哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》全12集标题：哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》全12集115网盘下载，英文对白中文字幕。
◎片名 Justice What's The Right Thing To Do◎译名公平与正义◎年代 2009◎影片类型纪录片/讲座◎片长 60Mins ×12◎国家美国◎对白语言英语◎字幕中文简/繁/英◎编码 x264 + AAC◎视频码率 520 kbps◎音频码率 48 kbps◎视频尺寸 640 x 352◎文件大小 225MB×12（每集2讲）◎片源 720P◎简介该讲座以哈佛教授Michael Sandel的《关于公平和正义的入门课》为基础，是对道德和政治哲学的系列入门介绍。
这套讲座共有12集，邀请观众们带着批判的观点来思考正义，公平，民主和公民权等基础问题。
在哈佛大学，每星期都有一千多名学生去听教授兼作家的Michael Sandel开设的这门课程，渴望藉此扩充对政治和道德哲学的理解，并从中检验长期秉持的信仰。
学生们学到了过去的伟大哲学家们的哲学理论-亚里士多德，康德，穆勒，洛克--再把学到的东西运用来思考复杂且动荡不定的现代社会的种种问题，包括反歧视行动，同性婚姻，爱国主义，忠诚和人@权。
演讲者：Michael Sandel (哈佛大学哲学教授)第一集下载地址：/file/f5d9c24195第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，你会怎么选？正确的做法是什么？教授Michael Sandel在他的讲座里提出这个假设的情景，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。
但是Sandel提出了三宗类似的道德难题-每一个都设计巧妙，以至于抉择的难度增加。
当学生站起来为自己的艰难抉择辩护时，Sandel提出了他的观点。
我们的道德推理背后的假设往往是矛盾的，而什么是正确什么是错的问题，并不总是黑白分明的。
第2讲：《同类自残案》Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家JeremyBentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。
哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 06-Mind Your Motive The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机道德的
Justice 06 Mind Your Motive / The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机/道德的最高准则When we ended last time, we were discussing Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose, "What are the limits on government that even the agreement of the majority can't override?" That was the question we ended with.We saw in the case of property rights that on Locke's view a democratically elected government has the right to tax people.It has to be taxation with consent because it does involve the taking of people's property for the common good but it doesn't require the consent of each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected.What it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society, to take on the political obligation but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.So much for taxation.But what you may ask, about the right to life?Can the government conscript people and send them into battle?And what about the idea that we own ourselves?Isn't the idea of self-possession violated if the government can, through coercive legislation and enforcement powers, say "You must go risk your life to fight in Iraq." What would Locke say?Does the government have the right to do that?Yes. In fact he says in 139, he says, "What matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary, that's what matters." And he gives a wonderful example.He says "A sergeant, even a sergeant, let alone a general, a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to a face of a cannon where he is almost sure to die, that the sergeant can do.The general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post or for not obeying even a desperate order.But with all their power over life and death, what these officers can't do is take a penny of that soldier's money because that has nothing to do with the rightful authority, that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt." So consent winds up being very powerful in Locke, not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order, but consent to join the government and to be bound by the majority in the first place.That's the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully that even the limited government created by the fact that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, even that limited government is only limited in the sense that it has to govern by generally applicable laws, the rule of law, it can't be arbitrary.That's Locke.Well this raises a question about consent.Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the obligation to obey?Today we begin to investigate the question of consent by looking at a concrete case, the case of military conscription.Now some people say if we have a fundamental right that arises from the idea that we own ourselves, it's a violation of that right for government to conscript citizens to go fight in wars.Others disagree.Others say that's a legitimate power of government, of democratically elected governments, anyhow, and that we have an obligation to obey.Let's take the case of the United States fighting a war in Iraq.News accounts tells us that the military is having great difficulty meeting its recruitment targets.Consider three policies that the U.S. government might undertake to deal with the fact that it's not achieving its recruiting targets.Solution number one: increase the pay and benefits to attract a sufficient number of soldiers.Option number two: shift to a system of military conscription, have a lottery, and whose ever numbers are drawn, go to fight in Iraq.System number three: outsource, hire what traditionally have been called mercenaries, people around the world who are qualified, able to do the work, able to fight well, and who are willing to do it for the existing wage.So let's take a quick poll here.How many favor increasing the pay?A huge majority.How many favor going to conscription?Maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription.What about the outsourcing solution?Okay, so there may be two, three dozen.During the Civil War, the Union used a combination of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military to fight in the Civil War.It was a system that began with conscription but if you were drafted and didn't want to serve, you could hire a substitute to take your place and many people did.You could pay whatever the market required in order to find a substitute, people ran ads in newspapers, in the classified ads offering 93 for a substitute who would go fight the Civil War in their place.In fact, it's reported that Andrew Carnegie was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place for an amount that was a little less than the amount he spent in the year on fancy cigars.Now I want to get your views about this Civil War system, call it the hybrid system, conscription but with a buyout provision.How many think it was a just system?How many would defend the Civil War system?Anybody?Anybody else?How many think it was unjust?Most of you don't like the Civil War system, you think it's unjust.Let's hear an objection.Why don't you like it?What's wrong with it? Yes.Well by paying $300 to be exempt one time around, you're really putting a price on valuing human life and we established earlier, that's really hard to do so they're trying to accomplish something that really isn't feasible.Good. So paying someone $300 or $500 or $1,000 - You're basically saying that's what their life is worth to you.That's what their life is worth, it's putting a dollar v alue on life.That's good. What's your name?-Liz.Liz.Well, who has an answer for Liz.You defended the Civil War system, what do you say?If you don't like the price then you have the freedom to not be sold or hired so it's completely up to you.I don't think it's necessarily putting a specific price on you and if it's done by himself, I don't think there's anything that's really morally wrong with that.So the person who takes the $500, let's say, he's putting his own price on his life or on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom to choose to do that.Exactly.What's your name?- Jason.Jason. Thank you.Now we need to hear from another critic of the civil war system. Yes.It's a kind or coercion almost, people who have lower incomes, for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft, $300 is an irrelevant in terms of his income but someone of a lower income, they're essentially being coerced to draft, to be drafted, it's probably they're not able to find a replacement.Tell me your name.Sam.Sam. All right so you say, Sam, that when a poor laborer accepts $300 to fight in the Civil War, he is in effect being coerced by that money given his economic circumstances whereas Carnegie can go off, pay the money, and not serve.Alright. I want to hear someone who has a reply to Sam's argument, that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive.Who has an answer to Sam?Go ahead.I'd actually agree with him in saying that - You agree with Sam.I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs individual of his ability to reason.Okay, and what's your name?Raul.All right. So Raul and Sam agree that what looks like a free exchange, free choice, voluntary act actually involves coercion.It's profound coercion of the worst kind because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society.Good. Alright. So Raul and Sam have made a powerful point.Who would like to reply?Who has an answer for Sam and Raul?Go ahead.I don't think that these drafting systems are really terribly different from all volunteer army sort of recruiting strategies.The whole idea of having benefits and pay for joining the army is sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join.It is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country where you can use like patriotism to try and coerce people to feel like it's the right thing to do to volunteer and go over to Iraq.And tell me your name.Emily.Alright, Emily says, and Raul you're going to have to reply to this so get ready.Emily says fair enough, there is a coercive element to the Civil War system when a laborer takes the place of Andrew Carnegie for $500.Emily concedes that but she says if that troubles you about the Civ il War system shouldn't that also trouble you about the volunteer army today?Before you answer, how did you vote in the first poll?Did you defend the volunteer army?I didn't vote.You didn't vote.By the way, you didn't vote but did you sell your vote to the person sitting next to you?No. Alright.So what would you say to that argument.I think that the circumstances are different in that there was conscription in the Civil War.There is no draft today and I think that volunteers for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism that is of an individual choice than those who were forced into the military in the Civil War.Somehow less coerced?Less coerced.Even though there is still inequality in American Society?Even though, as Emily points out, the makeup of the American military is not reflective of the population as a whole?Let's just do an experiment here.How many here have either served in the military or have a family member who has served in the military in this generation, not parents?Family members. In this generation.And how many have neither served nor have any brothers or sisters who have served?Does that bear out your point Emily?Yes.Alright. Now we need to hear from - most of you defended the idea of the all volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly, people considered the Civil War system unjust.Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the Civil War system, it took place against a background of inequality and therefore the choices people made to buy their way in to military service were not truly free but at least partly coerced.Then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge.Alright, everyone here who voted in favor of the all volunteer army should be able - should have to explain what's the difference in principle.Doesn't the all volunteer army simply universalize the feature that almost everyone found objectionable in the Civil War buyout provision?Did I state the challenge fairly Emily?Yes.Okay. So we need to hear from a defender of the all volunteer military who can address Emily's challenge.Who can do that?Go ahead.The difference between the Civil War system and the all volunteer army system is that in the Civil War, you're being hired not by the government, but by an individual and as a result, different people who get hired by different individuals get paid different amounts.In the case of the all volunteer army, everyone who gets hired is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount.It's precisely the universalization of essentially paying your way to the army that makes the all volunteer army just.Emily?I guess I'd frame the principle slightly differently.On the all volunteer army, it's possible for somebody to just step aside and not really think about the war at all.It's possible to say, "I don't need the money, I don't need to have an opinion about this, I don't need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country.With the coercive system, or sorry, with an explicit draft then there's the threat at least that every individual will have to make some sort of decision regarding military conscription and perhaps in that way, it's more equitable.It's true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case but in one, he can completely step aside from it, and the other there's some level of responsibility.While you're there, Emily, so what system do you favor, conscription?I would be hard pressed to say but I think so because it makes the whole country feel a sense of responsibility for the conflict instead of having a war that's maybe ideologically supported by a few but only if there's no real responsibility.Good. Who wants to reply?Go ahead.So I was going to say that the fundamental difference between the all volunteer army and then the army in the Civil War is that in the all volunteer army, if you want to volunteer that comes first and then the pay comes after whereas in the Civil War system, the people who are accepting the pay aren't necessarily doing it because they want to, they're just doing it for the money first.What motivation beyond the pay do you think is operating in the case of the all volunteer army?Like patriotism for the country.Patriotism. Well what about - And a desire to defend the country.There is some motivation in pay but the fact that it's first and foremost an all volunteer army will motivate first I think, personally.Do you think it's better?And tell me your name.Jackie.Jackie do you think it's better if people serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money?Yes, definitely because the people who - that was one of the main problems in the Civil War is that the people that you're getting to go in it to go to war aren't necessarily people who want to fight and so they won't be as good soldiers as they will be had they been there because they wanted to be.Alright, what about Jackie's having raised the question of patriotism, that patriotism is a better or a higher motivation than money for military service.Who would like to address that question?Go ahead.Patriotism absolutely is not necessary in order to be a good soldier because mercenaries can do just as good of a job as anyone who waves the American flag around and wants to defend what the government believes that we should do.Did you favor the outsourcing solution?Yes sir.Alright, so let Jackie respond.What's your name?Philip.What about that Jackie?So much for patriotism.If you've got someone whose heart is in it more than another person, they're going to do a better job.When it comes down to the wire and there's like a situation in which someone has to put their life on the line, someone who's doing it because they love this country will be more willing to go into danger than someone who's just getting paid, they don't care, they've got the technical skills but they don't care what happens because they really have - they have nothing like nothing invested in this country.There's another aspect though once we get on to the issue of patriotism.If you believe patriotism, as Jackie does, should be the foremost consideration and not money, does that argue for or against the paid army we have now?We call it the volunteer army though if you think about it, that's a kind of misnomer.A volunteer army as we use the term, is a paid army.So what about the suggestion that patriotism should be the primary motivation for military service not money?Does that argue in favor of the paid military that we have or does it argue for conscription?And just to sharpen that point building on Phil's case for outsourcing, if you think that the all volunteer army, the paid army, is best because it lets the market allocate positions according to people's preferences and willingness to serve for a certain wage, doesn't the logic that takes you from a system of conscription to the hybrid Civil War system to the all volunteer army, doesn't the idea of expanding freedom of choice in the market, doesn't that lead you all the way if you followed that principle consistently to a mercenary army?And then if you say no, Jackie says no, patriotism should count for something, doesn't that argue for going back to conscription if by patriotism, you mean a sense of civic obligation?Let's see if we can step back from the discussion that we've had and see what we've learned about consent as it applies to market exchange.We've really heard two arguments, two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service.One was the argument raised by Sam and Raul, the argument about coercion, the objection that letting the market allocate military service may be unfair and may not even be free if there's severe inequality in the society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities that that's their best choice and Sam and Raul say there's an element of coercion in that, that's one argument.Then there is a second objection to using the market to allocate military service, that's the idea that military service shouldn't be treated as just another job for pay because it's bound up with patriotism and civic obligation.This is a different argument from the argument about unfairness and inequality and coercion, it's an argument that suggests that maybe where civic obligations are concerned, we shouldn't allocate duties and rights by the market.Now we've identified two broad objections.What do we need to know to assess those objections?To assess the first, the argument from coercion, inequality, and unfairness, Sam, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor, question number one.Question number two: to assess the civic obligation patriotism.Argument: we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship?Is military service one of them or not?What obligates us as citizens?What is the source of political obligation?Is it consent or are there some civic obligations we have, even without consent, for living and sharing in a certain kind of society?We haven't answered either of those questions but our debate today about the Civil War system and the all volunteer army has at least raised them and those are questions we're going to return to in the coming weeks.Today I'd like to turn our attention and get your views about an argument over the role of markets in the realm of human reproduction and procreation.Now with infertility clinics, people advertise for egg donors and from time to time, in the Harvard Crimson ads appear for egg donors.Have you seen them?There was one that ran a few years ago that wasn't looking for just any egg donor, it was an ad that offered a large financial incentive for an egg donor from a woman who was intelligent, athletic, at least 5'10", and with at least 1400 or above on her SATs.How much do you think the person looking for this egg donor was willing to pay for an egg from a woman of that description?What would you guess?A thousand dollars?Fifteen thousand? Ten?I'll show you the ad.Fifty thousand dollars for an egg but only a premium egg.What do you think about that?Well there are also sometimes ads in the Harvard Crimson and the other college newspapers for sperm donors.So the market in reproductive capacities is an equal opportunity market.Well not exactly equal opportunity, they're not offering $50,000 for sperm but there is a company, a large commercial sperm bank that markets sperm, it's called California Cryobank, it's a for-profit company, it imposes exacting standards on the sperm it recruits, and it has offices in Cambridge, between Harvard and MIT, and in Palo Alto near Stanford.Cryobank's marketing materials play up the prestigious source of its sperm.Here is, from the website of Cryobank, the information.Here they talk about the compensation although compensation should not be the only reason for becoming a sperm donor, we are aware of the considerable time and expense involved in being a donor.So do you know what they offer?Donors will be reimbursed $75 per specimen, up to $900 a month if you donate three times a week, and then they add "We periodically offer incentives such as movie tickets or gift certificates for the extra time and effort expended by participating donors." It's not easy to be a sperm donor.They accept fewer than five percent of the donors who apply.Their admission criteria are more demanding than Harvard's.The head of the sperm bank said the ideal sperm donor is 6 feet tall, with a college degree, brown eyes, blond hair, and dimples for the simple reason that these are the traits that the market has shown that customers want.Quoting the head of the sperm bank, "If our customers wanted high school dropouts, we would give them high school dropouts." So here are two instances, the market in eggs for donation and the market in sperm, that raisea question, a question about whether eggs and sperm should or should not be bought and sold for money.As you ponder that, I want you to consider another case involving market and in fact a contract in the human reproductive capacity and this is the case of commercial surrogate motherhood, and it's a case that wound up in court some years ago.It's the story of Baby M.It began with William and Elizabeth Stern, a professional couple wanting a baby but they couldn't have one on their own, at least not without medical risk to Mrs. Stern.They went to an infertility clinic where they met Mary Beth Whitehead, a29-year-old mother of two, the wife of a sanitation worker.She had replied to an ad that The Standard had placed seeking the service of a surrogate mother.They made a deal.They signed a contract in which William Stern agreed to pay Mary Beth Whitehead a $10,000 fee plus all expenses in exchange for which Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artificially inseminated with William Stern's sperm, to bear the child, and then to give the baby to the Sterns.Well, you probably know how the story unfolded.Mary Beth gave birth and changed her mind, she decided she wanted to keep the baby.The case wound up in court in New Jersey.So let's take, put aside any legal questions, and focus on this issue as a moral question.How many believe that the right thing to do in the Baby M case, would have been to uphold the contract, to enforce the contract?And how many think the right thing to do would have been not to enforce that contract?The majority say enforce so let's now hear the reasons that people had, either for enforcing or refusing to enforce this contract.First I want to hear from someone in the majority.Why do you uphold the contract?Why do you enforce it?Who can offer a reason?Yes. Stand up.It's a binding contract, all the parties involved knew the terms of the contract before any action was taken, it's a voluntary agreement, the mother knew what she was getting into, all four intelligent adults, regardless of formal education, whatever.So it makes sense that if you know that you're getting into beforehand and you make a promise, you should uphold that promise in the end.Okay, a deal is a deal in other words.Exactly.- And what's your name?Patrick.Is Patrick's reason the reason that most of you in the majority favored upholding the contract?Yes. Alright, let's hear now someone who would not enforce the contract.What do you say to Patrick?Why not? Yes.Well, I mean, I agree, I think contracts should be upheld when all the parties know all the information but in this case, I don't think there's a way a mother, before the child exists, could actually know how she's going to feel about that child so I don't think the mother actually had all the information.She didn't know the person that was going to be born and didn't know how much she would love that person so that's my argument.So you would not, and what's your name?Evan Wilson.Evan says he would not uphold the contract because when it was entered into the surrogate mother couldn't be expected to know in advance how she would feel so she didn't really have the relevant information when she made that contract.Who else?Who else would not uphold the contract? Yes.I also think that a contract should generally be upheld but I think that the child has an inalienable right to its actual mother and I think that if that mother wants it then that child should have the right to that mother.You mean the biological mother not the adoptive mother?Right.And why is that?First of all, tell me your name.Anna.Anna. Why is that Anna?Because I think that that bond is created by nature is stronger than any bond that is created by a contract.Good. Thank you.Who else? Yes.I disagree. I don't think that a child has an inalienable right to her biological mother.I think that adoption and surrogacy are both legitimate tradeoffs and I agree with the point made that it's a voluntary agreement, the individua l who made it, it's a voluntary agreement and you can't apply coercion to this argument.You can't apply the objection from coercion to this argument?Correct.What's your name?- Kathleen.Kathleen, what do you say to Evan that though there may not have been - Evan claimed that the consent was tainted not by coercion but by lack of adequate information.She couldn't have known the relevant information namely how she would feel about the child.What do you say to that?I don't think the emotional content of her feelings plays into this.I think in a case of law, in the justice of this scenario, her change of feelings are not relevant.If I give up my child for adoption and then I decide later on that I really want that child back, too bad, it's a tradeoff, it's a tradeoff that the mother has made.So a deal is a deal, you agree with Patrick?I agree with Patrick, a deal's a deal.A deal is a deal.Yes.- Good. Yes.I would say that though I'm not really sure if I agree with the idea that the child has a right to their mother.I think the mother definitely has a right to her child and I also think that there's some areas where market forces shouldn't necessarily penetrate.I think that the whole surrogate mother area smacks a little bit of dealing in human beings seems dehumanizing.It doesn't really seem right so that's my main reason.And what is - could you tell us your name.I'm Andrew.Andrew, what is dehumanizing about buying and selling the right to a child, for money, what is dehumanizing about it?Well because you're buying someone's biological right.I mean you can't - in the law as it stated, you can't sell your own child were you to have a child, I'd believe that the law prohibits you selling it to another person or - So this like baby selling?Right. To a certain extent.Though there's a contract with another person, you've made agreements and what not, there is an undeniable emotional bond that takes place between the mother and the child and it's wrong to simply ignore this because you've written out something contractually.。
哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 09-Arguing Affirmative Action What's the Purpose 讨论反歧视行动目的是什
Justice 09 Arguing Affirmative Action / What's the Purpose? 讨论反歧视行动/目的是什么？Last time, we were discussing the distinction, that Rawls draws between two different types of claims.Claims of moral desert on the one hand, and of entitlement to legitimate expectations on the other.Rawls argued that it's a mistake to think that distributive justice is a matter of moral desert.A matter of rewarding people according to their virtue.Today we're going to explore that question of moral desert and its relation to distributive justice.Not in connection with incoming wealth, but in its connection with opportunities.With hiring decisions and admission standards.And so we turn to the case, of affirmative action.You read about the case of Cheryl Hopwood.She applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School.Cheryl Hopwood had worked her way through high school, she didn't come from an affluent family, she put herself through community college, and California State University at Sacramento.She achieved a 3.8 grade point average there, later moved to Texas, became a resident, took the law school admissions test, did pretty well on that, and she applied to the University of Texas Law School.She was turned down.She was turned down at a time when the University of Texas, was using an affirmative action admissions policy.A policy that took into account, race and ethnic background.The University of Texas said, "40 percent of the population of Texas is made up of African Americans and Mexican Americans.It's important that we, as a law school, have a diverse student body.And so we are going to take into account, not only grades and test scores, but also the demographic makeup of our class including, its race and ethnic profile." The result, and this is what Hopwood complained about, the result of that policy, is that some applicants to the University of Texas Law School, with a lower academic index, which includes grades and test scores, than hers, were admitted.And she was turned down.She said, she argued, "I'm just being turned down because I'm white.If I weren't, if I were a member of a minority group, with my grades and test scores I would had been admitted." And the statistics, the admissions statistics that came out in the trial, confirmed that African American and Mexican American applicants that year, who had, her grades and test scores, were admitted.It went to Federal Court.Now, put aside the law, let's consider it from the standpoint of justice and morality.Is it fair, or it unfair?Does Cheryl Hopwood have a case?A legitimate complaint?Were her rights violated, by the admissions policy of the law school?How many say, how many would rule for the law school, and say that it was just to consider race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions?How many would rule for Cheryl Hopwood and say "her rights were violated?" So here we have a pretty even split.Alright, now I want to hear from a defender of Cheryl Hopwood. Yes?You're basing something that's an arbitrary factor, you know, Cheryl couldn't control the fact that she was white, or not in a minority.And therefore, you know, it's not as if it was like a test score that she worked hard to try and show that she could, you know, put that out there, you know, that she had no control over her race.Good. And what're your name?- Bree.Okay. Bree, stay right there.Now let's find someone who has an answer for Bree.Yes? - There are discrepancies in the educational system.And the majority of the time, I know this in New York City, the schools that minorities go to, are not as well-funded, are not as well-supplied, as white schools.And so there is going to be a discrepancy, naturally, between minorities and between whites.If they go to better schools.And they will not do as well on exams because they hav en't had as much help.Because of the worst school systems.Let me just interrupt you to, tell me your name?Aneesha.- Aneesha. Aneesha, you're pointing out that minority kids may have gone in some cases to schools that didn't give them the same educational opportunity as kids from affluent families.- Yes.And so the test scores they got, may actually not represent their true potential.Because they didn't receive the same kind of help that they might have received had they gone to a school with better funding.Good, alright. Aneesha has raised the point that colleges still should choose for the greatest academic scholarly promise but in reading the test scores and grades, they should take into account the different meaning those tests and grades have, in the light of educational disadvantage in the background.So that's one argument in defense of affirmative action, Aneesha's argument.Correcting for the effects of unequal preparation.Educational disadvantage.Now, there are other arguments.Suppose, just to identify whether there is a competing principle here.Suppose there are two candidates, who did equally well on the tests and grades.Both of whom went to first rate schools.Two candidates, among those candidates, would it be unfair for the college or university, for Harvard, to say, "we still want diversity along racial and ethnicdimensions, even where we are not correcting for the effects on test scores of educational disadvantage." What about in that case, Bree?If it's that's one thing that puts, you know someone over the edge, then it's, I guess that would be, you know, justifiable.If everything else about the individual first, though, everything to consider about that person's you know, talents, and where they come from, and who they are without these arbitrary factors, is the same.Without these 'arbitrary factors', you call them.But before you were suggesting, Bree, that race and ethnicity are arbitrary factors outside the control of the applicants.- True, I would agree with that.And your general principle is that admissions shouldn't reward arbitrary factors, over which people have no control.- Right.Alright. Who else, who else would like to, thank you both.Who else would like to get into this, what do you say?Well, first of all, I'm for affirmative action temporarily, but, for two reasons.First of all, you have to look at the university's purpose.It is to educate their students.And I feel that different races, people coming from different races have different backgrounds and they contribute differently to the education.And second of all, when you say that they have equal backgrounds, that's not true when you look at the broader picture, and you look at slavery and this is kind of a reparation.I think affirmative action is a temporary solution to alleviate history, and the wrongs done to African Americans in particular.And what's your name?David.- David. You say that affirmative action is justified at least for now as a way of compensating for past injustice.The legacy of slavery and segregation.- Right.Who wants to take on that argument?We need now a critic of affirmative action.Yes, go ahead.I think that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens today.I think that discriminating based on race should always be wrong.Whether you're discriminating against one group or another.Just because our ancestors did something, doesn't mean that that should have any effect on what happens with us today.Alright, good. I'm sorry, your name is?- Kate.Kate. Alright, who has an answer for Kate?Yes.- I just wanted to comment and say that, - Tell us your name.My name is Mansur. Because of slavery, because of past injustices today, we have a higher proportion of African Americans who are in poverty, who face less opportunities than white people.So because of slavery 200 years ago, and because of Jim Crow, and because of segregation, today we have injustice based on race.Kate?- I think that there are differences, obviously, but the way to fix those differences is not by some artificial fixing of the result.You need to fix the problem.So we need to address differences in education, and differences in upbringing with programs like Head Start, and giving more funding to lower income schools rather than just trying to fix the result, so it makes it look like it's equal when it's really it isn't.Yes.Well, with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just want to say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years.It's called 'nepotism' and 'quid pro quo'.So there's nothing wrong with correcting the injustice and discrimination that's been done to black people for 400 years.Good. Tell us your name.- Hannah.Hannah. Alright who has an answer for Hannah?And just to add to Hannah's point, because we need now someone to respond, Hannah, you could have also mentioned legacy admissions.Exactly.I was going to say, if you disagree with affirmative action, you should disagree with legacy admission because it's obvious from looking around here that there are more white legacies than black legacies in the history of Harvard University.And explain what legacy admissions are.Well, legacy admissions is giving an advantage to someone who has an arbitrary privilege of their parent having attended the university to which they're applying.Alright, so a reply for Hannah.Yes, in the balcony, go ahead.First of all, if affirmative action is making up for past injustice, how do you explain minorities that were not historically discriminated against in the United States who get these advantages?In addition, you could argue that affirmative action perpetuates divisions between the races rather than achieve the ultimate goal of race being an irrelevant factor in our society.And what, tell us your name.Danielle.- Hannah.I disagree with that because I think that by promoting diversity in an institution like this, you further educate all of the students, especially the white students who grew up in predominately white areas.It's certainly a form of education to be exposed to people from different backgrounds.And you put white students at an inherent disadvantage when you surround them only with their own kind.Why should race necessarily be equated with diversity?There are so many other forms, why should we assume that race makes people different?Again, that's perpetuating the idea of racial division within our universities and our society.- Hannah?With regard to African American people being given a special advantage, it's obvious that they bring something special to the table, because they have a unique perspective just as someone from a different religion orsocio-economic background would, as well.As you say, there are many different types of diversity.There's no reason that racial diversity should be eliminated from that criteria.Yes, go ahead.Racial discrimination is illegal in this country, and I believe that it was African American leaders themselves, when Martin Luther King said he wanted to be judged not on the color of skin, but by the content of his character, his merit, his achievements.And I just think that, to decide solely based on someone's race is just inherently unfair.I mean, if you want to correct based on disadvantaged backgrounds, that's fine, but there are also disadvantaged white people as well.It shouldn't matter if you're white or black.- Tell us your name.Ted. - Ted, - Yes.- Think of Hopwood.It's unfair to count race or, I assume you would also say, ethnicity or religion?Yes. - Do you think she has a right to be considered according to her grades and test scores alone?No. There is more to it than that.Universities need to promote diversity.So you agree with the goal of promoting diversity?There's ways to promote diversity besides discriminating against people solely based on a factor they cannot control.Alright, so what makes it wrong, is that she can't control her race.She can't control the fact that she's white.That's the heart of the unfairness to her.Bree made a similar point.That basing admissions on factors that people can't control, is fundamentally unfair.What do you say?There's a lot of things you can't control, and if you don't for it based on merit, like just based on your test scores, a lot of what you can achieve has to do with family background, that you were raised in.If both of your parents were scholarly, then you have more of chance of actually of being more scholarly yourself and getting those grades.And you can't control what kind of family you were born into.Alright good, that's a great rejoinder, what's your name?Da.- Da.Ted, are you against advantages that come from the family you were born into?What about legacy admissions?I do believe that in terms of a legacy admission you shouldn't have a special preference, I mean there is a legacy admission you could argue is another part, versus you could day it's important to have a small percentage of people that have a several generation family attendance at a place like Harvard.However that should not be an advantage factor like race, it should just be another part promoting diversity.Should it count at all?I think that, - Alumni status, should it count at all, Ted?Yes. It should count.Alright, I want to step back for a moment from these arguments.Thank you all for these contributions.We're going to come back to you.If you've listened carefully I think you will have noticed three different arguments emerge from this discussion.In defense of considering race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions.One argument has to do with correcting for the effects, for the effects of educational disadvantage.That was Aneesha's argument.This is what we might call the corrective argument.Correcting for differences in educational background, the kind of school people went to.The opportunities they had and so on.That's one argument.What's worth noticing though, is that argument is consistent in principle with the idea that only academic promise and scholarly potential should count in admissions.We just need to go beyond test scores and grades alone, to get a true estimate of academic promise and scholarly ability.That's the first argument.Then we heard a second argument that said affirmative action is justified even where there may not be the need to correct for educational disadvantage in a particular applicant's case.It's justified as a way of compensating for past wrongs, for historic injustices.So that's a compensatory argument.Compensating for past wrongs.Then we heard, a third, a different argument, for affirmative action, from Hannah and others, that argued in the name of diversity.Now, the diversity argument is different from the compensatory argument, because it makes a certain appeal to the social purpose or the social mission of the college or university.There are really two aspects to the diversity argument.One says it's important to have a diverse student body for the sake of the educational experience for everyone.Hannah made that point.And the other talks about the wider society.This was the argument made by the University of Texas in the Hopwood case.We need to train lawyers and judges and leaders, public officials who will contribute to the strength, the civic strength of the state of Texas, and the country as a whole.So there are two different aspects to the diversity argument.But both are arguments in the name of the social purpose, or the social mission or the common good, served by the institution.Well, what about the force of these arguments?We've also heard objections to these arguments.The most powerful objection to the compensatory argument is, is it fair to ask Cheryl Hopwood today, to make the sacrifice, to pay the compensation for aninjustice that was admittedly committed and egregious, in the past, but in which she was not implicated.Is that fair?So that's an important objection to the compensatory argument.And in order to meet that objection, we would have to investigate whether there is such a thing as group rights or collective responsibility that reaches over time.So having identified that issue, let's set it aside to turn to the diversity argument.The diversity argument doesn't have to worry about that question.About collective responsibility for past wrongs.Because it says, for reasons Hannah and others pointed out, that the common good is served, is advanced if there is a racially and ethnically diverse student body.Everyone benefits.This indeed was the argument that Harvard made when it filed a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court in the 1978 case, the affirmative action case, the Bakke case.In the Harvard brief, the Harvard rationale, was cited by Justice Powell, who was the swing vote in the case upholding affirmative action, he cited that as providing the rationale that he thought was constitutionally acceptable.Harvard's argument in its brief, was this: "We care about diversity.Scholarly excellence alone, has never been the criterion of admission, the sole criterion of admission to Harvard College.Fifteen years ago diversity meant students from California and New York, and Massachusetts.City dwellers, and farm boys.Violinists, painters and football players.Biologists, historians and classicists.The only difference now, Harvard argued, is that we're adding racial and ethnic status to this long list of diversity considerations.When reviewing the large number of candidates able to do well in our classes," Harvard wrote, "Race may count as a plus, just as coming from Iowa may count or being a good middle linebacker or pianist.A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer.Similarly, a black student can usually bring something a white student cannot offer.The quality of the educational experience of all students depends in part on these differences in the background and outlook that students bring with them." That was Harvard's argument.Now what about the diversity argument?Is it persuasive?If it's to be persuasive, it has to meet one very powerful objection.That we've heard voiced here.By Ted, by Bree.Unless you're a utilitarian, you believe that individual rights can't be violated.And so the question is, is there an individual right that is violated?Is Cheryl Hopwood's right violated?If she is used, so to speak, denied admission, for the sake of the common good and the social mission that the University of Texas Law School has defined for itself, does she have a right?Don't we deserve to be considered according to our excellences, our achievements, our accomplishments, our hard work?Isn't that the right at stake?Now we've already heard an answer to that argument.No, she doesn't have the right.Nobody deserves to be admitted.Notice how this gets us back to the issue of desert versus entitlement.They're arguing there is no individual right that Hopwood has.She doesn't deserve to be admitted according to any particular set of criteria that she believes to be important.Including criteria that have only to do with her efforts and achievements.Why not?I think implicit, in this argument, is something like Rawls' rejection of moral desert as the basis of distributive justice.Yes, once Harvard defines its mission and designs its admission policy in the light of its mission, people are entitled, who fit those criteria, they are entitled to be admitted.But according to this argument, no one deserves that Harvard college define its mission and design its admission criteria in the first place, in a way that prizes the qualities they happen to have in abundance.Whether those qualities are test scores or grades or the ability to play the piano, or to be a good middle linebacker, or to come from Iowa, or to come from a certain minority group.So you see how this debate about affirmative action, especially the diversity argument, takes us back to the question of rights, which in turn takes us back to the question of whether moral desert is or is not the basis for distributive justice.Think about that over the weekend and we'll continue this discussion next time.Suppose we're distributing flutes.Who should get the best ones?What's Aristotle's answer?Anyone?His answer is, the best flutes should go to the best flute players, because that's what flutes are for.When we ended last time, we were considering arguments for and against affirmative action.Counting race as a factor in admissions.And, in the course of the discussion, three arguments emerged, three arguments for affirmative action.One of them was the idea that race and ethnic background should count as a way of correcting for the true meaning of test scores and grades.Getting a more accurate measure of the academic potential those scores, those numbers represent.Second, was what we called "the compensatory argument".The idea of righting past wrongs, past injustice.And the third was the diversity argument.And when Cheryl Hopwood in the 1990s challenged the University of Texas Law School's affirmative action program, in the federal courts, the University of Texas made another version of the diversity argument.Saying that the broader social purpose, the social mission of the University of Texas Law School, is to produce leaders, in the legal community, in the political community, among judges, lawyers, legislators, and therefore it's important that we produce leaders, who reflect the background, and the experience, and the ethnic and the racial composition of the state of Texas.It's important for serving our wider social mission.That was the University of Texas Law School's argument.And then we considered an objection to the diversity argument which after all is an argument in the name of the social mission, the common good.We saw that Rawls does not simply believe that arguments of the common good or the general welfare should prevail if individual rights must be violated in the course of promoting the common good.You remember that was the question, the challenge, to the diversity rationale that we were considering when we finished last time.And we began to discuss the question "Well, what right might be at stake"?Maybe the right to be considered according to factors within one's control.Maybe this is the argument that Cheryl Hopwood implicitly was making.She can't help the fact that she is white.Why should her chance at getting into law school depend on a factor she can't control?And then Hannah who is advancing an argument last time said Harvard has the right to define its mission any way it wants to, it's a private institution.And it's only once Harvard defines its mission that we can identify the qualities that count.So no rights are being violated.Now, what about that argument?What I would like to do is to hear objections to that reply.And then, see whether others have an answer.Yes?And tell us your name.Da.- Da, right you spoke up last time.How do you answer that argument?Well, I think there was two things in there.One of them was that a private institution could define its mission however it wants.But that doesn't make however it defines it, right, like I could define my personal mission as I want to collect all the money in the world.But does that make it even a good mission?So you can't like, you can't say that just because a college is a private institution it can just define it as whatever it wants, you still have to thing about, what are the way it's defining it, it's right.And the case of affirmative action a lot of people have said that since there's a lot of other factors involved, why not race?Like if we already know that, - Let's I want to stick with your first point, Da.- Okay.Here's Da's objection.Can a college or university define its social purpose any way it wants to and define admissions criteria accordingly?What about the University of Texas Law School not today, but in the 1950s?Then, there was another Supreme Court case, against the admissions policy of the University of Texas Law School because it was segregated.It only admitted whites.And when the case went to court back in the '50s, the University of Texas Law School also invoked its mission."Our mission as a law school, is to educate lawyers for the Texas bar, the Texas law firms.And no Texas law firm hires African Americans.So to fulfill our mission, we only admit whites." Or consider Harvard, in the 1930s when it had anti-Jewish quotas.President Lowell, the president of Harvard in the 1930s said, that he had nothing personally against Jews, but he invoked the mission, the social purpose of Harvard he said, "which is not only to train intellectuals, part of the mission at Harvard," he said, "is to train stockbrokers for Wall Street, presidents and senators and there are very few Jews who go into those professions." Now, here's the challenge.Is there a principle distinction between the invocation of the social purpose of the college or university today, in the diversity rationale and the invocation of the social purpose or mission of the university by Texas in the 1950s or Harvard in the 1930s?Is there a difference in principle?What's the reply?Hannah?- Well, I think that the principle that's different here, is, basically the distinction between inclusion versus exclusion.I think that it's morally wrong of the university to say "We're going to exclude you on the basis of your religion or your race." That's denial on the basis of arbitrary factors.What Harvard is trying to do today with its diversity initiatives, is to include groups that were excluded in the past.Good, let's see if, stay there, let's see if someone would like to reply.Go ahead. - Actually this is kind of in support of Hannah, rather than a reply but, - That's alright.I was going to say another principle difference can be based on malice being the motivation for the historical segregation act, so it's saying that we're not going to let blacks or Jews in because they're worse as people or as a group.Good, so the element of malice isn't present.And what's your name?- Stevie.Stevie says that in the historic segregation as racist, anti-Semitic quotas or prohibitions.There was built into them, a certain kind of malice, a certain kind of judgment that African Americans or Jews were somehow less worthy than everybody else.Whereas present day affirmative action programs don't involve or imply any such judgment.What it amounts to saying is, so long as the policy, just uses people in a way as valuable to the social purpose of the institution, it's okay provided it doesn't judge them, maliciously, as Stevie might add, as intrinsically less worthy.。
哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记
哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记——广西民族大学叶良海第一课：谋杀的道德侧面——食人案件案例1：假设你是一名电车司机，你的电车以60英里/小时的速度在轨道上飞驰，突然发现在轨道的尽头有5名工人正在施工，你无法让电车停下来，因为刹车坏了。
你此时极度绝望，因为你深知如果电车撞向那5名工人，他们全都会死。
你极为无助，直到你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨，而在侧轨的尽头只有1名工人在那里施工。
而你的方向盘还没坏，只要你想就可以把电车转到侧轨上去，牺牲一人挽救五个人的性命。
第一个问题：何为正确的选择？换成你会怎么做？绝大多数人都选择转弯：牺牲一个人，保存五个是最好的选择。
不转弯的人的理由：类似于种族灭绝的思维方式。
案例2：这次你不再是电车司机，只是一名旁观者。
你站在一座桥上，俯瞰着电车轨道，电车沿着轨道从远处而来，轨道尽头有5名工人，电车刹车坏了，这5名工人即将被撞死。
但你不是电车司机，你爱莫能助。
直到你发现在你旁边，靠着桥站着的是个超级胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车，他必死无疑，但可以挽救那5个人的性命。
现在，又有多少人会选择把胖子推下桥？（大多人不会这么做）一个显而易见的问题出现了，我们“牺牲一人保全五人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题？第一种情况中大多数人赞同这条原则怎么了？两种情况都属于多数派的人，你们是怎么想的？应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢？学生1发言：第二种情况牵涉到主动选择推人，而被推的这个人本来跟这件事一点关系都没有，所以，从个人自身利益的角度来说，他是被迫卷入这种灾难的。
而第一种情况不同，第一种情况里的三方、电车司机以及两组工人，之前就牵涉进这件事本身了。
（在侧轨的那个人并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自己。
）学生2发言：在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个人，你只能在两者中选择，不管你做出的是哪一个选择，总得有人被电车撞死，而他们的死，并非是你的直接行为导致的，电车已经失控，而你必须在一瞬间做出选择。
哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕_第一课
制作人：心舟 QQ:1129441083第一讲《杀人的道德侧面》这是一门讨论公正的课程This is a course about justice我们以一则故事作为引子and we begin with a story.假设你是一名电车司机\Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car你的电车以60英里小时的速度\and your trolley car is hurtling down the track 在轨道上飞驰\at 60 miles an hour.突然发现在轨道的尽头\And at the end of the track you notice有五名工人正在施工\five workers working on the track.你无法让电车停下来\You try to stop but you can't因为刹车坏了\your brakes don't work.你此时极度绝望\You feel desperate因为你深知\because you know如果电车撞向那五名工人\that if you crash into these five workers他们全都会死\they will all die.假设你对此确信无疑\Let's assume you know that for sure.你极为无助\And so you feel helpless直到你发现在轨道的右侧until you notice that there is off to the right有一条侧轨\ a side track而在侧轨的尽头\and at the end of that track只有一名工人在那施工\there is one worker working on the track.而你的方向盘还没坏\Your steering wheel works只要你想\so you can turn the trolley car就可以把电车转到侧轨上去\if you want to onto the side track牺牲一人挽救五人性命\killing the one but sparing the five.下面是我们的第一个问题:\Here's our first question:何为正确的选择\what's the right thing to do?换了你会怎么做\What would you do?我们来做个调查\Let's take a poll.有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去\How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track?请举手\Raise your hands.有多少人会让电车继续往前开\How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead? 选择往前开的请不要把手放下\Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead.只有少数人选择往前开\A handful of people would绝大多数都选择转弯\the vast majority would turn.我们先来听听大家的说法\Let's hear first探究一下为何\now we need to begin to investigate the reasons你们会认为这是正确的选择\why you think it's the right thing to do.先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始\Let's begin with those in the majority whowould turn to go onto the side track.为何会这样选择\Why would you do it?理由是什么\What would be your reason?有没有自告奋勇的\Who's willing to volunteer a reason?你来站起来告诉大家\Go ahead. Stand up.我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时\Because it can't be right to kill five people牺牲五人不是正确之举\when you can only kill one person instead.当可以只牺牲一人时牺牲五人不是正确之举\It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.这理由不错\That's a good reason.不错\That's a good reason.还有其他人吗\Who else?人人都赞同这个理由\Does everybody agree with that reason?你来\Go ahead.我认为这和9·11的时候是一种情况\Well I was thinking it's the same reason on9 11 那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人被视为英雄\with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes因为他们选择了牺牲自己\because they chose to kill the people on the plane而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人\and not kill more people in big buildings.这么看来这条原则和9·11的是一样的\So the principle there was the same on 9 11. 虽然是悲剧\It's a tragic circumstance但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择\but better to kill one so that five can live 这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗\is that the reason most of you had those of you who would turn? Yes?现在我们来听听少数派的意见\Let's hear now from those in the minority那些选择不转弯的\those who wouldn't turn.你来\Yes.我认为这与为种族灭绝以及极权主义正名\Well I think that's the same type of mentality that justifies genocide是同一种思维模式\and totalitarianism.为了一个种族能生存下来\In order to save one type of race以灭绝另一个种族为代价\you wipe out the other.那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做\So what would you do in this case?为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝\You would to avoid the horrors of genocide你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗\you would crash into the five and kill them? 大概会吧\Presumably yes.-真的会吗 -对\- You would? - Yeah.好吧还有谁\Okay. Who else?很有勇气的回答谢谢\That's a brave answer. Thank you.我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子\Let's consider another trolley car case看看你们\and see whether大多数的人\those of you in the majority会不会继续坚持刚才的原则\want to adhere to the principle即"牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择"\"better that one should die so that five should live."这次你不再是电车司机了\This time you're not the driver of the trolley car只是一名旁观者\you're an onlooker.你站在一座桥上俯瞰着电车轨道\You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track.电车沿着轨道从远处驶来\And down the track comes a trolley car轨道的尽头有五名工人\at the end of the track are five workers电车刹车坏了\the brakes don't work这五名工人即将被撞死\the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.但你不是电车司机你真的爱莫能助\And now you're not the driver you really feel helpless直到你发现在你旁边\until you notice standing next to you靠着桥站着的\leaning over the bridge是个超级大胖子\is a very fat man.你可以选择推他一把\And you could give him a shove.他就会摔下桥\He would fall over the bridge onto the track正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车\right in the way of the trolley car.他必死无疑但可以救那五人的性命\He would die but he would spare the five. 现在\Now有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥\how many would push the fat man over the bridge?请举手\Raise your hand.有多少人不会\How many wouldn't?大多数人不会这么做\Most people wouldn't.一个显而易见的问题出现了\Here's the obvious question.我们"牺牲一人保全五人"的这条原则\What became of the principle到底出了什么问题呢\"better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?" 第一种情况时\What became of the principle大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了\that almost everyone endorsed in the first case? 两种情况中都属多数派的人你们是怎么想的\I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢\How do you explain the difference between the two?你来\Yes.我认为第二种情况\The second one I guess牵涉到主动选择推人\involves an active choice of pushing a person down而被推的这个人\which I guess that person himself本来跟这事件一点关系都没有\would otherwise not have been involved in thesituation at all.所以从这个人自身利益的角度来说\And so to choose on his behalf I guess他是被迫卷入这场无妄之灾的\to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is而第一种情况不同\I guess more than what you have in the first case第一种情况里的三方电车司机及那两组工人\where the three parties the driver and the two sets of workers之前就牵涉进这事件本身了\are already I guess in the situation.但在侧轨上施工的那名工人\But the guy working the one on the track off to the side 他并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自我不是吗\he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did he?对但谁让他就在那侧轨上而且...\That's true but he was on the tracks and... 那胖子还在桥上呢\This guy was on the bridge.如果你愿意可以继续说下去\Go ahead you can come back if you want.好吧这是一个难以抉择的问题\All right. It's a hard question.你回答得很不错\You did well. You did very well.真的难以抉择\It's a hard question.还有谁能来为两种情况中\Who else can find a way of reconciling大多数人的不同选择作出合理解释\the reaction of the majority in these two cases? 你来\Yes.我认为在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个\Well I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five你只能在这两者中选择\it's a choice between those two不管你做出的是哪一个选择\and you have to make a certain choice总得有人被电车撞死\and people are going to die because of the trolley car而他们的死并非你的直接行为导致\not necessarily because of your direct actions.电车已失控而你必须在那一瞬间做出选择\The trolley car is a runaway thing and you're making a split second choice.而反之把胖子推下去则是你自己的直接谋杀行为\Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part.你的行为是可控的\You have control over that而电车则是不可控的\whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.所以我认为这两种情况略有不同\So I think it's a slightly different situation. 很好有没谁来回应的有人吗\All right who has a reply? That's good. Who has a way?有人要补充吗刚才那个解释合理吗\Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this? 我认为这不是一个很好的理由\I don't think that's a very good reason因为不论哪种情况你都得选择让谁死\because you choose to- either way you have to choose who dies或者你是选择转弯撞死一名工人\because you either choose to turn and kill theperson这种转弯就是种有意识的行为\which is an act of conscious thought to turn或者你是选择把胖子推下去\or you choose to push the fat man over这同样是一种主动的有意识的行为\which is also an active conscious action.所以不管怎样你都是在作出选择\So either way you're making a choice.你有话要说吗\Do you want to reply?我不太确定情况就是这样的\I'm not really sure that that's the case.只是觉得似乎有点不同\It just still seems kind of different.真的动手把人推到轨道上让他死的这种行为\the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him就等于是你亲手杀了他\you are actually killing him yourself.你用你自己的手推他\You're pushing him with your own hands.是你在推他这不同于\You're pushing him and that's different操控方向盘进而导致了他人死亡...\than steering something that is going to cause death into another...现在听起来好像不太对头了\You know it doesn't really sound right saying it now. 不你回答得不错叫什么名字\No no. It's good. It's good. What's your name? 安德鲁\Andrew.我来问你一个问题安德鲁\Andrew. Let me ask you this question Andrew.您问\Yes.假设我站在桥上胖子就在我旁边\Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man我不用去推他\I didn't have to push him假设他踩在一扇活板门上方\suppose he was standing over a trap door而活板门可以通过转动方向盘来开启\that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that.你会转动方向盘吗\Would you turn?出于某种原因我觉得这样似乎错上加错\For some reason that still just seems more wrong.是吗\Right?如果是你不小心靠着方向盘导致活门开启\I mean maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel或是发生之类的情况\or something like that.但是...或者是列车飞驰而来时\But... Or say that the car is hurtling正好可以触发活门开关\towards a switch that will drop the trap.-那我就赞同 -没关系好了\- Then I could agree with that. - That's all right. Fair enough.反正就是不对\It still seems wrong in a way而在第一种情况这样做就是对的是吧\that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.换个说法就是在第一种情况中\And in another way I mean in the first situation你是直接涉及其中的\you're involved directly with the situation.而第二种情况中你只是旁观者\In the second one you're an onlooker as well.-好了 -所以你有权选择是否把胖子推下去\- All right. - So you have the choice of becoming involved or not-从而牵涉其中 -好了\- by pushing the fat man. - All right.先不管这个情况\Let's forget for the moment about this case.你们很不错\That's good.我们来想象一个不同的情况\Let's imagine a different case.这次你是一名急诊室的医生\This time you're a doctor in an emergency room有天送来了六个病人\and six patients come to you.他们遭受了一次严重的电车事故\They've been in a terrible trolley car wreck.其中五人伤势不算严重\Five of them sustain moderate injuries另外一人受重伤你可以花上一整天时间\one is severely injured you could spend all day来医治这一名受重伤的病人\caring for the one severely injured victim但那另外五个病人就会死\but in that time the five would die.你也可以选择医治这五人\Or you could look after the five restore them to health 但那样的话那名受重伤的病人就会死\but during that time the one severely injured person would die.有多少人会选择救那五人\How many would save the five?作为医生又有多少人选择救那一人\Now as the doctor how many would save the one? 只有极少数人\Very few people just a handful of people.我猜理由还是一样\Same reason I assume.牺牲一个保全五个\One life versus five?现在来考虑一下另外一种情况\Now consider another doctor case.这次你是一名器官移植医生你有五名病人\This time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients每名病人都急需器官移植才能存活\each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive.分别需要心脏移植肺移植肾移植\One needs a heart one a lung one a kidney肝移植以及胰腺移植\one a liver and the fifth a pancreas.没有器官捐赠者\And you have no organ donors.你只能眼睁睁看他们死去\You are about to see them die.然后你突然想起\And then it occurs to you在隔壁病房\that in the next room有个来做体检的健康人\there's a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.而且他...\And he's...你们喜欢这剧情吧\you like that...而且他正在打盹\... and he's taking a nap你可以悄悄地进去取出那五个器官\you could go in very quietly yank out the five organs这人会死但你能救那另外五人\that person would die but you could save the five. 有多少人会这么做\How many would do it?有吗\Anyone?选择这么做的请举手\How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.楼座上的呢\Anyone in the balcony?我会\I would.你会吗小心别太靠着那栏杆\You would? Be careful don't lean over too much.有多少人不会\How many wouldn't?很好你来\All right. What do you say?楼座上那位\Speak up in the balcony就是支持取出那些器官的为什么这么做\you who would yank out the organs. Why? 其实我想知道可否稍微变通一下\I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility就是选择五人中最先死的那人\of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first利用他的器官来救其他四人\and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.这想法很赞\That's a pretty good idea.想法不错\That's a great idea只不过\except for the fact你避开了我们今天要谈论的哲学问题\that you just wrecked the philosophical point. 让我们暂时先不忙讨论这些故事以及争论\Let's step back from these stories and these arguments来关注一下这些争论是怎样展开的\to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.某些道德原则已经随着我们讨论的展开\Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge逐渐开始浮现出来了\from the discussions we've had.我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的\And let's consider what those moral principles look like.在讨论中出现的第一条道德原则\The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion正确的选择道德的选择\said the right thing to do the moral thing to do取决于你的行为所导致的后果\depends on the consequences that will result from your action.最终结论: 牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择\At the end of the day better that five should live even if one must die.这是后果主义道德推理的一则例子\That's an example of consequentiality moral reasoning.后果主义道德推理\Consequentiality moral reasoning认为是否道德取决于行为的后果\locates morality in the consequences of an act取决于你的行为对外界所造成的影响\in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.但随着谈论的深入我们发现在其他情况中\But then we went a little further we considered those other cases人们不再对后果主义道德推理那么确定了\and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning.当人们开始犹豫是否要推胖子下桥\When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge或者是否切取无辜病人的器官时\or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient 他们更倾向于去评判行为本身的动机\people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself而不是该行为的后果\consequences be what they may.人们动摇了\People were reluctant.他们认为杀掉一个无辜的人\People thought it was just wrong categorically wrong 是绝对错误的\to kill a person an innocent person哪怕是为了拯救五条生命\even for the sake of saving five lives.至少在每个故事的第二种情况中是这样认为的\At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.这表明有第二种绝对主义方式的道德推理\So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.绝对主义道德推理认为\Categorical moral reasoning是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则\locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements取决于绝对明确的义务与权利\certain categorical duties and rights而不管后果如何\regardless of the consequences.我们将用以后的几天到几周时间来探讨\We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come后果主义与绝对主义道德原则的差别\the contrast between consequentiality and categorical moral principles.后果主义道德推理中最具影响的就是功利主义\The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism由18世纪英国政治哲学家杰里米·边沁提出\a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham18th century English political philosopher而绝对主义道德推理中最为著名的\The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning则是18世纪德国哲学家康德\is the18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. 我们将着眼于这两种迥异的道德推理模式\So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning评价它们还会考虑其他模式\assess them and also consider others.如果你有留意教学大纲就能发现\If you look at the syllabus you'll notice教学大纲里列出了不少人的著作\that we read a number of great and famous books包括亚里士多德约翰·洛克伊曼努尔·康德\books by Aristotle John Locke Immanuel Kant约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒及其他哲学家的著作\John Stewart Mill and others.在教学大纲中还能看到\You'll notice too from the syllabus我们不仅要读这些著作\that we don't only read these books;还会探讨当代政治及法律争议\we also take up contemporary political and legal controversies所引发的诸多哲学问题\that raise philosophical questions.我们将讨论平等与不平等\We will debate equality and inequality平权行动自由言论与攻击性言论同性婚姻\affirmative action free speech versus hate speech same-sex marriage兵役制等一系列现实问题\military conscription a range of practical questions. 为什么呢\Why?不仅是为了将这些深奥抽象的著作形象化\Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books还为了让我们通过哲学辨明\but to make clear to bring out what's at stake日常生活包括政治生活中什么才是最关键的\in our everyday lives including our political lives for philosophy.所以我们要读这些著作讨论这些议题\And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues并了解两者是怎样互相补充互相阐释的\and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other.也许听起来蛮动人不过我要事先提个醒\This may sound appealing enough but here I have to issue a warning.那就是通过用这样的方式阅读这些著作\And the warning is thisto read these books in this way来训练自我认知\as an exercise in self knowledge必然会带来一些风险\to read them in this way carries certain risks包括个人风险和政治风险\risks that are both personal and political每位学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险\risks that every student of political philosophy has known.这风险源自于以下事实\These risks spring from the fact即哲学就是让我们面对自己熟知的事物\that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us 然后引导并动摇我们原有的认知\by confronting us with what we already know.这真是讽刺\There's an irony.这门课程的难度就在于\The difficulty of this course consists in the fact传授的都是你们已有的知识\that it teaches what you already know.它将我们所熟知的毋庸置疑的事物\It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings变得陌生\and making it strange.正如我们刚举的例子\That's how those examples worked那些严肃而又不乏趣味的假设性问题\the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.这些哲学类著作亦然\It's also how these philosophical books work.哲学让我们对熟知事物感到陌生\Philosophy estranges us from the familiar不是通过提供新的信息\not by supplying new information而是通过引导并激发我们用全新方式看问题\but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing但这正是风险所在\but and here's the risk一旦所熟知的事物变得陌生\once the familiar turns strange它将再也无法回复到从前\it's never quite the same again.自我认知就像逝去的童真 \Self knowledge is like lost innocence不管你有多不安\however unsettling you find it;你已经无法不去想或是充耳不闻了\it can never be un-thought or un-known.这一过程会充满挑战又引人入胜\What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting因为道德与政治哲学就好比一个故事\is that moral and political philosophy is a story你不知道故事将会如何发展\and you don't know where the story will lead.你只知道这个故事与你息息相关\But what you do know is that the story is about you. 以上为我提到的个人风险\Those are the personal risks.那么政治风险是什么呢\Now what of the political risks?介绍这门课程时可以这样许诺:\One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you通过阅读这些著作讨论这些议题\that by reading these books and debating these issues你将成为更优秀更有责任感的公民\you will become a better more responsible citizen;你将重新审视公共政策的假定前提\you will examine the presuppositions of public policy你将拥有更加敏锐的政治判断力\you will hone your political judgment你将更有效地参与公共事务\you will become a more effective participant in public affairs.但这一许诺也可能片面而具误导性\But this would be a partial and misleading promise.因为绝大多数情况下政治哲学\Political philosophy for the most part并不是那样的\hasn't worked that way.你们必须承认政治哲学\You have to allow for the possibility可能使你们成为更糟的公民\that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen 而不是更优秀的\rather than a better one至少在让你成为更优秀公民前先让你更糟\or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one因为哲学使人疏离现实甚至可能弱化行动力\and that's because philosophy is a distancing even debilitating activity.追溯到苏格拉底时代就有这样一段对话\And you see this going back to Socrates there's a dialogue在《高尔吉亚篇》中苏格拉底的一位朋友\the Gorgias in which one of Socrates' friends《高尔吉亚篇》柏拉图著古希腊哲学家卡里克利斯试图说服苏格拉底放弃哲学思考\Callicles tries to talk him out of philosophizing.他告诉苏格拉底:\Callicles tells Socrates如果一个人在年轻时代\"Philosophy is a pretty toy有节制地享受哲学的乐趣那自然大有裨益\if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life.但倘若过分沉溺其中那他必将走向毁灭\But if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin."听我劝吧卡里克利斯说收起你的辩论\"Take my advice" Callicles says "abandon argument.学个谋生的一技之长\Learn the accomplishments of active life别学那些满嘴谬论的人\take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles要学那些生活富足声名显赫及福泽深厚的人\but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings."言外之意则是\So Callicles is really saying to Socrates放弃哲学现实一点去读商学院吧\"Quit philosophizing get real go to business school."卡里克利斯说得确有道理\And Callicles did have a point.因为哲学的确将我们与习俗\He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions既定假设以及原有信条相疏离\from established assumptions and from settled beliefs.以上就是我说的个人以及政治风险\Those are the risks personal and political. 面对这些风险有一种典型的回避方式\And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion.这种方式就是怀疑论大致的意思是\The name of the evasion is skepticism it's the idea...It goes something like this.刚才争论过的案例或者原则\We didn't resolve once and for all没有一劳永逸的解决方法\either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began如果亚里士多德洛克康德以及穆勒\and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill 花了这么多年都没能解决这些问题\haven't solved these questions after all of these years那今天我们齐聚桑德斯剧院\who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre 仅凭一学期的课程学习就能解决了吗\over the course of a semester can resolve them?也许这本就是智者见智仁者见仁的问题\And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles多说无益也无从论证\and there's nothing more to be said about it no way of reasoning.这就是怀疑论的回避方式\That's the evasion the evasion of skepticism对此我给予如下回应\to which I would offer the following reply.诚然这些问题争论已久\It's true these questions have been debated for a very long time但正因为这些问题反复出现\but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted也许表明虽然在某种意义上它们无法解决\may suggest that though they're impossible in one sense但另一种意义上却又无可避免\they're unavoidable in another.它们之所以无可避免无法回避\And the reason they're unavoidable the reason they're inescapable是因为在日常生活中我们一次次地在回答这些问题\is that we live some answer to these questions every day.因此怀疑论让你们举起双手放弃道德反思\So skepticism just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection这绝非可行之策\is no solution.康德曾很贴切地描述了怀疑论的不足\Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism他写道怀疑论是人类理性暂时休憩的场所\when he wrote "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason}参见康德的《纯粹理性批判》是理性自省以伺将来做出正确抉择的地方\where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings但绝非理性的永久定居地\but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement." 康德认为简单地默许于怀疑论\"Simply to acquiesce in skepticism" Kant wrote 永远无法平息内心渴望理性思考之不安\"can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason."以上我是想向大家说明这些故事和争论\I've tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments展示的风险与诱惑挑战与机遇\some sense of the risks and temptations of the perils and the possibilities.简而言之这门课程旨在\I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course唤醒你们永不停息的理性思考探索路在何方\is to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might lead.谢谢\Thank you very much.在那样的绝境之下\Like in a situation that desperate为了生存你不得不那样做\you have to do what you have to do to survive.。
哈佛公开课 公平
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。
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕Funding for this programis provided by:本节目的赞助来自......Additi onal funding provided by:另外的赞助来自……Last time,we argued about上次,我们谈到the case ofThe Quee n v. Dudley & Stephe ns,女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件，the lifeboat case,the case of cann ibalism at sea.那个救生艇上，海上吃人的案件.And with the argume ntsabout the lifeboat in mind,带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论the argume nts for and aga instwhat Dudley and Stephe ns did in mind,带着支持和反对Dudley和Stephens所做的吃人行为的讨论let's turn back to the philosophy,the utilitaria n philosophy of Jeremy Ben tham.让我们回头来看看Bentham的功利主义哲学.Ben tham was born in En gla nd in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford. Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 1915岁时，他去了法学院.19岁就取得了律师资格but he n ever practiced law.但他没有从事于律师行业.In stead, he devoted his life to jurisprude nee and moral philosophy.相反，他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学?Last time, we bega n to con siderBen tham's version of utilitaria ni sm.上一次,我们开始考虑Bentham版本的功利主义The mai n idea is simply statedand it's this:简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest prin ciple of morality,whether pers onal or political morality, 道德的最高原则，无论个人或政治道德，is to maximize the gen eral welfare,or the collective happ in ess,就是将公共福利，或集体的幸福最大化，or the overall bala neeof pleasure over pain;或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐；in a phrase, maximize utility.简而言之就是，功利最大化.Ben tham arrives at this prin cipleby the followi ng line of reas oning: Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：We're all gover nedby pain and pleasure,我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制，they are our sovereig n masters,and so any moral system他们是我们的主宰，所以任何道德体系has to take acco unt of them.都要考虑到这点?How best to take acco unt?By maximizi ng.如何能最好地考虑这一点？通过最大化.And this leads to the prin ciple of thegreatest good for the greatest nu mber从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Ben tham tells us happ in ess,or more precisely, utility - Bentham告诉我们幸福，或者更准确地说，实用-maximizi ng utility as a prin ciplenot only for in dividuals最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人but also for com mun itiesand for legislators.而且还适用于社区及立法者?"What, after all, is a commu nity?"Ben tham asks."毕竟，什么是社区？” Bentham问道.It's the sum of the in dividualswho comprise it.它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和?And that's why in decidi ngthe best policy,这就是为什么在决定最好的政策，in decidi ng what the law should be,in decidi ng what's just,在决定法律应该是什么样，在决定什么是公正时citize ns and legislatorsshould ask themselves the questi on公民和立法者应该问自己的问题if we add up all of the ben efitsof this policy如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益and subtract all of the costs,the right thing to do减去所有的成本，正确的做法is the one that maximizes the bala nee of happ in ess over sufferi ng.就是将幸福与痛苦之间的平衡最大化地倾向幸福That's what it meansto maximize utility.这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to seewhether you agree or disagree with it,现在，我想看看你们是否同意它，and it ofte n goes,this utilitaria n logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑，un der the n ame ofcost-be nefit an alysis,名为成本效益分析，which is used by compa niesand by gover nments all the time.也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的And what it in volvesis placi ng a value,它的内涵是用一个价值usually a dollar value,to sta nd for utility on the costs 通常是由美元，来代表不同提案的效用and the ben efitsof various proposals.这效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recen tly, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal最近,在捷克共和国，有一个提案to in crease the excise tax on smok ing.Philip Morris, the tobacco compa ny,对吸烟增加货物税Philip Morris烟草公司，does huge bus in essin the Czech Republic.该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.They commissi oned a study,a cost-be nefit an alysis他们委托了一个研究，of smok ing in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-be nefit关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.an alysis found was the gover nmentgains by havi ng Czech citize ns smoke.他们的分析发现，捷克政府将会因公民吸烟而收益Now, how do they gain?现在,他们如何收益？It's true that there aren egative effects to the public finance确实，捷克政府的公共财政体系of the Czech gover nmentbecause there are in creased health care会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增加的医疗保健开支costs for people who developsmok in g-related diseases.从而受到负面影响.On the other hand,there were positive effects另一方面,这也有积极效应and those were added upon the other side of the ledger .并且这些积极效益累加到了账簿的另一面The positive effects in cluded,for the most part,积极效益包括，在大多数情况下，various tax revenues that thegover nment derives from the sale政府通过卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入of cigarette products,but it also in eluded但也包括health care savi ngs to thegover nment whe n people die early,政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄，例如pension sav ings -- you don't have topay pensions for as long -养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-and also, sav ings inhous ing costs for the elderly.还有，老年人住房费用?And whe n all of the costsand ben efits were added up,当把所有的成本和效益都分别加起来，the Philip Morris study foundthat there is a net public finance gain Philip Morris公司的研究发现，捷克共和国会有一个in the Czech Republicof $147,000,000,$147,000,000的公共财政净增益，and give n the savi ngs in hous ing,in health care, and pension costs,并鉴于节省了住房费用，医疗保健费用，养老金费用，the gover nment enjoys savi ngsof over $1,200 for each pers onwho dies prematurely due to smok ing.每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.Cost-be nefit an alysis.成本效益分析.Now, those among youwho are defe nders of utilitaria nism现在，你们中间，那些功利主义的捍卫者may think that this is an un fair test.可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloriedin the pressPhilip Morris公司在新闻界遭到了嘲笑and they issued an apologyfor this heartless calculatio n.他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's miss ing hereis somethi ng that the utilitaria n你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏can easily in corporate,n amely the value to the pers on它没有正确评估人的价值and to the families of those who diefrom lung cancer .以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失. What about the value of life?。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：全五课：英文字幕
THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER This is a course about justiceand we begin with a story. Suppose you're the driverof a trolley car,and your trolley caris hurtling down the trackat 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the trackyou notice five workersworking on the track.You try to stopbut you can't,your brakes don't work.You feel desperatebecause you knowthat if you crashinto these five workers,they will all die.Let's assumeyou know that for sure.And so you feel helplessuntil you noticethat there is,off to the right,a side track and at the endof that track,there is one workerworking on the track.Your steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the five. Here's our first question:what's the right thing to do?What would you do?Let's take a poll.How many would turnthe trolley caronto the side track?Raise your hands.How many wouldn't?How many would go straight ahead? Keep your hands up those of youwho would go straight ahead.A handful of people would,the vast majority would turn.Let's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to do.Let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to goonto the side track.Why would you do it?What would be your reason?Who's willing to volunteer a reason? Go ahead. Stand up.Because it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person instead.It wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person instead.That's a good reason.That's a good reason.Who else?Does everybody agreewith that reason? Go ahead.Well I was thinking it's the same reason on 9/11 with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big buildings.So the principle therewas the same on 9/11.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn? Yes?Let's hear nowfrom those in the minority, those who wouldn't turn. Yes. Well, I think that'sthe same type of mentality that justifies genocideand totalitarianism.In order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the other.So what would you doin this case?You would, to avoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill them? Presumably, yes.You would?-Yeah.Okay. Who else?That's a brave answer.Thank you.Let's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of you in the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driver of the trolley car,you're an onlooker.You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. And down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill them. And now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat man.And you couldgive him a shove.He would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley car.He would diebut he would spare the five.Now, how many would pushthe fat man over the bridge?Raise your hand.How many wouldn't?Most people wouldn't.Here's the obvious question.What became of the principle "better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one?" What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first case?I need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both cases.How do you explainthe difference between the two? Yes. The second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all.And so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the situation.But the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did he?That's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the bridge.Go ahead, you can come backif you want. All right.It's a hard question. You did well.You did very well.It's a hard question.Who else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases? Yes.Well, I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certain choice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct actions.The trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second choice. Whereas pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your part.You have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley car.So I think it's a slightlydifferent situation.All right, who has a reply?That's good. Who has a way?Who wants to reply?Is that a way out of this? I don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person, which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious action.So either way,you're making a choice.Do you want to reply?I'm not really surethat that's the case.It just still seemskind of different.The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him yourself. You're pushing himwith your own hands.You're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into another.You know, it doesn't really sound right saying it now.No, no. It's good. It's good.What's your name?Andrew.Andrew.Let me ask you this question, Andrew. Yes.Suppose standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like that.Would you turn?For some reason,that still just seems more wrong. Right?I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that.But... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the trap.Then I could agree with that.That's all right. Fair enough.It still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you say. And in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the situation.In the second one,you're an onlooker as well.All right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat man.All right. Let's forget for the moment about this case.That's good.Let's imagine a different case.This time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to you.They've been in a terribletrolley car wreck.Five of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spend all daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would die.Or you could look after the five, restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured person would die.How many would save the five? Now as the doctor,how many would save the one? Very few people,just a handful of people.Same reason, I assume.One life versus five?Now consider another doctor case. This time, you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to survive.One needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a pancreas.And you have no organ donors.You are about to see them die.And then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a check-up.And he's – you like that –and he's taking a nap,you could go in very quietly,yank out the five organs,that person would die,but you could save the five.How many would do it?Anyone? How many?Put your hands upif you would do it.Anyone in the balcony?I would.You would? Be careful,don't lean over too much.How many wouldn't?All right. What do you say?Speak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. Why?I'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other four.That's a pretty good idea.That's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical point.Let's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to unfold.Certain moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've had.And let's considerwhat those moral principles look like. The first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your action.At the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must die.That's an exampleof consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasons having to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they may. People were reluctant.People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five lives.At least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we considered.So this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.The most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the 18th centuryEnglish political philosopher.The most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the 18th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel Kant.So we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider others.If you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others.You'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical questions.We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage, military conscription,a range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for philosophy.And so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the other.This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks, risks that are both personaland political,risks that every studentof political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already know.There's an irony.The difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already know.It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange.That's how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulnessand sobriety.It's also how thesephilosophical books work. Philosophy estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same again.Self knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor un-known.What makes this enterprise difficult but also rivetingis that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don't knowwhere the story will lead.But what you do knowis that the story is about you.Those are the personal risks.Now what of the political risks?One way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise you that by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositions of public policy,you will hone your political judgment, you will become a moreeffective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partialand misleading promise.Political philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that way.You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, activity.And you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing.Callicles tells Socrates "Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says, "abandon argument.Learn the accomplishmentsof active life, take for your modelsnot those people who spendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihood and reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates "Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a point.He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled beliefs.Those are the risks,personal and political.And in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic evasion.The name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for all either the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve them?And so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of reasoning.That's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following reply.It's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in another.And the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every day.So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflectionis no solution.Immanuel Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the possibilities.I would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead.Thank you very much.Like, in a situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to survive.-You have to do what you have to do? You got to dowhat you got to do, pretty much.If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just hasto take the sacrifice.Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.Alright, that's good.What's your name?Marcus.-Marcus, what do you say to Marcus? Last time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ transplantation.We noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were arguing.We began with our judgmentsin particular cases.We tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour judgments.And then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles, revising eachin the light of the other.And we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon reflection.We also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the discussion.We noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought about.And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.But we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the result.Sometimes, many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters morally.Some people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrong even if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one life.So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones. Today and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral theory.And that's the philosophyof utilitarianism.Jeremy Bentham,the 18th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral theory.And Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple one.With a lot of morallyintuitive appeal, Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize utility.What did he mean by utility?He meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.Here's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing utility. He started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and pleasure.We human beingslike pleasure and dislike pain.And so we should base morality, whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens, we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should be.The right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of happiness. Bentham's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and Stevens.This was a 19th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law schools.Here's what happened in the case.I'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the jury.A newspaper account of the time described the background.A sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, Mignonette.The ship flounderedin the South Atlantic,1300 miles from the cape.There were four in the crew, Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker,17 years old.He was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at sea.He went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his friends.He went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.The facts of the casewere not in dispute.A wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went down. The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat.The only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh water.For the first three days,they ate nothing.On the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate it.The next daythey caught a turtle. Together with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few days. And then for eight days,they had nothing.No food. No water.Imagine yourselfin a situation like that,what would you do?Here's what they did.By now the cabin boy, Parker, is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others and he had become illand he appeared to be dying. So on the 19th day,Dudley, the captain, suggested that they should all have a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the rest.Brooks refused.He didn't like the lottery idea. We don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral principles.But in any case,no lots were drawn.The next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be killed.Dudley offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular vein.Brooks emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome bounty.For four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin boy.True story.And then they were rescued.Dudley describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism. "On the 24th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German ship. They were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand tried.Brooks turned state's witness.Dudley and Stevens went to trial. They didn't dispute the facts.They claimed they had acted out of necessity;that was their defense.They argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could survive.The prosecutor wasn't swayedby that argument.He said murder is murder,and so the case went to trial.Now imagine you are the jury.And just to simplify the discussion, put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or not.How many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissible?And how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrong?A pretty sizeable majority.Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with thosewho are in the minority.Let's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and Stevens.Why would you morallyexonerate them?What are your reasons?Yes.I think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthere is a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensible and what makes someonelegally accountable.In other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt. Okay. Good. Other defenders.Other voices for the defense.Moral justificationsfor what they did. Yes.Thank you.I just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to survive.You have to dowhat you have to do.Yeah, you've got to dowhat you've got to do.Pretty much.If you've been going19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.And furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productive members of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizations and this and thatand this and that.I mean they benefited everybodyin the end. -Yeah.So, I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't know. Whatever but. -What?Maybe they were assassins.What if they went home and they turned out to be assassins? What if they'd gone homeand turned out to be assassins? Well…You'd want to knowwho they assassinated.That's true too. That's fair.That's fair. I would want to know who they assassinated.All right. That's good.What's your name?Marcus.Marcus. All right.We've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the defense.Now we need to hearfrom the prosecution.Most people thinkwhat they did was wrong. Why? Yes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be making. And if that's an appealing argument that you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincing do think that they wereacting immorally.But what do you-I want to knowwhat you think.You defend them.。
哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕_第二课-食人惨案
第二讲《食人惨案》不得不那样做是吗\You have to do what you have to do?差不多吧不得已而为之\You got to do what you got to do pretty much.如果你已经19天没有进食\If you've been going 19 days without any food you know 那么总得有人要作出牺牲\someone just has to take the sacrifice.有了他的牺牲其他人才能活下来\Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.很好你叫什么名字\Alright that's good. What's your name?-马库斯 -你有什么话要对马库斯说吗\- Marcus. - Marcus what do you say to Marcus? 上一次我们以几个故事开头\Last time we started out last time with some stories 几个在道德上两难的例子\with some moral dilemmas有电车事故的例子\about trolley cars也有器官移植医生\and about doctors and healthy patients手握健康病人生杀大权的例子\vulnerable to being victims of organ transplantation.在讨论中我们注意到两点\We noticed two things about the arguments we had一点与我们的讨论方式有关\one had to do with the way we were arguing.我们首先在特定情况下作出判断\We began with our judgments in particular cases. 然后试图阐明作出这些判断的\We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles 理由或原则\lying behind our judgments.当我们面临新的情况时\And then confronted with a new case我们重新检验这些原则\we found ourselves reexamining those principles根据新的情况修正这些理由或原则\revising each in the light of the other.然后我们发现\And we noticed the built in pressure要在特定案例之下自圆其说我们的判断\to try to bring into alignment our judgments about particular cases校正我们一再确认的原则难度越来越大\and the principles we would endorse on reflection.我们也注意到了这些争论的本质\We also noticed something about the substance of the arguments已经初见端倪\that emerged from the discussion.我们发现有时我们倾向于\We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to依据行为所产生的后果\locate the morality of an act in the consequences in the results以及对外界的影响判断其是否道德\in the state of the world that it brought about. 我们称之为后果主义道德推理\And we called this consequentiality moral reasoning.同时注意到在某些情况下\But we also noticed in some cases不仅行为的后果会使我们动摇\we weren't swayed only by the result.有时我们中许多人认为行为的后果固然重要\Sometimes many of us felt that not just consequences但行为的道德本质或是特性也同样重要\but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act matters morally.有些人认为\Some people argued某些行为反正就是绝对错误的\that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong即便该行为产生了好的结果\even if they bring about a good result即便能牺牲一人挽救五人性命\even if they saved five people at the cost of one life.从而对比了后果主义与绝对主义道德原则之间的差别\So we contrasted consequentiality moral principles with categorical ones.从今天到接下来的几天里我们将要剖析\Today and in the next few days we will begin to examine后果主义道德理论中最具影响的一个版本\one of the most influential versions of consequentiality moral theory.即功利主义哲学\And that's the philosophy of utilitarianism.杰里米·边沁 18世纪英国政治哲学家\Jeremy Bentham the 18th century English political philosopher首次对功利主义道德论做出了系统的定义\gave first the first clear systematic expression to the utilitarian moral theory边沁的核心观点非常简单\And Bentham's idea his essential idea is a very simple one.充满了道德上的直观感染力\With a lot of morally intuitive appeal其观点如下\Bentham's idea is the following正确的选择公正的选择\the right thing to do; the just thing to do就是最大化功利\is to maximize utility.那这个"功利"是什么意思呢\What did he mean by utility?他认为功利等于快乐减去痛苦\He meant by utility the balance of pleasure over pain 功利主义认为快乐和痛苦都是可以计算的幸福减去苦难\happiness over suffering.在此基础上他提出了功利最大化的原则\Here's how he arrived at the principle of maximizing utility.边沁通过观察得出\He started out by observing that all of us所有人类均受两大至高无上的因素所支配\all human beings are governed by two sovereign masters:痛苦与快乐\pain and pleasure.人的本性就是趋乐避苦的\We human beings like pleasure and dislike pain.所以我们应以道德为基准\And so we should base morality不管是在考虑个人行为时\whether we're thinking about what to do in our own lives 还是作为立法者或普通公民\or whether as legislators or citizens考虑如何立法时\we're thinking about what the laws should be.于公于私最正确的选择都该是\The right thing to do individually or collectivelyis制作人：心舟 QQ:1129441083即为全方位地最大化地提升幸福\to maximize act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness.边沁的功利主义有时被总结为一句口号\Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan为最多的人谋求最大的幸福\"The greatest good for the greatest number."有了这条最基本的功利原则\With this basic principle of utility on hand让我们检验一下这条原则\let's begin to test it and to examine it是否适用于另一案例\by turning to another case another story而这一次就不再是假定的事件了\but this time not a hypothetical story是个真实的故事\a real life story女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案\the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens. 这是19世纪英国的一则法律案例\This was a 19th century British law case众多法学院争论不休的著名案例\that's famous and much debated in law schools. 这则案例是这样的我先概述一下\Here's what happened in the case. I'll summarize the story然后假设你们就是陪审团会怎么来裁定\then I want to hear how you would rule imagining that you were the jury.当时的报纸是这么描述事件背景的\A newspaper account of the time described the background.最惨绝人寰的海难\A sadder story of disaster at sea"木犀草号"幸存者的骇人经历\was never told than that of the survivors of the yacht Mignonette.他们的船在南大西洋\The ship floundered in the South Atlantic距好望角1300英里处沉没了\1300 miles from the Cape.全体船员一行四人达德利是船长\There were four in the crew Dudley was the captain斯蒂芬斯是大副布鲁克斯是水手\Stevens was the first mate Brooks was a sailor 都是品德高尚的人至少报上是这么说的\all men of excellent character or so the newspaper account tells us.第四名船员是船上的侍者\The fourth crew member was the cabin boy理查德·派克 17岁\Richard Parker 17 years old.他是孤儿没有家人\He was an orphan he had no family这是他首次出海远航\and he was on his first long voyage at sea.据报道他不顾朋友的反对\He went the news account tells us rather against the advice of his friends.带着充满希望的野心\He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition憧憬此次征程能将他铸造成为男人\thinking the journey would make a man of him. 然而事与愿违\Sadly it was not to be.这则案例的实际情况毫无争议\The facts of the case were not in dispute.大浪导致翻船 "木犀草号"沉没\Wave hit the shipand Mignonette went down.四人逃上了救生艇\The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat.仅有的食物就是两罐腌萝卜没有淡水\The only food they had were two cans of preserved turnips no fresh water.头三天他们什么也没吃\For the first three days they ate nothing.第四天他们开了一罐腌萝卜来吃\On the fourth day they opened one of the cans of turnips and ate it.第五天他们抓到了一只海龟\The next day they caught a turtle.就着另一罐腌萝卜\Together with the other can of turnips这只海龟让他们又撑了几天\the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days.随后的八天内他们弹尽粮绝了\And then for eight days they had nothing.没有食物和饮用水\No food. No water.想象一下如果你是当事人你会怎么做\Imagine yourself in a situation like that what would you do?他们是这样做的\Here's what they did.现在派克正蜷缩在救生艇的角落\By now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in the corner因为他不顾众人劝阻饮用了海水\because he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others他生病了而且似乎快死了\and he had become ill and he appeared to be dying. 在第19天船长达德利\So on the 19th day Dudley the captain建议大家应该抽签\suggested that they should all have a lottery通过抽签决定谁先死来救其他的人\that they should draw lots to see who would die to save the rest.布鲁克斯拒绝了他不赞成抽签\Brooks refused. He didn't like the lottery idea. 不知道他是因为不愿意冒这个险呢\We don't know whether this was because he didn't want to take the chance还是因为他信奉绝对主义道德原则\or because he believed in categorical moral principles.反正最终没有进行抽签\But in any case no lots were drawn.又过了一天依然没有船只的影子\The next day there was still no ship in sight 于是达德利叫布鲁克斯转过头去\so Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze并示意斯蒂芬斯最好杀掉派克\and he motioned to Stevens that the boy Parker had better be killed.达德利为派克做了祷告并告诉派克他的时辰到了\Dudley offered a prayer he told the boy his time had come然后就用小刀割破他的颈静脉杀死了他\and he killed him with a pen knife stabbing him in the jugular vein.虽然良心上极力拒绝但布鲁克斯\Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection最终还是加入了这骇人的"盛宴"\to share in the gruesome bounty.整整四天他们三个\For four days the three of them靠派克的尸体和血液为食\fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy.真实的故事最后他们得救了\True story. And then they were rescued.达德利日记里描述的得救情形委婉得让人震惊\Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism.他写道第24天我们正在吃早餐\Quote "On the 24th day as we were having our breakfast终于有船来了\a ship appeared at last."一艘德国船搭救了这三名幸存者\The three survivors were picked up by a German ship.把他们带回了英国的法尔茅斯\They were taken back to Falmouth in England并在那被逮捕接受审判\where they were arrested and tried.布鲁克斯成了目击证人达德利和斯蒂芬斯则成了被告\Brooks turned state's witness. Dudley and Stevens went to trial.他们对事实供认不讳\They didn't dispute the facts.但他们声称此行为是迫不得已\They claimed they had acted out of necessity;他们这样辩护\that was their defense.辩称"牺牲一人保全三人"是更好的结果\They argued in effect better that one should die so that three could survive.但控方并不为之所动\The prosecutor wasn't swayed by that argument.他认为谋杀就是谋杀所以此案被送上法庭\He said murder is murder and so the case went to trial.现在假设你们就是陪审团\Now imagine you are the jury.为了简化讨论过程撇开法律问题不谈\And just to simplify the discussion put aside the question of law假设你们作为陪审团只需裁定\let's assume that you as the jury are charged with deciding他们的所作所为在道德上是否是允许的\whether what they did was morally permissible or not.有多少会投"无罪" 认为道德上是允许的\How many would vote'not guilty' that what they did was morally permissible?多少会投"有罪" 认为道德上是不允许的\And how many would vote'guilty' what they did was morally wrong?绝大多数认为有罪\A pretty sizeable majority.现在来听听大家的理由\Now let's see what people's reasons are先从少数派开始\and let me begin with those who are in the minority.先听听为达德利和斯蒂芬斯作出的辩护\Let's hear first from the defense of Dudley and Stevens.你为什么会在道德上赦免他们\Why would you morally exonerate them?理由是什么 \What are your reasons?我认为此行为应该受到道德上的谴责\I think it is morally reprehensible但我认为道德上应该受到谴责\but I think that there is a distinction between what's morally reprehensible并不等同于法律上应当承担责任\and what makes someone legally accountable.换言之正如法官常说的\In other words as the judge said情有可原未必不可法外容情\what's always moral isn't necessarily against the law当然我不认为一句情有可原\and while I don't think that necessity就能为盗窃谋杀以及其他违法行为正名\justifies theft or murder or any illegal act但有时情有可原的程度\at some point your degree of necessity确实可能法外容情赦免你的罪行\does in fact exonerate you from any guilt.很好其他人呢还有谁来辩护\Okay. Good. Other defenders. Other voices for the defense.为他们行为来点道德辩护 \Moral justifications for what they did.你来\Yes.谢谢我只是认为\Thank you. I just feel like在那样的绝境下为了生存你不得不那样做\in the situation that desperate you have to do what you have to do to survive.不得不那样做\You have to do what you have to do.对差不多吧不得已而为之\Yeah you've got to do what you've got to do. Pretty much.如果你已经19天没有进食\If you've been going 19 days without any food那么总得有人要作出牺牲\you know someone just has to take the sacrifice必须有人牺牲其他人才能活下来\someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.此外假定他们活了下来\And furthermore from that let's say they survive回家以后成为对社会更加有益的公民\and then they become productive members of society比如创建了无数的慈善机构\who go home and start like a million charity organizations或者诸如此类的\and this and that and this and that.-最终他们造福了所有人 -对\- I mean they benefited everybody in the end. - Yeah. 当然没人知道他们接下来的情况\So I mean I don't know what they did afterwards 他们也可能回去杀了更多人我不知道\they might have gone and like killed more people I don't know.-那边在说什么 -也许他们成了杀手\- What? - Maybe they were assassins.那万一他们回家后结果成了杀手呢\What if they went home and they turned out to be assassins?那万一是杀手的话这个问题...\What if they went home and turned out to be你肯定想知道他们要杀谁\You do want to know who they assassinated.那倒是的确实是这样\That's true too. That's fair. That's fair.我的确会想知道他们要杀谁\I would want to know who they assassinated.好的你回答得不错你叫什么名字\All right. That's good. What's your name?-马库斯 -马库斯好了\- Marcus. - Marcus. All right.我们已经听了多种版本的辩护了\We've heard a defense a couple of voices for the defense.现在要听听控方的说法\Now we need to hear from the prosecution.大多数人都认为他们的行为是错误的为什么\Most people think what they did was wrong. Why?-你来 -首先我想的就是\- Yes. - One of the first things that I was thinking was 他们已经很长时间没吃东西了\they haven't been eating for a really long time 也许已经影响到他们的精神状况\maybe they're mentally like affected可以借此作为辩护\and so then that could be used as a defense可以辩称他们当时精神状况不太正常\a possible argument that they weren't in the proper state of mind所以他们的决定可能并非出于本意\they weren't making decisions they might otherwise be making.而如果只能用这样的辩词\And if that's an appealing argument说只有人精神状况不正常才会干出那种事\that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that这也就意味着那些觉得该论证有说服力的人们\it suggests that people who find that argument convincing其实是认为他们行为是不道德的\do think that they were acting immorally.但我想知道的是你是怎么想的\But what do you- I want to know你是怎么想的才会为他们辩护\what you think. You defend them.不好意思你是投的"有罪" 是吧\I'm sorry you vote to convict right?对我认为他们的行为在道德上不算正当\Yeah I don't think that they acted in a morally appropriate way.为什么你会怎么辩护\And why not? What do you say?比如马库斯他就为他们辩护\here's Marcus he just defended them.他说的你也听到了\He said...you heard what he said.对\Yes.在那种情况下你只能不得已而为之\That you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that.-对 -你怎么反驳马库斯呢\- Yeah. -What do you say to Marcus?世上没有任何情况允许\That there's no situation that would allow人类来主宰别人的命运或决断他人的生死\human beings to take the idea of fate or the other people's lives in their own hands我们没有那样的权力\that we don't have that kind of power.很好谢谢\Good. Okay. Thank you.你叫什么名字\And what's your name?布丽特\Britt.布丽特好的还有谁\Britt. Okay. Who else?你有何看法站起来说\What do you say? Stand up.我想知道达德利和斯蒂芬斯\I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven是否征得过派克的同意取他的性命\had asked for Richard Parker's consent in you know dying是否那样就能赦免他们的谋杀罪名\if that would exonerate them from an act of murder是否这样道德上就是正当的\and if so is that still morally justifiable?非常有趣好的征得同意\That's interesting. All right. Consent.等等你叫什么名字\Wait wait hang on. What's your name?凯思琳\Kathleen.凯思琳说假设他们那样做了\Kathleen says suppose they had that那该是什么样的情形呢\what would that scenario look like?故事里达德利手拿小刀\So in the story Dudley is there pen knife in hand没有做祷告或是在做祷告前\but instead of the prayer or before the prayer他说派克介意我们杀你吗\he says "Parker would you mind?"我们实在太饿了\"We're desperately hungry"马库斯对此感同身受啊\as Marcus empathizes with我们实在太饿了反正你也活不久了\"we're desperately hungry. You're not going to last long anyhow."对你就牺牲下自己吧\"Yeah. You can be a martyr."你就牺牲下自己吧怎么样派克\"Would you be a martyr? How about it Parker?" 这样的话你会怎么想这在道德上是正当的吗\Then what do you think? Would it be morally justified then?假设派克在半昏迷状态下说了好的\Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says"Okay." 我认为这在道德上是不正当的但我在想...\I don't think it would be morally justifiable but I'm wondering if --即使那样也不是正当的 -对\- Even then even then it wouldn't be? - No.你认为即便是派克同意了\You don't think that even with consent这在道德上也是不正当的\it would be morally justified?有没人赞同凯思琳这个"征得同意"的观点\Are there people who think who want to take up Kathleen's consent idea有谁认为派克同意道德上就是正当的\and who think that that would make it morally justified?如果你认为是正当的请举起手来\Raise your hand if it would if you think it would. 非常有趣\That's very interesting.为什么派克同意了在道德上就会不同呢\Why would consent make a moral difference? 为什么呢你来\Why would it? Yes.我只是认为如果这就是他的本意\Well I just think that if he was making his own original idea是他主动要求被杀的\and it was his idea to start with只有在这种情况下\then that would be the only situation我才认为无论从哪方面来说都是恰当的\in which I would see it being appropriate in any way因为那样的话就不能说派克是被迫的\because that way you couldn't make the argument that he was pressured毕竟当时是3对1的局面派克不占优势\you know it's three-to-one or whatever the ratio was.-对 -我认为如果是他自己决定献出生命\- Right. - And I think that if he was making a decision to give his life如果是他自己提出要牺牲自己\and he took on the agency to sacrifice himself也许有人会赞颂这种行为\which some people might see as admirable而其他人也许会反对这个决定\and other people might disagree with that decision. 所以如果是他自己提出的\So if he came up with the idea除非他是在这种情况下的同意\that's the only kind of consent才能确信说道德上没问题\we could have confidence in morally then it would be okay.否则考虑到当时情况\Otherwiseit would be kind of coerced consent他可能是被迫同意的\under the circumstancesyou think.有没有人认为即便是派克同意了\Is there anyone who thinks that even the consent of Parker也不能为他们的谋杀行径正名\would not justify their killing him?有人这么想吗你来\Who thinks that? Yes.站起来告诉我们理由\Tell us why. Stand up.我认为派克之所以会被杀\I think that Parker would be killed with the hope是因为其他人抱着可能被营救的希望\that the other crew members would be rescued 否则根本没有确定的理由要杀死派克\so there's no definite reason that he should be killed因为你根本不知道自己何时会得救\because you don't know when they're going to get rescued即使你杀了他那也无济于事\so if you kill him it's killing him in vain不然岂不是在得救之前你必须一直杀人\do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued最终无人可杀因为到头来人都死光了\and then you're left with no one because someone's going to die eventually?这情形的道德逻辑似乎是这样\Well the moral logic of the situation seems to be that就是他们一直拣软柿子捏\that they would keep on picking off the weakest maybe 逐个杀掉直至获救\one by one until they were rescued.而在本案中他们比较幸运\And in this caseluckily获救时起码还有三个是活着的\they were rescued when three at least were still alive.那如果派克的确同意了\Now if Parker did give his consent你觉得杀他是正当的吗\would it be all right do you think or not?-不还是错误的 -告诉我们理由为什么是错的\- No it still wouldn't be right. - And tell us why it wouldn't be all right.首先我认为食人有违伦理\First of all cannibalism I believe is morally incorrect你不管怎样都不该吃人\so you shouldn't be eating human anyway.这么说来食人在道德上是不能容忍的\So cannibalism is morally objectionable as such即便是在这种只能坐以待毙的情况下\so then even on the scenario of waiting until someone died依然是不能容忍的对吗\still it would be objectionable.对就我个人来讲\Yes to me personally我觉得这完全取决于一个人的道德修养\I feel like it all depends on one's personal morals而不是我们在这坐着说得清楚的\and like we can't sit here and just当然这只是我一家之言\like this is just my opinion其他人肯定会反对但是...\of course other people are going to disagree but这个到时再说先看他们的反对意见是什么\Well we'll see let's see what their disagreements are再来看他们的理由是否能说服你\and then we'll see if they have reasons that can persuade you or not.我们来试试好吧\Let's try that. All right.认为派克同意就属正当的\Now is there someone who can explain有没人能解释一下\those of you who are tempted by consent为什么派克同意了在道德上就有所不同呢\can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference?那抽签那个主意呢能被视作为同意吗\What about the lottery idea? Does that count as consent?还记得一开始时达德利曾提议抽签吗\Remember at the beginning Dudley proposed a lottery假设他们都同意了抽签\suppose that they had agreed to a lottery有多少人认为这样就可以接受\then how many would then say it was all right? 假设抽签时派克输了\Suppose there were a lottery cabin boy lost接下来的故事继续展开\and the rest of the story unfolded有多少人认为这样在道德上就是允许的\then how many people would say it was morally permissible?认为抽签了就能视为无罪的人数上升了\So the numbers are rising if we had a lottery. 我们来听听支持抽签\Let's hear from one of you会在道德上有所不同的人是怎么说的 \for whom the lottery would make a moraldifference.为什么\Why would it?就我的认知我觉得最重要的一点\I think the essential element in my mind之所以说他们构成犯罪\that makes it a crime is the idea是他们认为某种程度上自己命比派克更重要\that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his而这正是一切犯罪的动机\and that I mean that's kind of the basis for really any crime.就好比是我的需要与欲望比你的更重要\Right? It's like my needs my desires are more important than yours所以要优先考虑我\and mine take precedent.但如果他们每人都同意抽签决定\And if they had done a lottery where everyone consented谁应该牺牲\that someone should die就像是所有的人都同意牺牲自己来救其他人\and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves to save the rest.这样就可以接受是吗\Then it would be all right?是有点怪异但...\A little grotesque but但在道德上就是可以接受的\But morally permissible?-对 -你叫什么名字\- Yes. - And what's your name?-马特 -马特如此说来\- Matt. - So Matt for you真正困扰你的不是食人\what bothers you is not the cannibalism而是缺乏正当的程序\but the lack of due process.非要这样说也行\I guess you could say that.对吧有没谁同意马特的说法\Right? And can someone who agrees with Matt再来说说为什么通过抽签\say a little bit more about why a lottery让你觉得在道德上可以接受\would make it in your view morally permissible. 你说\Go ahead.就我的理解从始至终\The way I understood it originally was that一直困扰我们的争端就是\that was the whole issue is that从没有人去征得过派克的意见\the cabin boy was never consulted没人告诉他即将有什么遭遇\about whether or not something was going to happen to him就连最初提出的抽签\even with the original lottery他是否有份参与\whether or not he would be a part of that他们径直决定他应该是被牺牲的那个\it was just decided that he was the one that was going to die.-对就是这么个情况 -对\- Right that's what happened in the actual case. - Right.但如果他们抽签了他们也都同意这一程序\But if there were a lottery and they'd all agreed to the procedure那你认为就没问题是吧\you think that would be okay?对因为这样所有人都知道会有人死\Right because then everyone knows that there's going to be a death而不是像之前派克被完全蒙在鼓里\whereas the cabin boy didn't know that this discussion was even happening根本没有人预先警告他\there was no forewarning for him to know that可能抽到是我死\"Hey I may be the one that's dying."好吧假设每个人都赞同抽签\All right. Now suppose everyone agrees to the lottery抽签结果是派克输了\they have the lottery the cabin boy loses但他改主意了\and he changes his mind.你既然已经做了决定就相当于是口头契约\You've already decided it's like a verbal contract.你就不能反悔了已成定局了\You can't go back on that you've decided木已成舟了\the decision was made.抽签前你就知道你可能抽到牺牲自己救别人\If you know that you're dying for the reason of others to live.如果是别人抽到了那别人也得去死\If someone else had died you know that you would consume them so对但你可能会说 "我知道但我后悔了"\Right. But then you could say "I know but I lost".我只是觉得最大的道德问题\I just think that that's the whole moral issue就是根本没人征得过派克的意见\is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy 最可怕的是\and that's what makes it the most horrible他当时是完全被蒙在鼓里的\is that he had no idea what was even going on.如果他知道是怎么回事\That had he known what was going on至少会让人稍微可以理解一点\it would be a bit more understandable.很好我现在想听的是...\All right. Good. Now I want to hear -现在有人认为这行为是道德上允许的\so there are some who think it's morally permissible但只有20%的人 \but only about 20%以马库斯为代表\led by Marcus.还有人认为\Then there are some who say真正的问题在于没有征得同意\the real problem here is the lack of consent不管是没有征得同意抽签用公平程序进行\whether the lack of consent to a lottery to a fair procedure或者是凯思琳所说没有征得派克的同意杀他\or Kathleen's idea lack of consent at the moment of death.如果有征得同意\And if we add consent更多的人就愿意认为\then more people are willing这在道德上是正当的\to consider the sacrifice morally justified.。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：第一课：英文字幕
Funding for this program is provided by...Additional funding provided by...This is a course about justice and we begin with a you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the trackat miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all 's assume you know that for so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the endof that track, there is one worker working on the steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the 's our first question:what's the right thing to doWhat would you doLet's take a many would turnthe trolley caronto the side trackRaise your many wouldn'tHow many would go straight aheadKeep your hands up those of youwho would go straight handful of people would,the vast majority would 's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to 's begin with those in the majoritywho would turn to goonto the side would you do itWhat would be your reasonWho's willing to volunteer a reasonGo ahead. Stand it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person 's a good 's a good elseDoes everybody agreewith that reason Go I was thinking it's the same reasonon / with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big the principle therewas the same on /.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn YesLet's hear nowfrom those in the minority,those who wouldn't turn. , I think that'sthe same type of mentalitythat justifies genocideand order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the what would you doin this caseYou would, toavoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill themPresumably, would. Who elseThat's a brave 's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of youin the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driverof the trolley car,you're an 're standing on a bridgeoverlooking a trolley car down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat you couldgive him a would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley would diebut he would spare the , how many would pushthe fat man over the bridgeRaise your many wouldn'tMost people wouldn''s the obvious became of the principle"better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one"What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first caseI need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both do you explainthe difference between the two second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have beeninvolved in the situation at so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did heThat's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the ahead, you can come backif you want. All 's a hard question. You did did very 's a hard else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases , I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certainchoice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley I think it's a slightlydifferent right, who has a replyThat's good. Who has a wayWho wants to replyIs that a way out of thisI don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person,which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious either way,you're making a you want to replyI'm not really surethat that's the just still seemskind of act of actually pushingsomeone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him 're pushing himwith your own 're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into know, it doesn't really sound rightsaying it , no. It's good. It's 's your name me ask you this question, standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like you turnFor some reason,that still just seems more I mean, maybe if you accidentallylike leaned into the steering wheelor something like ... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the I could agree with 's all right. Fair still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the the second one,you're an onlooker as right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat right. Let's forget for the momentabout this 's 's imagine a different time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to 've been in a terribletrolley car of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spendall daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould many would save the fiveNow as the doctor,how many would save the oneVery few people,just a handful of reason, I life versus fiveNow consider another doctor time, you're a transplant surgeonand you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a you have no organ are about to see them then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a he's – you like that –and he's taking a nap,you could go in very quietly,yank out the five organs,that person would die,but you could save the many would do itAnyone How manyPut your hands upif you would do in the balconyI would Be careful,don't lean over too many wouldn'tAll right. What do you saySpeak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. WhyI'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other 's a pretty good 's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical 's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've let's considerwhat those moral principles look first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must 's an exampleof consequentialist moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral peoplehesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasonshaving to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they were thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights,regardless of the 're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast betweenconsequentialist and categoricalmoral most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke,Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,and 'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary,political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical will debate equality and inequality,affirmative action, free speech versushate speech, same sex marriage,military conscription,a range of practical questions. WhyNot just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the may sound appealing enough,but here I have to issue a the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks,risks that are both personaland political,risksthat every studentof political philosophy has risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already 's an difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already works by taking what we knowfrom familiar unquestioned settingsand making it 's how those examples worked,the hypotheticals with which we began,with their mix of playfulnessand 's also how thesephilosophical books estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same knowledge is like lost innocence,however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor makes this enterprise difficultbut also rivetingis that moral and political philosophyis a story and you don't knowwhere the story will what you do knowis that the story is about are the personal what of the political risksOne way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise youthat by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositionsof public policy,you will hone your political judgment,you will become a moreeffective participant in public this would be a partialand misleading philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that have to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out tells Socrates"Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if onepursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says,"abandon the accomplishmentsof active life,take for your modelsnot those people whospendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihoodand reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates"Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a had a point because philosophydistances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled are the risks,personal and in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for alleither the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve themAnd so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her ownprinciples and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of 's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following 's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every skepticism, just throwing up your handsand giving up on moral reflectionis no Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might you very , in a situation thatdesperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to do what you have to doYou got to dowhat you got to do, pretty you've been going dayswithout any food, you know,someone just hasto take the has to make the sacrificeand people can , that's 's your name, what do you say to MarcusLast time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were began with our judgmentsin particular tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles,revising eachin the light of the we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought we called thisconsequentialist moral we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the , many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrongeven if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one we contrasted consequentialistmoral principles with categorical and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral that's the philosophyof Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple a lot of morallyintuitive appeal,Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize did he mean byutilityHe meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain,happiness over 's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and human beingslike pleasure and dislike so we should base morality,whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens,we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of 's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and was a th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law 's what happened in the 'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the newspaper account of the timedescribed the sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, ship flounderedin the South Atlantic, miles from the were four in the crew,Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker, years was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of , it was not to facts of the casewere not in wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went four crew membersescaped to a only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh the first three days,they ate the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate next daythey caught a with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few then for eight days,theyhad food. No yourselfin a situation like that,what would you doHere's what they now the cabin boy, Parker,is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawateragainst the advice of the othersand he had become illand he appeared to be on the th day,Dudley, the captain,suggested that they should allhave a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the didn't like the lottery don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral in any case,no lots were next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin then they were describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism."On the th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand turned state's and Stevens went to didn't dispute the claimed they hadacted out of necessity;that was their argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could prosecutor wasn't swayedby that said murder is murder,and so the case went to imagine you are the just to simplify the discussion,put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissibleAnd how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrongA pretty sizeable let's see what people's reasons areand let me begin with thosewho are in the 's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and would you morallyexonerate themWhat are your reasons think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthereis a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensibleand what makes someonelegally other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact,exonerate you from any . Good. Other voices for the justificationsfor what they did. just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to dowhat you have to , you've got to dowhat you've got to you've been going days without any food, you know,someone just has to take the sacrifice,someone has to make the sacrificeand people can furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productivemembers of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizationsand this and thatand this and mean they benefited everybodyin the end. , I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't but. -WhatMaybe they were if they went homeand they turned out to be assassinsWhat if they'd gone homeand turned out to be assassins Well…You'd want to knowwho they 's true too. That's 's fair. I would want to knowwho they right. That's 's your name. All 've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the we need to hearfrom the people thinkwhat they did was wrong. WhyYes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be if that's an appealing argumentthat you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincingdo think that they wereacting what do you-I want to knowwhat you defend 'm sorry, you vote to convict, rightYeah, I don't think thatthey acted in a morallyappropriate why notWhat do you say,here's Marcus,he justdefended said –you heard what he you've got to dowhat you've got to doin a case like that. do you say to MarcusThat there'sno situation that would allowhuman beings to take the ideaof fate orthe other people's livesin their own hands,that we don't havethat kind of . what's your name. Okay. Who elseWhat do you say Stand 'm wondering if Dudley and Stevenhad asked for Richard Parker'sconsent in you know, dying,if that would exonerate themfrom an act of murderand if so,is that still morally justifiableThat's right. wait, hang 's your name sayssuppose they had that,what would thatscenario look likeSo in the story Dudley is there,pen knife in hand,but instead of the prayeror before the prayer,he says "Parker, would you mind""We're desperately hungry",as Marcus empathizes with,"we're desperately 're not going to last long anyhow."-Yeah. You can be a martyr."Would you be a martyrHow about it Parker"Then what do you thinkWould it be morally justified thenSuppose Parkerin his semi-stupor says "Okay."I don't think it would bemorally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be don't think thateven with consentit would be morally justifiedAre there people who thinkwho want to take upKathleen's consent ideaand who think thatthat would make itmorally justifiedRaise your handif it would, if you think it 's very would consentmake a moral differenceWhy would it , I just thinkthat if he was makinghis own original ideaand it was his ideato start with,then that would bethe only situationin which I would see itbeing appropriate in any waybecause that wayyou couldn't make the argumentthat he was pressured,you know it's three-to-oneor whatever the ratio . -And I think that if he wasmaking a decisionto give his lifeand he took on the agencyto sacrifice himselfwhich some peoplemight see as admirableand other people might disagreewith that if he came upwith the idea,that's the only kindof consent we could haveconfidence in morallythen it would be , it would be kind ofcoerced consentunder the circumstances,you thereanyone who thinksthat even the consent of Parkerwould not justify their killing himWho thinks that us why. Stand think that Parkerwould be killed with the hopethat the other crew memberswould be rescued so there's nodefinite reason thathe should be killedbecause you don't knowwhen they're going to get rescuedso if you kill him,it's killing him in vain,do you keep killing a crew memberuntil you're rescuedand then you're left with no onebecause someone's goingto die eventuallyWell, the moral logicof the situation seems to be that,that they would keep onpicking off the weakest maybe,one by one,until they were in this case, luckily,they were rescued when three at leastwere still , if Parker did give his consent,would it be all right,do you think or notNo, it still wouldn't be tell us whyit wouldn't be all of all, cannibalism,I believe, is morally incorrectso you shouldn't beeating human cannibalism is morallyobjectionable as such so then,even on the scenario ofwaiting until someone died,still it would be , to me personally,I feel like it all dependson one's personal moralsand like we can't sit here and just,like this is just my opinion,of course other peopleare going to disagree, but –Well we'll see,let's see what their disagreements areand then we'll seeif they have reasons that canpersuade you or 's try that. All , is there someonewho can explain,those of you who aretempted by consent,can you explain whyconsent makes sucha moral differenceWhat about the lottery ideaDoes that count as consentRemember at the beginning,Dudley proposed a lottery,suppose that they had agreedto a lottery,then how many would then sayit was all rightSuppose there were a lottery,cabin boy lost,and the rest of the story unfolded,then how many people would sayit was morally permissibleSo the numbers are risingif we had a 's hear from one of youfor whom the lotterywould make a moral would itI think the essential element,in my mind,that makes it a crimeis the idea that they decidedat some point that their liveswere more important than his,andthat, I mean, that's kind ofthe basis for really any It's like my needs,my desires are more importantthan yours and minetake if they had done a lotterywhere everyone consentedthat someone should dieand it's sort of like they're allsacrificing themselvesto save the it would be all rightA little grotesque but–.-But morally permissible what's your name Matt, for you,what bothers you isnot the cannibalismbut the lack of due guess you could say And can someone who agreeswith Matt say a little bit moreabout why a lottery would make it,in your view, morally way I understood itoriginally was thatthat was the whole issueis that the cabin boywas never consultedabout whether or notsomething was goingto happen to him,even with the original lotterywhether or nothe would bea part of that,it was just decidedthat he was the onethat was going to , that's what happenedin the actual if there were a lotteryand they'd all agreed to the procedure,you think that would be okayRight, because then everyoneknows that there's going to be a death,whereas the cabin boy didn't know thatthis discussion was even happening,there was no forewarningfor him to know that"Hey, I may be the one that's dying."All , suppose everyone agreesto the lottery, they have the lottery,the cabin boy loses,and he changes his 've already decided,it's like a verbal can't go back on that,you've decided,the decision was you know that you're dyingfor the reason of others to someone else had died,you know that you wouldconsume them so –Right. But then you could say,"I know, but I lost".I just think thatthat's the whole moral issueis that there was no consultingof the cabin boyand that's what makes itthe most horribleis that he had no ideawhat was even going had he knownwhat was going on,it would be a bit right. I want to hear –so there are some who thinkit's morally permissiblebut only about %,led by there are some who saythe real problem hereis the lack of consent,whether the lack of consentto a lottery, to a fair procedure or,Kathleen's idea,lack of。
哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 03-Free to Choose Who Owns Me 自由选择我属于谁？
Justice 03 Free to Choose / Who Owns Me? 自由选择/我属于谁？When we finished last time, we were looking at John Stuart Mill's attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's Utilitarianism.In his book Utilitarianism Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.And the results of our experiment seem to call into question Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be the higher or the worthier pleasure.That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.What about Mill's attempt to account for the especially weighty character of individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism.He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect.In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part of morality.But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.Why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality?Well, he says because in the long run, if we do justice and if we respect rights, society as a whole will be better off in the long run.Well, what about that?What if we have a case where making an exception and violating individual rights actually will make people better off in the long run?Is it all right then to use people?And there is a further objection that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights.Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.Is that the right reason?Is that the only reason to respect people?If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from the healthy patient who came in for a checkup to save five lives, there would be adverse effects in the long run.Eventually, people would learn about this and would stop going in for checkups.Is it the right reason?Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs out of the healthy patient that you think, well, if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual?And if that reason matters and it's not so clear that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it, fully to examine these two worries or objections, toMill's defense we need to push further.And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worth of pleasure?If so, what do they look like?That's one question.In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity or respect for person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian, we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares, the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.Strong theories of right say individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose or for the sake of maximizing utility, individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories or rights, it's a mistake to think about justice or law by just adding up preferences and values.The strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism.Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.It's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty precisely because we are separate individual beings.We're not available to any use that the society might desire or devise precisely because we are individual separate human beings.We have a fundamental right to liberty, and that means a right to choose freely, to live our lives as we please provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.That's the fundamental idea.Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers we read for this course, puts it this way: Individuals have rights.So strong and far reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.So what does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state?Well, there are three things that most modern states do that on the libertarian theory of rights are illegitimate or unjust.One of them is paternalist legislation.That's passing laws that protect people from themselves, seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.The libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seatbelts but that should be up to them and the state, the government, has no business coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law.It's coercion, so no paternalist legislation, number one.Number two, no morals legislation.Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.Take the example of, well, a classic example of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians.The libertarian says nobody else is harmed, nobody else's rights are violated, so the state should get out of the business entirely of trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor.Redistribution is a ®C if you think about it, says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.What it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority, if we're talking about a democracy, from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money.Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs, the national defense, police force, judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights, but that's it.Now, I want to get your reactions to this third feature of the libertarian view.I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why.But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake, consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.Now, is this just or unjust?Well, what does the libertarian say?Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or result whether it's just or unjust.You have to know how it came to be.You can't just look at the end stage or the result.You have to look at two principles.The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.And what that means simply is did people get the things they used to make their money fairly?So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods that enabled them to make all that money?If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was that enabled them to gather the wealth, the first principle is matched.The second principle is did the distribution arise from the operation of free consent, people buying and trading on the market?As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to a free market conception of justice provided people got what they used fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things, the distribution is just.And if not, it's unjust.So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion, take an actual example.Who's the wealthiest person in the United States ®C wealthiest person in the world?Bill Gates.It is. That's right.Here he is.You'd be happy, too.Now, what's his net worth?Anybody have any idea?That's a big number.During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy donors?Big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above, someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom, Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night for the next sixty six thousand years.Somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft, I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess, and you calculate this net wealth, it turns out that his rate of pay is over 150 dollars, not per hour, not per minute 150 dollars per second 187 which means that if on his way to the office, Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street, it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.Now, most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing.They need it more than he does.And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?What tax policy would you have?You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?Because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some, a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it, but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare of those at the bottom.But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up an aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.We have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer, then it would be wrong, it would be a form of coercion to take it away Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did pretty well for himself.You wanna see Michael Jordan.There he is.His income alone in one year was 211 he made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike and other companies.So his income was, in one year, $78 million.To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to the government to support good causes like food and health care and housing and education for the poor, that's coercion, that's unjust.That violates his rights.And that's why redistribution is wrong.Now, how many agree with that argument, agree with the libertarian argument that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?And how many disagree with that argument?All right, let's begin with those who disagree.What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?Yes.I think these people like Michael Jordan have received we're talking about working within a society and they receive a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation in return to give that through redistribution, you know, you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works, you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 231 I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him, on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?Go ahead.My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.I've since bought a hundred skateboards.I live in a society of a hundred people.I'm the only one with skateboards.Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.They come to my house, they take my they take 99 of my skateboards.I think that is unjust.Now, I think in certain circumstances it becomes necessary to overlook that unjustness, perhaps condone that injustice as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food.If people are on the verge of dying, perhaps it is necessary to overlook that injustice, but I think it's important to keep in mind that we're still committing injustice by taking people's belongings or assets.Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say, at a 33 percent tax rate for good causes to feed the hungry is theft?I think it's unjust.Yes, I do believe it's theft but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.But it's theft.Yes.Why is it theft, Joe?Because -- Why is it like your collection of skateboards?It's theft because, or at least, in my opinion and by the libertarian opinion he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him.So to take it from him is by definition theft.All right, let's hear if there is°≠ Who wants to reply to Joe?Yes, go ahead.I don't think this is necessarily a case in which you have 99 skateboards and the government°≠ or you have a hundred skateboards and the government is taking 99 of them.It's like you have more skateboards than there are days in a year.You have more skateboards that you're going to be able to use in your entire lifetime and the government is taking part of those.And I think that if you are operating in a society in which the gov ernment's not ®C in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth, then that allowsfor people to amass so much wealth that people who haven't started from this very the equal footing in our hypothetical situation, that doesn't exist in our real society get undercut for the rest of their lives.So you're worried that if there isn't some degree of redistribution of some or left at the bottom, there will be no genuine equality of opportunity.All right, the idea that taxation is theft, Nozick takes that point one step further.He agrees that it's theft.He's more demanding than Joe.Joe says it is theft, maybe in an extreme case it's justified, maybe a parent is justified in stealing a loaf of bread to feed his or her hungry family.So Joe I would say, what would you call yourself, a compassionatequasi-libertarian?Nozick says, if you think about it, taxation amounts to the taking of earnings.In other words, it means taking the fruits of my labor.But if the state has the right to take my earning or the fruits of my labor, isn't that morally the same as according to the state the right to claim a portion of my labor?So taxation actually is morally equivalent to forced labor because forced labor involves the taking of my leisure, my time, my efforts, just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor.And so, for Nozick and for the libertarians, taxation for redistribution is theft, as Joe says, but not only theft is morally equivalent to laying claim to certain hours of a person's life and labor, so it's morally equivalent to forced labor.If the state has a right to claim the fruits of my labor, that implies that it really has an entitlement to my labor itself.And what is forced labor?Forced labor, Nozick points out, is what, is slavery, because if I don't have the right, the sole right to my own labor, then that's really to say that the government or the political community is a part owner in me.And what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me?If you think about it, it means that I'm a slave, that I don't own myself.So what this line of reasoning brings us to is the fundamental principle that underlies the libertarian case for rights.What is that principle?It's the idea that I own myself.It's the idea of self possession if you want to take right seriously.If you don't want to just regard people as collections of preferences, the fundamental moral idea to which you will be lead is the idea that we are the owners or the propietors of our own person, and that's why utilitarianism goes wrong.And that's why it's wrong to yank the organs from that healthy patient.You're acting as if that patient belongs to you or to the community.But we belong to ourselves.And that's the same reason that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves or to tell us how to live, to tell us what virtues we should be governed by, and that's also why it's wrong to tax the rich to help the poor even for good causes, even to help those who are displaced by the Hurricane Katrina.Ask them to give charity.But if you tax them, it's like forcing them to labor.Could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip the next week's games and go down to help the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina?Morally, it's the same.So the stakes are very high.So far we've heard some objections to the libertarian argument.But if you want to reject it, you have to break in to this chain of reasoning which goes, taking my earnings is like taking my labor, but taking my labor is making me a slave.And if you disagree with that, you must believe in the principle of self possession.Those who disagree, gather your objections and we'll begin with them next time.Anyone like to take up that point? Yes.I feel like when you live in a society, you'd give up that right.I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone because they offend me, that is self possession.Because I live in a society, I cannot do that.Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self possession?Yes. I think that you don't really have self possession if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount the people around you.We were talking last time about libertarianism.I want to go back to the arguments for and against the redistribution of income.But before we do that, just one word about the minimal state, Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, he points out that many of the functions that we take for granted as properly belonging to government don't.They are paternalist.One example he gives is social security.He says it's a good idea for people to save for their retirement during their earning years but it's wrong.It's a violation of people's liberty for the government to force everyone whether they want to or not to put aside some earnings today for the sake of their retirement.If people want to take the chance or if people want to live big today and live a poor retirement, that should be their choice.They should be free to make those judgments and take those risks.So even social security would still be at odds with the minimal state that Milton Friedman argued for.It sometimes thought that collective goods like police protection and fire protection will inevitably create the problem of free riders unless they're publicly provided.But there are ways to prevent free riders.There are ways to restrict even seemingly collective goods like fire protection.I read an article a while back about a private fire company, the Salem Fire Corporation, in Arkansas.You can sign up with the Salem Fire Corporation, pay a yearly subscription fee, and if your house catches on fire, they will come and put out the fire.But they won't put out everybody's fire.They will only put it out if it's a fire in the home of a subscriber or if it starts to spread and to threaten the home of a subscriber.The newspaper article just told the story of a home owner who had subscribed to this company in the past but failed to renew his subscription.His house caught on fire.The Salem Fire Corporation showed up with its trucks and watched the house burn, just making sure that it didn't spread.The fire chief was asked, well, he wasn't exactly the fire chief.I guess he was the CEO.He was asked how can you stand by with fire equipment and allow a person's home to burn?He replied, once we verified there was no danger to a member's property, we had no choice but to back off according to our rules.If we responded to all fires, he said, there would be no incentive to subscribe.The homeowner in this case tried to renew his subscription at the scene of the fire.But the head of the company refused.You can't wreck your car, he said, and then buy insurance for it later.So even public goods that we take for granted that's being within the proper province of government can many of them in principle be isolated, made exclusive to those who pay.That's all to do with the question of collective goods and the libertarians injunction against paternalism.But let's go back now to the arguments about redistribution.Now, underlying the libertarian's case for the minimal state is a worry about coercion, but what's wrong with coercion?The libertarian offers this answer: To coerce someone, to use some person for the sake of the general welfare is wrong because it calls into question the fundamental fact that we own ourselves the fundamental moral fact of self possession or self ownership.The libertarian's argument against redistribution begins with this fundamental idea that we own ourselves.Nozick says that if the society as a whole can go to Bill Gates or go to Michael Jordan and tax away a portion of their wealth, what the society is really asserting is a collective property right in Bill Gates or in Michael Jordan.But that violates the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves.Now, we've already heard a number of objections to the libertarian argument.What I would like to do today is to give the libertarians among us a chance to answer the objections that have been raised and some have been some have already identified themselves and have agreed to come and make the case for libertarianism to reply to the objections that have been raised.So raise your hand if you are among the libertarians who's prepared to stand up for the theory and respond to the objections.You are?Alex Harris.Alex Harris, who's been a star on the web blog.All right, Alex, come here.Stand up.Come.We'll create a libertarian corner over here.And who else?Other libertarians who will join.What's your name?John.John?Sheffield.John Sheffield.Who else wants to join?Other brave libertarians who are prepared to take on Yes, what's your name?Julia Rotto.Julia Rotto.Julia, come join us over there.Now, while the ®C while team libertarian Julie, John, Alex.While team libertarian is gathering over there, let me just summarize the main objections that I've heard in class and on the website.Objection number one®C and here I'll come down to- I wanna talk to team libertarian over here.So objection number one is that the poor need the money more.That's an obvious objection, a lot more than -- thanks ®C than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.Objection number two, it's not really slavery to tax because at least in a democratic society it's not a slave holder.It's congress.It's a democratic°™ you're smiling, Alex, already.You're confident you can reply to all of these?So taxation by consent of the governed is not coercive.Third, some people have said don't the successful like Gates owe a debt to society for their success that they repay by paying taxes.Who wants to respond to the first one, the poor need the money more?All right, and you're?John.John. All right, John, what's the, here I'll hold it.All right.The poor need the money more.That's quite obvious.I could use the money.You know, I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates give me a million dollars.I mean, I'd take a thousand.But at some point you have to understand that the benefits of redistribution of wealth don't justify the initial violation of the property right.If you look at the argument the poor need the money more, at no point in that argument do you contradict the fact that we've extrapolated from, agreed upon principles that people own themselves.We've extrapolated that people have property rights and so whether or not it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even a necessary thing for the survival of some people, we don't see that that justifies the violation of the right that we've logically extrapolated.Good. Okay.And so that also, I mean, there still exist this institution of like individual philanthropy.Milton Friedman makes this argument- All right, so Bill Gates can give to charity if he wants to.Right.But it would still be wrong to coerce him.Exactly.To meet the needs of the poor.Exactly.Are the two of you happy with that reply?Anything to add?All right, go ahead. Julie?Julia, yes.I think I can also add, it's okay.I guess I could add that there's a difference between needing something and deserving something.I mean, in an ideal society everyone's needs would be met but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society and, yeah.And the poor don't deserve don't deserve the benefits that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help them.Based on what we've covered here I don't think you deserve something like that.All right, let me push you a little bit on that, Julia.The victims of Hurricane Katrina are in desperate need of help.Would you say that they don't deserve help that would come from the federal government through taxation?Okay, that's a difficult question.I think this is a case where they need help, not deserve it, but I think, again, if you had a certain level of requirements to meet sustenance, you're gonna need help, like, if you don't have food or a place to live, that's a case of need.So need is one thing and deserve is another.Exactly.All right.Who would like to reply?Yes.Going back to the first point that you made about the property rights of individual.The property rights are established and enforced by the government, which is a democratic government, and we have representatives to enforce those rights.If you live in a society that operates under those rules, then it should be up to the government to decide how those resources[inaudible]taxation are distributed because it is through the consent of the government.If you disagree with it, you don't have to live in that society where that operates.All right, good, so, and tell me your name.Raul.Raul is pointing out, actually, Raul is invoking point number two.If the taxation is by the consent of the governed, it's not coerced.It's legitimate.Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United States.They get to vote for congress.They get to vote their policy convictions just like everybody else.Who would like to take that one on? John?Basically, what the libertarians are objecting to in this case is the middle 80 percent deciding what the top ten percent are doing for the bottom ten percent.Wait, wait, wait, John.Majority.Don't you believe in democracy?Well, right, but at some point -- Don't you believe in, I mean, you say 80 percent, Majority rule is what?549 The majority.Exactly, but -- In a democracy.。
哈佛公开课Justice第一课字幕中英对照精解.pdf.pdf
JusEpisode OnPART ONE If you ha five oth would di What wou Professo After the to save conundru difficul becomes contradi always b PART TWO Sandel i Bentham,shipwrec decides the rest a classr doctrine for the stice: What’s One E: THE MORAL S ad to choose b ers and (2) d e right befor ld be the rig r Michael Sane majority of the lives of ms—each one t. As studen clear that th ctory, and th lack and whit O: THE CASE FO introduces the with a famou cked crew of f to kill the w t can feed on room debate ab e that the righ greatest numb s the Right T SIDE OF MURDE between (1) ki oing nothing re your eyes i ht thing to d ndel uses to l students vote five others, artfully desi nts stand up to he assumptions e question of te.OR CANNIBALISM e principles o us nineteenth four. After n weakest amongs his blood and bout the moral ht thing to do ber.Thing to Do?ER 谋杀的道德侧illing one per even though y f you did not o? That’s t launch his co es for killing Sandel prese igned to make o defend their s behind our m what is right SM 食人肉案件of utilitaria h century lega nineteen days st them, the d body to sur l validity of is whatever p侧面rson to save t you knew that thing—what wo the hypothetic urse on moral g the one pers nts three sim the decision r conflicting moral reasonin t and what is w an philosopher al case involv lost at sea, young cabin b rvive. The c f utilitariani produces the gr the lives of five people ould you do? cal scenariol reasoning. son in order milar moral n more choices, it ng are often wrong is not r, Jeremy ving a the captain boy, so that case sets up ism—and its reatest good episode ['epi moral ['m ɔr hypothetical ['scenario [si'na reasoning ['ri:vote [v əut] n conundrum [k artfully ['a:tful defend [di'fen conflict ['k ɔnfl conflicting [k defend [di'fen assumption [contradictory cannibalism ['utilitarian [.ju legal ['li:g əl]shipwrecked [crew [kru:] amongst [ə'm cabin ['kæbi survive [s ə'vdebate [di'be validity [væ'l doctrine ['d is əud] n. 插曲əl] adj. 道德的'haip əu'θetik əl]a:ri əu] n. 情节zni ŋ] n. 推论n. 投票, 选举v k ə'n ʌndr əm] n li] adv.艺术地,有d] v. 防护, 辩likt] n.冲突,矛ən'flikti ŋ] adj d] v. 防护, 辩护ə's ʌmp ʃən] n.假 [.k ɔntr ə'dikt əri 'kænib əliz əm] n u:tili't ɛəri ən] n.功 adj. 法律的, 合'ʃiprekt] adj. 失 n. 全体船员ʌŋst] prep. 在 n] n. 船舱, 机vaiv] 活下来, 幸eit] n.v. 辩论liditi] n. 有效性ɔktrin] n. 教义曲, 一段情节, 片的 ] adj.假设的,假节梗概, 剧本 论, 推理, 论证 v. 投票, 选举, n. 谜语, 难题 有技巧地,熟练地辩护, 防守 矛盾vi. 冲突,争. 相冲突的 护, 防守 假定,设想,担任(职i] adj. 矛盾的n n.吃人肉的习性功利主义者adj 合法的, 法定的失事的, 遭海难... 之中,在...之机舱, 小木屋幸存; 残留 论, 讨论 性, 正确性, 正当义, 主义, 学说片段, 轶事假定的,爱猜想的表决 地,狡诈地 争执 职责等),假装 n.矛盾 性, 同类相食 j.功利的,实用的的 难的 之间(=among) 当的Funding for this program is provided by... 此节目由以上公司 fund [fʌnd]资金,基金,专款Additional funding provided by... 以上人士提供赞助This is a course about justice 这是一堂关于公平与正义的公共课 course [kɔ:s]学科，课程，教程and we begin with a story. 让我们先从一个故事讲起 hurtle ['hə:tl] v.猛冲;飞驰,猛烈碰撞Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, 假设你现在是一辆有轨电车的司机 suppose [sə'pəuz] 假定; 设想，料想and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. 而你的电车正在铁轨上以时速60英里疾驶 trolley ['trɔli] 〔英〕手推车；〔美〕(有轨)电车And at the end of the track 在铁轨末端 brake [breik]制动器<->break [breik]毁坏,打破you notice five workers working on the track. 你发现有五个工人在铁轨上工作You try to stop but you can't, 你尽力想停下电车, 但是你做不到your brakes don’t work. 电车的刹车失灵了 美剧绝望的主妇Desperate HousewivesYou feel desperate because you know 你觉得十分绝望，因为你知道 desperate:绝望的,穷途末路的,拼命的that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. 如果你就这样撞向这5个工人，他们必死无疑 crash into 碰到，撞在Let’s assume you know that for sure. 假定你很清楚这一点 assume [ə'sjuːm] 假定，想像，设想And so you feel helpless until you notice 正当你感到无助的时候, 你突然发现that there is, off to the right, 就在右边a side track and at the end of that track, 一条岔道，那根轨道的尽头there is one worker, working on the track. 只有一个工人在那里工作Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, 你的方向盘没有失灵, 只要你愿意 steering ['stiəriŋ] 舵把,方向盘；掌舵,驾驶,转向。
哈佛大学公开课-公正-该如何做是好？
哈佛大学公开课公平与正义，该如何做是好？主讲：迈克尔·桑德尔迈克尔·桑德尔第一讲：谋杀的道德侧面教授：这是一堂关于公平与正义的公共课。
让我们先从一个故事讲起，假设你现在是一辆有轨电车的司机。
你的电车正在铁轨上以每小时60英里的速度疾驶。
在铁轨末端，你发现有五个工人在铁轨上工作。
你尽力想停下电车, 但是你做不到，电车的刹车失灵了。
你觉得十分绝望，因为你知道如果你就这样撞向这5个工人他们必死无疑，假定你很清楚这一点。
正当你感到无助的时候, 你突然发现就在右边另一根铁轨的尽头只有一个工人在那里工作。
你的方向盘没有失灵, 只要你愿意你可以让电车转向到那条分叉铁轨上撞死一个工人，但却因此救了另外5个人。
那我们的第一个问题就来了，现在我们该怎么做才对?你会怎么做? 我们做个调查，看看有多少人会选择让电车转向到分叉铁轨上，举起你的手，多少人不会?多少人选择就这样笔直开下去?选笔直开下去的人先别放手。
少数人会，大多数人选择转向。
让我们先听听看。
现在我们研究下，你为什么觉得这样做是正确的?让我们先从大多数人开始吧。
谁选择转向的?你为什么这么选？你的理由是什么？谁愿意给我一个理由的？站起来说吧。
学生：因为当你可以只撞死一个人时却去撞死5个人肯定是不对的。
教授：当可以只撞死一个人时却去撞死5个人肯定不对，这是个好理由。
这是个好理由。
其他人呢？每个人都同意刚刚那个理由么?你来。
学生：我觉得这和9.11的一项事件是同样原因。
我们把那些将飞机撞向宾夕法尼亚空地的人视为英雄，因为他们选择只牺牲飞机里的人从而拯救了大楼里的更多生命。
所以原因和9.11事件中那些人的选择是相同的。
虽然一定会发生悲剧，但只撞死一个人好过撞死五个。
教授：你们大多数人是不是都这么想，选择转向的各位，是么？现在让我们听听那些少数人的想法，选择直行的人学生：我觉得这和对种族灭绝与极权主义的诡辩相似。
为了拯救一个种族你抹去了其他的种族。
教授：那么在这个事例中你会怎么做？你会，为了避免恐怖的种族灭绝主义而选择撞死那5个人么?学生：理论上，是这样。
哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICE中英
哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICEIntroduction哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICE（公正）是哈佛大学著名哲学教授迈克尔·桑德尔斯（Michael Sandel）于2009年开设的一门课程。
JUSTICE课程探讨了道德和政治哲学中的核心问题，涵盖了伦理学、政治学、经济学和法学等多个学科领域。
这门课程通过案例分析和讨论来引导学生思考公正和道德问题，以期培养学生的批判性思维和逻辑推理能力。
Course StructureJUSTICE课程共分为12个单元，每个单元探讨一个基本问题，例如财富分配、权力、正义、人权等。
每个单元都包括教授的讲座、案例分析和学生的互动讨论环节。
这种教学方式旨在激发学生的积极参与，并通过讨论不同观点来促进学生的思考和辩论能力。
Course Highlights1. 公正的本质第一个单元的讨论着重探索公正的本质和意义。
课程将引导学生思考什么是公正，以及如何在不同背景下实现公正。
通过讨论相关案例，学生将了解不同的伦理观点和社会背景如何影响对公正的理解。
2. 平等与不平等第二个单元将探讨平等和不平等的问题。
课程将引导学生思考在不同领域如教育、财富和机会等中，平等的界定和实现。
通过讨论实际情况，学生将了解不同社会政策对平等与不平等的影响。
3. 个体权利与公共权利第三个单元将引导学生思考个体权利与公共权利之间的平衡。
课程将探讨当个人权利与公共利益存在冲突时，应如何权衡和解决。
通过分析真实案例，学生将学习如何判断个体权利与公共权利之间的关系。
4. 国际正义第四个单元将重点讨论国际正义的问题。
课程将引导学生思考国际关系中的公正和不公正现象，并探讨全球治理和政策制定中的道德问题。
通过讨论不同国家之间的争议和冲突，学生将了解不同国家之间的权力关系和利益冲突。
5. 公正与超越第五个单元将探讨超越公正的问题。
课程将引导学生思考公正的局限性和其他价值观的重要性。
通过引入宗教、道德和文化等方面的讨论，学生将思考公正之外的价值观在社会中的作用。
justice 08-哈佛大学公开课-公正What’s a Fair Start What Do We Deserve 什么是公平的起点？我们该得到
Justice 08 What’s a Fair Start? / What Do We Deserve? 什么是公平的起点？/我们该得到什么？Today, we turn to the question of distributive justice.How should income in wealth and power and opportunities be distributed? According to what principles?John Rawls offers a detailed answer to that question.And we're going to examine and assess his answer to that question, today.We put ourselves in a position to do so last time.By trying to make sense of why he thinks that principles of justice are best derived from a hypothetical contract.And what matters is that the hypothetical contract be carried out in an original position of equality, behind, what Rawls calls, the veil of ignorance.So that much is clear?Alright, then let's turn to the principles that Rawls says would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.First, he considered some of the major alternatives.What about utilitarianism?Would the people in the original position choose to govern their collective lives utilitarian principles, the greatest good for the greatest number?No, they wouldn't, Rawls says.And the reason is, that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone knows that once the veil goes up, and real life begins, we will each want to be respected with dignity.Even if we turn out to be a member of a minority.We don't want to be oppressed.And so we would agree to reject utilitarianism, and instead to adopt as our first principle, equal basic liberties.Fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the like.We wouldn't want to take the chance that we would wind up as members of an oppressed or a despised minority with the majority tyrannizing over us.And so Rawls says utilitarianism would be rejected."Utilitarianism makes the mistake", Rawls writes, "of forgetting, or at least not taking seriously, the distinction between persons." And in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, we would recognize that and reject utilitarianism.We wouldn't trade off our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages.That's the first principle.Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities.What would we agree to?Remember, we don't know whether we're going to wind up rich or poor.Healthy or unhealthy.We don't know what kind of family we're going to come from.Whether we're going to inherit millions or whether we will come from an impoverished family.So we might, at first thought, say, "Well let's require an equal distribution of income and wealth." Just to be on the safe side.But then we would realize, that we could do better than that.Even if we're unlucky and wind up at the bottom.We could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality.Rawls calls it "the Difference Principle".A principle that says, only those social and economic inequalities will be permitted that work to the benefit of the least well off.So we wouldn't reject all inequality of income and wealth.We would allow some.But the test would be, do they work to the benefit of everyone including those, or as he specifies, the principle, especially those at the bottom.Only those inequalities would be accepted behind the veil of ignorance.And so Rawls argues, only those inequalities that work to the benefit of the least well off, are just.We talked about the examples of Michael Jordan making 81 Of Bill Gates having a fortune in the tens of billions.Would those inequalities be permitted under the difference principle?Only if they were part of a system, those wage differentials, that actually work to the advantage of least well off.Well, what would that system be?Maybe it turns out that as a practical matter you have to provide incentives to attract the right people to certain jobs.And when you do, having those people in those jobs will actually help those at the bottom.Strictly speaking, Rawls's argument for the difference principle is that it would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.Let me hear what you think about Rawls's claim that these two principles would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be chosen?Alright, let's start up in the balcony, if that's alright.Go ahead.OK, your argument depends upon us believing that we would argue in said policy, or justice from a bottom.For the disadvantaged.And I just don't see from a proof standpoint, where we've proven that.Why not the top?Right, and what's your name?- Mike.Mike, alright, good question.Put yourself behind the veil of ignorance.Enter into the thought experiment.What principles would you choose?How would you think it through?Well, I would say things like, even Harvard's existence is an example of preaching toward the top.Because Harvard takes the top academics.And I didn't know when I was born how smart I would be.But I worked my life to get to a place of this caliber.Now, if you had said Harvard's going to randomly take 1600 people of absolutely no qualification, we'd all be saying, "There's not much to work for." And so what principle would you choose?In that situation I would say a merit based one.One where I don't necessarily know, but I would rather have a system that rewards me based on my efforts.So you, Mike, behind the veil of ignorance, would choose a merit-based system, where people are rewarded according to their efforts?Alright, fair enough.What would you say?Go ahead.My question is, if the merit-based argument is based on when everyone is at a level of equality?Where from that position, you're rewarded to where you get, or is it regardless of what advantages you may have when you began your education to get where you are here?I think what the question you're asking is saying that if we want to look at, whatever, utilitarianism, policy, do you want to maximize world wealth.And I think a system that rewards merit is the one that we've pretty much all established, is what is best for all of us.Despite the fact that some of us may be in the second percentile and some may be in the 98th percentile.At the end of the day it lifts that lowest based level, a community that rewards effort as opposed to an differences.But, I don't understand how you're rewards someone's efforts who clearly has had, not you, but maybe myself, advantages throughout, to get where I am here.I mean, I can't say that somebody else who maybe worked as hard as I did would have had the same opportunity to come to a school like this.Alright, let's look at that point.What's your name?Kate. -Kate, you suspect that the ability to get into top schools may largely depend on coming from an affluent family.Having a favorable family background, social, cultural, economic advantages and so on?I mean, economic, but yes, social, cultural.All of those advantages, for sure.Someone did a study, of the 146 selective colleges and universities in the United States.And they looked at the students in those colleges and universities to try to find out what their background was, their economic background.What percentage do you think, come from the bottom quarter of the income scale?You know what the figure is?Only three percent of students, at the most selective colleges and universities come from poor backgrounds.Over 70 percent come from affluent families.Let's go one step further then, and try to address Mike's challenge.Rawls actually has two arguments, not one, in favor of his principles of justice.And in particular, of the difference principle.One argument is the official argument, what would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.Some people challenge that argument, saying, "Maybe people would want to take their chances.Maybe people would be gamblers behind the veil of ignorance.Hoping that they would wind up on top." That's one challenge that has been put to Rawls.But backing up the argument from the original position is the second argument.And that is the straightforwardly moral argument.And it goes like this, it says, the distribution of income and wealth and opportunities should not be based on factors for which people can claim no credit.It shouldn't be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.Rawls illustrates this by considering several rival theories of justice.He begins with the theory of justice that most everyone these days would reject.A feudal aristocracy.What's wrong with the allocation of life prospects in a feudal aristocracy?Rawls says, well the thing that's obviously wrong about it is that people's life prospects are determined by the accident of birth.Are you born to a noble family or to a family of peasants and serfs?And that's it.You can't rise.It's not your doing where you wind up or what opportunities you have.But that's arbitrary from a moral point of view.And so that objection to feudal aristocracy leads, and historically has lead, people to say, careers should be open to talents.There should be formal equality of opportunity regardless of the accident of birth.Every person should be free to strive, to work, to apply for any job in the society.And then, if you open up jobs, and you allow people to apply, and to work as hard as they can, then the results are just.So it's more or less the libertarian system that we've discussed in earlier weeks.What does Rawls think about this?He says it's an improvement.It's an improvement because it doesn't take as fixed the accident of birth.But even with formal equality of opportunity the libertarian conception doesn't extend that, doesn't extend its insight far enough.Because if you let everybody run the race, everybody can enter the race, but some people start at different starting points, that race isn't going to be fair.Intuitively, he says, the most obvious injustice of this system is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by factors arbitrary from a moral point of view.Such as, whether you got a good education or not.Whether you grew up in a family that support you and developed in you a work ethic and gave you the opportunities.So that suggests moving to a system of fair equality of opportunity.And that's really the system that Mike was advocating earlier on.What we might call a merit-based system.A meritocratic system.In a fair meritocracy the society sets up institutions to bring everyone to the same starting point before the race begins.Equal educational opportunities.Head start programs, for example.Support for schools in impoverished neighborhoods.So that everyone, regardless of their family background, has a genuinely fair opportunity.Everyone starts from the same starting line.Well, what does Rawls think about the meritocratic system?Even that, he says, doesn't go far enough in remedying, or addressing, the moral arbitrariness of the natural lottery.Because if you bring everyone to the same starting point and begin the race, who's going to win the race?Who would win?To use the runners example.The fastest runners would win.But is it their doing that they happen to be blessed with athletic prowess to run fast?So Rawls says, "Even the principle of meritocracy, where you bring everyone to the same starting point, may eliminate the influence of social contingencies and upbringing, ...but it still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents." And so he thinks that the principle of eliminating morally arbitrary influences in the distribution of income and wealth requires going beyond what Mike favors, the meritocratic system.Now, how do you go beyond?Do you bring everyone to the same starting point and you're still bothered by the fact that some are fast runners and some are not fast runners, what can you do?Well, some critics of a more egalitarian conception say the only thing you can do is handicap the fast runners.Make them wear lead shoes.But who wants to do that?That would defeat the whole point of running the race.But Rawls says, you don't have to have a kind of leveling equality, if you want to go beyond a meritocratic conception.You permit, you even encourage, those who may be gifted, to exercise their talents.But what you do, is you change the terms on which people are entitled to the fruits of the exercise of those talents.And that really is what the difference principle is.You establish a principle that says, people may benefit from their good fortune, from their luck in the genetic lottery, but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off.And so, for example, Michael Jordan can make 290 only under a system that taxes away a chunk of that to help those who lack the basketball skills that he's blessed with.Likewise, Bill Gates.He can make his billions.But he can't think that he somehow morally deserves those billions."Those who have been favored by nature, may gain from their good fortune but only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out." That's the difference principle.And it's an argument from moral arbitrarianists.Rawls claims, that if you're bothered by basing distributive shares on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view, you don't just reject a feudal aristocracy for a free market.You don't even rest content with a meritocratic system that brings everyone to the same starting point.You set up a system, where everyone, including those at the bottom, benefit from the exercise of the talents held by those who happen to be lucky.What do you think?Is that persuasive?Who finds that argument unpersuasive?The argument for moral arbitrarianists.Yes.I think that in the egalitarian proposition the more talented people, I think it's very optimistic to think that they would still work really hard, even if they knew that part of what they made would be given away.So I think that the only way for the more talented people to exercise their talents to the best of their ability is in the meritocracy.And in a meritocracy, what's your name?Kate.Kate, does it bother you, and Mike, does it bother you, that in a meritocratic system, that even with fair equality of opportunity, people get ahead, people get rewards that they don't deserve simply because they happen to be naturally gifted.What about that?I think that it is arbitrary.Obviously it's arbitrary.But I think that correcting for it would be detrimental.Because it would reduce incentives, is that why?It would reduce incentives, yeah.Mike, what do you say?We're all sitting in this room and we have undeserved, we have undeserved glory of some sort.So you should not be satisfied with the process of your life.Because you have not created any of this.And I think, from a standpoint of, not just this room, us being upset, but from a societal standpoint we should have some kind of a gut reaction to that feeling.The guy who runs the race, he doesn't...He actually harms us as opposed to maybe makes me run that last ten yards faster.And that makes the guy behind me run ten yards faster and the guy behind him ten yards faster.Alright, so Mike, let me ask you.You talked about effort before.Effort.Do you think when people work hard to get ahead, and succeed, that they deserve the rewards that go with effort?Isn't that the idea behind your defense?I mean, of course, bring Michael Jordan here, I'm sure you can get him, and have him come and defend himself about he makes 31 million dollars.And I think what you're going to realize is his life was a very, very tough one to get to the top.And that we are basically being the majority oppressing the minority in a different light.It's very easy to pick on him.Very easy.Alright, effort.You've got...I've got a few. I've got a few.But that's about it.Effort, you know what Rawls's answer to that is?Even the effort that some people expend, conscientious driving, the work ethic, even effort depends a lot on fortunate family circumstances.For which you, we, can claim no credit.Let's do the test.Let's do a test here.Never mind economic class, those differences are very significant.Put those aside.Psychologists say that birth order makes a lot of difference in work ethic, striving, effort.How many here, raise your hand, those of you here, who are first in birth order.I am too by the way.Mike, I noticed you raised your hand.If the case for the meritocratic conception is that effort should be rewarded, doesn't Rawls have a point that even effort striving, work ethic is largely shaped even by birth order?Is it your doing?Mike, is it your doing that you were first in birth order?Then why, Rawls says, of course not.So why should income and wealth and opportunities in life be based on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view?That's the challenge that he puts to market societies, but also to those of us at places like this.A question to think about for next time.A justice of the United States Supreme Court, what do they make?It's just under $200,000.But there's another judge who makes a lot more than Sandra Day O'Connor.Do you know who it is?- Judge Judy?Judge Judy.How did you know that?Judge Judy, you know how much she makes?$25 million.Now, is that just?Is it fair?We ended last time with that remarkable poll, do you remember?The poll about birth order.What percentage of people in this room raised their hands, was it, to say that they were the first born?403 And what was the significance of that?If you're thinking about these theories of distributive justice.Remember, we were discussing three different theories of distributive justice.Three different ways of answering the question, "How should income and wealth and opportunities and the good things in life, be distributed?" And so far we've looked at the libertarian answer.That says, the just system of distribution is a system of free exchange, a free market economy.Against a background of formal equality.Which simply means, that jobs and careers are open to anyone.Rawls says that this represents an improvement over aristocratic and caste systems, because everyone can compete for every job.Careers open to talents.And beyond that, the just distribution is the one that results from free exchange.Voluntary transactions.No more, no less.Then Rawls argues, if all you have is formal equality, jobs open to everyone, the result is not going to be fair.It will be biased in favor of those who happen to be born to affluent families, who happen to have the benefit of good educational opportunities.And that accident of birth is not a just basis for distributing life chances.And so, many people who notice this unfairness, Rawls argues, are lead to embrace a system of fair equality of opportunity.That leads to the meritocratic system.Fair equality of opportunity.But Rawls says, even if you bring everyone to the same starting point in the race, what's going to happen?Who's going to win?The fastest runners.So once you're troubled by basing distributive shares on morally arbitrary contingencies, you should, if you reason it through, be carried all the way to what Rawls calls, "the democratic conception".A more egalitarian conception of distributive justice that he defines by the difference principle.Now, he doesn't say that the only way to remedy or to compensate for differences in natural talents and abilities is to have a kind of, leveling equality.A guaranteed equality of outcome.But he does say there's another way to deal with these contingencies.People may gain, may benefit from their good fortune, but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off.And so, we can test how this theory actually works by thinking about some paid differentials that arise in our society.What does the average school teacher make in the United States, do you suppose?Roughly.-$35,000.It's a little more, 40, $42,000.What about David Letterman?How much do you think David Letterman makes?More than a school teacher?$31 million.David Letterman.Is that fair?That David Letterman makes that much more than a school teacher?Well, Rawls's answer would be, it depends whether the basic structure of society is designed in such a way that Letterman's $31 million is subject to taxation so that some of those earnings are taken to work for the advantage of the least well off.One other example of a paid differential.A justice of the United States Supreme Court.What do they make?It's just under $200,000.Here's Sandra Day O'Connor, for example. There she is.But there's another judge who makes a lot more than Sandra Day O'Connor.Do you know who it is?- Judge Judy.Judge Judy.How did you know that?You watch?You're right.Judge Judy, you know how much she makes?There she is.$25 million.Now, is that just?Is it fair?Well, the answer is, it depends on whether this is against a background system in line with the difference principle.Where those who come out on top, in terms of income and wealth are taxed in a way that benefits the least well off members of society.Now, we're going to come back to these wage differentials, pay differentials, between a real judge and a TV judge.The one Marcus watches all the time.What I want to do now, is return to these theories and to examine the objections to Rawls's more egalitarian theory.The difference principle.There are at least three objections to Rawls's difference principle.One of them came up last time in the discussion and a number of you raised this worry.What about incentives?Isn't there the risk, if taxes reach 506 that Michael Jordan won't play basketball?That David Letterman won't do late night comedy?Or that CEOs will go into some other line of work?Now, who among those who are defenders of Rawls who has an answer to this objection about the need for incentives?Yes. Go ahead, stand up.Rawls's idea is that there should only be so much difference that it helps the least well off the most.So if there's too much equality, then the least well off might not be able to watch late night TV, or might not have a job because their CEO doesn't want to work.So you need to find the correct balance where taxation still leaves enough incentive to least well off to benefit from the talents.- Good.And what's your name?- Tim.Tim. Alright, so Tim is saying, in effect, that Rawls is taking count of incentives.And could allow for pay differentials and for some adjustment in the tax rate to take account of incentives.But, Tim points out, the standpoint from which the question of incentives needs to be considered is not the effect on the total size of the economic pie.But instead from the standpoint of the effect of incentives, or disincentives, on the well-being of those on the bottom.Right?Good. Thank you.I think that is what Rawls would say.In fact, if you look in section 17, where he describes the difference principle, he allows for incentives."The naturally advantaged are not gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education andfor using their endowments in ways that help less fortunate as well." So you can have incentives.You can adjust the tax rate.If taking too much from David Letterman or from Michael Jordan, or from Bill Gates, winds up actually hurting those at the bottom.That's the test.So incentives, that's not a decisive objections against Rawls's difference principle.But there are two weightier, more difficult objections.One of them comes from defenders of a meritocratic conception.The argument that says, what about effort?What about people working hard having a right to what they earn because they've deserved it.They've worked hard for it.That's the objection from effort and moral desert.Then there's another objection.That comes from libertarians.And this objection has to do with reasserting the idea of self-ownership.Doesn't the difference principle, by treating our natural talents and endowments as common assets, doesn't that violate the idea that we own ourselves?Now, let me deal first, with the objection that comes from the libertarian direction.Milton Friedman writes, in his book, "Free to Choose," "Life is not fair.And it's tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned." But his answer is, "The only way to try to rectify that is to have a leveling equality of outcome." Everyone finishing the race at the same point.And that would be a disaster.This is an easy argument to answer.And Rawls addresses it.In one of the most powerful passages, I think, of the theory of justice.It's in Section 17."The natural distribution", and here he's talking about the natural distribution talents and endowments."...is neither just nor unjust."Nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position.These are simply natural facts.What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts." That's his answer to libertarian laissez faire economists like Milton Friedman who say, "Life is unfair but get over it." Get over it and let's see if we can, at least, maximize the benefits that flow from it.But the more powerful libertarian objection to Rawls is not libertarian from the libertarian economists like Milton Friedman.It's from the argument about self-ownership.Developed as we saw, in Nozick.And from that point of view, yes, it might be a good thing, to create head start programs and public schools so that everyone can go to a decent school and start the race at the same starting line.That might be good.But if you tax people to create public schools, if you tax people against their will, you coerce them.It's a form of theft.If you take some of Letterman's $31 million, tax it away to support public schools, against his will, the state is really doing no better than stealing from him.It's coercion.And the reason is, we have to think of ourselves as owning our talents and endowments.Because otherwise we're back to just using people and coercing people.That's the libertarian reply.What's Rawls's answer to that objection?He doesn't address the idea of self-ownership directly.But the effect, the moral weight of his argument for the difference principle is, maybe we don't own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all.Now, he says, this doesn't mean that the state is an owner in me, in the sense that it can simply commandeer my life.Because remember, the first principle we would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, is the principle of equal basic liberties.Freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the like.So the only respect in which the idea of self-ownership must give way, comes when we're thinking about whether I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents in a market economy.。
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。
哈佛公正课——第2讲《同类相残案》
哈佛公正课——第2讲《同类相残案》第2讲《同类相残案》提要：Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。
他们在海上迷失了19天之后，船长决定杀死机舱男孩，他是4个人中最弱小的，这样他们就可以靠他的血液和躯体维持生命。
案件引发了学生们对提倡幸福最大化的功利论的辩论，功利论的口号是“绝大多数人的最大利益”。
教授：上一次, 上次我们以一些故事，一些道德上进退两难的情况开场：关于电车的, 关于医生的，还有可能在器官移植故事中极易受害的健康病人。
在我们的讨论中我们注意到了两件事：当一个人不得不做出选择时.在特定事件中我们有自己的判断。
我们试图理清这判断背后的原因和原则。
然后我们遇上了一个新的事件，发现我们竟重新审视着刚刚的原则,而且不得不调整它们。
同时我们也发现，调整那些对于事例和道德原则本能接受的判断很困难。
另外关于我们讨论过程中所争论的问题。
我们发现有时候我们判断一个行为是否道德依据是其造成的后果以及对外界带来的影响，我们将之称为结果主义的道德推理。
但我们也发现在有些事中，不单单只有后果会动摇我们。
有时候, 很多人会觉得不只是行为产生的后果，还有行为本身对是否道德的判断产生影响。
一些人称有些事情本质上就是错误的, 即使它会带来一些好的结果。
比如用一个人的生命去换另五个人的，在付出一个生命的代价下。
因此，我们用绝对主义的道德原则来与后果主义的道德原则对比。
今天和未来几天里，我们将开始审视众多后果主义道德理论中最具影响力的一个版本。
这就是功利主义哲学。
十八世纪的边沁，英国政治哲学家第一次明确地系统地表达了功利主义道德理论。
边沁的思想，他的基本思想，是非常简单的。
他的思想对道德上的直觉有着很多的诉求。
边沁的想法是以下几点，正确的事情，公正的事情是效用(utility)最大化。
他所指的效用是什么呢？他对效用的定义是快乐多过痛苦，幸福多于忍受。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Funding for this program is provided by……Additional funding provided by……Last time,we argued aboutthe case ofThe Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,the lifeboat case,the case of cannibalism at sea.And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,let's turn back to the philosophy,the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.Bentham was born in England in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 19 but he never practiced law.Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral st time, we began to considerBentham's version of utilitarianism.The main idea is simply stated and it's this:The highest principle of morality,whether personal or political morality,is to maximize the general welfare,or the collective happiness,or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;in a phrase, maximize utility.Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning:We're all governed by pain and pleasure,they are our sovereign masters,and so any moral system has to take account of them.How best to take account?By maximizing.And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.What exactly should we maximize?Bentham tells us happiness,or more precisely, utility -maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also forcommunities and for legislators."What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.And that's why in deciding the best policy,in deciding what the law should be,in deciding what's just,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.That's what it means to maximize utility.Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it,and it often goes,this utilitarian logic,under the name of cost-benefit analysis,which is used by companies and by governments all the time.And what it involves is placing a value,usually a dollar value,to stand for utility on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.Recently, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.Philip Morris, the tobacco company,does huge businessin the Czech Republic.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?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 develop smoking-related diseases.On the other hand,there were positiveeffects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.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.And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,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.Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test.Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.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.What about the value of life?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life.One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.Did any of you read about that?This was back in the 1970s.Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was,a kind of car?Anybody?It was a small car,subcompact car, very popular,but it had oneproblem,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.Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.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.They did a cost-benefit analysis.The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,they calculated at $11.00 per part.And here's -- this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.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.So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didn't install the device.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.Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?Because Ford included a measure of the value oflife.Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counterexample?Who has a defense?Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus?Yes?Well, I think that once again,they've made the same mistake the previous case did,that they assigned a dollar value to human life,and once again,they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families.I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one and that is more valued than $200,000.Right and -- wait, wait, wait,that's good. What's your name?Julie Roteau .Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie,is too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life, what would be -what do you think would be a more accurate number?I don't believe I could give a number.I think that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.I think it can't be used monetarily.So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.They were wrong to try to put any number at all.All right, let's hear someone who -You have to adjust for inflation.You have to adjust for inflation.All right, fair enough.So what would the number be now?This was 35 years ago.Two million dollars.Two million dollars?You would put two million?And what's your name?VoytekVoytek Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.We should be more generous.Then would you be satisfied that this isthe right way of thinking about the question?I guess, unfortunately, it is for -there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, I'm not sure what that number would be,but I do agree that there could possibly be a number put on the human life.All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie.Julie says we can't put a number on human life for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.What do other people think about this?Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.I think that if Ford and other car companies didn't use cost-benefit analysis,they'd eventually go out of business because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,to put food on the table,to feed their children.So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,the greater good is sacrificed,in this case.All right, let me add.What's your name?Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car,and there was a debate whether that should be banned.Yeah.And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that if you look at the benefits of the cell phoneuse and you put some value on the life,it comes out about the same because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time,not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.Doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to derive maximum utility out of a service,like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur.You're an outright utilitarian.Yes. Okay.All right then, one last question, Raul.Okay.And I put this to Voytek,what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,I mean, right now.I think that -You want to take it under advisement?Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.But what, roughly speaking, would it be?You got 2,300 deaths. - Okay.You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want。