桑德尔自由主义与正义的局限英文原版
简论桑德尔的正义观——评《自由主义与正义的局限》
财产应当如何分配？这是政治哲学关注的核心问题之一，也 是争论的焦点所在，因而分配正义理论也就顺理成章构成了政治
古典契约论传统，对功利主义展开了猛烈的批评。1971 年《正义 哲学理论体系的重要组成部分。罗尔斯对此贡献甚巨，他考虑了 论》的出炉标志着规范研究传统的复兴，扭转了“政治哲学已死” 三种可能的分配原则：一种是确保形式的机会平等，称为自然的
的先验的或抽象的主体。如此一来，罗尔斯的正义原则就与其最 初经验主义道德主体的谋划不一致了，因而公平正义原则并不适 用于人间，而只会沦为水月镜花。
3. 契约论
大，可见一斑。
如同洛克、卢梭和康德等古典契约论的先驱们一样，罗尔斯
二、桑德尔对罗尔斯正义理论的批评
桑德尔的初试之作《自由主义与正义的局限》（以下简称《局 限》）被西方学界公认为是少数几部挑战罗尔斯理论的力作之 一 。桑氏在《局限》中从道德主体、分配正义、社会契约等角度展 开批评，指证了“政治自由主义”学说的偏颇。
的困局，并最终主导了其后逾四十年的学术争论。《正义论》可谓 自由体系；一种是自由的平等原则；第三种就是罗尔斯的民主的
是一石激起千层浪，赞成者有之，批评者亦不少。诸如以诺齐克 平等观点，是机会的公平、平等加上差异原则。对罗尔斯而言，前
为代表的意志自由主义者和以德沃金为代表的平等主义者都对 两条原则都是从机会均等方面加以规定，诉诸偶然性因素，使得
《正义论》作出了批评，这些批评之声说到底是自由主义的内部之 正义问题与命运（包括自然的和社会文化的）的随意性关系过于
争。然而到了 80 年代，对罗氏理论的批评主要来自于社群主义。 社群主义传达的是这样一种信念：“自我或个人是通过共同
紧密。既然无法为分配正义提供可靠的基础，它们对最终都于解 决分配正义问题是无能为力的。至于第三种原则，罗氏认为他所
自由主义与正义的局限
《自由主义与正义的局限》（桑德尔）读书笔记罗尔斯认为：一个公正的社会本身不应该是追求任何目的，而是努力使其成员在不与别人的自由发生冲突的情况之下追求自己的目标。
（反对功利主义将追求“最大多数幸福”作为社会运行的准则，因为幸福的定义对于每个人而言都是不同的，功利主义不能保证正当对善的优先性，如果牺牲一个人可以拯救十个人，那么是不是就能够侵犯一个人的生命权呢？）社群主义和新自由主义的根本对立就在于善和正当的优先程度方面，社群主义认为善优先于正当，而新自由主义则认为：正当优先于善。
自由主义认为：社会需要保证的是公民对于各种目标的凭借自己的理性的自由选择权，这种自由的选择远远比选择的目的更加重要。
而社群主义则认为：人对于善的感知具有优先地位，考察一个人必须要将一个人放到特定的社群当中进行。
首先，桑德尔总结了自由主义关于正当对于善优先的相关论述。
自由主义认为：当社会被一种本身不以任何特殊善的观念为前提和目的的原则支配的时候，他就能够得到最好的安排。
这些原则本身的合理性通过符合权利（正当）的概念得到支持。
在这样的一种环境当中，每个人都能自由选择自己的目的和追求自己的目的。
这时的社会就是一个良序社会。
自由主义将每个人看成自由和自律的存在，人同时有两种性质：既可以被看成是经验的客体（自己处于社会关系的不断生成当中），同时也被看成是经验的主体（独立于经验世界之外）。
人只有在成为经验的主体的时候，才有可能实践自由，（自由指的是一个人的行为只服从于自身的理性）否则都将陷入他人所决定的特殊的目的当中，因此自身优先于自身的目的，所以权利（正当）就优先于善。
实际上任何支配性的规则都应该保障自由选择。
（预设是人应当是自由的，应当保证人的自由选择的能力）。
——任何价值和目的都不能充分地构建一个主体。
（权利——正当是对于自身存在合理性的承认，所有制则是对占有的东西的合理性的承认）（善是每个人都希望得到的特殊目的）。
功利主义也强调个人的权利不可受到侵犯，但是功利主义采取的论证是，之所以个人的权力不能受到侵犯，是因为这符合功利原理，这样可以保证最大多数人的幸福。
自由主义的书单
[商务印书馆汉译学术名著丛书]1、孟德斯鸠《论法的精神》：孟德斯鸠和贡当斯是法国思想家中难得的两个在思想气质上偏向英美思想的人，这本书是整个近代文明中基础性的学术著作。
2、卢梭《社会契约论》3、卢梭《论人类不平等的起源与基础》：尽管卢梭的思想近来多被指责为法国激进主义的源头，但正如有人指出，我们与欧陆思想之间的差距，其实远远大于欧陆与英美之间的思想差距。
这两本书无论如何也是基础性的。
4、洛克《政府论》5、洛克《论**宽容》：作为英式启蒙的代表人物，现在洛克比卢梭自然更受关注。
洛克的社会契约论与卢梭的社会契约论之间路数的差异，对我们来说是一种奢侈的差异。
6、梅因《古代法》：在这本书中梅因提出了一个传统向现代转化的著名公式：从身份到契约。
这是从法律角度对现代自由主义的最佳诠释。
7、霍布斯《利维坦》：一个非自由主义的国家，就是一只巨大的怪兽。
8、密尔《代议制政府》9、密尔《论自由》：绝对的经典著作。
10、《拿破仑法典》：即1804年法国民法典。
民法及其基本价值取向在本质上就是自由主义的法律体现。
拿破仑法典是一个辉煌的起点。
11、亚当斯密《国富论》12、亚当斯密《论法律、警察、军事、岁入》：经济自由主义的鼻祖。
13、托克维尔《论美国的**》14、托克维尔《旧制度与大革命》：对美国**和法国革命的经典论述。
15、霍布豪斯《自由主义》：最早的完整表述。
16、边沁《政府片论》：功利主义和经验主义的早期大师17、《联邦党人文集》：非看不可的自由主义政治实践文献。
18、《潘恩选集》：我对潘恩的了解最初来源于X学勤先生的文集《风声、雨声、读书声》。
19、曼海姆《意识形态与乌托邦》20、边沁《道德与立法理论导论》2000年21、韦伯《新教伦理与资本主义精神》三联版、**人民版：不用说了。
22、韦伯《论经济和社会中的法律》大百科版23、弗洛姆《逃避自由》工人：对于法西斯下社会心理的分析，是我把他看作对自由主义的一种反面认识。
文献综述
关于医疗卫生资源配置的文献综述一、国外研究（一）关于医疗资源配置的研究西方学者对医疗资源配置研究要比国内早很多年，西方国家不但了已经形成较为成熟的医疗分级体系以及分级转诊服务，而且西方学者为了对医疗服率测评方法做出评估，出现了许多经济学研究量化的评价方法，他们试图探寻出解决患者在医疗服务中享有高效率和公平的方法。
国外医疗资源配置方式大致可以归纳为：1、国外医疗机构的分级及其功能定位，医疗服务常被划分为若干个层次，一般为初级、二级、三级三个层次，各个层次的职能有明确的划分，医疗服务结构呈现金字塔状结构。
高级医师排列在金字塔顶端，初级医师排列在塔底，遵循1:2:4:8或者1:3:5:7的比例进行配置。
2、普通私立医疗机构首诊的同时，各级医院之间同时建立相应的转诊制度，将私立医院不能解决的病人向上一级医院转诊，实现双向转诊模式，确定了病因和治疗方案后，则可以将病人转到普通的医疗服务机构进行后续治疗。
3、国外政府采取权力下放、公共与私人部门混合提供卫生服务的模式。
这种模式可以降低医疗费用开支、满足民众的多层次需求，享有便利就医的条件，促进其配置模式的不断完善。
（二）关于公共医疗资源配置公平性的研究美国生命伦理学家H·恩格尔哈特[1]认为正义原则的大多诉诸可以理解为对利益的关注。
并且，“正义原则支持在一种具体的道德观指导下来分配好处，其实是提供了试图行善的特殊例证。
”他认为“强加一个单级的 (Single tier)、包揽无遗的 (a11 encompassing)的保健制度是不能得到道德辩护的。
”因为“这种保健制度没有认识到道德视界(它们构造保健的利益)的多元性、国家权威在俗世的道德有限性和个人对于他们自己及其财产所具有的权威性。
恩格尔哈特于是得出了“不可能既尊重所有人的自由又实现他们的长远的最佳利益”的结论。
在此基础上，他强调，由于现实世界的有限性，不可能发现一种具体的资源分配模式对所有人都公平，同时，社会和国家调拨和再分配资源的权威受到了私有财产的限制，个人和团体追求保健的机会也都受到资源的有限性的限制。
哈弗大学公开课 哲学
杀人道德的背面哈佛大学公开课–公正迈克尔.桑德尔教授主讲-由Graywolf_Robbie整理这段时间一直在学习著名大学的公开课程如哈佛大学的该如何是好幸福课心理学耶鲁大学的金融市场博弈论心理学导论死亡普林斯顿大学的领导能力简介人性还有斯坦福大学的经济学商业领袖和企业家.等等下载了很多视频上班看下班也看感觉著名大学授课方式与理论水平真不是盖的.一听就上瘾了.所以就想把视频里面的资料再取出来再复习一下温故而知新.以下本文取自该如何是好课程的第一课.我觉得非常精彩. 这是一门讨论公正的课程我们以一则故事作为引子:假设你是一名电车司机你的电车以60km小时的速度形式在轨道上飞驰突然发现在轨道的尽头有五名工人在施工你无法令电车停下来因为刹车坏了此时你极度绝望因为你深知如果电车撞向那五名工人他们会全部死亡。
假设你对此确信无疑你极为无助直到你发现在轨道的右侧还有一条侧轨而在侧轨的尽头只有一名工人在那里施工而你的方向盘并没有坏只要你想就可以把电车转到侧轨上去牺牲一个人而挽救五个人.下面是我们的第一个问题何为正确的选择换了你会怎么做我们来做个调查有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去有多少人会让电车继续往前开选择往前开的请不要把手放下. 测试结果表明:只有少数人选择继续开下去而大部分人都选择转弯。
我们先来听听大家的想法探究一下原因你们会认为这是正确的选择。
先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始为何要这样选择理由是什么有没有自告奋勇的.学生A我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时牺牲五个人是不正确的选择。
教授当可以只牺牲一个人时牺牲五个人是不正确的选择这理由不错还有其他理由吗人人都赞成这个理由吗学生B:我认为这和9.11的时候是一种情况那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人被视为英雄因为他们选择牺牲了自己而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多的人。
教授这么看来这条原则和9.11是一样的虽然是悲剧但牺牲一个人保全五个人依然是更正确的选择。
这就是大多数人选择把电车开到侧轨上去的理由吗现在我们来听听少数派的意见。
正当与善_桑德尔对罗尔斯_正当优先于善_的批判
正当与善)))桑德尔对罗尔斯/正当优先于善0的批判贾中海(吉林大学马克思主义学院,吉林 长春 130012)[摘 要]罗尔斯在他的公平正义理论体系中,极力强调正义的首要性与优先性,认为正当、权利优先于善。
在道德意义上,正当优先于善,个人权利胜过或压倒共同善的考量,每个人都拥有一种基于正义的不可侵犯性,即使以社会整体利益、普遍福利之名也不能逾越之。
在独立获得的意义上,正当不依赖于任何特殊的善的观念而获得证明。
桑德尔驳斥了罗尔斯的正当对善的优先性观念,认为罗尔斯的自我优先性的个人观念不能论证和支持其正义理论。
对正当、权利的考量离不开善观念。
[关键词]正当;善;自我优先性;构成性自我[中图分类号]KB712.5[文献标识码]A[文章编号]1000-3541(2006)02-0110-05Justification and kindness)))Sandell .s criticis m to /justification has priority over kindness 0of RollesJIA Zhong-hai(College of Marxism Study,Jilin University,Changchun,Jilin 130012,China)Abs tract :Rolles emphasi zes vigorously the i mportance and pri orities of the justice in his jus tice theory s ys tem,and he thinks j ustifica -tion and right have priori ty over kindness.In moral significance,the justificati on has pri ority over kindnes s;the individual rights exceed or c rus h common kindnes s,every one has certain invi olabili ty based on jus tice,even the s ocial overall benefit and universal welfare cannot over -step i t.In the si gni ficance to obtain independently,jus ti fication does not rely on any special ki ndnes s i dea to have the proof.Sandell had re -futed the idea /jus ti fication has pri ority over kindness 0by Rolles,and he thought Rolles .self-priori ty i ndi vidual idea c ould not prove and support his jus tice theory sys tem.He believed that i t is necessary to have kindnes s i dea when to speak to justification and right.Plurali stic ra -tion remains unsettled when i t speaks to jus ti fication bei ng not rati onal.Key words :jus tification;ki ndness;the self-priority;the self-cons truc tion[收稿日期]2005-12-02[基金项目]吉林大学人文社会科学研究项目(2003XX022)。
人文与社会译丛100种目录
人文与社会译丛100种目录【目录】第一批：9种人文与社会译丛001 [美]约翰·罗尔斯-政治自由主义（万俊人译，译林出版社2000）人文与社会译丛001 [美]约翰·罗尔斯-政治自由主义（增订版）（万俊人译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛002 [美]克利福德·格尔茨-文化的解释（韩莉译，译林出版社1999）人文与社会译丛002 [美]克利福德·格尔茨-文化的解释（韩莉译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛003 [法]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒-技术与时间1：爱比米修斯的过失（裴程译，译林出版社2000）人文与社会译丛003 [法]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒-技术与时间1：爱比米修斯的过失（裴程译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛004 [德]安德烈·冈德·弗兰克-依附性积累与不发达（高铦、高戈译，译林出版社1999）人文与社会译丛005 [美]W. I. 托马斯、F. 兹纳涅茨基-身处欧美的波兰农民（张友云译，译林出版社2000）人文与社会译丛006 [英]安东尼·吉登斯-现代性的后果（田禾译，译林出版社2000）人文与社会译丛006 [英]安东尼·吉登斯-现代性的后果（田禾译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛007 [美]迈克·费瑟斯通-消费文化与后现代主义（刘精明译，译林出版社2000）人文与社会译丛008 [英]E．P．汤普森-英国工人阶级的形成（上册）（钱乘旦等译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛008 [英]E．P．汤普森-英国工人阶级的形成（上册）（钱乘旦等译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛008 [英]E．P．汤普森-英国工人阶级的形成（下册）（钱乘旦等译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛008 [英]E．P．汤普森-英国工人阶级的形成（下册）（钱乘旦等译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛009 [美]弗洛里安·兹纳涅茨基-知识人的社会角色（郏斌祥译，译林出版社2000）人文与社会译丛009 [美]弗洛里安·兹纳涅茨基-知识人的社会角色（郏斌祥译，译林出版社2012）第二批：10种人文与社会译丛010 [美]戴安娜·克兰-文化生产：媒体与都市艺术（赵国新译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛010 [美]戴安娜·克兰-文化生产：媒体与都市艺术（赵国新译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛011 [美]R.M.昂格尔-现代社会中的法律（吴玉章、周汉华译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛011 [美]R.M.昂格尔-现代社会中的法律（吴玉章、周汉华译，译林出版社2008）人文与社会译丛012 [德]于尔根·哈贝马斯-后形而上学思想（曹卫东、付德根译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛012 [德]于尔根·哈贝马斯-后形而上学思想（曹卫东、付德根译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛013 [美]迈克尔·J.桑德尔-自由主义与正义的局限（万俊人等译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛013 [美]迈克尔·J.桑德尔-自由主义与正义的局限（万俊人等译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛014 [法]米歇尔·福柯-临床医学的诞生（刘北成译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛014 [法]米歇尔·福柯-临床医学的诞生（刘北成译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛015 [英]詹姆斯·C.斯科特-农民的道义经济学：东南亚的反叛与生存（程立显、刘建译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛015 [英]詹姆斯·C.斯科特-农民的道义经济学：东南亚的反叛与生存（程立显、刘建译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛016 [英]以赛亚·伯林-俄国思想家（彭淮栋译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛016 [英]以赛亚·伯林-俄国思想家（彭淮栋译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛017 [加拿大]查尔斯·泰勒-自我的根源：现代认同的形成（韩震等译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛017 [加拿大]查尔斯·泰勒-自我的根源：现代认同的形成（韩震等译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛018 [美]列奥·施特劳斯-霍布斯的政治哲学（申彤译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛018 [美]列奥·施特劳斯-霍布斯的政治哲学（申彤译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛019 [英]Z.鲍曼-现代性与大TUSHA（杨渝东、史建华译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛019 [英]Z.鲍曼-现代性与大TUSHA（杨渝东、史建华译，译林出版社2011）第三批：10种人文与社会译丛020 [英]杰弗里·C.亚历山大-新功能主义及其后（彭牧、史建华、杨渝东译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛021 [英]约翰·阿克顿-自由史论（胡传胜等译，译林出版社2001）人文与社会译丛021 [英]约翰·阿克顿-自由史论（胡传胜等译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛022 [伊朗]拉明·贾汉贝格鲁編著-伯林谈话录（杨祯钦译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛022 [伊朗]拉明·贾汉贝格鲁編著-伯林谈话录（杨祯钦译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛023 [法]雷蒙·阿隆-阶级斗争：工业社会新讲（周以光译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛024 [美]迈克尔·沃尔泽-正义诸领域：为多元主义与平等一辩（褚松燕等译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛024 [美]迈克尔·沃尔泽-正义诸领域：为多元主义与平等一辩（褚松燕等译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛025 [美]格伦·H.埃尔德-大萧条的孩子们（田禾、马春华译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛026 [加拿大]查尔斯·泰勒-黑格尔（张国清、朱进东译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛026 [加拿大]查尔斯·泰勒-黑格尔（张国清、朱进东译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛027 [英]以赛亚·伯林-反潮流：观念史论文集（冯克利译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛028 [意]加塔诺·莫斯卡-统治阶级（《政治科学原理》）（贾鹤鹏译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛028 [意]加塔诺·莫斯卡-统治阶级（《政治科学原理》）（贾鹤鹏译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛029 [德]于尔根·哈贝马斯-现代性的哲学话语（曹卫东译，译林出版社2004）人文与社会译丛029 [德]于尔根·哈贝马斯-现代性的哲学话语（曹卫东译，译林出版社2011）第四批：10种人文与社会译丛030 [英]以赛亚·伯林-自由论（修订本）（胡传胜译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛030 [英]以赛亚·伯林-自由论（胡传胜译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛031 [德]卡尔·曼海姆-保守主义（李朝晖、牟建君译，译林出版社2002）人文与社会译丛031 [德]卡尔·曼海姆-保守主义（李朝晖、牟建君译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛032 [英]F．A．哈耶克-科学的反革命：理性滥用之研究（修订本）（冯克利译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛032 [英]F．A．哈耶克-科学的反革命：理性滥用之研究（冯克利译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛033 [法]皮埃尔·布迪厄-实践感（蒋梓骅译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛033 [法]皮埃尔·布迪厄-实践感（蒋梓骅译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛034 [德]乌尔里希·贝克-风险社会（何博闻译，译林出版社2004）人文与社会译丛034 [德]乌尔里希·贝克-风险社会（何博闻译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛035 [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯-社会行动的结构（张明德、夏遇南、彭刚译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛035 [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯-社会行动的结构（张明德、夏遇南、彭刚译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛036 [德]诺贝特·埃利亚斯-个体的社会（翟三江、陆兴华译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛036 [德]诺贝特·埃利亚斯-个体的社会（翟三江、陆兴华译，译林出版社2008）人文与社会译丛037 [英]E.霍布斯鲍姆、T．兰格編-传统的发明（顾杭、庞冠群译，译林出版社2004）人文与社会译丛037 [英]E.霍布斯鲍姆、T．兰格編-传统的发明（顾杭、庞冠群译，译林出版社2008）人文与社会译丛038 [美]利奥·施特劳斯-关于马基雅维里的思考（申彤译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛038 [美]利奥·施特劳斯-关于马基雅维里的思考（申彤译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛039 [美]阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔-追寻美德：道德理论研究（宋继杰译，译林出版社2003）人文与社会译丛039 [美]阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔-追寻美德：道德理论研究（宋继杰译，译林出版社2011）第五批：10种人文与社会译丛040 [英]以赛亚·伯林-现实感：观念及其历史研究（潘荣荣、林茂译，译林出版社2004）人文与社会译丛040 [英]以赛亚·伯林-现实感：观念及其历史研究（潘荣荣、林茂译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛041 [英]以赛亚·伯林-启蒙的时代：十八世纪哲学家（孙尚扬、杨深译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛041 [英]以赛亚·伯林-启蒙的时代：十八世纪哲学家（孙尚扬、杨深译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛042 [美]海登·怀特-元史学：19世纪欧洲的历史想象（陈新译，译林出版社2004）人文与社会译丛042 [美]海登·怀特-元史学：19世纪欧洲的历史想象（陈新译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛043 [英]约翰·B.汤普森-意识形态与现代文化（高铦等译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛043 [英]约翰·B.汤普森-意识形态与现代文化（高铦等译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛044 [加拿大]简·雅各布斯-美国大城市的死与生（金衡山译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛045 [美]罗伯特·K.默顿-社会理论和社会结构（唐少杰、齐心等译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛046 [法]弗兰兹·法农-黑皮肤，白面具（万冰译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛047 [美]格奥尔格·G．伊格尔斯-德国的历史观：从赫尔德到当代历史思想的民族传统（彭刚、顾杭译，译林出版社2006）人文与社会译丛047 [美]格奥尔格·G．伊格尔斯-德国的历史观：从赫尔德到当代历史思想的民族传统（彭刚、顾杭译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛048 [法]弗兰兹·法农-全世界受苦的人（万冰译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛049 [法]雷蒙·阿隆-知识分子的YAPIAN（呂一民、顾杭译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛049 [法]雷蒙·阿隆-知识分子的YAPIAN（呂一民、顾杭译，译林出版社2012）第六批：10种人文与社会译丛050 [美]哈维·C.曼斯菲尔德-驯化君主（冯克利译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛050 [美]哈维·C.曼斯菲尔德-驯化君主（冯克利译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛051 [法]亚历山大·科耶夫-黑格尔导读（姜志辉译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛052 [法]让·波德里亚-象征交换与死亡（车槿山译，译林出版社2006）人文与社会译丛052 [法]让·波德里亚-象征交换与死亡（车槿山译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛053 [英]以赛亚·伯林-自由及其背叛（赵国新译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛053 [英]以赛亚·伯林-自由及其背叛（赵国新译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛054 [英]以赛亚·伯林-启蒙的三个批评者（马寅卯、郑想译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛055 [美]西德尼·塔罗-运动中的力量：社会运动与斗争政治（吴庆宏译，译林出版社2005）人文与社会译丛056 [美]道格·麦克亚当、西德尼·塔罗、查尔斯·蒂利-斗争的动力（李义中、屈平译，译林出版社2006）人文与社会译丛057 [美]玛莎·纳斯鲍姆-善的脆弱性：古希腊悲剧和哲学中的运气与伦理（徐向东、陆萌译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛057 [美]玛莎·纳斯鲍姆-善的脆弱性：古希腊悲剧和哲学中的运气与伦理（徐向东、陆萌译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛058 [美]詹姆斯·C．斯科特-弱者的武器（郑广怀、张敏、何江穗译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛058 [美]詹姆斯·C．斯科特-弱者的武器（郑广怀、张敏、何江穗译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛059 [美]苏珊·斯坦福·弗里德曼-图绘：女性主义与文化交往地理学（陈丽译，译林出版社2014）第七批：11种人文与社会译丛060 [英]雷蒙·威廉斯-现代悲剧（丁尔苏译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛060 [英]雷蒙·威廉斯-现代悲剧（丁尔苏译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛061 [美]汉娜·阿伦特-论革命（陈周旺译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛061 [美]汉娜·阿伦特-论革命（陈周旺译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛062 [美]艾伦·布卢姆-美国精神的封闭（战旭英译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛063 [英]以赛亚·伯林-浪漫主义的根源（吕梁、洪丽娟、孙易译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛063 [英]以赛亚·伯林-浪漫主义的根源（吕梁、洪丽娟、孙易译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛064 [英]以赛亚·伯林-扭曲的人性之材（岳秀坤译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛065 [印度]帕尔塔·查特吉-民族主义思想与殖民地世界：一种衍生的话语（范慕尤、杨曦译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛066 [法]达尼洛·马尔图切利-现代性社会学：二十世纪的历程（姜志辉译，译林出版社2007）人文与社会译丛067 [英]理查德·J．伯恩斯坦-社会政治理论的重构（黄瑞祺译，译林出版社2008）人文与社会译丛068 [美]埃里克·沃格林-以色列与启示（秩序与历史卷一）（霍伟岸、叶颖译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛069 [美]埃里克·沃格林-城邦的世界（秩序与历史卷二）（陈周旺译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛070 [德]弗里德里希·梅尼克-历史主义的兴起（陆月宏译，译林出版社2010）第八批：10种人文与社会译丛071 [英]威廉·贝纳特、彼得·科茨-环境与历史：美国和南非驯化自然的比较（包茂红译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛072 [英]基思·托马斯-人类与自然世界：1500-1800年间英国观念的变化（宋丽丽译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛073 [德]恩斯特·卡西勒-卢梭问题（王春华译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛074 [美]哈维·C.曼斯菲尔德-男性气概（刘玮译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛075 [美]理查德·塔克-战争与和平的权利（罗炯等译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛076 [美]威廉·多姆霍夫-谁统治美国：权力政治和社会变迁（吕鹏、闻翔译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛077 健[法]马赛尔·德吕勒-健康与社会：健康问题的社会塑造（王鲲译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛078 [德]托马斯·A．斯勒扎克-读柏拉图（程炜译，译林出版社2009）人文与社会译丛079 [英]以赛亚·伯林-苏联的心灵：共产主义时代的俄国文化（潘永强、刘北成译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛080 [英]以赛亚·伯林-个人印象（林振义、王洁译，译林出版社2013）第九批：10种人文与社会译丛081 [法]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒-技术与时间2：迷失方向（赵和平、印螺译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛082 [英]查尔斯·蒂利、西德尼·塔罗-抗争政治（李义中译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛083 [英]唐纳德·温奇-亚当·斯密的政治学（褚平译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛084 [美]斯维特兰娜·博伊姆-怀旧的未来（杨德友译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛085 [丹麦]埃丝特·博斯拉普-妇女在经济发展中的角色（陈慧平译，译林出版社2010）人文与社会译丛086 [英]温迪·J．达比-风景与认同：英国民族与阶级地理（张箭飞、赵红英译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛087 [美]汉娜·阿伦特-过去与未来之间（王寅丽、张立立译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛088 [美]丹尼尔·T．罗杰斯-大西洋的跨越（吴万伟译，译林出版社2011）人文与社会译丛089 [法]吕克·博尔坦斯基、夏娃·希亚佩洛-资本主义的新精神（高铦译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛090 [美]本尼迪克特·安德森-比较的幽灵：民族主义、东南亚与世界（甘会斌译，译林出版社2012）第十批：10种人文与社会译丛091 [美]伊丽莎白·科尔伯特-灾异手记：人类、自然和气候变化（何恬译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛092 [法]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒-技术与时间3.电影的时间与存在之痛的问题（方尔平译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛093 [英]S．H．里格比-马克思主义与历史学：一种批判性的研究（吴英译，译林出版社2012）人文与社会译丛094 [英]保罗·威利斯-学做工：工人阶级子弟为何继承父业（秘舒、凌旻华译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛095 [美]理查德·塔克-哲学与治术：1572—1651（韩潮译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛096 [美]夸梅·安东尼·阿皮亚-认同伦理学（张容南译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛097 [英]西蒙·沙玛-风景与记忆（胡淑陈、冯樨译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛098 [英]J．G．A．波考克-马基雅维里时刻：佛罗伦萨政治思想和大西洋共和主义传统（冯克利、傅乾译，译林出版社2013）人文与社会译丛099 [英]以赛亚·伯林、[波兰]贝阿塔·波兰诺夫斯卡—塞古尔斯卡-未完的对话（杨德友译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛100 [印度]佳亚特里·斯皮瓦克-后殖民理性批判：正在消失的当下的历史（严蓓雯译，译林出版社2014）第十一批：10种人文与社会译丛101 [加拿大]查尔斯·泰勒-现代社会想象（林曼红译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛102 [美]埃里克·沃格林-柏拉图与亚里士多德（秩序与历史卷三）（刘曙辉译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛103 [法]路易·迪蒙-论个体主义：人类学视野中的现代意识形态（桂裕芳译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛104 [美]理查德·J．伯恩斯坦-根本恶（王钦、朱康译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛105 [美]德鲁·吉尔平·福斯特-这受难的国度：死亡与美国内战（孙宏哲、张聚国译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛106 [美]莎伦·R．克劳斯-公民的激情：道德情感与民主商议（谭安奎译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛107 [美]米尔顿·M．戈登-美国生活中的同化：种族、宗教和族源的角色（马戎译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛108 [美]W．J．T．米切尔编著-风景与权力（杨丽、万信琼译，译林出版社2014）人文与社会译丛109 [美]斯蒂芬·达沃尔-第二人称观点：道德、尊重与责任（章晟译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛110 [英]法拉梅兹·达伯霍瓦拉-性的起源：第一次性革命的历史（杨朗译，译林出版社2015）第十二批：10种（缺113）人文与社会译丛111 [法]雅克琳娜·德·罗米伊-希腊民主的问题（高煜译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛112 [英]詹姆斯·格里芬-论人权（徐向东、刘明译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛113 [英]特伦斯·埃尔文-柏拉图的伦理学（陈玮，刘玮译，译林出版社2021）【缺】人文与社会译丛114 [美]莎伦·R．克劳斯-自由主义与荣誉（林垚译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛115 [法]罗杰·夏蒂埃-法国大革命的文化起源（洪庆明译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛116 [美]保罗·博格西昂-对知识的恐惧：反相对主义和建构主义（刘鹏博译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛117 [英]罗伯特·沃迪-修辞术的诞生：高尔吉亚、柏拉图及其传人（何博超译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛118 [荷兰]弗兰克·安克斯密特-历史表现中的意义、真理和指称（周建漳译，译林出版社2015）人文与社会译丛119 [美]埃里克·沃格林-天下时代（秩序与历史卷四）（叶颖译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛120 [美]埃里克·沃格林-求索秩序（秩序与历史卷五）（徐志跃译，译林出版社2018）第十三批：10种（缺130）人文与社会译丛121 [新西兰]罗莎琳德·赫斯特豪斯-美德伦理学（李义天译，译林出版社2016）人文与社会译丛122 [美]迈克尔·弗雷泽-同情的启蒙：18世纪与当代的正义和道德情感（胡靖译，译林出版社2016）人文与社会译丛123 [美]通差·威尼差恭-图绘暹罗：一部国家地缘机体的历史（袁剑译，译林出版社2016）人文与社会译丛124 [新西兰]理查德·乔伊斯-道德的演化（刘鹏博、黄素珍译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛125 [美]彼得·诺维克-DTS与集体记忆（王志华译，译林出版社2019）人文与社会译丛126 [美]玛丽·路易斯·普拉特-帝国之眼：旅行书写与文化互化（方杰、方宸译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛127 [美]唐纳德·沃斯特-帝国之河：水、干旱与美国西部的成长（侯深译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛128 [美]M．斯洛特-从道德到美德（周亮译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛129 [美]M．斯洛特-源自动机的道德（韩辰错译，译林出版社2020）人文与社会译丛130 [美]托马斯·希恩-理解海德格尔：范式的转变（邓定译，译林出版社2022）【缺】第十四批：10种（缺：135-137）人文与社会译丛131 [美]G.R.F.费拉里-城邦与灵魂：费拉里《理想国》论集（刘玮编译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛132 [美]彼得·C·考威尔-人民主权与德国宪法危机（曹晗蓉、虞维华译，译林出版社2017）人文与社会译丛133 [英]基思·托马斯-16和17世纪英格兰大众信仰研究（芮传明、梅剑华译，译林出版社2019）人文与社会译丛134 [英]安东尼·D.史密斯-民族认同（王娟译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛135 [英]乔治·莱文-世俗主义之乐：我们当下如何生活（赵元译，译林出版社2019）【缺】人文与社会译丛136 国王或人民（未出）人文与社会译丛137 [美]德克·佩里布姆-自由意志、能动性与生命的意义（张可译，译林出版社2022）【缺】人文与社会译丛138 [英]乔治·克劳德-自由与多元论：以赛亚·伯林思想研究（惠春寿、李哲罕译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛139 [美]理查德·J.伯恩斯-BAOLI：思无所限（李元来译，译林出版社2018）人文与社会译丛140 [美]爱德华·希尔斯-中心与边缘：宏观社会学论集（李元来译，译林出版社2019）第十五批：10种自足的世俗社会【缺】历史与记忆【缺】媒体、国家与民族【缺】道德错误理论【缺】废墟上的未来【缺】为历史而战【缺】语言动物（未出）我们中的我【缺】人文学科与公共生活【缺】美国生活中的反智主义【缺】第十六批：10种关怀伦理与移情【缺】形象与象征【缺】艾希曼审判（未出）现代主义观念论（未出）文化绝望的政治学【缺】作为文化现实的未来（未出）一种思想及其时代（未出）人类的领土性（未出）理想的暴政（未出）。
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。
哈佛公正课——第5讲《自由选择》
哈佛公正课——第5讲《自由选择》提要：自由主义者认为政府干预最少的社会是最理想的社会形态。
Sandel介绍自由主义哲学家Robert Nozick，他认为，每个个体都有选择自己想要的生活的基本权利。
政府不应该具备权力来制定人们保护自我的法律（安全带法），不应该具备权力来制定把道德价值观强加给社会的法律，不应该具备权力来制定把富人收入重新分配给穷人的法律。
Sandel使用了比尔盖茨和迈克尔乔丹的例子来解释Nozick 的理论：税收的重新分配是强迫劳动的一种形式。
教授：我们上节课结束时讲到密尔试图回应那些针对Bentham功利主义的批评。
在他的著作《功利主义》中, 密尔表明在功利主义的框架中区分高级与低级的乐趣，找出其价值上的区别是可行的。
我们用了辛普森和莎士比亚的短片检验了这个观点。
而实验的结果却质疑了这种区分：绝大部分人说你们更喜欢辛普森，但是仍然觉得莎士比亚的作品可以给人更高层或更有价值的乐趣。
这就是我们给密尔所提出的困境。
在《功利主义》的第五章，密尔试图解释个人权利和公平正义的一些特别重要的特征，他认为个人权利值得人们给予特别考虑的。
事实上, 他甚至说公平是道德中最神圣, 最有约束力的一部分。
但是密尔的这番辩护仍会受到同样的挑战：为什么公平是道德中最神圣最有约束力的一部分呢？他说长期而言，如果我们履行公平原则, 尊重个人权利，那么长期看来，社会整体将会变得更加美好。
好吧, 那接下来的问题呢？但是如果我们考虑某种特殊情况：侵犯个人利益，反而使人们在长期生活中过的更好？要是这样，那利用或侵犯别人是不是就是正确的？这可以进一步反对密尔关于正义和权力的论述。
假设长期来看，功利主义计算出，如果尊重个人的权利，从长远来看，能使大家过的更好，你们觉得功利主义的这个解释是真正的原因吗？这是尊重个人的唯一理由吗？如果那个医生真的进房把前来检查的健康病人的器官取了出来，以此去拯救另外五个人，长期来看, 这个行为会有不良影响，终有一天人们会知道这件事，而不再去医院做检查。
哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕 第三节
制作人：心舟 QQ：1129441083 欢迎交流公正课\N迈克尔·桑德尔教授主讲第三讲《给生命标价》上节课我们讨论了\Last time, we argued about女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案\the case of Queen versus Dudley and Stevens,即救生艇的案例\the lifeboat case,海上食人惨案\the case of cannibalism at sea.带着对救生艇上发生事件的讨论\And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,即对达德利和斯蒂芬斯行为赞同与否的讨论\the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,让我们再回归\let's turn back to the philosophy,杰里米·边沁的功利主义哲学\the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.边沁 1748年生于英格兰\Bentham was born in England in 1748.12岁进入牛津大学\At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.15岁入读法学院\At 15, he went to law school.19岁取得律师资格\He was admitted to the Bar at age 19但从没当过律师\but he never practiced law.而是将毕生精力献给了法学和道德哲学\Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.上节课我们开始\Last time, we began to思考边沁的功利主义\consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.他的主要观点简单明确就是\The main idea is simply stated and it's this:道德的最高准则\The highest principle of morality,无论是个人道德还是政治道德\whether personal or political morality,都是最大化公共福利或曰集体幸福感\is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,或者说权衡苦乐将幸福最大化\or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;一句话功利最大化\in a phrase, maximize utility.边沁是这样论证这一原则的\Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: 我们都受到痛苦和快乐的支配\We're all governed by pain and pleasure,苦乐是我们至高无上的主宰\they are our sovereign masters,因此任何道德体系都应考虑到它们\and so any moral system has to take account of them.最好怎样考虑呢通过最大化\How best to take account? By maximizing.从而引出"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一原则\And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.我们到底该最大化什么呢\What exactly should we maximize?边沁说应最大化幸福\Bentham tells us happiness,或更精确来说最大化功利\or more precisely, utility功利最大化原则不只针对个人\maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals也适用于共同体及立法者\but also for communities and for legislators.边沁问到底什么是共同体\"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.共同体是其成员的集合\It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.所以在制定最优政策时\And that's why in deciding the best policy,制定法律时决定何谓公正时\in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,公民和立法者应扪心自问这个问题\citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question 当用政策带来的总效益\if we add up all of the benefits of this policy减去总成本\and subtract all of the costs,正确的选择应该是\the right thing to do is the one减去苦难后幸福最大化的那一个\that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.这就是所谓功利最大化\That's what it means to maximize utility.今天我想听听\Now, today, I want to see你们是否赞同这点\whether you agree or disagree with it,功利主义的逻辑\and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,通常被称作成本效益分析\under the name of cost-benefit analysis,一再被企业和政府运用\which is used by companies and by governments all the time.其做法包括作出估价\And what it involves is placing a value,通常是估计出金额来代表功利\usually a dollar value, to stand for utility即分别列出成本和各项收益的金额\on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.最近捷克共和国\Recently, in the Czech Republic,有一个增加香烟消费税的提案\there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.烟草公司菲利普·莫里斯公司\Philip Morris, the tobacco company,在捷克共和国的生意做得很大\does huge business in the Czech Republic.他们资助了一项研究\They commissioned a study,进行在捷克吸烟的成本效益分析\a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic,分析结果显示\and what their cost-benefit analysis found was让捷克人民吸烟能让政府获利\the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.那政府如何获利呢\Now, how do they gain?它确实会对捷克政府的\It's true that there are negative effects公共财政产生负效应\to the public finance of the Czech government因为吸烟造成的疾病\because there are increased health care costs会增加医疗支出\for people who develop smoking-related diseases.但另一方面也有正效应\On the other hand, there were positive effects它们被记在账目的另一侧\and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.正效应主要来自\The positive effects included, for the most part,销售香烟为政府带来的\various tax revenues that the government derives各项税收\from the sale of cigarette products,但还包括\but it also included人们早逝为政府节省的医疗支出\health care savings to the government when people die early,免去的养老金\pension savings...政府不需要继续支付养老金\you don't have to pay pensions for as long还省去了老年人的住房开支\and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.当把总成本和各项收益分别加总\And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,菲利普·莫里斯公司的研究表明\the Philip Morris study found that捷克共和国公共财政将获得\there is a net public finance gain一亿四千七百万的净收益\in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,算上住房医疗养老金方面节省的开支\and given the savings in housing,in health care, and pension costs,政府从每个因吸烟早逝的人身上\the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person赚得超过1200美元\who dies prematurely due to smoking.成本效益分析\Cost-benefit analysis.在座功利主义的支持者们\Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism可能觉得这个研究不公\may think that this is an unfair test.菲利普·莫里斯公司遭到媒体谴责\Philip Morris was pilloried in the press他们为这项冷血的计算公开道歉\and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.你也许会说\You may say这里无疑忽略了\that what's missing here is something功利主义者认为应当包含的部分\that the utilitarian can easily incorporate,即那些死于肺癌的患者本身\namely the value to the person加上其家属的价值\and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.怎么能忽略生命的价值呢\What about the value of life?有些成本效益分析\Some cost-benefit analyses确实计算了生命的价值\incorporate a measure for the value of life.其中最著名的是福特平托的案例\One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. 有人读过吗\Did any of you read about that?当时是二十世纪七十年代\This was back in the 1970s.还有人知道福特平托是什么车吗\Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? 它是一种小型次紧凑型车风靡一时\It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,但它有一个缺陷\but it had one problem,油箱装在车的尾部\which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car发生追尾时油箱就会爆炸\and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded造成了严重伤亡\and some people were killed and some severely injured.受害者一纸诉状将福特告上了法庭\Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.案件审理中发现\And in the court case, it turned out福特早就知道油箱的缺陷\that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank还进行了成本效益分析\and had done a cost-benefit analysis来决定是否值得装上一面特殊的隔板\to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield以保护油箱防止油箱爆炸\that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.该分析指出\They did a cost-benefit analysis.能增加平托安全性的隔板\The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,每块成本是11美元\they calculated at $11.00 per part.这就是审判时发现的成本效益分析\And here's... this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.给1250万辆轿车和卡车配上11美元的隔板\Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks提高安全性共需花费一亿三千七百万美元\came to a total cost of$137 million to improve the safety. 但接着又算出\But then they calculated花这些钱提高安全性能带来的收益\the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car预计可减少180例死亡\and they counted 180 deaths因车祸死亡预计每条人命20万美元\and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death,可减少180例伤残每例67000美元\180 injuries, $67,000,加上车辆维修费用\and then the costs to repair,无此安全装置车会完全损毁\the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,所以需算上2000辆汽车的重置成本每辆700美元\it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.收益最后只有4950万\So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million因此他们没有安装该装置\and so they didn't install the device.不用说\Needless to say,当福特汽车公司的这份成本效益分析备忘录\when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis在审理时被公之于众\came out in the trial,陪审团大为震怒判定巨额赔偿\it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.这算是功利主义计算思路的反例吗\Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating? 因为福特计算了生命的价值\Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.现在就这个明显的反例\Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis有谁想为成本效益分析辩护\from this apparent counter example?有谁辩护\Who has a defense?还是你们认为它完全推翻了\Or do you think this completely destroys功利主义的演算\the whole utilitarian calculus?请说\Yes?我觉得他们犯了与前面案例\Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake相同的错误\the previous case did,量化了生命的价值\that they assigned a dollar value to human life,但同样的\and once again,他们没有考虑受害者家人承受的\they failed to take account things like suffering痛苦和精神损失\and emotional losses by the families.他们不但家庭收入受损还丧失了亲人\I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one 那损失远不止20万美元\and that is more valued than $200,000.没错等等说得好你叫什么名字\Right and... wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name? 朱莉·罗托\Julie Roteau .朱莉要是20万美金不够\So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure因为没有算丧失亲人\because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one和生命的损失\and the loss of those years of life,那你认为什么数目更合适\what would be what do you think would be a more accurate number?我无法给出数目\I don't believe I could give a number.我觉得这种分析\I think that this sort of analysis不应该用在人的生命这个问题上\shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.人命不能用金钱衡量\I think it can't be used monetarily.所以朱莉认为他们不是定价太低\So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.他们压根就不该定价\They were wrong to try to put any number at all.那好让我们听听别人...\All right, let's hear someone who...你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.行啊有道理\All right, fair enough.那如今应该是多少\So what would the number be now?那是35年前\This was 35 years ago.两百万美元\Two million dollars.两百万美元你会定价两百万吗\Two million dollars? You would put two million?你叫什么名字\And what's your name?佛伊泰克\Voytek佛伊泰克说我们必须考虑通胀\Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.应该更慷慨些\We should be more generous.这样你就满意了吗\Then would you be satisfied that这样思考这个问题就可以了吗\this is the right way of thinking about the question?我觉得不幸的是...\I guess, unfortunately, it is for...有时确实需要标价\there needs to be a number put somewhere,不过我不确定具体数字\like, I'm not sure what that number would be,但我确实认同\but I do agree that人的生命也许可以被标价\there could possibly be a number put on the human life.很好所以佛伊泰克不同意朱莉的看法\All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie. 朱莉认为我们不该为了成本效益分析\Julie says we can't put a number on human life给人的生命标价\for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.佛伊泰克认为我们别无选择\Voytek says we have to因为不管怎样我们必须做出决定\because we have to make decisions somehow.别的人怎么看\What do other people think about this?有没人来赞同成本效益分析的\Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here认为它精确合宜吗你说\as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.我觉得要是福特和其他汽车公司\I think that if Ford and other car companies不使用成本效益分析的话\didn't use cost-benefit analysis,他们最后就会倒闭\they'd eventually go out of business因为他们无法盈利\because they wouldn't be able to be profitable这样就会有数百万人无法开车上班\and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,没法赚钱养不起小孩\to put food on the table, to feed their children.所以我认为此种情况下如果不用成本效益分析\So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,会牺牲更多人的利益\the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.很好我加一句你叫什么名字\All right, let me add. What's your name?劳尔\Raul.劳尔最近有一项\Raul, there was recently a study done关于司机开车时使用手机的研究\about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, 关于是否应该禁止此行为有一场争论\and there was a debate whether that should be banned.数据显示每年有2000人左右\And the figure was that some 2,000 people因开车时使用手机而死于车祸\die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.而目前哈佛风险分析中心\And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done作出的成本效益分析表明\by the center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that如果考虑使用手机带来的效益\if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use并与生命的价值做比较\and you put some value on the life,就会得出同样的结论\it comes out about the same因为这样做经济效益巨大\because of the enormous economic benefit of可以使人们更有效地利用时间\enabling people to take advantage of their time,不浪费时间边开车边谈生意\not waste time, be able to make deals边和朋友聊天等\and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.这不就表明\Doesn't that suggest that用金钱衡量人的生命是个错误吗\it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?我觉得如果绝大多数人想要\Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to从某项服务中获得最大功利\derive maximum utility out of a service,比如使用手机享受手机所带来的便利\like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,那么为了满足需求这种牺牲就是必要的\that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur. 你是个彻底的功利主义者嘛\You're an outright utilitarian.是的可以这么说\Yes. Okay.好那么最后一个问题劳尔\All right then, one last question, Raul.我也问过佛伊泰克\And I put this to Voytek,在决定是否禁止使用手机这件事时\what dollar figure should be put on human life人命应该如何定价\to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?我不想武断地算出一个数字\Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,我是指马上就算出我觉得...\I mean, right now. I think that...你想要深思熟虑之后再决定\You want to take it under advisement?对我会深思熟虑\Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.但大概有多少\But what, roughly speaking, would it be?会死2300人\You got 2,300 deaths.你必须用金钱来衡量\You got to assign a dollar value to know是否需要禁止司机使用手机\whether you want to prevent those deaths by来避免此类事件发生\banning the use of cell phones in cars.那你感觉是多少钱一百万\So what would your hunch be? How much? A million?两百万佛伊泰克觉得是两百万\Two million? Two million was Voytek's figure.-这么多可以吗 -也许一百万吧\- Is that about right? - Maybe a million.-一百万 -对\- A million? - Yeah.很好谢谢\You know, that's good. Thank you.以上即为近来对成本效益分析\So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days引发的一些争论\from cost-benefit analysis,尤其是其中那些\especially those that involve认为可以用金钱衡量一切的观点\placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.现在我想听听反对意见\Well, now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections不一定仅仅针对成本效益分析\not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically,因为那只是功利主义逻辑现今的实践之一\because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today,而是针对整个功利主义理论\but to the theory as a whole,针对那些认为正确之举\to the idea that the right thing to do,就是以功利最大化作为政策法律基础的观点\the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility. 有多少人不同意\How many disagree功利主义在法律及公共利益方面的做法\with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good? 有多少人同意\How many agree with it?看来多数表示同意\So more agree than disagree.我们来听听批判声吧请说\So let's hear from the critics. Yes?我对此的异议是\My main issue with it is我觉得不能因为一些人占少数\that I feel like you can't say that just because someone's in the minority,就断定他们的需要和欲望不如多数人的重要\what they want and need is less valuable than someone who's in the majority所以我反对\So I guess I have an issue with the idea"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一观点\that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay因为还有...\because there are still...占少数的人怎么办呢\what about people who are in the lesser number?这对他们不公平\Like, it's not fair to them.他们对此没有发言权\They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.很好这是个有趣的异议\All right. That's an interesting objection.你担心其对少数人的影响\You're worried about the effect on the minority.是的\Yes.顺便问一句你叫什么名字\What's your name, by the way?安娜\Anna.谁能回答\Who has an answer to安娜对于少数人影响的担心\Anna's worry about the effect on the minority?你怎么回答安娜\What do you say to Anna?她说少数人的价值被低估了\Um, she said that the minority is valued less.我认为事实并非如此因为\I don't think that's the case because少数人当中每个个体的价值\individually, the minority's value is just和多数人的个体价值是一样的\the same as the individual of the majority.只不过多数在数量上胜过少数\It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority.有时你必须做出选择\And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision我对少数表示遗憾\and I'm sorry for the minority但有时这是牺牲小我成全大我\but sometimes, it's for the general, for the greater good.成全大我安娜你怎么看\For the greater good. Anna, what do you say?你叫什么名字\What's your name?杨达\Yang-Da.你怎么反驳杨达\What do you say to Yang-Da?杨达说必须总体考虑人们的选择\Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences而其中少数人的选择其实也被衡量过了\and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed. 你能举个你所担心的类似例子吗\Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about 即你所说的担心\when you say you're worried about功利主义缺少对少数的关心和尊重\utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?举个例子\give an example.我就举一个我们讨论过的案例\Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about,比如海上食人惨案中我认为被吃的男孩\like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten 仍然与其他人享有相等的生存权\still had as much of a right to live as the other people仅仅因为他是少数\and just because he was the minority in that case,他存活的机率可能最小\the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living,并不意味着其他人就自然而然有权利吃他\that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him就为了让多数人有存活的机会\just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live.所以可能少数人\So there may be certain rights或个体的某些权利\that the minority members have that the individual has不该为了功利最大化而被牺牲\that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility?是的\Yes.是吗安娜下面这个例子我来考考扬达\Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.在古罗马\Back in Ancient Rome,基督徒被扔去斗兽场与狮子搏斗\they threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. 如果以功利主义方式演算\If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go,没错丢给狮子的基督徒\yes, the Christian thrown to the lions确实经历了撕心裂肺的剧痛\suffers enormous excruciating pain.但看看罗马人共同的心醉神迷啊\But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans!杨达\Yang-Da.在那个时代我不... 要是如今\Well, in that time, I don't...if in modern day of time,衡量观众获得的快乐\to give a number to the happiness given to the people watching,我觉得没有任何政策制定者会认为\I don't think any policymaker would say一个人的痛苦煎熬会比\the pain of one person, of the suffering of one person is much, much... 众人因之获得的快感更...\is, I mean, in comparison to the happiness gained, it's不但你必须承认\No, but you have to admit that要是有足够多的罗马人对这种快感足够狂热\if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness,那就会胜过\it would outweigh even the少数几个被丢给狮子的基督徒承受的极端剧痛\most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.因此我们确实对功利主义有两点异议\So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism.一点是关于功利主义\One has to do with whether utilitarianism是否充分尊重个体和少数的权利\adequately respects individual rights or minority rights,另一点是关于\and the other has to do with加总功利或偏好或价值的看法\the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values. 所有的价值都有可能用金钱衡量吗\Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms?二十世纪三十年代\There was, in the 1930s,有位心理学家试图解决第二个问题\a psychologist who tried to address this second question.他试图证明功利主义者的假设\He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes,所有的利益价值人类的心声\that it is possible to translate all goods, all values,都可能被统一衡量\into a single uniform measure,并通过对年轻的救济金领取者的调查来证明此点\and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief,当时是二十世纪三十年代\this was in the 1930s, and he asked them,他给了他们一张不愉快经历的清单问他们\he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them,给你多少钱你就愿意忍受以下经历\"How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?"并作了记录\and he kept track.比如给你多少钱\For example, how much would you have to be paid你才愿意拔掉自己的一颗门牙\to have one upper front tooth pulled out?抑或给你多少钱\Or how much would you have to be paid你才愿意砍掉一根小脚趾\to have one little toe cut off?抑或吃一条六英寸长的蚯蚓\Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long?抑或后半生居住在堪萨斯农场\Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}堪萨斯位于美国西部平原\N1930年代遭受重大自然灾害抑或亲手掐死一只流浪猫\Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?你们觉得清单里的哪一项最贵\Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list? 堪萨斯\Kansas?没错是堪萨斯\You're right, it was Kansas.他们认为余生都住堪萨斯农场\For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them至少得给他们30万美元\they have to be paid $300,000.你们觉得第二贵的是什么\What do you think was the next most expensive?不是猫\Not the cat.也不是门牙\Not the tooth.也不是脚趾\Not the toe.是蚯蚓\The worm!他们说给10万美元才肯吃蚯蚓\People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm.你们觉得最便宜的是哪项\What do you think was the least expensive item?不是猫\Not the cat.是门牙\The tooth.大萧条时期\During the Depression,人们愿意为了区区4500美元拔掉自己的牙\people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4,500.什么\What?桑代克得出的结论是\Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.任何需求或满足都能有个价钱\Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount 因此能用金钱衡量\and is therefore measurable.狗猫小鸡的生命\The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken都充斥着各类嗜好渴望欲望以及满足感\consists of appetites, cravings, desires, and their gratifications.人亦如此\So does the life of human beings,只是人的嗜好和欲望更加复杂罢了\though the appetites and desires are more complicated.但桑代克的研究说明了什么呢\But what about Thorndike's study?它是不是支持了边沁的观点\Does it support Bentham's idea认为所有利益所有价值都可以\that all goods, all values can be captured用统一的方式衡量\according to a single uniform measure of value?抑或清单上那些荒谬的项目\Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list恰恰揭示了相反的结论\suggest the opposite conclusion也许\that maybe,不论是生命堪萨斯还是蚯蚓\whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm,还是我们重视珍爱的东西\maybe the things we value and cherish都是不能用统一方式衡量的?\can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value? 如果不能\And if they can't,那么功利主义道德理论意义何在\what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality? 我们下次将会继续探讨这一问题\That's a question we'll continue with next time.{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}公正课下讲预告好现在我们再投个票\All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,哪个是最高级的体验或快乐\which is the highest experience or pleasure.{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}第四讲《如何衡量快乐》多少人认为是莎士比亚\How many say Shakespeare?多少人认为是《挑战恐惧极限》\How many say Fear Factor?你开玩笑的吧是吧\No, you can't be serious. Really?上节课我们开始思考一些\Last time, we began to consider some objections to对杰里米·边沁功利主义的反对观点\Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.讨论中提出了两点异议\People raised two objections in the discussion we had.第一点异议是说功利主义\The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism,只关注"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"\by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,没有充分地尊重个人权利\fails adequately to respect individual rights.今天我们要讨论严刑拷打和恐怖主义\Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.假设一名恐怖主义嫌犯在9丒11慜堦揤旐曔\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th你桳棟桼憡怣\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you had reason to believe这柤寵斊彾埇椆\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}that the suspect had crucial information彨导抳3000恖嬾难揑嫲晐袭击揑廳梫忣报\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people你撬晄开懠揑岥\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you couldn't extract the information.为椆漒摓忣报帶对懠严孻崏懪惀斲崌棟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information梷埥你晄赞摨\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}or do you say no,你认为桳懜廳槩恖权棙揑绝对摴 责擟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights?朸种掱搙忋変们枖夞摓椆嵟弶揑问题\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}In a way, we're back to thequestions we started with。
桑德尔对罗尔斯_自我_概念的批判
这种认知意义上的特质就是自我反思的 能力, 而罗尔斯的主体根本不可能具备这种 能力。 这种反思使主体反观自身寻求其构成 本性, 这里的问题是“我是谁?”回答我的本性 问题, 而不是回答“我将选择什么?”。 桑德尔 分析指出, 因为自我的本性本来就是由目标 构成而不是先于目标, 所以自我只需按其本 来面目来理解即可。在这里, 自我的边界不是 固定性的, 而是可能性的。自我的轮廓不再是 固定的, 至少部分没有成型, 因而自我边界清 晰化与限定自我本性是一回事。通过反思, 自 我成为反思和寻求的对象, 自我就从情景之 中分辨出来。
3、一无所获的反思 反思实际上是罗 尔斯的拥有主体必须具备的能力。 由于罗尔 斯对反思范围的限制, 根本不可能达到真正 认识意义上的反思。 虽然罗尔斯在确立了正 义原则优先性之后, 认为“我们的反思必须加 入到我们需要什么和需要多少的活动之 中”⑧, 但是这种反思是不彻底的。 桑德尔指 出, 罗尔斯所说的反思在任何情况下都不能 把·当·事·人·自·身看成反思对象。因此, 这种反思 根本不是一种自我反思, 它针对外界而不是 自身, 因而形成一种审慎的 推理过程。 这就 得出一个奇怪的结论: 一个对自身知之甚少 而对选择知之甚多的外部专家能够同等地或 更成功地执行选择。 桑德尔认为这是不可能
1、一无所有的拥有 桑德尔首先考察 了罗尔斯的拥有主体理论。桑德尔指出, 罗尔 斯的拥有主体根本不具有任何真正的拥有能 力, 因而贫乏得一无所有。当罗尔斯意识到这 一困境时, 他又赋予了其拥有主体以合法期 待的权利。 然而, 期待毕竟是期待, 期待永远 不等于真正拥有。 不具有真正的拥有能力而 一味期待, 结果依然是一无所有。
公共行政学经典文选(英文版)英语翻译段落
公共行政学经典文选(英文版)1 .The Study of Administration Woodrow WilsonP18第二部分的前两段The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart even from the debatable ground of constitutional study.It is a part of political lifeonly as the methods of the counting-house are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress.The object of administrative study is to rescue executive methods fromthe confusion and costliness of empirical experiment and set them upon foundations laid deep in stable principle.行政管理的领域是一种事务性的领域，它与政治领域的那种混乱和冲突相距甚远。
书单 跟正义有关的书34种 什么是正义
书单：跟正义有关的书34种论正义[英] 赫伯特·斯宾塞/ 周国兴/ 商务印书馆/ 2017-8正义的要素[加]戴维·施密茨/ 赵英男、胡恩海、李钧鹏/ 中国社会科学出版社/ 2019-2法律之内的正义郑成良/ 法律出版社/ 2002-12-01义诸理论（上下）布莱恩·巴里/ 孙晓春、曹海军/ 吉林人民出版社/ 2011-1自由主义与正义的局限[美] 迈克尔·J.桑德尔/ 万俊人、唐文明、张之锋、殷迈/ 译林出版社/ 2011-7正义与差异政治[美] 艾丽斯·M.杨/ 李诚予、刘靖子/ 中国政法大学出版社/ 2017-11分配正义简史[美国] 塞缪尔·弗莱施哈克尔/ 吴万伟/ 译林出版社/ 2010-11-18正义诸领域: 为多元主义与平等一辩[美]迈克尔·沃尔泽/ 褚松燕/ 译林出版社/ 2002-5-1慷慨的正义提摩太·凯勒/ 李晋、马丽/ 上海三联书店/ 2015-5圆圈正义: 作为自由前提的信念罗翔/ 中国法制出版社/ 2019-8-26正义论[美] 约翰·罗尔斯/ 何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白/ 中国社会科学出版社/ 2001-6公正: 该如何做是好[美] 迈克尔·桑德尔/ 朱慧玲/ 中信出版社/ 2011-1-1海盗、囚徒与麻风病人: 关于正义的十二堂课[美] 保罗·罗宾逊、[美] 莎拉·罗宾逊/ 李立丰/ 北京大学出版社/ 2018-9-30正义的两面（修订版）慈继伟/ 生活·读书·新知三联书店/ 2014-11何为正义陈宜中/ 中央编译出版社/ 2016-9正义：历史的与现实的何怀宏/ 北京出版社/ 2017-9-1正义之心: 为什么人们总是坚持"我对你错"[美] 乔纳森?海特(Jonathan Haidt) / 舒明月、胡晓旭/ 浙江人民出版社/ 2014-5-1全球正义徐向东编/ 浙江大学出版社/ 2011-2法律、立法与自由(第二、三卷) : 社会正义的幻象和自由社会的政治秩序9.3(242人评价)(英)哈耶克/ 邓正来张守东李静冰/ 中国大百科全书出版社/ 2002-07正义的理念8.5(175人评价)[印] 阿马蒂亚·森/ 王磊/ 李航/ 中国人民大学出版社/ 2012-6不正义的多重面孔8.9(89人评价)[美]朱迪丝·N.施克莱/ 钱一栋/ 上海人民出版社/ 2020-4杀死一只知更鸟9.2(86469人评价)[美] 哈珀·李/ 高红梅/ 译林出版社/ 2012-9同情的启蒙: 18世纪与当代的正义和道德情感7.9(40人评价)[美] 迈克尔·L.弗雷泽/ 胡靖/ 译林出版社/ 2016-11不可能的正义: 关于正义与非正义7.3(62人评价)（法）让-吕克?南希/ 简燕宽/ 三辉图书/新星出版社/ 2013-8-1正义的理念7.6(30人评价)阿马蒂亚·森/ 王磊等译/ 中国人民大学出版社/ 2013-1-5谁之正义？何种合理性？8.2(32人评价)[美]阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔/ 万俊人吴海针王今一/ 当代中国出版社/ 1996年5月第1版正义从哪里来9.0(135人评价)熊逸/ 民主与建设出版社/ 2015-9-1寻求有尊严的生活：正义的能力理论8.3(58人评价)[美]玛莎·C·纳斯鲍姆/ 田雷/ 中国人民大学出版社有限公司/ 2016-6-1社会正义论6.7(47人评价)[英]布莱恩·巴利/ 曹海军/ 江苏人民出版社/ 2007年4月公平的正义: 解读罗尔斯《正义论》8.3(71人评价)何怀宏/ 山东人民出版社/ 2002-1正义理论导引: 以罗尔斯为中心9.5(19人评价)何怀宏/ 北京师范大学出版社/ 2014-12作为公平的正义: 正义新论9.0(64人评价)【美】罗尔斯/ 姚大志/ 中国社会科学出版社/ 2011-6-1 /正义的纯粹社会学7.5(14人评价)唐纳德·布莱克/ 徐昕/ 田璐/ 浙江人民出版社/ 2009-1公正何以难行: 阻碍正义的心理之源8.4(133人评价)[美]亚当·本福拉多/ 刘静坤/ 中国民主法制出版社/ 2019-3。
[公正：该如何做是好？].中英文字幕对照整理校订版.docx
![[公正：该如何做是好？].中英文字幕对照整理校订版.docx](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/61cacf4aa216147916112849.png)
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?1Funding for this program is provided by: 本节目由以下组织Additional funding provided by: 和以下个人提供赞助Last time, we argued about the case of The Queen vs. Dudley & Stephens, 上次,我们谈到女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件, the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea. 那个救生艇上,海上吃人的案件.And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind, 以及针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论，并列举了Dudley和Stephens没有考虑到的支持和反对的意见。
let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. 让我们回头来看看Jeremy Bentham的功利主义哲学. Bentham was born in England in 1748. At the age of 12, he went to Oxford. Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学. At 15, he went to law school. He was admitted to the Bar at age 19, 15岁时,他去了法学院.19岁就取得了大律师资格but he never practiced law. 但他从来没有从事于法律.Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy. 相反,他毕生致力于判例法和道德哲学.Last time, we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism. 上一次,我们开始思考Bentham版本的功利主义.The main idea is simply stated and it's this: 简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality, 道德的最高原则,无论个人或政治道德,is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness, 就是将普通人的福利,或集体的幸福最大化,or the overall balance of pleasure over pain; 或在快乐与痛苦的权衡中取得总体优势;in a phrase, maximize utility. 简而言之就是,功利最大化.Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: Bentham是由如下理由来得出这个原则的：We're all governed by pain and pleasure, 我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制,they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system has to take account of them. How best to take account? By maximizing. 他们是我们的主宰,所以任何道德体系都要考虑到这点. 如何以最优化考虑?通过最大化.And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. 从此引出的原则就是将最好的东西最大化. What exactly should we maximize? 我们究竟该如何最大化?Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility - maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators. Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用-最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人而且还适用于社区及立法者."What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks. “到底什么是社区?” Bentham问道.It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it. 它是组成这个社区的所有个体的总和.And that's why in deciding the best policy, 这就是为什么在决定什么是最好的政策,in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just, 在决定法律应该是什么样,在决定什么是公正时,citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question if we add up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering. 公民和立法者应该问自己的问题，如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益减去所有的损耗,正确的做法就是将幸福相对于痛苦做一个最大化的平衡.2That's what it means to maximize utility. 这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it, 现在,我想看看您是否同意它,and it often goes, this utilitarian logic, 往往有云：功利主义的逻辑,under the name of cost-benefit analysis, 名为成本效益分析,which is used by companies and by governments all the time. 也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的 .And what it involves is placing a value, usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on thecosts and the benefits of various proposals.当它涉及到价值时, 通常是由美元,来代表成本以及效益.Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris, the tobacco company, does huge business in the Czech Republic. 最近,在捷克共和国,有人建议对吸烟增加消费税.菲利普莫里斯烟草公司, 在捷克共和国有大笔的生意.They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke. Now, how do they gain? 他们委托了一个研究, 来做吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析. 他们的分析发现,政府将会因捷克公民吸烟而收益. 那么,他们如何收益?It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who developsmoking-related diseases. On the other hand, there were positive effects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger. 确实,捷克政府的公共财政会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增大的医疗保健开支, 从而受到负面影响. 另一方面,在帐册的另一端, 也有着累计起来的积极影响.The positive effects included, for the most part, various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products, but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early, pension savings -- you don't have to pay pensions for as long - and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly. 积极影响包括,在大多数情况下, 政府通过出售卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入, 但也包括政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄,例如养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-还有,老人住房储蓄费用.And when all of the costs and benefits were added up, 当把所有的花费和收益都分别加起来,the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000, and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs, the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking. Cost-benefit analysis. 菲利普莫里斯公司的研究发现,捷克共和国会有产生$ 147000000的公共财政净增益, 并鉴于节省了住房储蓄,医疗保健,养老金费用, 每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200. 成本效益分析.Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test. 现在,你们中间,那些功利主义的捍卫者可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation. 菲利普莫里斯公司在媒体中遭到了嘲笑他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer. 你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏，它没有正确评估上人的价值，以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.3What about the value of life? 如何评估生命价值?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life. 一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估. One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. 其中最有名的要数Ford Pinto案件.Did any of you read about that? 你们有没有阅读过这个案件?This was back in the 1970s. 那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? 你还记得Ford Pinto是, 什么样的车么?谁能记得? It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular, 那是一种小型车,超小型车,很受欢迎,but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured. 但它也有问题,车后座的油箱，在少数情况下,碰撞会导致爆炸并且有些人死亡，还有些人严重受伤.Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue. 这些伤害的受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case, it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding. 而在诉讼案件,人们发现福特原来早已知道油箱的脆弱，并且已做了成本效益分析,以确定是否值得投入来放入一个特殊的盾牌来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-benefit analysis. 他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto, 增加Pinto的安全的每部分费用,they calculated at $11.00 per part. 他们算出,要每件$ 11.00.And here's -- this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial. 这里——这就是当时审批中出示的成本效益分析.Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety. 每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车得到一个总成本,需要13700万美元来改善安全.But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death, 180 injuries,$67,000,and then the costs to repair, the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles, it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle. 不过, 随后他们计算了花这笔钱的收益，假设会导致180人死亡，他们对此用美元价值来代替,每个死亡赔偿$200000, 180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67000,然后是维修受损车的费用, 2000辆车,由于未安装安全设施,每辆车将需要$700来维修.So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didn't install the device. 结论是效益仅$49.5 million因此他们没有安装那个设备.Needless to say, when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial, it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement. 毫无疑问,福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录在审判中出现时, 震惊了陪审团,也因此引发了巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating? 这是一个功利主义计算的反例么? Because Ford included a measure of the value of life. 因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counterexample? Who has a defense? 好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例来捍卫成本效益分析? 谁来辩护?Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus? Yes? 或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了功利主义演算? 是吗?45678910Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism. 今天,我们来谈谈酷刑和恐怖主义.Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th and you had reason to believe that the suspect had crucial information about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people and you couldn't extract the information. 假设一个恐怖分子疑犯在9月10日被捕你有理由相信疑犯有着重要信息有着对于即将发生的恐怖袭击,并且超过3000人死亡的重要信息你却无法得到这份信息.Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information or do you say no, there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights? 通过酷刑来得到这份信息是正义的么? 或者你认为不,应该有一个绝对的道德责任来尊重个人的权利呢?In a way, we're back to the questions we started with about trolley cars and organ transplant. So that's the first issue. 在某种程度上,我们就回到了开始的问题, 关于电车和器官移植. 所以这是第一个问题.And you remember, we considered some examples of cost-benefit analysis, but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing a dollar value on human life. 而你还记得, 我们同样考虑了一些成本效益分析的例子,但很多人对于成本效益分析感到不满, 如果其中涉及到了用金钱来衡量人类生命.And so that led us to the second objection. 因此这引出了我们第二个反对.It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values into a single uniform measure of value. It asks, in other words, whether all values are commensurable. 它质疑是否能将所有的值转化成一个统一的价值尺度. 它要求,换句话说, 是否所有的价值相称的.Let me give you one other example of an experience. 让我给另一个例子.This actually is a true story. 这实际上是一个真实的故事.It comes from personal experience that raises a question at least about whether all values can be translated without loss into utilitarian terms. 它来自于个人的经验并提出了一个问题，是否所有价值值都可以不受损害的被转换成功利条款.Some years ago, when I was a graduate student, 几年前,当我还是一名研究生,I was at Oxford in England and they had men's and women's colleges. They weren't yet mixed and the women's colleges had rules against overnight male guests. By the 1970s, these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated, or so I was told. 我在英格兰的牛津大学, 那里有男子和女子学院. 当时尚未男女混合,并且女子学院严令禁止留宿男性客人. 70年代后,这些法则很少得到执行且常被违反,或者只是我听说的。
哈佛公开课 公平
Harvard University - Justice Michael Sandel哈佛大学公开课----公平迈克尔·桑代尔教授主讲Y our trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.你的电车正以每小时60英里行驶。
Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think is the right thing to do.我们还要研究你这样做的原因.Who is willing to volunteer a reason?谁愿意说说你的想法？Better to save five lives even if it means to sacrifice one.牺牲一个，救活更多人。
What became of the principle that almost everyone endorse in the first case?第一种情况几乎每个人都赞同，原因何在？Is there a way out of this?是否有更好的办法？Let‘s just forget a moment about this case.让我们暂时搁下这个故事。
Don‘t lean over.不要摔下来哦。
Let‘ step back from these stories, these arguments.让我们回过头来看这些故事和争论。
Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from discussion we had.我们的谈论已经涉及到了一些道德的原则.Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act in the state of the rule that we resolve from the thing you do.结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果,它取决于我们最后的结果。
罗尔斯的政治自由主义及其批评者
罗尔斯的政治自由主义及其批评者提要：哈佛大学哲学系教授罗尔斯的名著《正义论》的出版引发了西方学界的激烈争论。
第一种争论发生于功利主义者与坚持权力取向的自由主义者之间，第二种争论发生在坚持权利取向的自由主义阵营内部的诸派别之间，即激进的自由主义者和平等的自由主义者之间关于市场经济原教旨主义与福利国家主义之争。
第三种争论主要是集中于对权力是否应该优先于善这一命题之争[1]。
本文主要简单的介绍罗尔斯的政治自由主义理论及其引发的诸种争论，特别地介绍了桑德尔对他的批评。
关键词：罗尔斯政治自由主义批评者桑德尔罗尔斯的《正义论》主要探讨对新自由主义而言最核心的一个问题，即自由与平等的关系问题[2]。
关于平等，早在2500年以前，柏拉图在其传世名著《理想国》当中就提出来了。
柏拉图借苏格拉底之口提出“什么是正义？”并对这个问题进行初步探讨。
在对诸如正义是“欠债还钱就是正义”[3]，“正义就是强者的利益”[4]进行否决后，柏拉图最后得出结论：“我们建立这个国家的目标并不是为了某一阶级的单独突出的幸福，而是为了全体公民的最大幸福；因为我们认为在一个这样的城邦里最有可能找到正义，而在一个建立的最糟的城邦里就有可能找到不正义”[5]很显然，在柏拉图看来，正义就是一种合理的社会与政治安排。
罗尔斯的理论继承了柏拉图的这种传统。
同时，罗尔斯的理论是带着自由主义内核的，即坚持权利优先于善。
在这里，他在借鉴康德的“道义论的自由主义”[6]的同时抛弃了他的形而上学的论证，他在坚持自由主义的同时，抛弃了休谟和密尔功利主义的解释。
在《正义论》中，罗尔斯首先提出“正义是社会制度的首要价值，正像真理是思想体系的首要价值一样[7]”在任何一个社会里，无论什么时候，只要它的成员开始对他们的生活赖以依存的制度安排进行反省的时候，这个问题就会不可避免地提出来。
任何正义理论的核心问题都是对与人与人之间不平等关系的辩护。
[8]特别是在一个物质适度匮乏，人们的品性是自私和有限的慷慨的社会里，更是这样。
justice 第三集 课程内容 中英文
哈佛大学公开课公正课迈克尔·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 individual beings,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 fromthemselves,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 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--- You 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--- You can't just look at the end stage or the result.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?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--- Yes, 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 right to my own labor,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 as collections 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我们下次继续--- and we'll begin with them next time.公正课下讲预告谁想对此发表意见你请说--- Anyone like to take up that point? Yes.第六讲《我属于谁》我觉得生活在社会里就要放弃这个权利--- I feel like when you live in a society, you'd give up that right.我是说理论上讲--- I mean, technically,如果因为别人冒犯我--- if I want to personally go out我就要亲自动手杀了他--- and kill someone because they offend me,这也算自主权--- that is self possession.而我在社会中生存所以不能这么做--- Because I live in a society, I cannot do that.维多利亚你在质疑--- Victoria, are you questioning自主权这一基本原则吗--- the fundamental premise of self possession?是的我认为如果你生活在社会中--- Yes. I think that you don't really have self possession就不可能完全拥有自主权--- if you choose to live in a society因为你不能无视其他人的存在--- because you cannot just discount the people around you.上次我们讲到自由主义--- We were talking last time about libertarianism.我想继续回到对收入再分配问题--- I want to go back to the arguments for and against赞同与否的论辩--- the redistribution of income.在此之前先简短讲一下"小政府"概念--- But before we do that, just one word about the minimal state,。
道义论自由主义正义观的救治_迈克尔_桑德尔的正义理论_高信奇
2008年第5期(总第111期)福建行政学院学报Journal of Fujian Administration Ins titute No.5,2008G ener al N o.111道义论自由主义正义观的救治)))迈克尔#桑德尔的正义理论高信奇(南京行政学院科社教研部,江苏南京210001)摘 要:美国哈佛大学教授迈克尔#桑德尔在对以约翰#罗尔斯为代表的当代道义论自由主义正义观的批判中建构起/内在于善0的正义理论。
内在于善的正义理论力倡:建基于善的正义并非优先于善,在社会诸美德词典式排序中也非占据首要位置,这种正义理论的哲学人类学基础是构成性或主体间、主体内的自我观,社会正义的分配原则只能是以社群为道德基础的差异原则。
关键词:正义首要性;自我;基于善的正义;正义原则中图分类号:B089 文献标识码:A 文章编号:16743199(2008)03005705收稿日期:20080505作者简介:高信奇(1972),男,安徽全椒人,南京行政学院讲师,法学硕士。
社群主义是上个世纪70年代之后,在对以约翰#罗尔斯为代表的新自由主义的批判中建立起来的。
新自由主义的正义理论是社群主义者共同批驳的靶子,这些社群主义者各自援用不同的思想资源,从不同视界对新自由主义的正义理论发起攻击,形成了合围之势。
麦金太尔诉诸于亚里士多德的美德伦理倡导德性正义,沃尔泽诉诸文化多元主义构建了多元正义,泰勒得益于黑格尔的整体主义思想提出了承认政治的正义理论,而社群主义少帅桑德尔则借助黑格尔主义的历史思想和后现象学主体间性的哲学资源从较为抽象的哲学层面主张一种基于善的正义观或/内在于善0的正义理论。
一、对社会正义首要性的质疑当代道义论自由主义的主帅罗尔斯在其扛鼎之作5正义论6的开篇写下了自由主义理论宣言:/正义是社会制度的首要价值,正像真理是思想体系的首要价值一样0。
[1]这一宣言强烈地主张:正义是自由主义的核心,并在所有的政治价值和道德理想的词典式排序中永远处于首要的、压倒性的位置。
共和主义对自由主义的批评
共和主义对自由主义的批评摆在当代自由主义者面前的一个重要问题涉及到任何特殊的价值是否应该与积极的公民身份和公民美德的生活相关联。
一般认为，契约论的各种自由主义所持的答案是否定的，同时这种答案也体现了对两种不同观念的信奉。
简而言之，第一种观念就是在指定调整社会基本结构的那些原则中，居于核心优先地位的是每个人应该享有广泛的消极自由。
第二种观念是认为在消极自由和公共服务（public service）之间没有特殊的联系：假如自由被理解为对个体行为之外在限制的阙如，那么把自由等同于积极的公民身份和公民美德的生活是没有道理的。
当代自由主义的显著困境——这里的自由主义是指能够在一些著作中找到的那种自由主义，如罗尔斯和德沃金的著作中（我简单地称之为“契约论自由主义”[contractarian liberalism]，或者有时就称之为“自由主义”）[1]——业已因为它处理公民身份、共同体和公共服务诸善的方式，受到了来自很多不同角度的批判。
有一种反对声音就是从政治思想中抽取共和主义或公民人文主义传统来论证自由主义的主要错误在于对消极自由理想的狭隘信守。
[2]尽管共和主义者并不必然敌视消极自由，但他们还是经常被看作是在推崇其他一些重要的价值，比如公民友谊、共享的理解、自治和同他人一道参与共同体的政治事务。
[3]从这一点来看，为恢复共同体和公共服务的固有价值，跳出自由主义的框架去看这些以及其它一些善是重要的。
对这一自由主义批评的一个标准反驳就是认为它忽视了人的目标和价值的多样性。
共和主义者认为某种单一的善——比如公民友谊或者自治——对每个人而言都是一种善，因此，他们似乎对差异缺乏敏感。
虽然有很多人认为这是对共和主义传统与当代政治之相关性的一个决定性的反驳，但在过去的大约十年里，仍然有一些人试图通过证明这种持续的相关性在本质上多少有些不同来复兴共和主义传统。
与其说共和主义传统是在挑战自由主义对消极自由的偏爱，还不如说在这种解释中，共和主义传统对这样一个问题提出质疑，即消极自由能否与对公共服务和公民身份的承诺分离。