哈佛最受欢迎公开课～正义
从哈佛公开课《公正》看学生如何学习
从哈佛公开课《公正》看学生如何学习——以建构教学理论为视角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，桑德尔教授的身上有许多值得学习的地方。
从整堂课看来，不难发现，桑德尔教授主要是以以下模式来对学生进行知识理论体系的建构和梳理。
1、导入（通过讲故事或假设创立情境来导入）2、引出学生的观点（通过不断提出两难的问题来引发学生思考，从而引出他们的观点）3、通过四个阶段重新建构观点：阐述自己的观点并与别人相互交流；将旧有观点暴露于特定情景之下；重新建构新观点；评价新观点4、运用新观点5、对观念变化进行评论建构主义在知识观上强调知识的动态性，知识并不是对现实世界的绝对正确的表征，不是放之各种情境皆准的教条；在学生观上强调学习者的学习潜能及其经验世界的丰富性、差异性；在学习观上它强调学习的主动建构性。
建构主义教学理论认为，在教师教学和学生的学习活动中，学生要把当前学习的内容所反映的事物尽量和自己已经知道的事物相联系，并对这种联系加以认真思考。
从认识规律的角度说，“联系”与“思考”，“比较”与“分析”是学生构建意义的关键环节。
建构主义者在教学中强调把所学的知识与一定的真实任务情境挂起钩来，比如医学中的具体病理、经营管理中的实际案例等等，让学生合作解决情境性的问题。
情境性教学具有以下特点。
首先，学习的任务情境应与现实情境相类似，以解决学生在现实生活中遇到的问题为目标。
其次，教学的过程与现实的问题解决过程相类似，在课堂上展示出与现实中专家解决问题相类似的探索过程，提供解决问题的范式，并指导学生的探索。
最后，需要进行与学习过程相一致的情境化的评估，或者融合于教学过程之中的测验的融合式测验，在学习中对具体问题的解决过程本身就反映了学习的效果而桑德尔的公开课之所以能够吸引学生，首要的因素就在于，桑德尔通过创设问题情境，把新知识与学生的日常经验或者学生的已有的知识结构发生互联，引发新与旧的碰撞，并激发学生获取新知识的好奇心和求知欲。
哈佛公开课正义观后感
哈佛公开课正义观后感引言最近，我有幸观看了一场哈佛公开课，主题为正义（Justice）。
这是由哈佛大学教授迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel）主讲的一堂课，通过深入探讨正义的概念、各种理论和现实生活中的案例，引发了我对正义问题的思考。
本文将从课堂内容的理解和个人观点两方面进行阐述。
课堂内容的理解在正义的讲解中，桑德尔教授介绍了三种主要的正义理论：功利主义、权利主义和公民美德主义。
功利主义强调追求最大多数人的幸福和福利，权利主义注重个体权利和自由，而公民美德主义则强调公民的道德责任和社会义务。
通过学习这些不同的理论，我对正义的多样性和复杂性有了更深入的理解。
此外，在课堂上，桑德尔教授还以一些实际案例来帮助我们探讨正义。
例如，他提到了分配公平的问题，比如器官移植和纳税制度。
通过这些案例，我认识到正义是一个伦理学问题，需要综合和平衡各种不同因素，包括效益、公平和道德等。
个人观点在观看哈佛公开课后，我对正义的理解发生了一些变化。
首先，我认识到正义不是简单的黑白对立，而是存在于灰色地带的。
人们在追求正义时常常会面临权衡和妥协的情况，有时甚至会做出一些让人费解的决策。
这表明正义是一个动态的概念。
此外，我对权利和义务的关系有了更加清晰的认识。
权利和义务是相互依存的，不能只强调自己的权利而忽视自己的义务。
作为一个社会的一员，我们有责任为社会做贡献，不仅仅是追求个人的权利和自由。
最后，我认识到正义是社会稳定和和谐的基石。
当社会的贫富差距悬殊，法律不公，人们的尊严受到侵犯时，社会就会出现紧张和冲突。
只有建立公正的制度和社会环境，才能实现真正的正义。
结论通过观看哈佛公开课《正义》，我对正义的理解得到了极大的拓展。
正义不仅仅是道德的问题，也是一个社会问题，涉及到利益、公平和道德等多个方面。
只有在公正和平等的基础上，社会才能实现长久稳定的发展。
对我个人而言，这堂课让我反思了自己对正义的态度和行为，我将进一步关注社会公益事业，积极为社会做出贡献。
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-CAL-FENGHAI.-(YICAI)-Company One1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着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，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、应答、反驳和再追问，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。
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。
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。
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。
我觉得作为一名光荣的最光辉的教师，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，脑海中形成一个系统的思维。
二、自身的智慧魅力桑德尔教授在课堂上涉及到了哲学，社会学，心理学等等，涉及范围非常之广，在面对那些突如其来的情况时，他是不可能事先准备的，但是他仍然能把握课堂节奏达到游刃有余，这与桑德尔教授自身学识渊博，思维敏捷等是离不开的。
哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕_第一课
制作人：心舟 QQ:1129441083第一讲《杀人的道德侧面》这是一门讨论公正的课程This is a course about justice我们以一则故事作为引子and we begin with a story.假设你是一名电车司机\Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car你的电车以60英里小时的速度\and your trolley car is hurtling down the track 在轨道上飞驰\at 60 miles an hour.突然发现在轨道的尽头\And at the end of the track you notice有五名工人正在施工\five workers working on the track.你无法让电车停下来\You try to stop but you can't因为刹车坏了\your brakes don't work.你此时极度绝望\You feel desperate因为你深知\because you know如果电车撞向那五名工人\that if you crash into these five workers他们全都会死\they will all die.假设你对此确信无疑\Let's assume you know that for sure.你极为无助\And so you feel helpless直到你发现在轨道的右侧until you notice that there is off to the right有一条侧轨\ a side track而在侧轨的尽头\and at the end of that track只有一名工人在那施工\there is one worker working on the track.而你的方向盘还没坏\Your steering wheel works只要你想\so you can turn the trolley car就可以把电车转到侧轨上去\if you want to onto the side track牺牲一人挽救五人性命\killing the one but sparing the five.下面是我们的第一个问题:\Here's our first question:何为正确的选择\what's the right thing to do?换了你会怎么做\What would you do?我们来做个调查\Let's take a poll.有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去\How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track?请举手\Raise your hands.有多少人会让电车继续往前开\How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead? 选择往前开的请不要把手放下\Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead.只有少数人选择往前开\A handful of people would绝大多数都选择转弯\the vast majority would turn.我们先来听听大家的说法\Let's hear first探究一下为何\now we need to begin to investigate the reasons你们会认为这是正确的选择\why you think it's the right thing to do.先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始\Let's begin with those in the majority whowould turn to go onto the side track.为何会这样选择\Why would you do it?理由是什么\What would be your reason?有没有自告奋勇的\Who's willing to volunteer a reason?你来站起来告诉大家\Go ahead. Stand up.我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时\Because it can't be right to kill five people牺牲五人不是正确之举\when you can only kill one person instead.当可以只牺牲一人时牺牲五人不是正确之举\It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.这理由不错\That's a good reason.不错\That's a good reason.还有其他人吗\Who else?人人都赞同这个理由\Does everybody agree with that reason?你来\Go ahead.我认为这和9·11的时候是一种情况\Well I was thinking it's the same reason on9 11 那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人被视为英雄\with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes因为他们选择了牺牲自己\because they chose to kill the people on the plane而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人\and not kill more people in big buildings.这么看来这条原则和9·11的是一样的\So the principle there was the same on 9 11. 虽然是悲剧\It's a tragic circumstance但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择\but better to kill one so that five can live 这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗\is that the reason most of you had those of you who would turn? Yes?现在我们来听听少数派的意见\Let's hear now from those in the minority那些选择不转弯的\those who wouldn't turn.你来\Yes.我认为这与为种族灭绝以及极权主义正名\Well I think that's the same type of mentality that justifies genocide是同一种思维模式\and totalitarianism.为了一个种族能生存下来\In order to save one type of race以灭绝另一个种族为代价\you wipe out the other.那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做\So what would you do in this case?为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝\You would to avoid the horrors of genocide你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗\you would crash into the five and kill them? 大概会吧\Presumably yes.-真的会吗 -对\- You would? - Yeah.好吧还有谁\Okay. Who else?很有勇气的回答谢谢\That's a brave answer. Thank you.我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子\Let's consider another trolley car case看看你们\and see whether大多数的人\those of you in the majority会不会继续坚持刚才的原则\want to adhere to the principle即"牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择"\"better that one should die so that five should live."这次你不再是电车司机了\This time you're not the driver of the trolley car只是一名旁观者\you're an onlooker.你站在一座桥上俯瞰着电车轨道\You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track.电车沿着轨道从远处驶来\And down the track comes a trolley car轨道的尽头有五名工人\at the end of the track are five workers电车刹车坏了\the brakes don't work这五名工人即将被撞死\the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.但你不是电车司机你真的爱莫能助\And now you're not the driver you really feel helpless直到你发现在你旁边\until you notice standing next to you靠着桥站着的\leaning over the bridge是个超级大胖子\is a very fat man.你可以选择推他一把\And you could give him a shove.他就会摔下桥\He would fall over the bridge onto the track正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车\right in the way of the trolley car.他必死无疑但可以救那五人的性命\He would die but he would spare the five. 现在\Now有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥\how many would push the fat man over the bridge?请举手\Raise your hand.有多少人不会\How many wouldn't?大多数人不会这么做\Most people wouldn't.一个显而易见的问题出现了\Here's the obvious question.我们"牺牲一人保全五人"的这条原则\What became of the principle到底出了什么问题呢\"better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?" 第一种情况时\What became of the principle大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了\that almost everyone endorsed in the first case? 两种情况中都属多数派的人你们是怎么想的\I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢\How do you explain the difference between the two?你来\Yes.我认为第二种情况\The second one I guess牵涉到主动选择推人\involves an active choice of pushing a person down而被推的这个人\which I guess that person himself本来跟这事件一点关系都没有\would otherwise not have been involved in thesituation at all.所以从这个人自身利益的角度来说\And so to choose on his behalf I guess他是被迫卷入这场无妄之灾的\to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is而第一种情况不同\I guess more than what you have in the first case第一种情况里的三方电车司机及那两组工人\where the three parties the driver and the two sets of workers之前就牵涉进这事件本身了\are already I guess in the situation.但在侧轨上施工的那名工人\But the guy working the one on the track off to the side 他并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自我不是吗\he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did he?对但谁让他就在那侧轨上而且...\That's true but he was on the tracks and... 那胖子还在桥上呢\This guy was on the bridge.如果你愿意可以继续说下去\Go ahead you can come back if you want.好吧这是一个难以抉择的问题\All right. It's a hard question.你回答得很不错\You did well. You did very well.真的难以抉择\It's a hard question.还有谁能来为两种情况中\Who else can find a way of reconciling大多数人的不同选择作出合理解释\the reaction of the majority in these two cases? 你来\Yes.我认为在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个\Well I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five你只能在这两者中选择\it's a choice between those two不管你做出的是哪一个选择\and you have to make a certain choice总得有人被电车撞死\and people are going to die because of the trolley car而他们的死并非你的直接行为导致\not necessarily because of your direct actions.电车已失控而你必须在那一瞬间做出选择\The trolley car is a runaway thing and you're making a split second choice.而反之把胖子推下去则是你自己的直接谋杀行为\Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part.你的行为是可控的\You have control over that而电车则是不可控的\whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.所以我认为这两种情况略有不同\So I think it's a slightly different situation. 很好有没谁来回应的有人吗\All right who has a reply? That's good. Who has a way?有人要补充吗刚才那个解释合理吗\Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this? 我认为这不是一个很好的理由\I don't think that's a very good reason因为不论哪种情况你都得选择让谁死\because you choose to- either way you have to choose who dies或者你是选择转弯撞死一名工人\because you either choose to turn and kill theperson这种转弯就是种有意识的行为\which is an act of conscious thought to turn或者你是选择把胖子推下去\or you choose to push the fat man over这同样是一种主动的有意识的行为\which is also an active conscious action.所以不管怎样你都是在作出选择\So either way you're making a choice.你有话要说吗\Do you want to reply?我不太确定情况就是这样的\I'm not really sure that that's the case.只是觉得似乎有点不同\It just still seems kind of different.真的动手把人推到轨道上让他死的这种行为\the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him就等于是你亲手杀了他\you are actually killing him yourself.你用你自己的手推他\You're pushing him with your own hands.是你在推他这不同于\You're pushing him and that's different操控方向盘进而导致了他人死亡...\than steering something that is going to cause death into another...现在听起来好像不太对头了\You know it doesn't really sound right saying it now. 不你回答得不错叫什么名字\No no. It's good. It's good. What's your name? 安德鲁\Andrew.我来问你一个问题安德鲁\Andrew. Let me ask you this question Andrew.您问\Yes.假设我站在桥上胖子就在我旁边\Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man我不用去推他\I didn't have to push him假设他踩在一扇活板门上方\suppose he was standing over a trap door而活板门可以通过转动方向盘来开启\that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that.你会转动方向盘吗\Would you turn?出于某种原因我觉得这样似乎错上加错\For some reason that still just seems more wrong.是吗\Right?如果是你不小心靠着方向盘导致活门开启\I mean maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel或是发生之类的情况\or something like that.但是...或者是列车飞驰而来时\But... Or say that the car is hurtling正好可以触发活门开关\towards a switch that will drop the trap.-那我就赞同 -没关系好了\- Then I could agree with that. - That's all right. Fair enough.反正就是不对\It still seems wrong in a way而在第一种情况这样做就是对的是吧\that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.换个说法就是在第一种情况中\And in another way I mean in the first situation你是直接涉及其中的\you're involved directly with the situation.而第二种情况中你只是旁观者\In the second one you're an onlooker as well.-好了 -所以你有权选择是否把胖子推下去\- All right. - So you have the choice of becoming involved or not-从而牵涉其中 -好了\- by pushing the fat man. - All right.先不管这个情况\Let's forget for the moment about this case.你们很不错\That's good.我们来想象一个不同的情况\Let's imagine a different case.这次你是一名急诊室的医生\This time you're a doctor in an emergency room有天送来了六个病人\and six patients come to you.他们遭受了一次严重的电车事故\They've been in a terrible trolley car wreck.其中五人伤势不算严重\Five of them sustain moderate injuries另外一人受重伤你可以花上一整天时间\one is severely injured you could spend all day来医治这一名受重伤的病人\caring for the one severely injured victim但那另外五个病人就会死\but in that time the five would die.你也可以选择医治这五人\Or you could look after the five restore them to health 但那样的话那名受重伤的病人就会死\but during that time the one severely injured person would die.有多少人会选择救那五人\How many would save the five?作为医生又有多少人选择救那一人\Now as the doctor how many would save the one? 只有极少数人\Very few people just a handful of people.我猜理由还是一样\Same reason I assume.牺牲一个保全五个\One life versus five?现在来考虑一下另外一种情况\Now consider another doctor case.这次你是一名器官移植医生你有五名病人\This time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients每名病人都急需器官移植才能存活\each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive.分别需要心脏移植肺移植肾移植\One needs a heart one a lung one a kidney肝移植以及胰腺移植\one a liver and the fifth a pancreas.没有器官捐赠者\And you have no organ donors.你只能眼睁睁看他们死去\You are about to see them die.然后你突然想起\And then it occurs to you在隔壁病房\that in the next room有个来做体检的健康人\there's a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.而且他...\And he's...你们喜欢这剧情吧\you like that...而且他正在打盹\... and he's taking a nap你可以悄悄地进去取出那五个器官\you could go in very quietly yank out the five organs这人会死但你能救那另外五人\that person would die but you could save the five. 有多少人会这么做\How many would do it?有吗\Anyone?选择这么做的请举手\How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.楼座上的呢\Anyone in the balcony?我会\I would.你会吗小心别太靠着那栏杆\You would? Be careful don't lean over too much.有多少人不会\How many wouldn't?很好你来\All right. What do you say?楼座上那位\Speak up in the balcony就是支持取出那些器官的为什么这么做\you who would yank out the organs. Why? 其实我想知道可否稍微变通一下\I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility就是选择五人中最先死的那人\of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first利用他的器官来救其他四人\and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.这想法很赞\That's a pretty good idea.想法不错\That's a great idea只不过\except for the fact你避开了我们今天要谈论的哲学问题\that you just wrecked the philosophical point. 让我们暂时先不忙讨论这些故事以及争论\Let's step back from these stories and these arguments来关注一下这些争论是怎样展开的\to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.某些道德原则已经随着我们讨论的展开\Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge逐渐开始浮现出来了\from the discussions we've had.我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的\And let's consider what those moral principles look like.在讨论中出现的第一条道德原则\The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion正确的选择道德的选择\said the right thing to do the moral thing to do取决于你的行为所导致的后果\depends on the consequences that will result from your action.最终结论: 牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择\At the end of the day better that five should live even if one must die.这是后果主义道德推理的一则例子\That's an example of consequentiality moral reasoning.后果主义道德推理\Consequentiality moral reasoning认为是否道德取决于行为的后果\locates morality in the consequences of an act取决于你的行为对外界所造成的影响\in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.但随着谈论的深入我们发现在其他情况中\But then we went a little further we considered those other cases人们不再对后果主义道德推理那么确定了\and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning.当人们开始犹豫是否要推胖子下桥\When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge或者是否切取无辜病人的器官时\or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient 他们更倾向于去评判行为本身的动机\people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself而不是该行为的后果\consequences be what they may.人们动摇了\People were reluctant.他们认为杀掉一个无辜的人\People thought it was just wrong categorically wrong 是绝对错误的\to kill a person an innocent person哪怕是为了拯救五条生命\even for the sake of saving five lives.至少在每个故事的第二种情况中是这样认为的\At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.这表明有第二种绝对主义方式的道德推理\So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.绝对主义道德推理认为\Categorical moral reasoning是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则\locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements取决于绝对明确的义务与权利\certain categorical duties and rights而不管后果如何\regardless of the consequences.我们将用以后的几天到几周时间来探讨\We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come后果主义与绝对主义道德原则的差别\the contrast between consequentiality and categorical moral principles.后果主义道德推理中最具影响的就是功利主义\The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism由18世纪英国政治哲学家杰里米·边沁提出\a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham18th century English political philosopher而绝对主义道德推理中最为著名的\The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning则是18世纪德国哲学家康德\is the18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. 我们将着眼于这两种迥异的道德推理模式\So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning评价它们还会考虑其他模式\assess them and also consider others.如果你有留意教学大纲就能发现\If you look at the syllabus you'll notice教学大纲里列出了不少人的著作\that we read a number of great and famous books包括亚里士多德约翰·洛克伊曼努尔·康德\books by Aristotle John Locke Immanuel Kant约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒及其他哲学家的著作\John Stewart Mill and others.在教学大纲中还能看到\You'll notice too from the syllabus我们不仅要读这些著作\that we don't only read these books;还会探讨当代政治及法律争议\we also take up contemporary political and legal controversies所引发的诸多哲学问题\that raise philosophical questions.我们将讨论平等与不平等\We will debate equality and inequality平权行动自由言论与攻击性言论同性婚姻\affirmative action free speech versus hate speech same-sex marriage兵役制等一系列现实问题\military conscription a range of practical questions. 为什么呢\Why?不仅是为了将这些深奥抽象的著作形象化\Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books还为了让我们通过哲学辨明\but to make clear to bring out what's at stake日常生活包括政治生活中什么才是最关键的\in our everyday lives including our political lives for philosophy.所以我们要读这些著作讨论这些议题\And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues并了解两者是怎样互相补充互相阐释的\and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other.也许听起来蛮动人不过我要事先提个醒\This may sound appealing enough but here I have to issue a warning.那就是通过用这样的方式阅读这些著作\And the warning is thisto read these books in this way来训练自我认知\as an exercise in self knowledge必然会带来一些风险\to read them in this way carries certain risks包括个人风险和政治风险\risks that are both personal and political每位学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险\risks that every student of political philosophy has known.这风险源自于以下事实\These risks spring from the fact即哲学就是让我们面对自己熟知的事物\that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us 然后引导并动摇我们原有的认知\by confronting us with what we already know.这真是讽刺\There's an irony.这门课程的难度就在于\The difficulty of this course consists in the fact传授的都是你们已有的知识\that it teaches what you already know.它将我们所熟知的毋庸置疑的事物\It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings变得陌生\and making it strange.正如我们刚举的例子\That's how those examples worked那些严肃而又不乏趣味的假设性问题\the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.这些哲学类著作亦然\It's also how these philosophical books work.哲学让我们对熟知事物感到陌生\Philosophy estranges us from the familiar不是通过提供新的信息\not by supplying new information而是通过引导并激发我们用全新方式看问题\but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing但这正是风险所在\but and here's the risk一旦所熟知的事物变得陌生\once the familiar turns strange它将再也无法回复到从前\it's never quite the same again.自我认知就像逝去的童真 \Self knowledge is like lost innocence不管你有多不安\however unsettling you find it;你已经无法不去想或是充耳不闻了\it can never be un-thought or un-known.这一过程会充满挑战又引人入胜\What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting因为道德与政治哲学就好比一个故事\is that moral and political philosophy is a story你不知道故事将会如何发展\and you don't know where the story will lead.你只知道这个故事与你息息相关\But what you do know is that the story is about you. 以上为我提到的个人风险\Those are the personal risks.那么政治风险是什么呢\Now what of the political risks?介绍这门课程时可以这样许诺:\One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you通过阅读这些著作讨论这些议题\that by reading these books and debating these issues你将成为更优秀更有责任感的公民\you will become a better more responsible citizen;你将重新审视公共政策的假定前提\you will examine the presuppositions of public policy你将拥有更加敏锐的政治判断力\you will hone your political judgment你将更有效地参与公共事务\you will become a more effective participant in public affairs.但这一许诺也可能片面而具误导性\But this would be a partial and misleading promise.因为绝大多数情况下政治哲学\Political philosophy for the most part并不是那样的\hasn't worked that way.你们必须承认政治哲学\You have to allow for the possibility可能使你们成为更糟的公民\that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen 而不是更优秀的\rather than a better one至少在让你成为更优秀公民前先让你更糟\or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one因为哲学使人疏离现实甚至可能弱化行动力\and that's because philosophy is a distancing even debilitating activity.追溯到苏格拉底时代就有这样一段对话\And you see this going back to Socrates there's a dialogue在《高尔吉亚篇》中苏格拉底的一位朋友\the Gorgias in which one of Socrates' friends《高尔吉亚篇》柏拉图著古希腊哲学家卡里克利斯试图说服苏格拉底放弃哲学思考\Callicles tries to talk him out of philosophizing.他告诉苏格拉底:\Callicles tells Socrates如果一个人在年轻时代\"Philosophy is a pretty toy有节制地享受哲学的乐趣那自然大有裨益\if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life.但倘若过分沉溺其中那他必将走向毁灭\But if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin."听我劝吧卡里克利斯说收起你的辩论\"Take my advice" Callicles says "abandon argument.学个谋生的一技之长\Learn the accomplishments of active life别学那些满嘴谬论的人\take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles要学那些生活富足声名显赫及福泽深厚的人\but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings."言外之意则是\So Callicles is really saying to Socrates放弃哲学现实一点去读商学院吧\"Quit philosophizing get real go to business school."卡里克利斯说得确有道理\And Callicles did have a point.因为哲学的确将我们与习俗\He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions既定假设以及原有信条相疏离\from established assumptions and from settled beliefs.以上就是我说的个人以及政治风险\Those are the risks personal and political. 面对这些风险有一种典型的回避方式\And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion.这种方式就是怀疑论大致的意思是\The name of the evasion is skepticism it's the idea...It goes something like this.刚才争论过的案例或者原则\We didn't resolve once and for all没有一劳永逸的解决方法\either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began如果亚里士多德洛克康德以及穆勒\and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill 花了这么多年都没能解决这些问题\haven't solved these questions after all of these years那今天我们齐聚桑德斯剧院\who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre 仅凭一学期的课程学习就能解决了吗\over the course of a semester can resolve them?也许这本就是智者见智仁者见仁的问题\And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles多说无益也无从论证\and there's nothing more to be said about it no way of reasoning.这就是怀疑论的回避方式\That's the evasion the evasion of skepticism对此我给予如下回应\to which I would offer the following reply.诚然这些问题争论已久\It's true these questions have been debated for a very long time但正因为这些问题反复出现\but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted也许表明虽然在某种意义上它们无法解决\may suggest that though they're impossible in one sense但另一种意义上却又无可避免\they're unavoidable in another.它们之所以无可避免无法回避\And the reason they're unavoidable the reason they're inescapable是因为在日常生活中我们一次次地在回答这些问题\is that we live some answer to these questions every day.因此怀疑论让你们举起双手放弃道德反思\So skepticism just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection这绝非可行之策\is no solution.康德曾很贴切地描述了怀疑论的不足\Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism他写道怀疑论是人类理性暂时休憩的场所\when he wrote "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason}参见康德的《纯粹理性批判》是理性自省以伺将来做出正确抉择的地方\where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings但绝非理性的永久定居地\but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement." 康德认为简单地默许于怀疑论\"Simply to acquiesce in skepticism" Kant wrote 永远无法平息内心渴望理性思考之不安\"can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason."以上我是想向大家说明这些故事和争论\I've tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments展示的风险与诱惑挑战与机遇\some sense of the risks and temptations of the perils and the possibilities.简而言之这门课程旨在\I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course唤醒你们永不停息的理性思考探索路在何方\is to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might lead.谢谢\Thank you very much.在那样的绝境之下\Like in a situation that desperate为了生存你不得不那样做\you have to do what you have to do to survive.。
哈佛公开课《公正：该如何是好？》笔记 (桑德尔教授)
A电车刹车失控，轨道上5个人，另一个废弃到1轨道上有1个人，方向盘没有失灵，如何选择？你是一个站在天桥上的旁观者，电车刹车失控，轨道上5个人，你旁边有一个胖子，把胖子推下去（你有一个方向盘控制一个陷阱，让胖子掉在轨道上）就可阻挡电车前进拯救5个人，如何选择？你是一名外科医生，有5个人因为电车事故受了伤需要器官移植，一个需要心脏、一个需要肝脏、一个需要肺、一个需要肾脏，旁边房间有一个健康的正在睡觉的人，你是否会牺牲一个拯救5个？1、结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果。
边沁功利主义哲学：为最多人谋求最大的利益16世纪一艘游艇在南大西洋遇到了海难，4名船员，其中一名侍者是个孤儿没有家庭没有亲人，船后来坠毁，他们逃到救生艇，只有少量食物。
后来食物吃完，侍者喝了海水病倒了。
船长决定抽签决定谁来死拯救其他人，但有人不同意，最后没有执行抽签，而是杀了侍者。
最后仨人被一艘德国船救起。
辩论：“把其他人的生命掌握在自己手中，我们没有那个权力。
”“如果·征得侍者的同意将其杀死（或者侍者自己提出杀死自己拯救大家）”假如抽签后正好决定侍者的死，是否觉得这是一种谋杀？2、绝对主义得到的推理认为，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。
3、为什么一个同意的行为，产生这些道德上的区别？B功利主义1、吸烟有害健康，吸烟早死可以减少政府在住房、医疗、养老上面的支出，同时烟草公司每年会给政府缴纳很高的税收。
2、福特公司出品一款小型汽车，1汽车销售很好，但油箱设在汽车背部，会与后方碰撞，油箱爆炸，炸死一些人后，将其告上法庭，福特知道这个油箱问题，需要做一个特殊挡板，但出于成本（每个1100$，12.5million cars，共137million；如果同样制作出的安全汽车会减少180deaths，每人赔偿200,000$，和180injuries每人赔偿67,000$，和2000vehicles维修每辆700$，收益只有49.5million）考虑未将其实施。
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《公正：该如何是好？》笔记 (桑德尔教授)
A电车刹车失控，轨道上5个人，另一个废弃到1轨道上有1个人，方向盘没有失灵，如何选择？你是一个站在天桥上的旁观者，电车刹车失控，轨道上5个人，你旁边有一个胖子，把胖子推下去（你有一个方向盘控制一个陷阱，让胖子掉在轨道上）就可阻挡电车前进拯救5个人，如何选择？你是一名外科医生，有5个人因为电车事故受了伤需要器官移植，一个需要心脏、一个需要肝脏、一个需要肺、一个需要肾脏，旁边房间有一个健康的正在睡觉的人，你是否会牺牲一个拯救5个？1、结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果。
边沁功利主义哲学：为最多人谋求最大的利益16世纪一艘游艇在南大西洋遇到了海难，4名船员，其中一名侍者是个孤儿没有家庭没有亲人，船后来坠毁，他们逃到救生艇，只有少量食物。
后来食物吃完，侍者喝了海水病倒了。
船长决定抽签决定谁来死拯救其他人，但有人不同意，最后没有执行抽签，而是杀了侍者。
最后仨人被一艘德国船救起。
辩论：“把其他人的生命掌握在自己手中，我们没有那个权力。
”“如果·征得侍者的同意将其杀死（或者侍者自己提出杀死自己拯救大家）”假如抽签后正好决定侍者的死，是否觉得这是一种谋杀？2、绝对主义得到的推理认为，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。
3、为什么一个同意的行为，产生这些道德上的区别？B功利主义1、吸烟有害健康，吸烟早死可以减少政府在住房、医疗、养老上面的支出，同时烟草公司每年会给政府缴纳很高的税收。
2、福特公司出品一款小型汽车，1汽车销售很好，但油箱设在汽车背部，会与后方碰撞，油箱爆炸，炸死一些人后，将其告上法庭，福特知道这个油箱问题，需要做一个特殊挡板，但出于成本（每个1100$，12.5million cars，共137million；如果同样制作出的安全汽车会减少180deaths，每人赔偿200,000$，和180injuries每人赔偿67,000$，和2000vehicles维修每辆700$，收益只有49.5million）考虑未将其实施。
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。
公平与正义哈佛公开课读后感
公平与正义哈佛公开课读后感最近看了那个超有名的公平与正义哈佛公开课，真的是让我脑袋里像开了一场热闹非凡的辩论会。
一上来，这课就像扔了个大炸弹在我思维的小池塘里。
那些关于公平、正义的讨论，可不是咱们平常那种泛泛而谈。
比如说，有个例子是讲电车难题的，一辆失控的电车前面有两条轨道，一条轨道上绑着一个人，另一条轨道上绑着五个人，你要是司机，你怎么选？这就像是给我的脑子来了个急转弯。
按照常理，五个人的生命好像比一个人的生命在数量上更“值钱”，但是真的就可以这样简单地衡量吗？就好像突然有人跟我说，你现在来决定谁该活谁该死，这可太难为人了。
这让我明白，原来所谓的公平和正义在这种极端情况下变得超级模糊，没有那种一目了然的答案。
再说说里面提到的契约理论。
大家都同意的规则就是公平正义的，就像大家一起签了个合同一样。
可问题是，怎么保证这个合同的签订是公平的呢？是那些聪明的、有权力的人来主导这个合同的内容吗？如果是这样，那弱势群体的利益又怎么保障呢？这就好比在玩游戏，制定游戏规则的人要是有私心，那其他玩家可就惨了。
这让我意识到，在社会这个大游戏场里，公平正义的规则制定真的是个超级复杂的事儿。
这公开课就像一个智慧的长者，拿着小棍儿，这儿戳戳那儿点点，把我那些关于公平正义的想当然的想法搅得乱七八糟。
不过呢，乱归乱，却也让我开始真正深入地去思考这些东西。
以前我觉得公平正义就是像天平一样，两边平平稳稳的，现在我才知道，这天平的两边装着各种各样奇奇怪怪的东西，而且有时候这些东西还会互相变来变去，让这个天平很难保持平衡。
总之呢，看了这个公开课，就像打开了一扇通往复杂又有趣的思想世界的大门。
我不再轻易地对公平正义下定义，而是会多想想背后那些弯弯绕绕的事儿，就像一个在迷宫里探险的小冒险家，虽然还没找到出口，但在这个探索的过程中已经收获满满啦。
哈佛公开课justice观后感
哈佛公开课justice观后感哈佛公开课"Justice"观后感《Justice》是哈佛大学教授迈克尔·桑德尔撰写并讲授的法理学课程，在这门公开课中，桑德尔探讨了关于正义的一系列重要问题，并提出了他自己的理论。
这门公开课共分为十二讲，每一讲都围绕正义的不同方面展开探讨。
在每一讲中，桑德尔通过一系列引人入胜的真实案例和思考实验，引发我们对正义的深入思考。
他试图回答一些重要的问题，例如什么是正义？我们如何在分配有限资源时实现公平？社会不平等是否符合正义？以及权力与正义之间的关系等等。
在课程的第一讲中，桑德尔提出了三个主要概念：利益平衡、公平性和正当性。
他认为正义的核心是平等，每个人在选择和制定规则时都应该公平平等地参与，并且规则必须是以一种公正的方式制定的，以便人人都能够接受。
在探讨正义的方法时，桑德尔介绍了三种主要的正义观点：功利主义、权利论和责任论。
功利主义强调最大化整体幸福，权利论则认为个体拥有基本权利，责任论则关注个体的行为和责任。
桑德尔指出，这些正义观点都有其优点和局限性，没有一种是完全正确的，我们需要通过综合考虑它们来寻求更有效的正义理论。
此外，桑德尔还介绍了两个重要的分配原则：巴勃罗斯基原则和过程正义原则。
巴勃罗斯基原则是指向社会中最不幸者提供最大帮助的原则。
过程正义原则则强调在做出决策时要以公平和公正的方式进行，并且关注于公正的决策程序，而不只是结果本身。
在公开课的后半部分，桑德尔专门探讨了一些与正义相关的争议话题，例如财富分配、种族平等和刑罚等。
他用具体的案例和实验向我们展示了不同的选择和后果，引导我们思考这些争议问题背后的道德和伦理。
令我印象深刻的是桑德尔在公开课中的教学方式。
他将复杂的哲学理论和思考实验转化为通俗易懂的语言，并通过各种生动、有趣的案例来说明。
他对学生提出的问题和质疑也总能给出深入而思考的回答，展现了他深厚的学识和思考能力。
这门公开课不仅仅是一门关于法理学的课程，更是对正义的一次深入思考。
哈佛公开课-公正课-第五课双语字幕
公正课\N迈克尔·桑德尔教授主讲第五讲《选择的自由》上节课结束时\When we finished last time,我们讲到约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒试图回应\we were looking at John Stuart Mill's attempt to reply对边沁功利主义的批判\to the critics of Bentham's Utilitarianism.在穆勒的《功利主义》中\In his book Utilitarianism,他试图证明与批判者所言相反\Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary在功利主义的框架下\it is possible within the utilitarian framework是能区分高级和低级快乐的\to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.是能对价值进行定性区分的\It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth. 我们用《辛普森一家》\And we tested that idea和莎士比亚作品检验了这一观点\with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts. 检验结果\And the results of our experiment却似乎让我们质疑穆勒的区分\seem to call into question Mill's distinction因为在座大多数\because a great many of you都表示更喜欢《辛普森一家》\reported that you prefer the Simpsons却仍然认为莎士比亚的作品\but that you still consider Shakespeare能带来更高级更有价值的快乐\to be the higher or the worthier pleasure.这就是我们的检验中穆勒的观点所遭遇的困境\That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.那么穆勒在《功利主义》\What about Mill's attempt to account第五章中提到的\for the especially weighty character of个人权利和公正重要性的解释又是否成立呢\individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism.他想说明个人权利\He wants to say that individual rights值得特别的尊重\are worthy of special respect.实际上他甚至声称\In fact, he goes so far as to say that公正是道德中最神圣\justice is the most sacred part和最不可或缺的部分\and the most incomparably binding part of morality.但穆勒的这番辩护面临着同样质疑\But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.为何公正是道德中最主要\Why is justice the chief part最不可或缺的部分\and the most binding part of our morality?他说因为从长远看\Well, he says because in the long run,如果我们秉持公正尊重权利\if we do justice and if we respect rights,社会整体会发展得更好\society as a whole will be better off in the long run.这能令人信服吗\Well, what about that?如果有个特例\What if we have a case where making an exception侵犯个人权利\and violating individual rights actually长远来看反而让人们获益更多呢\will make people better off in the long run?那样就可以利用人了吗\Is it all right then to use people?还有另一个能更深入地\And there is a further objection驳斥穆勒有关公正和权利的观点\that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights.假设如他所说长远来看\Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run功利主义演算真能实现\works out as he says it will即尊重个人权利\such that respecting people's rights从长远来看真的能让大家都获益\is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.这理由说得过去吗\Is that the right reason?这就是我们该尊重别人的唯一理由吗\Is that the only reason to respect people?如果那位医生\If the doctor goes in偷摘走那位来体检的\and yanks the organs from the healthy patient健康人的器官\who came in for a checkup去挽救另外五人\to save five lives,这事从长远来看会有负面影响\there would be adverse effects in the long run.人们终会得知此事\Eventually, people would learn about this而不再去医院体检\and would stop going in for checkups.这理由说得过去吗\Is it the right reason?这就是唯一原因\Is the only reason让你作为医生\that you as a doctor不会偷摘取体检病人的器官吗\won't yank the organs out of the healthy patient因为你认为如果你这样利用他\that you think, well, if I use him in this way,长远来看会导致更多人丧命\in the long run more lives would be lost?还是有另一原因\Or is there another reason这其实跟在本质上尊重每个个体有关\having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual?如果其中确有这一原因\And if that reason matters那隐约可以看出\and it's not so clear即便是穆勒的功利主义也考虑了这点\that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it,为了全面检视对穆勒的这两点\fully to examine these two worries or objections,质疑或担忧\to Mill's defense我们需要更进一步\we need to push further.我们要问就更高的或更有价值的快乐而言\And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures是否存在"良善生活"的理论\are there theories of the good life that能为快乐的价值\can provide independent moral standards提供独立的道德标准\for the worth of pleasures?如果存在那会是怎样的理论\If so, what do they look like?这是一个问题\That's one question.就公正和权利而言如果我们怀疑\In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that 穆勒其实也隐约靠向了个人尊严\Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity或尊重个人的观点\or respect for person而严格说来这不属于功利主义范畴\that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,我们就需要看看\we need to look to see有没有更强有力的权利理论\whether there are some stronger theories of rights能解释穆勒的这点隐约的直觉\that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares, 即尊重个人不利用个人的理由\the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them甚至胜过了长远看来的功利\goes beyond even utility in the long run.今天我们讨论其中一项强有力的权利理论\Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.这些强有力的权利理论认为\Strong theories of rights say个人很重要不仅仅是用来\individuals matter not just as instruments实现更高社会目标的工具\to be used for a larger social purpose或为了实现功利最大化的工具\or for the sake of maximizing utility,个人是独立的存在\individuals are separate beings有独立的生命值得尊重\with separate lives worthy of respect.这些强有力的权利理论认为\And so it's a mistake,下列看法是错误的\according to strong theories of rights, it's a mistake不该只以偏好和价值的加总\to think about justice or law来考虑公正或法律\by just adding up preferences and values.我们今天要讨论的权利理论是自由主义\The strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism.自由主义非常重视个人权利\Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.它被称为自由主义\It's called libertarianism是因为它宣称个人的基本权利是自由权\because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty就因为我们都是独立存在的个体\Precisely because we are separate individualbeings,我们不能被利用\we're not available to any use去满足社会可能的需求\that the society might desire or devise就因为我们是独立存在的个体\Precisely because we are individual separate human beings,我们享有自由的基本权利\we have a fundamental right to liberty,即我们有权自由选择\and that means a right to choose freely,过自己喜欢的生活\to live our lives as we please只要尊重他人同等的权利\provided we respect other people's rights to do the same. 这是它的基本理念\That's the fundamental idea.罗伯特·诺齐克\Robert Nozick,本课涉及到的一位自由主义哲学家\one of the libertarian philosophers we read是这样说的\for this course, puts it this way:个人有权利\Individuals have rights.这些权利如此强大如此深远\So strong and far reaching are these rights以至引发一个问题如果有的话政府可以做什么\that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.自由主义对于政府或国家的角色\So what does libertarianism say有什么看法呢\about the role of government or of the state?大部分当代政府所做的三种事\Well, there are three things that most modern states do在自由主义理论看来是不合法\that on the libertarian theory of rights不公正的\are illegitimate or unjust.第一家长式的立法\One of them is paternalist legislation.即制定保护人们免受自身行为伤害的法律\That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,诸如系安全带骑摩托车带头盔的法规\seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.自由主义者说系安全带也许是件好事\The libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seatbelts但这应由人们自己作主\but that should be up to them政府没有资格\and the state, the government, has no business用法律来强迫人们系安全带\coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law.这是强迫\It's coercion,所以第一点不应有家长式的立法\so no paternalist legislation, number one.第二点不应有道德式的立法\Number two, no morals legislation.很多法律试图提高公民的品德\Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens或者试图树立\or try to give expression to the moral values整个社会的道德标准\of the society as a whole.自由主义者说这也违反了个人的自由权\Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.举一个经典的例子\Take the example of, well, a classic example以弘扬传统道德之名立法\of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality 历来都有法律\traditionally have been laws禁止同性恋性行为\that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians.自由主义者认为\The libertarian says其他人没有因此受到伤害也没被侵权\nobody else is harmed,nobody else's rights are violated,所以政府不应该插手此事\so the state should get out of the business entirely of不该试图立法弘扬道德\trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.第三种不被自由主义认同的\And the third kind of law or policy法律或政策是\that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy任何为了劫富济贫进行收入或财富再分配\is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose而制定的税收或其他政策\of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor.仔细想想再分配这个概念\Redistribution is a - if you think about it,按自由主义者的话来说就是强迫\says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.它相当于政府施行的盗窃\What it amounts to is theft by the state若是民主政府的话则是大多数人施行的盗窃\or by the majority, if we're talking about a democracy,其对象是工作出色而赚得大钱的人\from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money.诺齐克和其他自由主义者认为\Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that可以有这样一种"小政府"\there can be a minimal state它的税收只用来提供所有人都需要的服务\that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,包括国防治安\the national defense, police force,强制履约和保护产权的司法系统\judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,不过仅此而已\but that's it.我想听听你们对\Now, I want to get your reactions自由主义第三种观点的态度\to this third feature of the libertarian view.看看你们当中谁赞同\I want to see who among you agree with that idea谁不赞同以及为什么\and who disagree and why.但为了更形象看看问题何在\But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake,以美国的财富分配状况为例\consider the distribution of wealth in the United States. 在所有发达的民主国家之中\United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}该图为美国10%的人口占据了70%的社会财富美国财富分配不均的问题最为严重\the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.这样是否公平\Now, is this just or unjust?自由主义者们怎么说\Well, what does the libertarian say?他们说你不能仅从这个事实来判断\Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.你无法判断财富分配是否公平\You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.你不能仅凭分配格局\Y ou can't know just by looking at a pattern或分配结果\or a distribution or result来判断其是否公平\whether it's just or unjust.你得知道它是怎么来的\You have to know how it came to be.不能只关注最终结果\Y ou can't just look at the end stage or the result.{\an8}诺齐克收入分配怎样才公平你得考虑两个原则\You have to look at two principles.第一个原则诺齐克称之最初占有的公正原则\The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.这很简单就是说\And what that means simply is人们是否公平地获得生产资料\did people get the things they used to make their money fairly?我们需要了解最初的占有是否来得公平\So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?让他们赚到钱的土地工厂或者商品\Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods这些生产资料是不是偷来的\that enabled them to make all that money?如果不是偷来的如果他们\If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was有权享有那些生产资料\that enabled them to gather the wealth,那就算符合第一条原则\the first principle is matched.第二条原则财富的分配是否\The second principle is did the distribution arise基于自由达成的交易\from the operation of free consent,基于自由市场的买卖\people buying and trading on the market?可以看出自由主义眼中的公平\As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice相当于自由市场理念下的公平\corresponds to a free market conception of justice只要生产资料的获取是公平的\provided people got what they used fairly,不是偷来的\didn't steal it,只要分配的结果是出自\and provided the distribution results自由市场上个体的自由选择\from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things,这样的分配就是公平的\the distribution is just.反之则不公平\And if not, it's unjust.为了进一步限定讨论的话题\So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,我们举个真实的例子\take an actual example.美国最有钱的人是谁\Who's the wealthiest person in the United States -全世界最有钱的人是谁比尔·盖茨\wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.的确是没错这就是他\It is. That's right. Here he is.要是你你也会很开心的\You'd be happy, too.他的净资产有多少有人知道吗\Now, what's his net worth? Anybody have any idea? {\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}净资产400亿美元[《福布斯》2009年数据]数字非常巨大\That's a big number.克林顿当政期间\During the Clinton years,有个竞价捐款记得吧\remember there was a controversy donors?参与的大手笔捐款人都被邀请\Big campaign contributors were invited to在白宫的林肯卧室留宿一晚\stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?你要是捐到2.5万美元以上也可以啊\I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above.有人算出来\Someone figured out at按能受邀在林肯卧室留宿一夜\the median contribution that got you invited所需捐款额的中位数计算\to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,比尔·盖茨完全付得起在林肯卧室\Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night住上6万6千年\for the next sixty six thousand years.还有人算出了\Somebody else figured out,他一个小时能挣多少钱\how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?他们算出自从他创立了微软\And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,假设他每天工作14个小时合理的猜测\I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,然后你算算他的净资产\and you calculate this net wealth,结果算出他的工资率在150美元以上\it turns out that his rate of pay is over 150 dollars,不是每小时也不是每分钟\not per hour, not per minute而是每秒钟150美元以上\150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second这意味着如果盖茨在上班路上\which means that if on his way to the office,就算看到地上有一张百元大钞\Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,都不值得他停下来去捡\it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.你们很多人会说\Now, most of you will say这么有钱的人我们当然可以向他收税\someone that wealthy surely we can tax them 以满足那些得不到教育\to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education 缺乏食物或者无家可归者的迫切需求\or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing. 他们比他更需要这些钱\They need it more than he does.如果你是个功利主义者你会怎么办\And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?你会制定怎样的税收政策\What tax policy would you have?你会马上进行再分配对吧\You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?因为作为一个优秀的功利主义者你知道\Because you would know being a good utilitarian that收走一些对他们来说根本无关痛痒的钱\taking some, a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it,却能大大改善社会底层那些人的生活\but it will make a huge improvement in the lives增加他们的福利\and in the welfare of those at the bottom.但是记住\But remember,自由主义理论说\the libertarian theory says我们不能那样\we can't just add up简单加总偏好和满足\an aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.我们必须要尊重个人\We have to respect persons and如果他公平地赚到钱\if he earned that money fairly没有侵犯到他人权利\without violating anybody else's rights完全遵守了那两条公正原则\in accordance with the two principles最初占有公正原则和转让公正原则\of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,那么向他多征税就是错的\then it would be wrong,这无异于强取豪夺\it would be a form of coercion to take it away.迈克尔·乔丹没有比尔·盖茨那么富有\Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates 但他也自有一番成就\but he did pretty well for himself.想看迈克尔·乔丹这就是他\You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.他一年的收入有3100万\His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars另外他为耐克和其他公司代言\and then he made another 47 million dollars又能赚4700万\in endorsements for a Nike and other companies.所以他一年的总收入有7800万\So his income was, in one year, $78 million.假设让他拿出三分之一的收入\To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings交给政府来支持公益事业\to the government to support good causes为穷人提供食物医疗保障住房和教育\like food and health care and housing and education for the poor,这就是强迫是不公平的\that's coercion, that's unjust.侵犯了他的权利\That violates his rights.正因如此再分配是错误的\And that's why redistribution is wrong.有多少人同意自由主义者的这一驳论\Now, how many agree with that argument,认为为了帮助穷人\agree with the libertarian argument that redistribution进行财富再分配不对\for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?有多少人不同意这个观点\And how many disagree with that argument?好我们先从那些不同意的人开始\All right, let's begin with those who disagree.自由主义者反对再分配怎么不对了\What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?请说\Yes.我认为像迈克尔·乔丹这样的人\I think these people like Michael Jordan have received在社会中工作\we're talking about working within a society他们从社会中得到的更多\and they received larger gift from the society因此他们该承担更大的责任\and they have a larger obligation通过财富再分配来回报社会\in return to give that through redistribution, you know, 你可以说乔丹也许和那些\you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,一天洗12甚至14小时衣服的人一样辛苦\you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day,但他得到的更多\but he's receiving more.如果说这都是靠他自己辛苦挣来的\I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him,是他天赋所赐我觉得这不算公平\on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work. 好我们来听听自由主义者的辩护\All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.为何向富人征税救济穷人在原则上是错的\Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?说吧\Go ahead.我名叫乔我收集滑板\My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.我已经买了100个滑板了\I've since bought a hundred skateboards.我居住的社区有一百人\I live in a society of a hundred people.我是唯一有滑板的人\I'm the only one with skateboards.突然大家都想要滑板了\Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.他们跑到我家来\They come to my house,拿走了我的99个滑板\they take my they take 99 of my skateboards.我觉得这是不公平的\I think that is unjust.我认为在某些情况下\Now, I think in certain circumstances我们需要忽视这种不公平\it becomes necessary to overlook that unjustness,容忍这种不正义\perhaps condone that injustice例如在救生艇里被当作食物的男孩\as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food.如果人们在死亡边缘挣扎\If people are on the verge of dying,也许忽视这样的不公平是必要的\perhaps it is necessary to overlook that injustice, 但我认为即使这样我们依然要铭记\but I think it's important to keep in mind我们的行为不公正\that we're still committing injustice这是在占有他人的财物或资产\by taking people's belongings or assets.你是说按33%的税率向乔丹征税\Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say, at a 33 percent tax rate来支持公益事业解决温饱是盗窃行为吗\for good causes to feed the hungry is theft? 我觉得这不公正\I think it's unjust.我确实认为这是盗窃\Y es, I do believe it's theft但也许我们有必要容忍它\but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.但它依然是盗窃\But it's theft.是的\Yes.为什么是盗窃呢乔\Why is it theft, Joe?因为\Because --为什么这和你收集滑板有相同之处呢\Why is it like your collection of skateboards? 这是盗窃是因为至少在我看来\It's theft because, or at least, in my opinion在自由主义者的观点看来\and by the libertarian opinion他公平地取得收入这些收入都是属于他的\he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him.拿走他的收入毫无疑问就是盗窃\So to take it from him is by definition theft.有人想反驳乔吗你请说\Who wants to reply to Joe? Yes, go ahead.我觉得他的例子不恰当\I don't think this is necessarily a case不是你有99个滑板而政府...\in which you have 99 skateboards and the government...或你有100个滑板\or you have a hundred skateboards而政府收走99个\and the government is taking 99 of them.恰当的例子是你的滑板多到\It's like you have more skateboards每天用一个都不重样\than there are days in a year.你的滑板多到\You have more skateboards一辈子也用不完\than you're going to be able to use in your entire lifetime而政府只是拿走其中的一些\and the government is taking part of those.如果你生活在一个那样的社会\And I think that if you are operating in a society in which这个社会中\the government's not,政府不进行财富再分配\in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth,就等于允许一些人无限累积过多的财富\then that allows for people to amass so much wealth以至于那些不在同一起跑线的人\that people who haven't started from this very the equal footing当然这只是假设\in our hypothetical situation,现实中是不存在的\that doesn't exist in our real society他们将余生都将没有机会翻身\get undercut for the rest of their lives.所以你担心\So you're worried that如果没有一定程度的再分配\if there isn't some degree of redistribution of some照顾社会底层\or left at the bottom,就不会有名副其实的机会均等\there will be no genuine equality of opportunity.很好关于税收是盗窃这个观点\All right, the idea that taxation is theft,诺齐克要更进一步\Nozick takes that point one step further.他同意这是盗窃而且比乔苛刻\He agrees that it's theft. He's more demanding than Joe.乔说这是盗窃但在极端情况下也许可以原谅\Joe says it is theft, maybe in an extreme case it's justified,例如为了养活饥饿的家人\maybe a parent is justified in stealing a loaf of bread而去偷面包的家长\to feed his or her hungry family.乔你会如何称呼自己\So Joe I would say, what would you call yourself,慈悲的自由主义者吗\a compassionate quasi-libertarian?仔细想想\Nozick says, if you think about it,诺齐克说征税相当于强占收入\taxation amounts to the taking of earnings.换句话说就是\In other words, it means强占劳动果实\taking the fruits of my labor.但如果政府有权\But if the state has the right强占我的收入或劳动果实\to take my earning or the fruits of my labor,这在道义上不就等同于\isn't that morally the same政府有权\as according to the state the right让我做部分义务劳动吗\to claim a portion of my labor?所以实际上\So taxation actually征税道义上等同于强迫劳动\is morally equivalent to forced labor因为强迫劳动会强占我的\because forced labor involves the taking of闲暇时间还有努力\my leisure, my time, my efforts,就像征税会强占我的劳动所得一样\just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor.所以对诺齐克和其他自由主义者来说\And so, for Nozick and for the libertarians, 再分配的税收是盗窃就像乔说的\taxation for redistribution is theft, as Joe says,但不仅如此\but not only theft is morally equivalent盗窃还在道义上等同于\to laying claim to certain hours强占生命和劳动的时间\of a person's life and labor,因此等于强迫劳动\so it's morally equivalent to forced labor.如果政府有权强占我的劳动果实\If the state has a right to claim the fruits of my labor,这就说明它确实有权强迫我劳动\that implies that it really has an entitlement to my labor itself.什么是强迫劳动\And what is forced labor?诺齐克指出强迫劳动就是奴役\Forced labor, Nozick points out, is what, is slavery, 因为如果我连对自己劳动的独占权都没有\because if I don't have the right, the sole 这就说明\then that's really to say政府或是政治共同体\that the government or the political community是我的部分主人\is a part owner in me.政府是我的部分主人又意味着什么呢\And what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me?仔细想想这就意味着我是一个奴隶\If you think about it, it means that I'm a slave, 我不是自己的主人\that I don't own myself.这些推理把我们带回到\So what this line of reasoning brings us to自由主义的权利主张\is the fundamental principle所隐含的基本原则\that underlies the libertarian case for rights.那是什么原则呢\What is that principle?我是我自己主人的原则\It's the idea that I own myself.是尊重人权\It's the idea of self possession自然会接受自我拥有的原则\if you want to take right seriously.如果你不想只把人看成是各种偏好的集合\If you don't want to just regard people ascollections of preferences,那你必将走向\the fundamental moral idea这一基本道德理念\to which you will be lead is the idea我们是自己的主人\that we are the owners or the propietors of our own person,功利主义的问题就出在这里\and that's why utilitarianism goes wrong.这也是为什么\And that's why it's wrong摘取健康人的器官是错的\to yank the organs from that healthy patient.你这么做仿佛他的器官属于你或这个社会\You're acting as if that patient belongs to you or to the community.但我们只属于我们自己\But we belong to ourselves.也正是出于这一理由\And that's the same reason才不该制定法律保护我们免受自己伤害\that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves或告诉我们该如何生活\or to tell us how to live,该秉持怎样的道德规范\to tell us what virtues we should be governed by,这也是为什么向富人征税来救济穷人不对\and that's also why it's wrong to tax the rich to help the poor就算是为了公益事业\even for good causes,就算是为了帮助卡特里娜飓风的灾民\even to help those who are displaced by the Hurricane Katrina.请富人去搞慈善活动吧\Ask them to give charity.但如果对他们征税就成了强迫劳动\But if you tax them, it's like forcing them to labor.你能强迫乔丹放弃下周的比赛\Could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip the next week's games必须下灾区去帮助卡特里娜飓风的灾民吗\and go down to help the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina?道义上说两者是一样\Morally, it's the same.因此利害关系很分明的\So the stakes are very high.我们现在已经听了一些对自由主义的反对声\So far we've heard some objections to the libertarian argument.但要想驳倒自由主义\But if you want to reject it,你就得打破它的这个推理过程\you have to break in to this chain of reasoning which goes,强占我的收入就是强迫劳动\taking my earnings is like taking my labor,强迫劳动就是让我做奴隶\but taking my labor is making me a slave.不同意这一点的\And if you disagree with that,你肯定相信自我拥有的原则\you must believe in the principle of self possession.不同意的收集下反对意见\Those who disagree, gather your objections。
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-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。
哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受（共5篇）
哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受（共5篇）第一篇：哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受网络时代，教师如何更好的学习和教学——哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受自从有了智能手机、平板电脑等这些移动便捷的设备以后，让想学习的人可以利用一切可以利用的时间来进行学习。
我在网上看到一篇题为《像追美剧一样追网络》的文章介绍到现在已经到了MOOC （大规模在线开放课程）时代，其中Coursera，Udacity，edX是MOOC的三座大山。
让学习变成像追美剧一样，足见学习者学习的热情。
而在网易公开课这个平台，我有幸看到了哈佛大学桑德尔教授的《公正》课，让我受益匪浅。
一、选择这门课的缘由选择《公正》课源于我以前的教学师傅沈亚琴老师，她给我讲了其中的两个小故事。
一个故事是这样的：电车司机刹车失灵，既可以选择往前开，但那边有5个工人在干活，也可选择转弯，有1个工人在干活，问题是你会怎么选择？大部分人选择转弯，因为那样只会牺牲一个人。
另一种情形，你是一个旁观者，在电车经过的前方有一个胖子，如果你将它推倒，他就可以阻止电车的运行，而让5个工人免于灾难，你会选择推那个胖子吗？大部分人不选择推。
经过一番激烈的讨论，教授引出了以边沁为代表的结果主义道德理论和以康德为代表的行为主义道德理论，这里没有绝对的对和错，而要看评价的标准。
她还给我介绍了另一个真实的故事是发生在救生艇上的人吃人的事件。
有4个人，其中一个喝了海水而病重的派克是个没有家庭没有父母的下士，其他3人在食物严重短缺的情况下做出决定杀死了派克，最终其他3人得救，问题是其他三人的行为道德吗？这些小故事引起了我强烈的兴趣，于是我开始追随这门课程。
二、学习过程及主要内容摘要假期里进行学习，时间相对较为宽裕，但是要克服惰性。
当我真正的进入课程学习时，发现课程虽然有意思，但是毕竟是大学的课程，而且又是外文的翻译，所以看起来有一定的难度，而且不能保证完全掌握其中的精神实质，即便如此，我坚持看了8个视频（共有12个视频，每个视频约为55分钟），并将主要内容整理如下：1、谋杀背后的道德逻辑教授引用上面的第一个故事引出了结果主义和行为主义，并且列举了“医生可以杀死一个健康人取他的器官去挽救其他五个需要器官移植的病人吗？”这样的事例让学生进行讨论。
哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICE中英
哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICEIntroduction哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICE（公正）是哈佛大学著名哲学教授迈克尔·桑德尔斯（Michael Sandel）于2009年开设的一门课程。
JUSTICE课程探讨了道德和政治哲学中的核心问题，涵盖了伦理学、政治学、经济学和法学等多个学科领域。
这门课程通过案例分析和讨论来引导学生思考公正和道德问题，以期培养学生的批判性思维和逻辑推理能力。
Course StructureJUSTICE课程共分为12个单元，每个单元探讨一个基本问题，例如财富分配、权力、正义、人权等。
每个单元都包括教授的讲座、案例分析和学生的互动讨论环节。
这种教学方式旨在激发学生的积极参与，并通过讨论不同观点来促进学生的思考和辩论能力。
Course Highlights1. 公正的本质第一个单元的讨论着重探索公正的本质和意义。
课程将引导学生思考什么是公正，以及如何在不同背景下实现公正。
通过讨论相关案例，学生将了解不同的伦理观点和社会背景如何影响对公正的理解。
2. 平等与不平等第二个单元将探讨平等和不平等的问题。
课程将引导学生思考在不同领域如教育、财富和机会等中，平等的界定和实现。
通过讨论实际情况，学生将了解不同社会政策对平等与不平等的影响。
3. 个体权利与公共权利第三个单元将引导学生思考个体权利与公共权利之间的平衡。
课程将探讨当个人权利与公共利益存在冲突时，应如何权衡和解决。
通过分析真实案例，学生将学习如何判断个体权利与公共权利之间的关系。
4. 国际正义第四个单元将重点讨论国际正义的问题。
课程将引导学生思考国际关系中的公正和不公正现象，并探讨全球治理和政策制定中的道德问题。
通过讨论不同国家之间的争议和冲突，学生将了解不同国家之间的权力关系和利益冲突。
5. 公正与超越第五个单元将探讨超越公正的问题。
课程将引导学生思考公正的局限性和其他价值观的重要性。
通过引入宗教、道德和文化等方面的讨论，学生将思考公正之外的价值观在社会中的作用。
[讲稿]哈佛大学公开课感想
![[讲稿]哈佛大学公开课感想](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/682906af64ce0508763231126edb6f1aff007139.png)
摘要：本次心得主要针对哈佛大学公开课——“公正”第一讲，即“杀人的道德侧面”做了一些听讲笔记和自己观看后，对于其中的一些案例和观点的看法。
杀人的道德侧面中迈克尔教授将课堂分为两段，每段都以一个故事或案例来引发同学的思考和讨论，从而达到理论引入的目的。
“电车问题”使我们对后果主义道德和绝对主义道德产生了疑问。
“女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案”则使我们更为深入的思考了后果主义道德的代表人英国哲学政治家杰里米·边沁所提出的“功利主义”。
正文：哈佛大学公开课——“公正”共有12集，分别是《谋杀的道德侧面》，《给生命一个价格标签》，《自由选择》，《我的地盘我做主》，《雇枪？》，《考虑你的动机》，《谎言的教训》，《什么是公平的起点？》，《讨论反歧视行动》，《好市民》，《社会的需求》，《辩论同性婚姻》。
每堂课都发人深省，然而，在这12堂课中，最吸引我的，也是引发我最多思考是第一节，开篇的第一节课引导我进入了如何判断某一行为是否道德这一疑问，促使我思考。
笔记及观点：迈克尔·桑德尔教授以一个故事作为课堂的引入：“假设你是一名电车司机，电车以每小时60英里的速度行驶。
突然发现在轨道的尽头有五个工人在施工，你无法让电车停下来因为刹车坏了。
你清楚地知道，若是电车撞向那五人，他们都活不下来。
正在你觉得绝望无助的时候，你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨，而在侧轨的尽头只有一名工人在施工。
你可以将电车转到侧轨上，牺牲一人挽救五人的性命。
那么，你是否会选择牺牲者一个人而去救那五个人？”大多数学生都选择了将车开向侧轨。
而当迈克尔教授将问题换成“你可以从桥上推下一个胖子来阻止电车的前进”时，大多数人又选择了袖手旁观。
这样的选择结果实在奇怪，为什么同样是牺牲一人挽救五人，大家会选择电车司机的做法，而不是后者呢？其实这两种情况之间有一个最明显的差异：第一种情况下，无论如何我都会撞死人，不论多还是少，所以，为什么不选择人少的那方而让跟多的人活下去呢？这就是所谓的后果主义道德。
哈佛最受欢迎公开课～正义
第十章 從美德到共善/ 重建公民意識
正義-一場思辨之旅 導讀
前言
• 本書的結構: 看一個社會正不正義，就要問它如何分配人民所珍視之事物：所得、 財富、權力、機會、職位、榮譽。正義社會的分配一定合乎正道，人 人皆得到他應該得的。問題的棘手處卻在「應該得到多少」還有「為 什麼」。
• 本書循著以下的順序探討： 一、以邊沁的「功利主義」來探討從「福祉」出發的正義觀。 二、討論多種將正義與自由連接的學說，由於自由主義包含「放任」 與「公平」兩大陣營，因此作者籠統的介紹了海耶克、傅利曼等人的 理論，更以大篇幅介紹康德的自由主義與羅爾斯的自由主義。 三、第三部分探討了正義與美德、良善應該連結的論點，並以亞理士 多德的理論來說明。 四、在介紹各家學說或價值體系後，作者提出「社群主義」、美德與 思辨及他的看法。讓讀者在了解如此多正反兩面的論辯後，再來看看 作者的意見，非常有意思。
John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873
第三章 自由至上主義
• 延續第二章功利主義學者彌爾主張的個人自由是 個人權利的彰顯，本章作者介紹「自由至上主義」 （Libertarianism），主張市場放任，反對政府 管制，但其出發點不是經濟效率，而是人的自由。 他們的核心訴求：自由是一種基本人權，人人對 自有財物皆享有支配權，前提是我們也必須尊重 他人的相同權利（P70）。 • 諾齊克認為：只有功能最小，僅限於合約執行， 保護人民免於暴力、竊盜、詐欺之害的政府，才 符合正義。功能再多一些，就會侵犯到人民免於 做事情不情願的權利，就會淪為不公不義的政府。 • 諾齊克看重的是自由市場個人選擇。對於「分配 正義」 ，只需要考慮初始獲得的正當性，以及 是否從自由市場賺來、從別人自願贈與的移轉正 義即可（p74）。 • 透過「公平交易咖啡」的例子來說明自由市場真 的有正義嗎？