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 the
questions we started with。