常会揭示道德推论的矛盾本质。
第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》、第2讲：《食人惨案》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，你会怎么选？正确的做法是什么？教授Michael Sandel在他的讲座里提出这个假设的情景，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。
但是Sandel提出了三宗类似的道德难题-每一个都设计巧妙，以至于抉择的难度增加。
当学生站起来为自己的艰难抉择辩护时，Sandel提出了他的观点。
我们的道德推理背后的假设往往是矛盾的，而什么是正确什么是错的问题，并不总是黑白分明的。
Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。
他们在海上迷失了19天之后，船长决定杀死机舱男孩，他是4个人中最弱小的，这样他们就可以靠他的血液和躯体维持生命。
案件引发了学生们对提倡幸福最大化的功利论的辩论，功利论的口号是“绝大多数人的最大利益”。
第3讲：《给生命一个价格标签》、第4讲：《如何衡量快乐》Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）在18世纪后期提出的的功利主义理论-最大幸福理论-今天常被称为“成本效益分析”。
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》是一门探讨社会正义、道德决策和公平的知名课程。
通过这门课程，人们可以更深入地了解公平与正义这一重要主题，并进行理性的思考和讨论。
以下是对这门课程涉及的书目进行全面评估，并撰写一篇有价值的文章。
一、约翰·罗尔斯的《正义论》在哈佛公开课中，约翰·罗尔斯的思想在探讨公平与正义方面占据重要地位。
《正义论》一书深入探讨了社会正义的概念和原则，提出了“差别原则”和“最大化原则”等理论，为我们理解公平与正义提供了宝贵的思想资源。
二、迈克尔·桑德尔的《正义：我们为什么如此纷争》迈克尔·桑德尔是哈佛大学的知名哲学教授，他的书《正义：我们为什么如此纷争》也是《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》中的重要参考书目。
书中作者以丰富的案例和深刻的思考，解析了正义的本质和我们为何在正义问题上存在纷争的原因，对于加深我们对公平与正义的理解具有重要的启发作用。
三、阿马蒂亚·森的《公平与自由》阿马蒂亚·森是诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他的著作《公平与自由》也是哈佛公开课中必不可少的参考书目。
在这本书中，作者对公平与自由的关系进行了深入的思考和论述，从个体自由和社会公平的角度对正义进行了系统的阐释，为我们提供了全新的思考视角。
《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》涉及的书目涵盖了哲学、政治学和经济学等多个学科领域的经典著作，为探讨公平与正义提供了丰富的理论资源。
通过对这些书目进行深入研读和思考，我们可以更好地理解和把握公平与正义这一重要主题。
总结回顾：通过对《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》涉及的书目进行全面评估，我们深入了解了约翰·罗尔斯、迈克尔·桑德尔和阿马蒂亚·森等学者对公平与正义的深刻思考和论述。
这些经典著作为我们理解和探讨公平与正义提供了丰富的理论资源，并为我们拓展了思维的广度和深度。
在今后的学习和思考中，我们可以结合这些书目的理论，形成自己对公平与正义的个人观点和理解，不断丰富和完善自己的价值观念。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：第一课：英文字幕
Funding for this program is provided by...Additional funding provided by...This is a course about justice and we begin with a you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the trackat miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all 's assume you know that for so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the endof that track, there is one worker working on the steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the 's our first question:what's the right thing to doWhat would you doLet's take a many would turnthe trolley caronto the side trackRaise your many wouldn'tHow many would go straight aheadKeep your hands up those of youwho would go straight handful of people would,the vast majority would 's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to 's begin with those in the majoritywho would turn to goonto the side would you do itWhat would be your reasonWho's willing to volunteer a reasonGo ahead. Stand it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person 's a good 's a good elseDoes everybody agreewith that reason Go I was thinking it's the same reasonon / with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big the principle therewas the same on /.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn YesLet's hear nowfrom those in the minority,those who wouldn't turn. , I think that'sthe same type of mentalitythat justifies genocideand order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the what would you doin this caseYou would, toavoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill themPresumably, would. Who elseThat's a brave 's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of youin the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driverof the trolley car,you're an 're standing on a bridgeoverlooking a trolley car down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat you couldgive him a would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley would diebut he would spare the , how many would pushthe fat man over the bridgeRaise your many wouldn'tMost people wouldn''s the obvious became of the principle"better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one"What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first caseI need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both do you explainthe difference between the two second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have beeninvolved in the situation at so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did heThat's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the ahead, you can come backif you want. All 's a hard question. You did did very 's a hard else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases , I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certainchoice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley I think it's a slightlydifferent right, who has a replyThat's good. Who has a wayWho wants to replyIs that a way out of thisI don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person,which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious either way,you're making a you want to replyI'm not really surethat that's the just still seemskind of act of actually pushingsomeone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him 're pushing himwith your own 're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into know, it doesn't really sound rightsaying it , no. It's good. It's 's your name me ask you this question, standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like you turnFor some reason,that still just seems more I mean, maybe if you accidentallylike leaned into the steering wheelor something like ... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the I could agree with 's all right. Fair still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the the second one,you're an onlooker as right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat right. Let's forget for the momentabout this 's 's imagine a different time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to 've been in a terribletrolley car of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spendall daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould many would save the fiveNow as the doctor,how many would save the oneVery few people,just a handful of reason, I life versus fiveNow consider another doctor time, you're a transplant surgeonand you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a you have no organ are about to see them then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a he's – you like that –and he's taking a nap,you could go in very quietly,yank out the five organs,that person would die,but you could save the many would do itAnyone How manyPut your hands upif you would do in the balconyI would Be careful,don't lean over too many wouldn'tAll right. What do you saySpeak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. WhyI'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other 's a pretty good 's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical 's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've let's considerwhat those moral principles look first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must 's an exampleof consequentialist moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral peoplehesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasonshaving to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they were thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights,regardless of the 're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast betweenconsequentialist and categoricalmoral most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke,Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,and 'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary,political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical will debate equality and inequality,affirmative action, free speech versushate speech, same sex marriage,military conscription,a range of practical questions. WhyNot just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the may sound appealing enough,but here I have to issue a the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks,risks that are both personaland political,risksthat every studentof political philosophy has risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already 's an difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already works by taking what we knowfrom familiar unquestioned settingsand making it 's how those examples worked,the hypotheticals with which we began,with their mix of playfulnessand 's also how thesephilosophical books estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same knowledge is like lost innocence,however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor makes this enterprise difficultbut also rivetingis that moral and political philosophyis a story and you don't knowwhere the story will what you do knowis that the story is about are the personal what of the political risksOne way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise youthat by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositionsof public policy,you will hone your political judgment,you will become a moreeffective participant in public this would be a partialand misleading philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that have to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out tells Socrates"Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if onepursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says,"abandon the accomplishmentsof active life,take for your modelsnot those people whospendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihoodand reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates"Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a had a point because philosophydistances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled are the risks,personal and in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for alleither the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve themAnd so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her ownprinciples and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of 's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following 's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every skepticism, just throwing up your handsand giving up on moral reflectionis no Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might you very , in a situation thatdesperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to do what you have to doYou got to dowhat you got to do, pretty you've been going dayswithout any food, you know,someone just hasto take the has to make the sacrificeand people can , that's 's your name, what do you say to MarcusLast time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were began with our judgmentsin particular tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles,revising eachin the light of the we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought we called thisconsequentialist moral we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the , many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrongeven if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one we contrasted consequentialistmoral principles with categorical and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral that's the philosophyof Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple a lot of morallyintuitive appeal,Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize did he mean byutilityHe meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain,happiness over 's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and human beingslike pleasure and dislike so we should base morality,whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens,we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of 's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and was a th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law 's what happened in the 'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the newspaper account of the timedescribed the sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, ship flounderedin the South Atlantic, miles from the were four in the crew,Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker, years was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of , it was not to facts of the casewere not in wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went four crew membersescaped to a only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh the first three days,they ate the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate next daythey caught a with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few then for eight days,theyhad food. No yourselfin a situation like that,what would you doHere's what they now the cabin boy, Parker,is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawateragainst the advice of the othersand he had become illand he appeared to be on the th day,Dudley, the captain,suggested that they should allhave a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the didn't like the lottery don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral in any case,no lots were next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin then they were describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism."On the th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand turned state's and Stevens went to didn't dispute the claimed they hadacted out of necessity;that was their argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could prosecutor wasn't swayedby that said murder is murder,and so the case went to imagine you are the just to simplify the discussion,put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissibleAnd how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrongA pretty sizeable let's see what people's reasons areand let me begin with thosewho are in the 's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and would you morallyexonerate themWhat are your reasons think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthereis a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensibleand what makes someonelegally other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact,exonerate you from any . Good. Other voices for the justificationsfor what they did. just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to dowhat you have to , you've got to dowhat you've got to you've been going days without any food, you know,someone just has to take the sacrifice,someone has to make the sacrificeand people can furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productivemembers of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizationsand this and thatand this and mean they benefited everybodyin the end. , I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't but. -WhatMaybe they were if they went homeand they turned out to be assassinsWhat if they'd gone homeand turned out to be assassins Well…You'd want to knowwho they 's true too. That's 's fair. I would want to knowwho they right. That's 's your name. All 've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the we need to hearfrom the people thinkwhat they did was wrong. WhyYes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be if that's an appealing argumentthat you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincingdo think that they wereacting what do you-I want to knowwhat you defend 'm sorry, you vote to convict, rightYeah, I don't think thatthey acted in a morallyappropriate why notWhat do you say,here's Marcus,he justdefended said –you heard what he you've got to dowhat you've got to doin a case like that. do you say to MarcusThat there'sno situation that would allowhuman beings to take the ideaof fate orthe other people's livesin their own hands,that we don't havethat kind of . what's your name. Okay. Who elseWhat do you say Stand 'm wondering if Dudley and Stevenhad asked for Richard Parker'sconsent in you know, dying,if that would exonerate themfrom an act of murderand if so,is that still morally justifiableThat's right. wait, hang 's your name sayssuppose they had that,what would thatscenario look likeSo in the story Dudley is there,pen knife in hand,but instead of the prayeror before the prayer,he says "Parker, would you mind""We're desperately hungry",as Marcus empathizes with,"we're desperately 're not going to last long anyhow."-Yeah. You can be a martyr."Would you be a martyrHow about it Parker"Then what do you thinkWould it be morally justified thenSuppose Parkerin his semi-stupor says "Okay."I don't think it would bemorally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be don't think thateven with consentit would be morally justifiedAre there people who thinkwho want to take upKathleen's consent ideaand who think thatthat would make itmorally justifiedRaise your handif it would, if you think it 's very would consentmake a moral differenceWhy would it , I just thinkthat if he was makinghis own original ideaand it was his ideato start with,then that would bethe only situationin which I would see itbeing appropriate in any waybecause that wayyou couldn't make the argumentthat he was pressured,you know it's three-to-oneor whatever the ratio . -And I think that if he wasmaking a decisionto give his lifeand he took on the agencyto sacrifice himselfwhich some peoplemight see as admirableand other people might disagreewith that if he came upwith the idea,that's the only kindof consent we could haveconfidence in morallythen it would be , it would be kind ofcoerced consentunder the circumstances,you thereanyone who thinksthat even the consent of Parkerwould not justify their killing himWho thinks that us why. Stand think that Parkerwould be killed with the hopethat the other crew memberswould be rescued so there's nodefinite reason thathe should be killedbecause you don't knowwhen they're going to get rescuedso if you kill him,it's killing him in vain,do you keep killing a crew memberuntil you're rescuedand then you're left with no onebecause someone's goingto die eventuallyWell, the moral logicof the situation seems to be that,that they would keep onpicking off the weakest maybe,one by one,until they were in this case, luckily,they were rescued when three at leastwere still , if Parker did give his consent,would it be all right,do you think or notNo, it still wouldn't be tell us whyit wouldn't be all of all, cannibalism,I believe, is morally incorrectso you shouldn't beeating human cannibalism is morallyobjectionable as such so then,even on the scenario ofwaiting until someone died,still it would be , to me personally,I feel like it all dependson one's personal moralsand like we can't sit here and just,like this is just my opinion,of course other peopleare going to disagree, but –Well we'll see,let's see what their disagreements areand then we'll seeif they have reasons that canpersuade you or 's try that. All , is there someonewho can explain,those of you who aretempted by consent,can you explain whyconsent makes sucha moral differenceWhat about the lottery ideaDoes that count as consentRemember at the beginning,Dudley proposed a lottery,suppose that they had agreedto a lottery,then how many would then sayit was all rightSuppose there were a lottery,cabin boy lost,and the rest of the story unfolded,then how many people would sayit was morally permissibleSo the numbers are risingif we had a 's hear from one of youfor whom the lotterywould make a moral would itI think the essential element,in my mind,that makes it a crimeis the idea that they decidedat some point that their liveswere more important than his,andthat, I mean, that's kind ofthe basis for really any It's like my needs,my desires are more importantthan yours and minetake if they had done a lotterywhere everyone consentedthat someone should dieand it's sort of like they're allsacrificing themselvesto save the it would be all rightA little grotesque but–.-But morally permissible what's your name Matt, for you,what bothers you isnot the cannibalismbut the lack of due guess you could say And can someone who agreeswith Matt say a little bit moreabout why a lottery would make it,in your view, morally way I understood itoriginally was thatthat was the whole issueis that the cabin boywas never consultedabout whether or notsomething was goingto happen to him,even with the original lotterywhether or nothe would bea part of that,it was just decidedthat he was the onethat was going to , that's what happenedin the actual if there were a lotteryand they'd all agreed to the procedure,you think that would be okayRight, because then everyoneknows that there's going to be a death,whereas the cabin boy didn't know thatthis discussion was even happening,there was no forewarningfor him to know that"Hey, I may be the one that's dying."All , suppose everyone agreesto the lottery, they have the lottery,the cabin boy loses,and he changes his 've already decided,it's like a verbal can't go back on that,you've decided,the decision was you know that you're dyingfor the reason of others to someone else had died,you know that you wouldconsume them so –Right. But then you could say,"I know, but I lost".I just think thatthat's the whole moral issueis that there was no consultingof the cabin boyand that's what makes itthe most horribleis that he had no ideawhat was even going had he knownwhat was going on,it would be a bit right. I want to hear –so there are some who thinkit's morally permissiblebut only about %,led by there are some who saythe real problem hereis the lack of consent,whether the lack of consentto a lottery, to a fair procedure or,Kathleen's idea,lack of。
哈佛公开课《公平与正义》观后感
观哈佛公开课《公平与正义》有感——怎样成为一名有魅力的教师看完了哈佛著名教授桑德尔的公开课《公平与正义》，感触颇多，尤其被桑德尔教授的教学风格及渊博的知识吸引，桑德尔教授的身上哟许多值得学习的地方，在这里就怎样成为一名有魅力的教师有，在这里就怎样成为一名有魅力的教师有，我我觉得应该首先做到以下几点。
一、独特的教学方式桑德尔教授以“苏格拉底的方式”教学。
苏格拉底像一个“助产婆”，帮助别人产生知识。
“助产术”集中表现在他经常采用的“诘问式”的形式中，以提问的方式揭露对方提出的各种命题、学说中的矛盾，以动摇对方论证的基础，指明对方的无知；在诘问中，苏格拉底自己并不给予正面的、积极的回答，而是让学生自己思考。
苏格拉底曾经说过，没有经过思考的生活是不值得过的生活。
同样，没有经过审视的人生也是没有价值的。
桑德尔教授在教学过程中也是通过不断地诘问、桑德尔教授在教学过程中也是通过不断地诘问、应答、应答、反驳和再追问，使学生通过对具体个案的辨析和争论，使学生通过对具体个案的辨析和争论，来培养批评思考以及推来培养批评思考以及推理论说的能力。
比如，课程刚开始，桑德尔问：“若你是医生，在急诊室有一个病危的病人，和5个病情相对较轻的病人。
你若花一天救那一个人，另5个便会死去；若去救那5个，病危的那个便会病亡。
你如何选择？”大部分同学选择救5人，牺牲少数，使更多人获利。
只有少部分人认为这样做，对病危的病人不公平。
“狡猾”的桑德尔继续提问：“若你有一个相对健康的病人，还有5个分别急需不同移植器官的病危的病人。
你会杀了健康的一个，用他的器官救另外5个吗？”这样的提问方式在课堂上数不胜数。
这样的提问方式在课堂上数不胜数。
最终目的就是引导学生不最终目的就是引导学生不断思考，开拓思维，领悟其中的哲理。
断思考，开拓思维，领悟其中的哲理。
而在中国的大学教授的课堂及讲座基本上都是自己讲，下面的听众往往是百无聊赖。
众往往是百无聊赖。
我觉得作为一名光荣的最光辉的教师，我觉得作为一名光荣的最光辉的教师，在学习方面，在学习方面，不仅是传授现成的知识，更重要的是引导学生学会思考，更重要的是引导学生学会思考，脑海中形成一个系统的脑海中形成一个系统的思维。
哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记
网易公开课《公正》课堂笔记1. 《杀人的道德侧面》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。
如果在最后,可以有五个人活下来。
那么哪怕牺牲一个人的生命也是值得的。
这个例子体现了结果主义的道德推理.事情的正确以及道德与否，取决于你的行为所产生的后果.结果主义的道德准则中最著名的例子是功利主义功利主义不考虑一个人行为的动机与手段，仅考虑一个行为的结果对最大快乐值的影响。
能增加最大快乐值的即是善；反之即为恶。
即使是为了救回5条人命。
杀害一个无辜者.人们在考虑是不是要这么做的时候，会考虑到这个行为的本身，无论结果如何人们觉得这是错的，而且大错特错。
这就引出了第二种道德推理，绝对主义的道德推理。
绝对主义的道德推理认为：道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的责任和权利,而无论所造成的结果是怎么样的.2.《同类相残案》人们是否也有某些基本权利？如果不是来自较大群体的福祉，或者效用或幸福？那么这些权利从何而生？为什么同意以一定的程序，公平的程序，就可以用该程序的运作来为最终带来的结果辩护？得到同意的基本思想：得到同意产生的道德影响是什么？为什么一个得到许可的行为会产生道德上是否允许的不同，使未经许可杀死一个生命是错误的，而本人同意了，在道德上就是允许的？3.《给生命一个价格标签》边沁版本的功利主义其主要思想就是：道德的最高原则,无论个人或政治道德,就是将公共福利,或集体的幸福最大化,或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐;简而言之就是,功利最大化.从这个理论的整体出发,从做正确的事的观点出发,政策和法律的公正的基础就是将效用最大化两个反对功利主义的不同意见：一是功利主义是否充分尊重了个体权利或少数群体的权利；另一个则是聚集起来的所有效益或价值，是否能将聚集起来的所有价值转换成金钱?Thorndike从他的研究中得到的结论.任何愿望或满足感都存在一个量来度量它们，因此是可度量的.狗或猫或鸡的生活都是由欲望组成,渴望,欲望,以及他们的满足.人类的生活,也是如此,虽然人类的欲望和欲求更加复杂.4.《如何衡量快乐》功利主义哲学家密尔认为，所有人类的体验都可以量化，但某些快乐是更值得拥有，更有价值的。
哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感
哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感哈佛大学的公开课《公平与正义》观看后让我感慨颇多。
集中体现在三个方面：1、让我对政治与哲学这门课有了全新的认识。
2、桑尔德教授的教学魅力。
3、经典案例引发的思考。
正如课中所讲学习的本质不在于你记住了哪些知识，而在于它触发了你的思考。
上学时我们都学过政治哲学，它相对其他科目有些枯燥，面对这些形而上的知识学习的方式大多是死记硬背，结果是不甚理解，延伸几年的结果就是全忘了。
而视频中的政治哲学课却是有趣又引人深思，学生踊跃发言，可能学生没记住具体的知识但他们对身边的事物有了自己的思考方式。
桑尔德教授的教学魅力极大。
他不仅学识渊博，逻辑思维能力很强而且风趣幽默，平和亲切，对事物有着自己独到深刻的见解。
他的课包容性非常强，在聆听学生的答案时，他从不评价对与错，每个站起来的学生都尽力阐述自己的观点，他经常会让一个学生来回应另一个学生的看法，让理越辩越明。
所以他的课座无虚席，连二楼都站满了旁听的学生。
桑尔德教授课中举的经典案例引发人的深思，公平与正义的抉择让人陷入两难。
假如你是电车司机，刹车失灵，当面临直行撞死五人还是驶入岔路口撞死一人，你会如何选择?哈佛的学生大多数选择了驶入岔路口，想必这和我们大多数人的选择是一样的，即使原本应走的路线就应该是直行。
这有点类似于中国的古语，两害相权取其轻。
可从道德的角度来说，生命是等价的，难道就因为数量的关系，一个人的生命就该让位给五个人的生命?生活中我们还常说，少数服从多数，那少数人的意愿，少数人的利益该去如何保障，毕竟人都是只活一辈子。
突然想到武侠小说里常出现的情节，武林盟主以大局为重杀了某个武林人物，这个武林人物的一个后代逃生了，日后刻苦练武，报仇雪恨，再次掀起武林风波。
呵呵，想的有点远了。
每个手中有权做抉择的人，都要慎重。
有时思来想去的结果是自己也说服不了自己，怪不得有句话说，人类一思考上帝就发笑。
像一个凡人那样活着，像一个诗人那样体验，像一个哲人那样思考。
哈佛公开课Justice 第一课字幕 中英对照精解
JusEpisode OnPART ONE If you ha five oth would di What wou Professo After the to save conundru difficul becomes contradi always b PART TWO Sandel i Bentham,shipwrec decides the rest a classr doctrine for the stice: What’s One E: THE MORAL S ad to choose b ers and (2) d e right befor ld be the rig r Michael Sane majority of the lives of ms—each one t. As studen clear that th ctory, and th lack and whit O: THE CASE FO introduces the with a famou cked crew of f to kill the w t can feed on room debate ab e that the righ greatest numb s the Right T SIDE OF MURDE between (1) ki oing nothing re your eyes i ht thing to d ndel uses to l students vote five others, artfully desi nts stand up to he assumptions e question of te.OR CANNIBALISM e principles o us nineteenth four. After n weakest amongs his blood and bout the moral ht thing to do ber.Thing to Do?ER 谋杀的道德侧illing one per even though y f you did not o? That’s t launch his co es for killing Sandel prese igned to make o defend their s behind our m what is right SM 食人肉案件of utilitaria h century lega nineteen days st them, the d body to sur l validity of is whatever p侧面rson to save t you knew that thing—what wo the hypothetic urse on moral g the one pers nts three sim the decision r conflicting moral reasonin t and what is w an philosopher al case involv lost at sea, young cabin b rvive. The c f utilitariani produces the gr the lives of five people ould you do? cal scenariol reasoning. son in order milar moral n more choices, it ng are often wrong is not r, Jeremy ving a the captain boy, so that case sets up ism—and its reatest good episode ['epi moral ['m ɔr hypothetical ['scenario [si'na reasoning ['ri:vote [v əut] n conundrum [k artfully ['a:tful defend [di'fen conflict ['k ɔnfl conflicting [k defend [di'fen assumption [contradictory cannibalism ['utilitarian [.ju legal ['li:g əl]shipwrecked [crew [kru:] amongst [ə'm cabin ['kæbi survive [s ə'vdebate [di'be validity [væ'l doctrine ['d is əud] n. 插曲əl] adj. 道德的'haip əu'θetik əl]a:ri əu] n. 情节zni ŋ] n. 推论n. 投票, 选举v k ə'n ʌndr əm] n li] adv.艺术地,有d] v. 防护, 辩likt] n.冲突,矛ən'flikti ŋ] adj d] v. 防护, 辩护ə's ʌmp ʃən] n.假 [.k ɔntr ə'dikt əri 'kænib əliz əm] n u:tili't ɛəri ən] n.功 adj. 法律的, 合'ʃiprekt] adj. 失 n. 全体船员ʌŋst] prep. 在 n] n. 船舱, 机vaiv] 活下来, 幸eit] n.v. 辩论liditi] n. 有效性ɔktrin] n. 教义曲, 一段情节, 片的 ] adj.假设的,假节梗概, 剧本 论, 推理, 论证 v. 投票, 选举, n. 谜语, 难题 有技巧地,熟练地辩护, 防守 矛盾vi. 冲突,争. 相冲突的 护, 防守 假定,设想,担任(职i] adj. 矛盾的n n.吃人肉的习性功利主义者adj 合法的, 法定的失事的, 遭海难... 之中,在...之机舱, 小木屋幸存; 残留 论, 讨论 性, 正确性, 正当义, 主义, 学说片段, 轶事假定的,爱猜想的表决 地,狡诈地 争执 职责等),假装 n.矛盾 性, 同类相食 j.功利的,实用的的 难的 之间(=among) 当的Funding for this program is provided by... 此节目由以上公司 fund [fʌnd]资金,基金,专款Additional funding provided by... 以上人士提供赞助This is a course about justice 这是一堂关于公平与正义的公共课 course [kɔ:s]学科，课程，教程and we begin with a story. 让我们先从一个故事讲起 hurtle ['hə:tl] v.猛冲;飞驰,猛烈碰撞Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, 假设你现在是一辆有轨电车的司机 suppose [sə'pəuz] 假定; 设想，料想and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. 而你的电车正在铁轨上以时速60英里疾驶 trolley ['trɔli] 〔英〕手推车；〔美〕(有轨)电车And at the end of the track 在铁轨末端 brake [breik]制动器<->break [breik]毁坏,打破you notice five workers working on the track. 你发现有五个工人在铁轨上工作You try to stop but you can't, 你尽力想停下电车, 但是你做不到your brakes don’t work. 电车的刹车失灵了 美剧绝望的主妇Desperate HousewivesYou feel desperate because you know 你觉得十分绝望，因为你知道 desperate:绝望的,穷途末路的,拼命的that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. 如果你就这样撞向这5个工人，他们必死无疑 crash into 碰到，撞在Let’s assume you know that for sure. 假定你很清楚这一点 assume [ə'sjuːm] 假定，想像，设想And so you feel helpless until you notice 正当你感到无助的时候, 你突然发现that there is, off to the right, 就在右边a side track and at the end of that track, 一条岔道，那根轨道的尽头there is one worker, working on the track. 只有一个工人在那里工作Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, 你的方向盘没有失灵, 只要你愿意 steering ['stiəriŋ] 舵把,方向盘；掌舵,驾驶,转向。
公正 该如何做是好
我们拥有自身么？——自由至上主义
最小政府：
反对家长式作风 反对道德立法 反对收入或财富的再分配
自我所有权
人 劳动力 劳动成果
拿走
奴隶 被迫劳动
• 想要获得自律意义上的自由，就需要我并 不是出于一个假言命令去行动，而是出于 绝对命令去行动。
自由主义平等公正观
约翰·罗尔斯
• 罗尔斯的社会契约理念——一种假 想的、在平等的原初状态中所达成 的协议。
• 在无知之幕之后，会产生两条正义 原则：第一条是平等的自由原则， 指国家的每一个公民都是平等、自 由的权利主体，这一原则为宗教自 由、言论自由提供了理论依据。第 二条原则包括两个层面，一是机会 均等，一是差异原则，即只有当社 会和经济的不平等能够有利于社会 的最不利者时，他们才是被允许的。
公正
——该如何做是好？
一场关于正义的思辨之旅
哈佛听课人数最多的公开课 来自哈佛的Michael J.Sandel教授
失控的电车
• 如果你是一辆电车的司机，突然电车的刹车失控了，前方的轨道上 有5个工人在工作。你感到绝望无比，因为你知道如果你冲向这5个 人的话，他们将全部被撞死。这时你发现不远处有一条岔道，岔道 上只有1个工人在工作，如果电车的方向盘没有坏的话，你会选择 变道吗？
我们拥有自身么？——自由至上主义
• 自由意志论
• 自由意志论将个人权利看得很重。之所以称为自由意志论 是因为，这一理论认为个人的基本权利是人身自由权。因 为我们是独立的个体，所以我们无法提供任何社会需要或 图谋的任何用途。我们有自由选择的权利，按照自己意愿 生活的权利，只要我们尊重他人的这一权利。我们是自己 的所有者或支配者。
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目
哈佛公开课是哈佛大学开设的一系列可以上线免费观看的课程，涵盖了丰富多彩的学科和领域，其中也包括了“公平与正义”这一主题。
在这篇文章中，我们将深入探讨哈佛公开课中涉及公平与正义的书目，帮助您更好地了解这一重要主题。
1. 《公正》（Justice）- 迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel）本书作者迈克尔·桑德尔是哈佛大学政治学教授，他的公开课《公正》（Justice）深受学生和听众的喜爱。
在这本书中，桑德尔教授以深入浅出的方式探讨了公平与正义的重要性，并引导读者思考有关道德、政治和社会正义的问题。
2. 《正义是什么》（What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets）- 迈克尔·桑德尔迈克尔·桑德尔的另一部作品《正义是什么》（What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets）也是哈佛公开课中涉及公平与正义的重要书目之一。
在这本书中，桑德尔教授深入探讨了金钱在现代社会中的作用，以及金钱与公平正义之间的关系，引发了人们对道德和伦理问题的思考。
3. 《《公民不服从》（Civil Disobedience）- 亨利·戴维·梭罗（Henry David Thoreau）亨利·戴维·梭罗的《公民不服从》作为哈佛公开课中探讨公平与正义的重要阅读之一，帮助人们理解了公民不服从的概念，强调了对公平与正义的追求。
这本书不仅揭示了个人与政府、权威之间的关系，也引导人们思考社会正义和个人责任的问题。
4. 《自由论》（On Liberty）- 约翰·斯图尔特·密尔（John Stuart Mill）约翰·斯图尔特·密尔的《自由论》也是哈佛公开课中探讨公平与正义的重要书目之一。
在这本书中，密尔探讨了自由、权利以及个体与社会之间的关系，帮助人们更好地理解公平与正义的内涵和重要性。
哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's the right thing to do 07
Justice 07 A Lesson in Lying / A Deal is a DealFunding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by Last time we began trying to we began by trying to navigate our way through Kant's moral theory.Now, fully to make sense of Kant moral theory in the groundwork requires that we be able to answer three questions.How can duty and autonomy go together?What's the great dignity in answering to duty?It would seem that these two ideas are opposed duty and autonomy.What's Kant's answer to that?Need someone here to speak up on Kant's behalf.Does he have an answer?Yes, go ahead, stand up.Kant believes you the only act autonomously when you are pursuing something only the name of duty and not because of your own circumstances such as ®C like you're only doing something good and moral if you're doing it because of duty and not because something of your own personal gain.Now why is that acting°≠what's your name?My name is Matt.Matt, why is that acting on a freedom?I hear what you're saying about duty?Because you choose to accept those moral laws in yourself and not brought on from outside upon onto you.Okay, good.Because acting out of duty ®C Yeah.- is following a moral law That you impose on yourself.That you impose on yourself.That's what makes duty compatible with freedom.- Yeah.Okay, that's good Matt.That is Kant's answer. That's great.Thank you. So, Kant's answer is it is not in so far as I am subject to the law that I have dignity but rather in so far as with regard to that very same law, I'm the author and I am subordinated to that law on that ground that I took it as much as at I took it upon myself.I willed that law.So that's why for Kant acting according to duty and acting freely in the sense of autonomously are one and the same.But that raises the question, how many moral laws are there?Because if dignity consists and be governed by a law that I give myself, what's to guarantee that my conscience will be the same as your conscience?Who has Kant's answer to that? Yes?Because a moral law trend is not contingent upon seductive conditions.It would transcend all particular differences between people and so would be a universal law and in this respect there'd only be one moral law because it would be supreme.Right. That's exactly right.What's your name?Kelly.Kelly. So Kelly, Kant believes that if we choose freely out of our own consciences, the moral law we're guarantee to come up with one and the same moral law. -Yes.And that's because when I choose it's not me, Michael Sandel choosing.It's not you, Kelly choosing for yourself?What is it exactly?Who is doing the choosing?Who's the subject? Who is the agent?Who is doing the choosing?Reason? - Well reason°≠Pure reason.Pure reason and what you mean by pure reason is what exactly?Well pure reason is like we were saying before not subject to any external conditions that may be imposed on that side.Good that's' great.So, the reason that does the willing, the reason that governs my will when I will the moral law is the same reason that operates when you choose the moral law for yourself and that's why it's possible to act autonomously to choose for myself, for each of us to choose for ourselves as autonomous beings and for all of us to wind up willing the same moral law, the categorical imperative.But then there is one big and very difficult question left even if you accept everything that Matt and Kelly had said so far.How is a categorical imperative possible?How is morality possible?To answer that question, Kant said we need to make a distinction.We need to make a distinction between two standpoints, two standpoints from which we can make sense of our experience.Let me try to explain what he means by these two standpoints.As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world.There my actions are determined by the laws of nature and by the regularities of cause and effect.But as a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world here being independent of the laws of nature I am capable of autonomy, capable of acting according to a law I give myself.Now Kant says that, "Only from this second standpoint can I regard myself as free for to be independent of determination by causes in the sensible world is to be free." If I were holy and empirical being as the utilitarian assume, if I were a being holy and only subject to the deliverances of my senses, to pain and pleasure and hunger and thirst and appetite, if that's all there were to humanity, we wouldn't be capable of freedom, Kant reasons because in that case every exercise of will would be conditioned by the desire for some object.In that case all choice would be heteronomous choice governed by the pursued of some external end."When we think of ourselves as free," Kant writes, "we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will." That's the idea of the two standpoints.So how are categorical imperatives possible?Only because the idea of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world?Now Kant admits we aren't only rational beings.We don't only inhabit the intelligible world, the realm of freedom.If we did -- if we did, then all of our actions would invariably accord with the autonomy of the will.But precisely because we inhabit simultaneously the two standpoints, the two realms, the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity precisely because we inhabit both realms there is always potentially a gap between what we do and what we ought to do between is and ought.Another way of putting this point and this is the point with which Kant concludes the groundwork, morality is not empirical.Whatever you see in the world, whatever you discover through science can't decide moral questions.Morality stands at a certain distance from the world, from the empirical world.And that's why no science could deliver moral truth.Now I want to test Kant's moral theory with the hardest possible case, a case that he raises, the case of the murderer at the door.Kant says that lying is wrong.We all know that.We've discussed why. Lying is at odds with the categorical imperative.A French Philosopher, Benjamin Constant wrote an article responding to the groundwork where he said, "This absolute probation online What if a murderer came to your door looking for your friend who was hiding in your house?And the murderer asked you point blank, "Is your friend in your house?" Constant says, "It would be crazy to say that the moral thing to do in that case is to tell the truth." Constant says the murderer certainly doesn't deserve the truth and Kant wrote to reply.And Kant stuck by his principle that lying even to the murderer at the door is wrong.And the reason it's wrong, he said is once you start taking consequences into account to carve out exceptions to the categorical imperative, you've given up the whole moral framework.You've become a consequentialist or maybe a rule utilitarian.But most of you and most to our Kant's readers think there's something odd and impossible about this answer.I would like to try to defend Kant on this point and then I want to see whether you think that my defense is plausible, and I would want to defend him within the spirit of his own account of morality.Imagine that someone comes to your door.You were asked that question by this murder.You are hiding your friend.Is there a way that you could avoid telling a lie without selling out your friend?Does anyone have an idea of how you might be able to do that?Yes? Stand up.I was just going to say if I were to let my friend in my house to hide in the first place, I'd probably make a plan with them so I'd be like, "Hey I'll tell the murderer you're here, but escape," and that's one of the options mentioned.But I'm not sure that's a Kantian option.You're still lying though.No because he's in the house but he won't be.Oh I see. All right, good enough.One more try.If you just say you don't know where he is because he might not be locked in the closet.He might have left the closet.You have no clue where he could be.So you would say, I don't know which wouldn't actually be a lie because you weren't at that very moment looking in the closet.Exactly.-So it would be strictly speaking true.Yes.And yet possibly deceiving, misleading.-But still true.What's your name?-John.John. All right, John has...now John may be on to something.John you're really offering us the option of a clever evasion that is strictly speaking true. This raises the question whether there is a moral difference between an outright lie and a misleading truth.From Kant's point of view there actually is a world of difference between a lie and a misleading truth.Why is that even though both might have the same consequences?But then remember Kant doesn't base morality on consequences.He bases it on formal adherence to the moral law.Now, sometimes in ordinary life we make exceptions for the general rule against lying with the white lie.What is a white lie?It's a lie to make...you're well to avoid hurting someone's feelings for example.It's a lie that we think of as justified by the consequences.Now Kant could not endorse a white lie but perhaps he could endorse a misleading truth. Supposed someone gives you a tie, as a gift, and you open the box and it's just awful. What do you say? Thank you.You could say thank you.But they're waiting to see what you think of it or they ask you what do you think of it?You could tell a white lie and say it's beautiful.But that wouldn't be permissible from Kant's point of view.Could you say not a white lie but a misleading truth, you open the box and you say, "I've never seen a tie like that before.Thank you." You shouldn't have.That's good.Can you think of a contemporary political leader who engaged...you can?Who are you thinking of?You remember the whole carefully worded denials in the Monica Lewinsky affair of Bill Clinton.Now, those denials actually became the subject of very explicit debate in argument during the impeachment hearings.Take a look at the following excerpts from Bill Clinton.Is there something do you think morally at stake in the distinction between a lie and a misleading carefully couched truth?I want to say one thing to the American people.I want you to listen to me.I'm going to say this again.I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky.I never told anybody to lie not a single time, never. These allegations are false.Did he lie to the American people when he said I never had sex with that woman?You know, he doesn't believe he did and because of the °≠Well he didn't explain it.He did explain that, explain congressman.What he said was to the American people that he did not have sexual relations and I understand you're not going to like this congressman because you will see it as a hair-splitting evasive answer.But in his own mind his definition was not...Okay, I understand that argument.-Okay.All right, so there you have the exchange.Now at the time, you may have thought this was just a legalistic hair-splitting exchange between a Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton and a lawyer who is trying to defend him.But now in the light of Kant, do you think there is something morally at stake in the distinction between a lie and an evasion, a true but misleading statement?I'd like to hear from defenders of Kant.People who think there is a distinction.Are you ready to defend Kant?Well I think when you try to say that lying and misleading truths are the same thing; you're basing it on consequentialist argument which is that they achieve the same thing.But the fact to the fact to the matter is you told the truth and you intended that people wouldbelieve what you are saying which was the truth which means it is not morally the same as telling a lie and intending that they believe it is the truth even though it is not true.Good. What's your name?-Diana.So Diana says that Kant has a point here and it's a point that might even come to the aid of Bill Clinton and that is °≠well what about that?There's someone over here.For Kant motivation is key, so if you give to someone because primarily you want to feel good about yourself Kant would say that has no moral worth.Well with this, the motivation is the same.It's to sort of mislead someone, it's to lie, it's to sort of throw them off the track and the motivation is the same.So there should be no difference.Okay, good. So here isn't the motive the same Diana?What do you say to this argument that well the motive is the same in both cases there is the attempt or at least the hope that one's pursuer will be misled?Well that ®C you could look it that way but I think that the fact is that your immediate motive is that they should believe you.The ultimate consequence of that is t hat they might be deceived and not find out what was going on.But that your immediate motive is that they should believe you because you're telling the truth.May I help a little?-Sure.You and Kant. Why don't you say...and what's your name, I'm sorry?Wesley.Why don't you say to Wesley it's not exactly the case that the motive in both cases is to mislead?They're hoping, they're hoping that the person will be misled by the statement "I don't know where they are" or "I never had sexual relations." You're hoping that they will be misled but in the case where you're telling the truth, you're motive is to mislead while at the same time telling the truth and honoring the moral law and staying within the bounds of the categorical imperative.I think Kant's answer would be Diana, yes?-Yes.You like that?-I do.Okay. So I think Kant's answer would be unlike a falsehood, unlike a lie, a misleading truth pays a certain homage to duty.And the homage it pays to duty is what justifies that the work of even the work of the evasion.And so there is something, some element of respect for the dignity of the moral law in the careful evasion because Clinton could have told an outright lie but he didn't.And so I think Kant's insight here is in the carefully couched but true evasion.There is a kind of homage to the dignity of the moral law that is not present in the outright lie and that, Wesley, is part of the motive.It's part of the motive.Yes, I hope he will be misled.I hope the murderer will run down the road or go to the mall looking for my friend instead at the closet.I hope that will be the effect.I can't control that.I can't control the consequences.But what I can control is standing by and honoring however I pursue the ends, I hope will unfold to do so in a way that is consistent with respect for the moral law.Wesley, I don't think, is entirely persuaded but at least this brings out, this discussion brings out some of what it's at stake, what's morally at stake in Kant's notion of the categorical imperative.As long as any effort this involved I would say that the contract is valid then.It should take effect.But why? What was...what morally can you point to?For example two people agreed to be married and one suddenly called the other in two minutes say I changed my mind.Does the contract have obligation on both sides?Well I am tempted to say no.Fine.Last time we talked about Kant's categorical imperative and we considered the way he applied the idea of the categorical imperative to the case of lying.I want to turn briefly to one other application of Kant's moral theory and that's his political theory.Now Kant says that just laws arise from a certain kind of social contract.But this contract he tells us is of an exceptional nature.What makes the contract exceptional is that it is not an actual contract that happens when people come together and try to figure out what the constitution should be.It's not an actual contract among actual men and women gathered in a constitutional convention.Why not?I think Kant's reason is that actual men and women gathered in real constitutional convention would have different interests, values, aims, and it would also be differences of bargaining power and differences of knowledge among them.And so the laws that would result from their deliberations wouldn't necessarily be just, wouldn't necessarily conform to principles of right but would simply reflect the differences a bargaining power, the special interests the fact that some might know more than others about law or about politics.So Kant says, "A contract that generates principles of right is merely an idea of reason but it has undoubted practical reality because it can oblige every legislator to frame his laws in such a way that they could have been produced by the united will of the whole nation." So Kant is a contractarian, but he doesn't trace the origin or the rightness of law to any actual social contract.This contrives to an obvious question.What is the moral force of a hypothetical contract, a contract that never happened?That's the question we take up today but in order to investigate it, we need to turn to a modern philosopher, John Rawls, who worked out in his book, A Theory of Justice, in great detail and account of a hypothetical agreement as the basis for justice.Rawls' theory of justice in broad outline is parallel to Kant's in two important respects.Like Kant, Rawls was a critic of utilitarianism."Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice," Rawls' writes, "that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus social interests." The second respect in which Rawls' theory follows Kant's is on the idea that principles of justice properly understood can be derived from a hypothetical social contract. Not an actual one.And Rawls works this out in fascinating detail with the device of what he calls the "veil of ignorance".The way to arrive at the rights...the basic rights that we must respect, the basic framework of rights and duties is to imagine that we were gathered together trying to choose the principles to govern our collective lives without knowing certain important particular fact about ourselves.That's the idea of the veil of ignorance.Now what would happen if we gather together just as we are here and try to come up with principles of justice to govern our collective life?There would be a cacophony of proposals of suggestions reflecting people's different interests, some are strong, some are weak, some are rich, some are poor.what assures the equality is the veil of ignorance.Imagine that we are all behind a veil of ignorance which temporarily abstracts from or brackets, hides from us who in particular we are.Our race, our class, our place in society, our strengths, our weaknesses, whether we're healthy or unhealthy, then and only then Rawls says, the principles we would agree to would be principles of justice.That's how the hypothetical contract works.What is the moral force of this kind of hypothetical agreement?Is it stronger or weaker than a real agreement, an actual social contract?In order to answer that question, we have to look hard at the moral force of actual contracts.There are really two questions here.One of them is how do actual contracts bind me or obligate me?Question number one.And question number two, how do actual real life contracts justify the terms that they produce?If you think about it and this is in line with Rawls and Kant, the answer to the second question, how do actual contracts justify the terms that they produce, the answer is they don't.At least not on their own.Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments of any actual contract or agreement.It can always be asked, is it fair what they agreed to?The fact of the agreement never guarantees the fairness of the agreement and we know this by looking at our own constitutional convention.It produced a constitution that permitted slavery to persist.It was agreed to.It was an actual contract but that doesn't establish that the laws agreed to all of them were just.Well then what is the moral force of actual contracts?To the extent that they bind us, they obligate in two ways.Suppose, maybe here it would help to take an example.We make an agreement, a commercial agreement.I promise to pay you $100 if you will go harvest and bring to me 100 lobsters.We make a deal.You go out and harvest them and bring them to me.I eat the lobsters, served them to my friends, and then I don't pay.And you say, "But you're obligated." And I say, "Why?" What do you say? "Well we had a deal." And you benefited.You ate all those lobsters.Well that's a pretty strong argument.It's an argument that depends though and the fact that I benefited from your labor So, contracts sometimes bind us in so far as they are instruments of mutual benefit.I ate the lobsters. I owe you the $100 for having gathered them.But suppose, now take a second case.We make this deal, I'll pay you $100 for 380 before you've gone to any work I call you back and say I've changed my mind.Now, there's no benefit.There's no work on your part so there's no element of reciprocal exchange.What about in that case, do I still owe you merely in virtue of the fact that we had an agreement?Who says those of you who say, yes, I still owe you? Why? Okay, stand up.Why do I owe you?I called you back after two minutes.You haven't done any work.I think I spent the time and effort in drafting this contract with you and also have emotional expectation that I go through the work.So you took time to draft the contract but we did it very quickly.We just chatted on the phone.That wouldn't be a formal form of contract though.Well I faxed at you.It only took a minute.As long as any effort is involved, I would say that the contract is valid then.It should take effect.But why? What was...what morally can you point to that obligates me?I admit that I agreed but you didn't go to any work. I didn't enjoy any benefit.Because one might mentally go through all the work of harvesting the lobsters.You mentally went through the work of harvesting the lobsters.That's nothing is it?It's not much.Is it worth $100 that you were imagining yourself going and collecting lobsters?It may not worth $100, but it may worth something to some people.All right, I'll give you a buck for that.But what I ®C so you're still pointing...what's interesting you're still pointing to the reciprocal dimension of contracts.You did or imagined that you did or looked forward to doing something that might be had. For example two people agreed to be married and one suddenly calls the other in two minutes say, I've changed my mind, does the contract have obligation on both sides? Nobody has done any work or nobody has benefited yet.Well I'm tempted to say no.Fine.All, right. What's your name?-Julian.Thank you Julian.All right, that was good.Now is there anyone who has who agrees with Julian that I still owe the money?For any other reason now I have °≠go ahead, stand up.I think if you back out it sort of cheapens the institution of contracts.Good but why? Why does it?Well I think is kind of Kantian, but there's in almost there's a certain intrinsic value in being able to make contracts and having, you know, knowing people will expect that you'll go through with that.Good, there is some...it would cheapen the whole idea of contracts which has to do with taking in obligation on myself. Is that the idea?Yeah, I think so.What's your name?-Adam.So Adam points instead not to any reciprocal benefit or mutual exchange but to the mere fact of the agreement itself.We see here there are really two different ways in which actual contracts generate obligations.One has to do with the active consent as a voluntary act and it points...Adam said this was a Kantian idea and I think he is right because it points to the ideal of autonomy.When I make a contract, the obligation is one that is self-imposed and that carries a certain moral weight, independent of other considerations.And then there's a second element of the moral force of contract arguments which has to do with the sense in which actual contracts are instruments of mutual benefit and this points toward the ideal of reciprocity that obligation can arise, I can have an obligation to you in so far as you do something for me.Now, when investigating the moral force and also the moral limits of actual contracts and here I would like to advance an argument about the moral limits of actual contracts now that we know what moral ingredients do the work when people come together and say, "I will do this if you do that." I would like to argue first that the fact that two people agreed to some exchange does not mean that the terms of their agreement are fair.When my two sons were young they collected baseball cards and traded them.And one was...there was a two-year aged...there is a two-year aged difference between them and so I had to institute a rule about the trades that no trade was complete until I had approved it and the reason is obvious.The older one knew more about the value of these cards and so would take advantage of the younger one.So that's why I had to review it to make sure that the agreements were fair.Now you may say, "Well this is paternalism." Of course it was. That's what paternalism is for that kind of thing.So what does this show?What is the baseball cards example show?The fact of an agreement is not sufficient to establish the fairness of the terms.I read some years ago of a case in Chicago there was an elderly widow, an 84-year-old widow named Rose who had a problem in her apartment with a leaky toilet and she signed a contract with an unscrupulous contractor, who offered to repair her leaky toilet in exchange for $50,000.But she had agreed she was of sound mind, maybe terribly naive and unfamiliar with the price of plumbing, she had made this agreement.Luckily, it was discovered.She went to the bank and asked to withdraw $25,000.And the teller said, "Why do you need all of that money for?" And she said, "Well, I have a leaky toilet." And the teller called authorities and they discovered this unscrupulous contractor.。
哈佛大学公开课-公正-该如何做是好？
哈佛大学公开课公平与正义，该如何做是好？主讲：迈克尔·桑德尔迈克尔·桑德尔第一讲：谋杀的道德侧面教授：这是一堂关于公平与正义的公共课。
让我们先从一个故事讲起，假设你现在是一辆有轨电车的司机。
你的电车正在铁轨上以每小时60英里的速度疾驶。
在铁轨末端，你发现有五个工人在铁轨上工作。
你尽力想停下电车, 但是你做不到，电车的刹车失灵了。
你觉得十分绝望，因为你知道如果你就这样撞向这5个工人他们必死无疑，假定你很清楚这一点。
正当你感到无助的时候, 你突然发现就在右边另一根铁轨的尽头只有一个工人在那里工作。
你的方向盘没有失灵, 只要你愿意你可以让电车转向到那条分叉铁轨上撞死一个工人，但却因此救了另外5个人。
那我们的第一个问题就来了，现在我们该怎么做才对?你会怎么做? 我们做个调查，看看有多少人会选择让电车转向到分叉铁轨上，举起你的手，多少人不会?多少人选择就这样笔直开下去?选笔直开下去的人先别放手。
少数人会，大多数人选择转向。
让我们先听听看。
现在我们研究下，你为什么觉得这样做是正确的?让我们先从大多数人开始吧。
谁选择转向的?你为什么这么选？你的理由是什么？谁愿意给我一个理由的？站起来说吧。
学生：因为当你可以只撞死一个人时却去撞死5个人肯定是不对的。
教授：当可以只撞死一个人时却去撞死5个人肯定不对，这是个好理由。
这是个好理由。
其他人呢？每个人都同意刚刚那个理由么?你来。
学生：我觉得这和9.11的一项事件是同样原因。
我们把那些将飞机撞向宾夕法尼亚空地的人视为英雄，因为他们选择只牺牲飞机里的人从而拯救了大楼里的更多生命。
所以原因和9.11事件中那些人的选择是相同的。
虽然一定会发生悲剧，但只撞死一个人好过撞死五个。
教授：你们大多数人是不是都这么想，选择转向的各位，是么？现在让我们听听那些少数人的想法，选择直行的人学生：我觉得这和对种族灭绝与极权主义的诡辩相似。
为了拯救一个种族你抹去了其他的种族。
教授：那么在这个事例中你会怎么做？你会，为了避免恐怖的种族灭绝主义而选择撞死那5个人么?学生：理论上，是这样。
哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕 第三节
制作人：心舟 QQ：1129441083 欢迎交流公正课\N迈克尔·桑德尔教授主讲第三讲《给生命标价》上节课我们讨论了\Last time, we argued about女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案\the case of Queen versus Dudley and Stevens,即救生艇的案例\the lifeboat case,海上食人惨案\the case of cannibalism at sea.带着对救生艇上发生事件的讨论\And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,即对达德利和斯蒂芬斯行为赞同与否的讨论\the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,让我们再回归\let's turn back to the philosophy,杰里米·边沁的功利主义哲学\the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.边沁 1748年生于英格兰\Bentham was born in England in 1748.12岁进入牛津大学\At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.15岁入读法学院\At 15, he went to law school.19岁取得律师资格\He was admitted to the Bar at age 19但从没当过律师\but he never practiced law.而是将毕生精力献给了法学和道德哲学\Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.上节课我们开始\Last time, we began to思考边沁的功利主义\consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.他的主要观点简单明确就是\The main idea is simply stated and it's this:道德的最高准则\The highest principle of morality,无论是个人道德还是政治道德\whether personal or political morality,都是最大化公共福利或曰集体幸福感\is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,或者说权衡苦乐将幸福最大化\or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;一句话功利最大化\in a phrase, maximize utility.边沁是这样论证这一原则的\Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: 我们都受到痛苦和快乐的支配\We're all governed by pain and pleasure,苦乐是我们至高无上的主宰\they are our sovereign masters,因此任何道德体系都应考虑到它们\and so any moral system has to take account of them.最好怎样考虑呢通过最大化\How best to take account? By maximizing.从而引出"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一原则\And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.我们到底该最大化什么呢\What exactly should we maximize?边沁说应最大化幸福\Bentham tells us happiness,或更精确来说最大化功利\or more precisely, utility功利最大化原则不只针对个人\maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals也适用于共同体及立法者\but also for communities and for legislators.边沁问到底什么是共同体\"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.共同体是其成员的集合\It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.所以在制定最优政策时\And that's why in deciding the best policy,制定法律时决定何谓公正时\in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,公民和立法者应扪心自问这个问题\citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question 当用政策带来的总效益\if we add up all of the benefits of this policy减去总成本\and subtract all of the costs,正确的选择应该是\the right thing to do is the one减去苦难后幸福最大化的那一个\that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.这就是所谓功利最大化\That's what it means to maximize utility.今天我想听听\Now, today, I want to see你们是否赞同这点\whether you agree or disagree with it,功利主义的逻辑\and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,通常被称作成本效益分析\under the name of cost-benefit analysis,一再被企业和政府运用\which is used by companies and by governments all the time.其做法包括作出估价\And what it involves is placing a value,通常是估计出金额来代表功利\usually a dollar value, to stand for utility即分别列出成本和各项收益的金额\on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.最近捷克共和国\Recently, in the Czech Republic,有一个增加香烟消费税的提案\there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.烟草公司菲利普·莫里斯公司\Philip Morris, the tobacco company,在捷克共和国的生意做得很大\does huge business in the Czech Republic.他们资助了一项研究\They commissioned a study,进行在捷克吸烟的成本效益分析\a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic,分析结果显示\and what their cost-benefit analysis found was让捷克人民吸烟能让政府获利\the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.那政府如何获利呢\Now, how do they gain?它确实会对捷克政府的\It's true that there are negative effects公共财政产生负效应\to the public finance of the Czech government因为吸烟造成的疾病\because there are increased health care costs会增加医疗支出\for people who develop smoking-related diseases.但另一方面也有正效应\On the other hand, there were positive effects它们被记在账目的另一侧\and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.正效应主要来自\The positive effects included, for the most part,销售香烟为政府带来的\various tax revenues that the government derives各项税收\from the sale of cigarette products,但还包括\but it also included人们早逝为政府节省的医疗支出\health care savings to the government when people die early,免去的养老金\pension savings...政府不需要继续支付养老金\you don't have to pay pensions for as long还省去了老年人的住房开支\and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.当把总成本和各项收益分别加总\And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,菲利普·莫里斯公司的研究表明\the Philip Morris study found that捷克共和国公共财政将获得\there is a net public finance gain一亿四千七百万的净收益\in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,算上住房医疗养老金方面节省的开支\and given the savings in housing,in health care, and pension costs,政府从每个因吸烟早逝的人身上\the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person赚得超过1200美元\who dies prematurely due to smoking.成本效益分析\Cost-benefit analysis.在座功利主义的支持者们\Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism可能觉得这个研究不公\may think that this is an unfair test.菲利普·莫里斯公司遭到媒体谴责\Philip Morris was pilloried in the press他们为这项冷血的计算公开道歉\and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.你也许会说\You may say这里无疑忽略了\that what's missing here is something功利主义者认为应当包含的部分\that the utilitarian can easily incorporate,即那些死于肺癌的患者本身\namely the value to the person加上其家属的价值\and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.怎么能忽略生命的价值呢\What about the value of life?有些成本效益分析\Some cost-benefit analyses确实计算了生命的价值\incorporate a measure for the value of life.其中最著名的是福特平托的案例\One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. 有人读过吗\Did any of you read about that?当时是二十世纪七十年代\This was back in the 1970s.还有人知道福特平托是什么车吗\Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? 它是一种小型次紧凑型车风靡一时\It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,但它有一个缺陷\but it had one problem,油箱装在车的尾部\which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car发生追尾时油箱就会爆炸\and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded造成了严重伤亡\and some people were killed and some severely injured.受害者一纸诉状将福特告上了法庭\Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.案件审理中发现\And in the court case, it turned out福特早就知道油箱的缺陷\that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank还进行了成本效益分析\and had done a cost-benefit analysis来决定是否值得装上一面特殊的隔板\to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield以保护油箱防止油箱爆炸\that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.该分析指出\They did a cost-benefit analysis.能增加平托安全性的隔板\The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,每块成本是11美元\they calculated at $11.00 per part.这就是审判时发现的成本效益分析\And here's... this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.给1250万辆轿车和卡车配上11美元的隔板\Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks提高安全性共需花费一亿三千七百万美元\came to a total cost of$137 million to improve the safety. 但接着又算出\But then they calculated花这些钱提高安全性能带来的收益\the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car预计可减少180例死亡\and they counted 180 deaths因车祸死亡预计每条人命20万美元\and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death,可减少180例伤残每例67000美元\180 injuries, $67,000,加上车辆维修费用\and then the costs to repair,无此安全装置车会完全损毁\the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,所以需算上2000辆汽车的重置成本每辆700美元\it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.收益最后只有4950万\So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million因此他们没有安装该装置\and so they didn't install the device.不用说\Needless to say,当福特汽车公司的这份成本效益分析备忘录\when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis在审理时被公之于众\came out in the trial,陪审团大为震怒判定巨额赔偿\it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.这算是功利主义计算思路的反例吗\Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating? 因为福特计算了生命的价值\Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.现在就这个明显的反例\Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis有谁想为成本效益分析辩护\from this apparent counter example?有谁辩护\Who has a defense?还是你们认为它完全推翻了\Or do you think this completely destroys功利主义的演算\the whole utilitarian calculus?请说\Yes?我觉得他们犯了与前面案例\Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake相同的错误\the previous case did,量化了生命的价值\that they assigned a dollar value to human life,但同样的\and once again,他们没有考虑受害者家人承受的\they failed to take account things like suffering痛苦和精神损失\and emotional losses by the families.他们不但家庭收入受损还丧失了亲人\I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one 那损失远不止20万美元\and that is more valued than $200,000.没错等等说得好你叫什么名字\Right and... wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name? 朱莉·罗托\Julie Roteau .朱莉要是20万美金不够\So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure因为没有算丧失亲人\because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one和生命的损失\and the loss of those years of life,那你认为什么数目更合适\what would be what do you think would be a more accurate number?我无法给出数目\I don't believe I could give a number.我觉得这种分析\I think that this sort of analysis不应该用在人的生命这个问题上\shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.人命不能用金钱衡量\I think it can't be used monetarily.所以朱莉认为他们不是定价太低\So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.他们压根就不该定价\They were wrong to try to put any number at all.那好让我们听听别人...\All right, let's hear someone who...你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.行啊有道理\All right, fair enough.那如今应该是多少\So what would the number be now?那是35年前\This was 35 years ago.两百万美元\Two million dollars.两百万美元你会定价两百万吗\Two million dollars? You would put two million?你叫什么名字\And what's your name?佛伊泰克\Voytek佛伊泰克说我们必须考虑通胀\Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.应该更慷慨些\We should be more generous.这样你就满意了吗\Then would you be satisfied that这样思考这个问题就可以了吗\this is the right way of thinking about the question?我觉得不幸的是...\I guess, unfortunately, it is for...有时确实需要标价\there needs to be a number put somewhere,不过我不确定具体数字\like, I'm not sure what that number would be,但我确实认同\but I do agree that人的生命也许可以被标价\there could possibly be a number put on the human life.很好所以佛伊泰克不同意朱莉的看法\All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie. 朱莉认为我们不该为了成本效益分析\Julie says we can't put a number on human life给人的生命标价\for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.佛伊泰克认为我们别无选择\Voytek says we have to因为不管怎样我们必须做出决定\because we have to make decisions somehow.别的人怎么看\What do other people think about this?有没人来赞同成本效益分析的\Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here认为它精确合宜吗你说\as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.我觉得要是福特和其他汽车公司\I think that if Ford and other car companies不使用成本效益分析的话\didn't use cost-benefit analysis,他们最后就会倒闭\they'd eventually go out of business因为他们无法盈利\because they wouldn't be able to be profitable这样就会有数百万人无法开车上班\and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,没法赚钱养不起小孩\to put food on the table, to feed their children.所以我认为此种情况下如果不用成本效益分析\So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,会牺牲更多人的利益\the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.很好我加一句你叫什么名字\All right, let me add. What's your name?劳尔\Raul.劳尔最近有一项\Raul, there was recently a study done关于司机开车时使用手机的研究\about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, 关于是否应该禁止此行为有一场争论\and there was a debate whether that should be banned.数据显示每年有2000人左右\And the figure was that some 2,000 people因开车时使用手机而死于车祸\die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.而目前哈佛风险分析中心\And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done作出的成本效益分析表明\by the center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that如果考虑使用手机带来的效益\if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use并与生命的价值做比较\and you put some value on the life,就会得出同样的结论\it comes out about the same因为这样做经济效益巨大\because of the enormous economic benefit of可以使人们更有效地利用时间\enabling people to take advantage of their time,不浪费时间边开车边谈生意\not waste time, be able to make deals边和朋友聊天等\and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.这不就表明\Doesn't that suggest that用金钱衡量人的生命是个错误吗\it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?我觉得如果绝大多数人想要\Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to从某项服务中获得最大功利\derive maximum utility out of a service,比如使用手机享受手机所带来的便利\like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,那么为了满足需求这种牺牲就是必要的\that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur. 你是个彻底的功利主义者嘛\You're an outright utilitarian.是的可以这么说\Yes. Okay.好那么最后一个问题劳尔\All right then, one last question, Raul.我也问过佛伊泰克\And I put this to Voytek,在决定是否禁止使用手机这件事时\what dollar figure should be put on human life人命应该如何定价\to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?我不想武断地算出一个数字\Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,我是指马上就算出我觉得...\I mean, right now. I think that...你想要深思熟虑之后再决定\You want to take it under advisement?对我会深思熟虑\Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.但大概有多少\But what, roughly speaking, would it be?会死2300人\You got 2,300 deaths.你必须用金钱来衡量\You got to assign a dollar value to know是否需要禁止司机使用手机\whether you want to prevent those deaths by来避免此类事件发生\banning the use of cell phones in cars.那你感觉是多少钱一百万\So what would your hunch be? How much? A million?两百万佛伊泰克觉得是两百万\Two million? Two million was Voytek's figure.-这么多可以吗 -也许一百万吧\- Is that about right? - Maybe a million.-一百万 -对\- A million? - Yeah.很好谢谢\You know, that's good. Thank you.以上即为近来对成本效益分析\So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days引发的一些争论\from cost-benefit analysis,尤其是其中那些\especially those that involve认为可以用金钱衡量一切的观点\placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.现在我想听听反对意见\Well, now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections不一定仅仅针对成本效益分析\not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically,因为那只是功利主义逻辑现今的实践之一\because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today,而是针对整个功利主义理论\but to the theory as a whole,针对那些认为正确之举\to the idea that the right thing to do,就是以功利最大化作为政策法律基础的观点\the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility. 有多少人不同意\How many disagree功利主义在法律及公共利益方面的做法\with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good? 有多少人同意\How many agree with it?看来多数表示同意\So more agree than disagree.我们来听听批判声吧请说\So let's hear from the critics. Yes?我对此的异议是\My main issue with it is我觉得不能因为一些人占少数\that I feel like you can't say that just because someone's in the minority,就断定他们的需要和欲望不如多数人的重要\what they want and need is less valuable than someone who's in the majority所以我反对\So I guess I have an issue with the idea"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一观点\that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay因为还有...\because there are still...占少数的人怎么办呢\what about people who are in the lesser number?这对他们不公平\Like, it's not fair to them.他们对此没有发言权\They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.很好这是个有趣的异议\All right. That's an interesting objection.你担心其对少数人的影响\You're worried about the effect on the minority.是的\Yes.顺便问一句你叫什么名字\What's your name, by the way?安娜\Anna.谁能回答\Who has an answer to安娜对于少数人影响的担心\Anna's worry about the effect on the minority?你怎么回答安娜\What do you say to Anna?她说少数人的价值被低估了\Um, she said that the minority is valued less.我认为事实并非如此因为\I don't think that's the case because少数人当中每个个体的价值\individually, the minority's value is just和多数人的个体价值是一样的\the same as the individual of the majority.只不过多数在数量上胜过少数\It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority.有时你必须做出选择\And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision我对少数表示遗憾\and I'm sorry for the minority但有时这是牺牲小我成全大我\but sometimes, it's for the general, for the greater good.成全大我安娜你怎么看\For the greater good. Anna, what do you say?你叫什么名字\What's your name?杨达\Yang-Da.你怎么反驳杨达\What do you say to Yang-Da?杨达说必须总体考虑人们的选择\Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences而其中少数人的选择其实也被衡量过了\and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed. 你能举个你所担心的类似例子吗\Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about 即你所说的担心\when you say you're worried about功利主义缺少对少数的关心和尊重\utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?举个例子\give an example.我就举一个我们讨论过的案例\Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about,比如海上食人惨案中我认为被吃的男孩\like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten 仍然与其他人享有相等的生存权\still had as much of a right to live as the other people仅仅因为他是少数\and just because he was the minority in that case,他存活的机率可能最小\the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living,并不意味着其他人就自然而然有权利吃他\that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him就为了让多数人有存活的机会\just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live.所以可能少数人\So there may be certain rights或个体的某些权利\that the minority members have that the individual has不该为了功利最大化而被牺牲\that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility?是的\Yes.是吗安娜下面这个例子我来考考扬达\Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.在古罗马\Back in Ancient Rome,基督徒被扔去斗兽场与狮子搏斗\they threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. 如果以功利主义方式演算\If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go,没错丢给狮子的基督徒\yes, the Christian thrown to the lions确实经历了撕心裂肺的剧痛\suffers enormous excruciating pain.但看看罗马人共同的心醉神迷啊\But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans!杨达\Yang-Da.在那个时代我不... 要是如今\Well, in that time, I don't...if in modern day of time,衡量观众获得的快乐\to give a number to the happiness given to the people watching,我觉得没有任何政策制定者会认为\I don't think any policymaker would say一个人的痛苦煎熬会比\the pain of one person, of the suffering of one person is much, much... 众人因之获得的快感更...\is, I mean, in comparison to the happiness gained, it's不但你必须承认\No, but you have to admit that要是有足够多的罗马人对这种快感足够狂热\if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness,那就会胜过\it would outweigh even the少数几个被丢给狮子的基督徒承受的极端剧痛\most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.因此我们确实对功利主义有两点异议\So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism.一点是关于功利主义\One has to do with whether utilitarianism是否充分尊重个体和少数的权利\adequately respects individual rights or minority rights,另一点是关于\and the other has to do with加总功利或偏好或价值的看法\the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values. 所有的价值都有可能用金钱衡量吗\Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms?二十世纪三十年代\There was, in the 1930s,有位心理学家试图解决第二个问题\a psychologist who tried to address this second question.他试图证明功利主义者的假设\He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes,所有的利益价值人类的心声\that it is possible to translate all goods, all values,都可能被统一衡量\into a single uniform measure,并通过对年轻的救济金领取者的调查来证明此点\and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief,当时是二十世纪三十年代\this was in the 1930s, and he asked them,他给了他们一张不愉快经历的清单问他们\he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them,给你多少钱你就愿意忍受以下经历\"How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?"并作了记录\and he kept track.比如给你多少钱\For example, how much would you have to be paid你才愿意拔掉自己的一颗门牙\to have one upper front tooth pulled out?抑或给你多少钱\Or how much would you have to be paid你才愿意砍掉一根小脚趾\to have one little toe cut off?抑或吃一条六英寸长的蚯蚓\Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long?抑或后半生居住在堪萨斯农场\Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}堪萨斯位于美国西部平原\N1930年代遭受重大自然灾害抑或亲手掐死一只流浪猫\Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?你们觉得清单里的哪一项最贵\Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list? 堪萨斯\Kansas?没错是堪萨斯\You're right, it was Kansas.他们认为余生都住堪萨斯农场\For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them至少得给他们30万美元\they have to be paid $300,000.你们觉得第二贵的是什么\What do you think was the next most expensive?不是猫\Not the cat.也不是门牙\Not the tooth.也不是脚趾\Not the toe.是蚯蚓\The worm!他们说给10万美元才肯吃蚯蚓\People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm.你们觉得最便宜的是哪项\What do you think was the least expensive item?不是猫\Not the cat.是门牙\The tooth.大萧条时期\During the Depression,人们愿意为了区区4500美元拔掉自己的牙\people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4,500.什么\What?桑代克得出的结论是\Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.任何需求或满足都能有个价钱\Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount 因此能用金钱衡量\and is therefore measurable.狗猫小鸡的生命\The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken都充斥着各类嗜好渴望欲望以及满足感\consists of appetites, cravings, desires, and their gratifications.人亦如此\So does the life of human beings,只是人的嗜好和欲望更加复杂罢了\though the appetites and desires are more complicated.但桑代克的研究说明了什么呢\But what about Thorndike's study?它是不是支持了边沁的观点\Does it support Bentham's idea认为所有利益所有价值都可以\that all goods, all values can be captured用统一的方式衡量\according to a single uniform measure of value?抑或清单上那些荒谬的项目\Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list恰恰揭示了相反的结论\suggest the opposite conclusion也许\that maybe,不论是生命堪萨斯还是蚯蚓\whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm,还是我们重视珍爱的东西\maybe the things we value and cherish都是不能用统一方式衡量的?\can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value? 如果不能\And if they can't,那么功利主义道德理论意义何在\what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality? 我们下次将会继续探讨这一问题\That's a question we'll continue with next time.{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}公正课下讲预告好现在我们再投个票\All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,哪个是最高级的体验或快乐\which is the highest experience or pleasure.{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}第四讲《如何衡量快乐》多少人认为是莎士比亚\How many say Shakespeare?多少人认为是《挑战恐惧极限》\How many say Fear Factor?你开玩笑的吧是吧\No, you can't be serious. Really?上节课我们开始思考一些\Last time, we began to consider some objections to对杰里米·边沁功利主义的反对观点\Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.讨论中提出了两点异议\People raised two objections in the discussion we had.第一点异议是说功利主义\The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism,只关注"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"\by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,没有充分地尊重个人权利\fails adequately to respect individual rights.今天我们要讨论严刑拷打和恐怖主义\Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.假设一名恐怖主义嫌犯在9丒11慜堦揤旐曔\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th你桳棟桼憡怣\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you had reason to believe这柤寵斊彾埇椆\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}that the suspect had crucial information彨导抳3000恖嬾难揑嫲晐袭击揑廳梫忣报\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people你撬晄开懠揑岥\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you couldn't extract the information.为椆漒摓忣报帶对懠严孻崏懪惀斲崌棟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information梷埥你晄赞摨\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}or do you say no,你认为桳懜廳槩恖权棙揑绝对摴 责擟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights?朸种掱搙忋変们枖夞摓椆嵟弶揑问题\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}In a way, we're back to thequestions we started with。
公正哈佛大学公开课 公正课 观后感 英文版 500字以上 绝对原创
The Moral Side of MurderSteering wheel 方向盘on the side track转向分叉口Give sb a shove 推某人一下a handful of people 很少的人Transplant surgeonthe purpose of this course is to awaken the recklessness of my reasoning. I hope I can achieve this goal.once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite same again.utilitarianism 功利主义Utilitarianism 功利主义 a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham. Immanuel Kant is the most important philosopher of categorically moral reasoning.结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果-功利主义（18世纪英国哲学家Jeremy Bentham)；而另一种情况代表绝对主义的道德推理，有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样。
----（18世纪德国哲学家康德）Uniilitarianism Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act in the state of the rule that resolve from the thing you do. 结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果，它取决于我们最后的结果。
Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements certain categorical duties and rights, regardless the consequence.绝对主义的道德推理认为，道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样。
哈弗大学公开课公平与正义观后感 (1)
哈佛大学公共课“关于公平与正义”的观后感最近观看了哈佛大学哲学教授Michael Sandel公开课的视频，迈克尔·桑德尔教授幽默的教学风格和严密的逻辑思维不仅给我留下了深刻的印象，也让我从中获得了很大的收获。
他以《关于公平和正义的入门课》为基础，不仅对道德和政治哲学进行了一系列的介绍，并且让人们带着批判的观点来思考复杂且动荡不定的现代社会的种种问题，包括反歧视行动，同性婚姻，爱国主义，忠诚和人权。
一、独特的教学方法（一）采用苏格拉底的方式进行拷问迈克尔·桑德尔教授教学不是仅仅一个讲座，他把问题交给学生，邀请他们在课堂上积极地思考、参与并为了他们自己的观点辩论。
他以这种“苏格拉底的方式”不断地诘问、应答、反驳和再追问的方式将讨论的内容在课堂上呈现出来，使学生通过对具体个案的辨析和争论，来培养批评思考以及推理论说的能力。
他不会灌输给你什么，只是希望学生在其引导下对某些想当然的结论或常识有多维度的思考。
这种“苏格拉底的方式”教学方式很适合他的道德和政治哲学这个教学科目。
因为道德和政治哲学这门课本身就有很多有争议的理论和问题，并不是每个人都会同意一种观点。
所以很多学生会勇敢地举起手来，提出问题，发表他们自己的观点，为他们自己的观点辩护。
看来，批判性地表达不同的观点，也是学习的一部分。
然而，我们中国的灌输式教育缺乏对学生主体性的充分关注，不利于人和社会的和谐发展。
所以我认为，我们急需“苏格拉底的方式”教学，通过学生的积极参与，促进了学生的主动地学习。
（二）举生活中的例子促进思考桑德尔教授不是刻板的讲解理论的知识，而是采用日常的例子来拷问学生，将复杂的问题变得简单、易于理解，有时甚至变得很有趣。
他用一些或普通或极端的例子引导学生对日常道德问题进行思索，帮助他们在面临日常道德抉择的时候能够更好地运用批判性思维。
在他的引导和诘问下，学生全身心地投入到对道德的思索中，又常常会陷于两难的道德窘境中。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Funding for this programis provided by:本节目的赞助来自......Additi onal funding provided by:另外的赞助来自……Last time,we argued about上次,我们谈到the case ofThe Quee n v. Dudley & Stephe ns,女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件，the lifeboat case,the case of cann ibalism at sea.那个救生艇上，海上吃人的案件.And with the argume ntsabout the lifeboat in mind,带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论the argume nts for and aga instwhat Dudley and Stephe ns did in mind,带着支持和反对Dudley和Stephens所做的吃人行为的讨论let's turn back to the philosophy,the utilitaria n philosophy of Jeremy Ben tham.让我们回头来看看Bentham的功利主义哲学.Ben tham was born in En gla nd in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford. Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 1915岁时，他去了法学院.19岁就取得了律师资格but he n ever practiced law.但他没有从事于律师行业.In stead, he devoted his life to jurisprude nee and moral philosophy.相反，他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学•Last time, we bega n to con siderBen tham's version of utilitaria ni sm.上一次,我们开始考虑Bentham版本的功利主义The mai n idea is simply statedand it's this:简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest prin ciple of morality,whether pers onal or political morality, 道德的最高原则，无论个人或政治道德，is to maximize the gen eral welfare,or the collective happ in ess,就是将公共福利，或集体的幸福最大化，or the overall bala neeof pleasure over pain;或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐；in a phrase, maximize utility.简而言之就是，功利最大化.Ben tham arrives at this prin cipleby the followi ng line of reas oning: Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：We're all gover nedby pain and pleasure,我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制，they are our sovereig n masters,and so any moral system他们是我们的主宰，所以任何道德体系has to take acco unt of them.都要考虑到这点•How best to take acco unt?By maximizi ng.如何能最好地考虑这一点？通过最大化.And this leads to the prin ciple of thegreatest good for the greatest nu mber从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Ben tham tells us happ in ess,or more precisely, utility - Bentham告诉我们幸福，或者更准确地说，实用-maximizi ng utility as a prin ciplenot only for in dividuals最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人but also for com mun itiesand for legislators.而且还适用于社区及立法者•"What, after all, is a commu nity?"Ben tham asks."毕竟，什么是社区？” Bentham问道.It's the sum of the in dividualswho comprise it.它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和•And that's why in decidi ngthe best policy,这就是为什么在决定最好的政策，in decidi ng what the law should be,in decidi ng what's just,在决定法律应该是什么样，在决定什么是公正时citize ns and legislatorsshould ask themselves the questi on公民和立法者应该问自己的问题if we add up all of the ben efitsof this policy如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益and subtract all of the costs,the right thing to do减去所有的成本，正确的做法is the one that maximizes the bala nee of happ in ess over sufferi ng.就是将幸福与痛苦之间的平衡最大化地倾向幸福That's what it meansto maximize utility.这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to seewhether you agree or disagree with it,现在，我想看看你们是否同意它，and it ofte n goes,this utilitaria n logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑，un der the n ame ofcost-be nefit an alysis,名为成本效益分析，which is used by compa niesand by gover nments all the time.也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的And what it in volvesis placi ng a value,它的内涵是用一个价值usually a dollar value,to sta nd for utility on the costs 通常是由美元，来代表不同提案的效用and the ben efitsof various proposals.这效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recen tly, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal最近,在捷克共和国，有一个提案to in crease the excise tax on smok ing.Philip Morris, the tobacco compa ny,对吸烟增加货物税Philip Morris烟草公司，does huge bus in essin the Czech Republic.该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.They commissi oned a study,a cost-be nefit an alysis他们委托了一个研究，of smok ing in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-be nefit关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.an alysis found was the gover nmentgains by havi ng Czech citize ns smoke.他们的分析发现，捷克政府将会因公民吸烟而收益Now, how do they gain?现在,他们如何收益？It's true that there aren egative effects to the public finance确实，捷克政府的公共财政体系of the Czech gover nmentbecause there are in creased health care会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增加的医疗保健开支costs for people who developsmok in g-related diseases.从而受到负面影响.On the other hand,there were positive effects另一方面,这也有积极效应and those were added upon the other side of the ledger .并且这些积极效益累加到了账簿的另一面The positive effects in cluded,for the most part,积极效益包括，在大多数情况下，various tax revenues that thegover nment derives from the sale政府通过卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入of cigarette products,but it also in eluded但也包括health care savi ngs to thegover nment whe n people die early,政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄，例如pension sav ings -- you don't have topay pensions for as long -养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-and also, sav ings inhous ing costs for the elderly.还有，老年人住房费用•And whe n all of the costsand ben efits were added up,当把所有的成本和效益都分别加起来，the Philip Morris study foundthat there is a net public finance gain Philip Morris公司的研究发现，捷克共和国会有一个in the Czech Republicof $147,000,000,$147,000,000的公共财政净增益，and give n the savi ngs in hous ing,in health care, and pension costs,并鉴于节省了住房费用，医疗保健费用，养老金费用，the gover nment enjoys savi ngsof over $1,200 for each pers onwho dies prematurely due to smok ing.每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.Cost-be nefit an alysis.成本效益分析.Now, those among youwho are defe nders of utilitaria nism现在，你们中间，那些功利主义的捍卫者may think that this is an un fair test.可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloriedin the pressPhilip Morris公司在新闻界遭到了嘲笑and they issued an apologyfor this heartless calculatio n.他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's miss ing hereis somethi ng that the utilitaria n你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏can easily in corporate,n amely the value to the pers on它没有正确评估人的价值and to the families of those who diefrom lung cancer .以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.What about the value of life?如何评估生命价值?Some cost-be nefit an alyses in corporatea measure for the value of life.一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估.One of the most famousof these in volved the Ford Pinto case.其中最有名的要数Ford Pin to案件.Did any of you read about that?你们有没有阅读过这个案件？This was back in the 1970s.那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you rememberwhat the Ford Pinto was,你还记得Ford Pinto是，a kind of car?Anybody?什么样的车么？谁能记得？It was a small car ,subcompact car , very popular ,那是一种小型车，超小型车，很受欢迎,but it had one problem,which is the fuel tank但它也有问题，车后座的油箱was at the back of the carand in rear collisi ons,少数情况下，碰撞会导致the fuel tank explodedand some people were killed油箱爆炸并且有些人会因此死去and some severely injured.还有人因此严重受伤.Victims of these injuriestook Ford to court to sue.这些受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case,it turned out that Ford而在诉讼案件，人们发现福特原来had long since known about thevuln erable fuel tank早已知道油箱的脆弱and had done a cost-be nefit an alysisto determ ine whether it would be并且已做了成本效益分析，以确定是否worth it to put ina special shield that would值得来放入一个特殊的盾牌protect the fuel tankand preve nt it from explod ing.用来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-be nefit an alysis.他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per partto in crease the safety of the Pin to,增加Ford Pinto安全的每部件费用，they calculated at $11.00 per part.他们算出，要每部件$ 11.00.And here's -- this was the cost-be nefitan alysis that emerged in the trial.这里-这就是当时审判中出示的成本效益分析Eleve n dollars per partat 12.5 millio n cars and trucks每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车came to a total cost of$137 milli on to improve the safety.得到一个总成本，需要13700万美元来改善安全性.But the n they calculated the ben efitsof spe nding all this money不过，他们随后计算了一下花这笔钱来改善安全性的收益率on a safer carand they coun ted 180 deaths（如果不花这笔钱来改善安全，）假设会导致180人死亡and they assig ned a dollar value,$200,000 per death,他们对此用美元价值来代替，每个死去的人赔偿$ 200,000180 injuries, $67,000,and the n the costs to repair ,180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67,000,然后是维修受损车的费用the replaceme nt costfor 2,000 vehicles,2 000辆车,it would be destroyed withoutthe safety device $700 per vehicle.由于没有安装安全设施，每辆车将会需要$700来维修.So the ben efits turned out to beon ly $49.5 millio n结论是总效益只有$49.5 million（相对于修复安全隐患总成本需要$137 millio n）and so they did n'tin stall the device.因此他们没有安装那个安全设备.Needless to say,whe n this memo of the毫无疑问，福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录Ford Motor Compa ny's cost-be nefitan alysis came out in the trial,在审判中出现时，it appalled the jurors,who awarded a huge settleme nt.震惊了陪审团，也因此裁定了福特公司巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a coun terexample to theutilitaria n idea of calculat ing?这是一个功利主义计算的反例么？Because Ford in cluded a measureof the value of life.因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defe ndcost-be nefit an alysis好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例from this appare nt coun terexample?来捍卫成本效益分析？Who has a defe nse?谁来辩护？Or do you think thiscompletely destroys the whole或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了utilitaria n calculus?Yes?功利主义计算？你来Well, I think that once aga in,they've made the same mistake嗯,我想再次指出，他们犯了同样的错误the previous case did,that they assig ned a dollar value和以前的情况一样，他们对人的生命赋予to huma n life,and once aga in,一个美元为单位的价值，同样的，they failed to take acco untthi ngs like sufferi ng他们没有考虑到家属的痛苦和损失and emoti on al losses by the families.诸如此类的因素•I mean, families lost earningsbut they also lost a loved one我的意思是，家庭损失了收入来源，但他们也失去了爱人and that is more valuedthan $200,000.这些的价值远远超过$200,000的.Right and -- wait, wait, wait,that's good. What's your n ame?好的-等等,等等,等等，很好•你叫什么名字？Julie Roteau .Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie,is too low a figure因此,Julie,如果$200,000 是个太低的金额，because it does n't in elude theloss of a loved one因为它不包括失去爱人and the loss of those years of life,what would be -以及那些在没有亲人的岁月里的损失，你认为what do you thinkwould be a more accurate nu mber?更准确的金额是多少？I don't believe I could give a nu mberI think that this sort of an alysis我不认为，我可以对此给出一个金额•我认为这类分析should n't be applied to issuesof huma n life.不适用于人类生命相关的问题•I think it can't be used mon etarily.我认为不能用金钱来衡量.So they did n't just puttoo low a number , Julie says.因此,Julie认为他们不只是金额定的太低.They were wrong to tryto put any nu mber at all.他们压根就不应该用金额来衡量.All right, let's hear some one who -You have to adjust for in flati on.好吧，让我们听听还有谁-You have to adjust for in flati on.（这个金额）要根据通货膨胀进行调整All right, fair eno ugh.好吧,很公平.So what would the nu mber be now?那么现在这个金额将是？This was 35 years ago.这发生在35年前.Two millio n dollars.两百万美兀.Two milli on dollars?You would put two milli on?200万美元？你认为是200万?And what's your n ame?你的名字是？VoytekVoytekVoytek says we have toallow for in flati on. Voytek说，我们必须允许通货膨胀We should be more gen erous.我们应该更慷慨些.Then would you be satisfiedthat this is the right way of然后，你认为这就是考虑这个问题的thinking about the questi on?正确的方式么？I guess, unfortun ately, it is for -我想，不幸的是，现在-there n eeds to be a nu mber put somewhere, like, I'm not sure我们需要有一个金额，我不确定what that nu mber would be,but I do agree that合适的金额是多少，但我同意there could possiblybe a nu mber put on the huma n life.对人类生命定一个金额是可行的•All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie. 好的，Voytek说，他不同意Julie.Julie says we can't put a nu mberon huma n life朱莉认为,我们不能在成本效益分析中for the purpose of acost-be nefit an alysis.对人的生命定一个金额.Voytek says we have to becausewe have to make decisi ons somehow.Voytek认为，我们必须这样做因为我们无论如何需要作出某种决定What do other peoplethi nk about this?其他人觉得呢？Is there anyone preparedto defe nd cost-be nefit an alysis这里有人打算为能足够准确的成本效益分析辩护么？here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.好?请继续.I thi nk that if Fordand other car compa nies我认为，如果福特和其他汽车公司did n't use cost-be nefit an alysis,they'd eve ntually go out of bus in ess没有使用成本效益分析，他们会最终歇业because they would n't be able to beprofitable and milli ons of people因为他们将无法盈利,（从而导致）数百万的人would n't be able to use their carsto get to jobs,将无法使用这些汽车去上班，to put food on the table,to feed their childre n.（没钱）购买餐桌上的食物,（没钱）来喂养孩子.So I thi nk that if cost-be nefitan alysis isn't employed,因此,我认为，如果不利用成本效益分析，the greater good is sacrificed,in this case.在这种情况下,（我们将会）牺牲更大的利益.All right, let me add.What's your n ame?好吧，让我来补充.你叫什么名字？Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recen tly a study doneabout cell phone use by a driverRaul,最近有一项研究表明，关于开车时驾驶者使用手机whe n people are drivi ng a car ,and there was a debate有一场辩论，关于这种行为whether that should be bann ed.是否应被禁止.Yeah.是啊。