您的位置：360文档中心› (完整word版)哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕

(完整word版)哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕

合集下载

哈佛公开课正义观后感

哈佛公开课正义观后感

哈佛公开课正义观后感引言最近，我有幸观看了一场哈佛公开课，主题为正义（Justice）。

这是由哈佛大学教授迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel）主讲的一堂课，通过深入探讨正义的概念、各种理论和现实生活中的案例，引发了我对正义问题的思考。

本文将从课堂内容的理解和个人观点两方面进行阐述。

课堂内容的理解在正义的讲解中，桑德尔教授介绍了三种主要的正义理论：功利主义、权利主义和公民美德主义。

功利主义强调追求最大多数人的幸福和福利，权利主义注重个体权利和自由，而公民美德主义则强调公民的道德责任和社会义务。

通过学习这些不同的理论，我对正义的多样性和复杂性有了更深入的理解。

此外，在课堂上，桑德尔教授还以一些实际案例来帮助我们探讨正义。

例如，他提到了分配公平的问题，比如器官移植和纳税制度。

通过这些案例，我认识到正义是一个伦理学问题，需要综合和平衡各种不同因素，包括效益、公平和道德等。

个人观点在观看哈佛公开课后，我对正义的理解发生了一些变化。

首先，我认识到正义不是简单的黑白对立，而是存在于灰色地带的。

人们在追求正义时常常会面临权衡和妥协的情况，有时甚至会做出一些让人费解的决策。

这表明正义是一个动态的概念。

此外，我对权利和义务的关系有了更加清晰的认识。

权利和义务是相互依存的，不能只强调自己的权利而忽视自己的义务。

作为一个社会的一员，我们有责任为社会做贡献，不仅仅是追求个人的权利和自由。

最后，我认识到正义是社会稳定和和谐的基石。

当社会的贫富差距悬殊，法律不公，人们的尊严受到侵犯时，社会就会出现紧张和冲突。

只有建立公正的制度和社会环境，才能实现真正的正义。

结论通过观看哈佛公开课《正义》，我对正义的理解得到了极大的拓展。

正义不仅仅是道德的问题，也是一个社会问题，涉及到利益、公平和道德等多个方面。

只有在公正和平等的基础上，社会才能实现长久稳定的发展。

对我个人而言，这堂课让我反思了自己对正义的态度和行为，我将进一步关注社会公益事业，积极为社会做出贡献。

哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕_第二课-食人惨案

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

哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记第一课：谋杀的道德侧面——食人案件案例1：假设你是一名电车司机，你的电车以60英里/小时的速度在轨道上飞驰，突然发现在轨道的尽头有5名工人正在施工，你无法让电车停下来，因为刹车坏了。

你此时极度绝望，因为你深知如果电车撞向那5名工人，他们全都会死。

你极为无助，直到你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨，而在侧轨的尽头只有1名工人在那里施工。

而你的方向盘还没坏，只要你想就可以把电车转到侧轨上去，牺牲一人挽救五个人的性命。

第一个问题：何为正确的选择？换成你会怎么做？绝大多数人都选择转弯：牺牲一个人，保存五个是最好的选择。

不转弯的人的理由：类似于种族灭绝的思维方式。

案例2：这次你不再是电车司机，只是一名旁观者。

你站在一座桥上，俯瞰着电车轨道，电车沿着轨道从远处而来，轨道尽头有5名工人，电车刹车坏了，这5名工人即将被撞死。

但你不是电车司机，你爱莫能助。

直到你发现在你旁边，靠着桥站着的是个超级胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车，他必死无疑，但可以挽救那5个人的性命。

现在，又有多少人会选择把胖子推下桥？（大多人不会这么做）一个显而易见的问题出现了，我们“牺牲一人保全五人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题？第一种情况中大多数人赞同这条原则怎么了？两种情况都属于多数派的人，你们是怎么想的？应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢？学生1发言：第二种情况牵涉到主动选择推人，而被推的这个人本来跟这件事一点关系都没有，所以，从个人自身利益的角度来说，他是被迫卷入这种灾难的。

而第一种情况不同，第一种情况里的三方、电车司机以及两组工人，之前就牵涉进这件事本身了。

（在侧轨的那个人并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自己。

）学生2发言：在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个人，你只能在两者中选择，不管你做出的是哪一个选择，总得有人被电车撞死，而他们的死，并非是你的直接行为导致的，电车已经失控，而你必须在一瞬间做出选择。

哈佛公开课《公正：该如何是好？》笔记 (桑德尔教授)

哈佛公开课《公正：该如何是好？》笔记 (桑德尔教授)

A电车刹车失控，轨道上5个人，另一个废弃到1轨道上有1个人，方向盘没有失灵，如何选择？你是一个站在天桥上的旁观者，电车刹车失控，轨道上5个人，你旁边有一个胖子，把胖子推下去（你有一个方向盘控制一个陷阱，让胖子掉在轨道上）就可阻挡电车前进拯救5个人，如何选择？你是一名外科医生，有5个人因为电车事故受了伤需要器官移植，一个需要心脏、一个需要肝脏、一个需要肺、一个需要肾脏，旁边房间有一个健康的正在睡觉的人，你是否会牺牲一个拯救5个？1、结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果。

边沁功利主义哲学：为最多人谋求最大的利益16世纪一艘游艇在南大西洋遇到了海难，4名船员，其中一名侍者是个孤儿没有家庭没有亲人，船后来坠毁，他们逃到救生艇，只有少量食物。

后来食物吃完，侍者喝了海水病倒了。

船长决定抽签决定谁来死拯救其他人，但有人不同意，最后没有执行抽签，而是杀了侍者。

最后仨人被一艘德国船救起。

辩论：“把其他人的生命掌握在自己手中，我们没有那个权力。

”“如果·征得侍者的同意将其杀死（或者侍者自己提出杀死自己拯救大家）”假如抽签后正好决定侍者的死，是否觉得这是一种谋杀？2、绝对主义得到的推理认为，道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样。

3、为什么一个同意的行为，产生这些道德上的区别？B功利主义1、吸烟有害健康，吸烟早死可以减少政府在住房、医疗、养老上面的支出，同时烟草公司每年会给政府缴纳很高的税收。

2、福特公司出品一款小型汽车，1汽车销售很好，但油箱设在汽车背部，会与后方碰撞，油箱爆炸，炸死一些人后，将其告上法庭，福特知道这个油箱问题，需要做一个特殊挡板，但出于成本（每个1100$，12.5million cars，共137million；如果同样制作出的安全汽车会减少180deaths，每人赔偿200,000$，和180injuries每人赔偿67,000$，和2000vehicles维修每辆700$，收益只有49.5million）考虑未将其实施。

哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18

哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18

哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18这是关于道德与政治哲学的一个入门系列课程，主要是围绕哈佛大学迈克尔·桑德尔教授法学系列课程《公正：该如何是好？》展开评议。

本课程旨在引导观众一起评判性思考关于公正、平等、民主与公民权利的一些基本问题，以拓展他们对于政治与道德哲学的认知理解，探究固有观念是与非。

学生们同时还将接触过去一些伟大哲学家——亚里士多德、康德、密尔、洛克。

然后，应用课程去分析复杂多变的现代问题：赞助性措施、同性婚姻、爱国主义、忠诚度与人权等。

桑德尔在教学中通过一些假设或真实案例的描述，置学生于伦理两难困境中，然后要他们做出决定：“该如何做是好？”他鼓励学生站出来为自己的观点辩护，这通常激发生动而幽默的课堂辩论。

桑德尔然后围绕伦理问题展开，更深层次地触及不同道德选择背后的假设。

这种教学法通常会揭示道德推论的矛盾本质。

第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》、第2讲：《食人惨案》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，你会怎么选？正确的做法是什么？教授Michael Sandel在他的讲座里提出这个假设的情景，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。

但是Sandel提出了三宗类似的道德难题-每一个都设计巧妙，以至于抉择的难度增加。

当学生站起来为自己的艰难抉择辩护时，Sandel提出了他的观点。

我们的道德推理背后的假设往往是矛盾的，而什么是正确什么是错的问题，并不总是黑白分明的。

Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。

他们在海上迷失了19天之后，船长决定杀死机舱男孩，他是4个人中最弱小的，这样他们就可以靠他的血液和躯体维持生命。

案件引发了学生们对提倡幸福最大化的功利论的辩论，功利论的口号是“绝大多数人的最大利益”。

第3讲：《给生命一个价格标签》、第4讲：《如何衡量快乐》Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）在18世纪后期提出的的功利主义理论-最大幸福理论-今天常被称为“成本效益分析”。

哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：全五课：英文字幕

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.。

哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：第一课：英文字幕

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》课堂笔记

哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记

网易公开课《公正》课堂笔记1. 《杀人的道德侧面》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。

如果在最后,可以有五个人活下来。

那么哪怕牺牲一个人的生命也是值得的。

这个例子体现了结果主义的道德推理.事情的正确以及道德与否，取决于你的行为所产生的后果.结果主义的道德准则中最著名的例子是功利主义功利主义不考虑一个人行为的动机与手段，仅考虑一个行为的结果对最大快乐值的影响。

能增加最大快乐值的即是善；反之即为恶。

即使是为了救回5条人命。

杀害一个无辜者.人们在考虑是不是要这么做的时候，会考虑到这个行为的本身，无论结果如何人们觉得这是错的，而且大错特错。

这就引出了第二种道德推理，绝对主义的道德推理。

绝对主义的道德推理认为：道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的责任和权利,而无论所造成的结果是怎么样的.2.《同类相残案》人们是否也有某些基本权利？如果不是来自较大群体的福祉，或者效用或幸福？那么这些权利从何而生？为什么同意以一定的程序，公平的程序，就可以用该程序的运作来为最终带来的结果辩护？得到同意的基本思想：得到同意产生的道德影响是什么？为什么一个得到许可的行为会产生道德上是否允许的不同，使未经许可杀死一个生命是错误的，而本人同意了，在道德上就是允许的？3.《给生命一个价格标签》边沁版本的功利主义其主要思想就是：道德的最高原则,无论个人或政治道德,就是将公共福利,或集体的幸福最大化,或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐;简而言之就是,功利最大化.从这个理论的整体出发,从做正确的事的观点出发,政策和法律的公正的基础就是将效用最大化两个反对功利主义的不同意见：一是功利主义是否充分尊重了个体权利或少数群体的权利；另一个则是聚集起来的所有效益或价值，是否能将聚集起来的所有价值转换成金钱?Thorndike从他的研究中得到的结论.任何愿望或满足感都存在一个量来度量它们，因此是可度量的.狗或猫或鸡的生活都是由欲望组成,渴望,欲望,以及他们的满足.人类的生活,也是如此,虽然人类的欲望和欲求更加复杂.4.《如何衡量快乐》功利主义哲学家密尔认为，所有人类的体验都可以量化，但某些快乐是更值得拥有，更有价值的。

哈佛公正课——第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》

哈佛公正课——第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》

哈佛公正课——第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》提要：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。

教授：我们以一个故事开始。

假设你是一个电车司机,你的电车在轨道上以每小时60英里的速度飞驰前行,在轨道的尽头,你发现五个工人在轨道上工作。

你尝试刹车，但力不从心，刹车失灵了。

你感到绝望，因为你知道：如果你冲向这五个工人，他们必死无疑。

假设你清楚地知道这一点。

所以你感到很无助，直到你看到，在轨道的右侧上，有一条侧轨，并在该轨道的尽头，只有一个工人在那条轨道上工作。

你的方向盘还能用，所以你可以把车转向，如果你愿意，转到岔道，撞死这名工人，但挽救了那边五个人。

以下是我们的第一个问题：究竟怎么做才是正确的选择？你会怎么办？让我们来调查一下。

多少人会把电车转到旁边的轨道？举手示意。

多少人不会？多少人会一直往前开？那些会一直往前开的人请举着你们的手。

少数人会一直往前开绝大多数人会转向旁边轨道。

让我们先听听，现在我们开始来探讨你们认为“这是正确的事”的原因。

让我们从那些大多数愿意转向旁边轨道的人开始。

为什么你会这么做呢？原因是什么呢？有谁愿意给我一个理由吗？来吧。

请站起来。

学生：因为在你能仅仅杀死一个人而非五个人的时候，杀死五个人是不正确的。

教授：如果你可以只杀死一个人却选择杀死五个人，这是不正确的。

这是一个很好的理由。

这是一个很好的理由。

还有谁要补充？大家是否同意这个解释？你来。

学生：嗯，我想在911事件中人们将那些驾驶着飞机飞往宾夕法尼亚州的飞行员看作英雄也是同样的道理，因为他们选择了牺牲飞机上的人，而不是选择大型建筑物而杀死更多的人。

哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感

哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感

哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感哈佛大学的公开课《公平与正义》观看后让我感慨颇多。

集中体现在三个方面：1、让我对政治与哲学这门课有了全新的认识。

2、桑尔德教授的教学魅力。

3、经典案例引发的思考。

正如课中所讲学习的本质不在于你记住了哪些知识，而在于它触发了你的思考。

上学时我们都学过政治哲学，它相对其他科目有些枯燥，面对这些形而上的知识学习的方式大多是死记硬背，结果是不甚理解，延伸几年的结果就是全忘了。

而视频中的政治哲学课却是有趣又引人深思，学生踊跃发言，可能学生没记住具体的知识但他们对身边的事物有了自己的思考方式。

桑尔德教授的教学魅力极大。

他不仅学识渊博，逻辑思维能力很强而且风趣幽默，平和亲切，对事物有着自己独到深刻的见解。

他的课包容性非常强，在聆听学生的答案时，他从不评价对与错，每个站起来的学生都尽力阐述自己的观点，他经常会让一个学生来回应另一个学生的看法，让理越辩越明。

所以他的课座无虚席，连二楼都站满了旁听的学生。

桑尔德教授课中举的经典案例引发人的深思，公平与正义的抉择让人陷入两难。

假如你是电车司机，刹车失灵，当面临直行撞死五人还是驶入岔路口撞死一人，你会如何选择?哈佛的学生大多数选择了驶入岔路口，想必这和我们大多数人的选择是一样的，即使原本应走的路线就应该是直行。

这有点类似于中国的古语，两害相权取其轻。

可从道德的角度来说，生命是等价的，难道就因为数量的关系，一个人的生命就该让位给五个人的生命?生活中我们还常说，少数服从多数，那少数人的意愿，少数人的利益该去如何保障，毕竟人都是只活一辈子。

突然想到武侠小说里常出现的情节，武林盟主以大局为重杀了某个武林人物，这个武林人物的一个后代逃生了，日后刻苦练武，报仇雪恨，再次掀起武林风波。

呵呵，想的有点远了。

每个手中有权做抉择的人，都要慎重。

有时思来想去的结果是自己也说服不了自己，怪不得有句话说，人类一思考上帝就发笑。

像一个凡人那样活着，像一个诗人那样体验，像一个哲人那样思考。

哈佛公正课——第2讲《同类相残案》

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。

哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕 第三节

哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕 第三节

制作人：心舟 QQ：1129441083 欢迎交流公正课\N迈克尔·桑德尔教授主讲第三讲《给生命标价》上节课我们讨论了\Last time, we argued about女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案\the case of Queen versus Dudley and Stevens,即救生艇的案例\the lifeboat case,海上食人惨案\the case of cannibalism at sea.带着对救生艇上发生事件的讨论\And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,即对达德利和斯蒂芬斯行为赞同与否的讨论\the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,让我们再回归\let's turn back to the philosophy,杰里米·边沁的功利主义哲学\the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.边沁 1748年生于英格兰\Bentham was born in England in 1748.12岁进入牛津大学\At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.15岁入读法学院\At 15, he went to law school.19岁取得律师资格\He was admitted to the Bar at age 19但从没当过律师\but he never practiced law.而是将毕生精力献给了法学和道德哲学\Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.上节课我们开始\Last time, we began to思考边沁的功利主义\consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.他的主要观点简单明确就是\The main idea is simply stated and it's this:道德的最高准则\The highest principle of morality,无论是个人道德还是政治道德\whether personal or political morality,都是最大化公共福利或曰集体幸福感\is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,或者说权衡苦乐将幸福最大化\or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;一句话功利最大化\in a phrase, maximize utility.边沁是这样论证这一原则的\Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: 我们都受到痛苦和快乐的支配\We're all governed by pain and pleasure,苦乐是我们至高无上的主宰\they are our sovereign masters,因此任何道德体系都应考虑到它们\and so any moral system has to take account of them.最好怎样考虑呢通过最大化\How best to take account? By maximizing.从而引出"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一原则\And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.我们到底该最大化什么呢\What exactly should we maximize?边沁说应最大化幸福\Bentham tells us happiness,或更精确来说最大化功利\or more precisely, utility功利最大化原则不只针对个人\maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals也适用于共同体及立法者\but also for communities and for legislators.边沁问到底什么是共同体\"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.共同体是其成员的集合\It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.所以在制定最优政策时\And that's why in deciding the best policy,制定法律时决定何谓公正时\in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,公民和立法者应扪心自问这个问题\citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question 当用政策带来的总效益\if we add up all of the benefits of this policy减去总成本\and subtract all of the costs,正确的选择应该是\the right thing to do is the one减去苦难后幸福最大化的那一个\that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.这就是所谓功利最大化\That's what it means to maximize utility.今天我想听听\Now, today, I want to see你们是否赞同这点\whether you agree or disagree with it,功利主义的逻辑\and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,通常被称作成本效益分析\under the name of cost-benefit analysis,一再被企业和政府运用\which is used by companies and by governments all the time.其做法包括作出估价\And what it involves is placing a value,通常是估计出金额来代表功利\usually a dollar value, to stand for utility即分别列出成本和各项收益的金额\on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.最近捷克共和国\Recently, in the Czech Republic,有一个增加香烟消费税的提案\there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.烟草公司菲利普·莫里斯公司\Philip Morris, the tobacco company,在捷克共和国的生意做得很大\does huge business in the Czech Republic.他们资助了一项研究\They commissioned a study,进行在捷克吸烟的成本效益分析\a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic,分析结果显示\and what their cost-benefit analysis found was让捷克人民吸烟能让政府获利\the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.那政府如何获利呢\Now, how do they gain?它确实会对捷克政府的\It's true that there are negative effects公共财政产生负效应\to the public finance of the Czech government因为吸烟造成的疾病\because there are increased health care costs会增加医疗支出\for people who develop smoking-related diseases.但另一方面也有正效应\On the other hand, there were positive effects它们被记在账目的另一侧\and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.正效应主要来自\The positive effects included, for the most part,销售香烟为政府带来的\various tax revenues that the government derives各项税收\from the sale of cigarette products,但还包括\but it also included人们早逝为政府节省的医疗支出\health care savings to the government when people die early,免去的养老金\pension savings...政府不需要继续支付养老金\you don't have to pay pensions for as long还省去了老年人的住房开支\and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.当把总成本和各项收益分别加总\And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,菲利普·莫里斯公司的研究表明\the Philip Morris study found that捷克共和国公共财政将获得\there is a net public finance gain一亿四千七百万的净收益\in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,算上住房医疗养老金方面节省的开支\and given the savings in housing,in health care, and pension costs,政府从每个因吸烟早逝的人身上\the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person赚得超过1200美元\who dies prematurely due to smoking.成本效益分析\Cost-benefit analysis.在座功利主义的支持者们\Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism可能觉得这个研究不公\may think that this is an unfair test.菲利普·莫里斯公司遭到媒体谴责\Philip Morris was pilloried in the press他们为这项冷血的计算公开道歉\and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.你也许会说\You may say这里无疑忽略了\that what's missing here is something功利主义者认为应当包含的部分\that the utilitarian can easily incorporate,即那些死于肺癌的患者本身\namely the value to the person加上其家属的价值\and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.怎么能忽略生命的价值呢\What about the value of life?有些成本效益分析\Some cost-benefit analyses确实计算了生命的价值\incorporate a measure for the value of life.其中最著名的是福特平托的案例\One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. 有人读过吗\Did any of you read about that?当时是二十世纪七十年代\This was back in the 1970s.还有人知道福特平托是什么车吗\Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? 它是一种小型次紧凑型车风靡一时\It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,但它有一个缺陷\but it had one problem,油箱装在车的尾部\which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car发生追尾时油箱就会爆炸\and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded造成了严重伤亡\and some people were killed and some severely injured.受害者一纸诉状将福特告上了法庭\Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.案件审理中发现\And in the court case, it turned out福特早就知道油箱的缺陷\that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank还进行了成本效益分析\and had done a cost-benefit analysis来决定是否值得装上一面特殊的隔板\to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield以保护油箱防止油箱爆炸\that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.该分析指出\They did a cost-benefit analysis.能增加平托安全性的隔板\The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,每块成本是11美元\they calculated at $11.00 per part.这就是审判时发现的成本效益分析\And here's... this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.给1250万辆轿车和卡车配上11美元的隔板\Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks提高安全性共需花费一亿三千七百万美元\came to a total cost of$137 million to improve the safety. 但接着又算出\But then they calculated花这些钱提高安全性能带来的收益\the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car预计可减少180例死亡\and they counted 180 deaths因车祸死亡预计每条人命20万美元\and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death,可减少180例伤残每例67000美元\180 injuries, $67,000,加上车辆维修费用\and then the costs to repair,无此安全装置车会完全损毁\the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,所以需算上2000辆汽车的重置成本每辆700美元\it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.收益最后只有4950万\So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million因此他们没有安装该装置\and so they didn't install the device.不用说\Needless to say,当福特汽车公司的这份成本效益分析备忘录\when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis在审理时被公之于众\came out in the trial,陪审团大为震怒判定巨额赔偿\it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.这算是功利主义计算思路的反例吗\Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating? 因为福特计算了生命的价值\Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.现在就这个明显的反例\Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis有谁想为成本效益分析辩护\from this apparent counter example?有谁辩护\Who has a defense?还是你们认为它完全推翻了\Or do you think this completely destroys功利主义的演算\the whole utilitarian calculus?请说\Yes?我觉得他们犯了与前面案例\Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake相同的错误\the previous case did,量化了生命的价值\that they assigned a dollar value to human life,但同样的\and once again,他们没有考虑受害者家人承受的\they failed to take account things like suffering痛苦和精神损失\and emotional losses by the families.他们不但家庭收入受损还丧失了亲人\I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one 那损失远不止20万美元\and that is more valued than $200,000.没错等等说得好你叫什么名字\Right and... wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name? 朱莉·罗托\Julie Roteau .朱莉要是20万美金不够\So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure因为没有算丧失亲人\because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one和生命的损失\and the loss of those years of life,那你认为什么数目更合适\what would be what do you think would be a more accurate number?我无法给出数目\I don't believe I could give a number.我觉得这种分析\I think that this sort of analysis不应该用在人的生命这个问题上\shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.人命不能用金钱衡量\I think it can't be used monetarily.所以朱莉认为他们不是定价太低\So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.他们压根就不该定价\They were wrong to try to put any number at all.那好让我们听听别人...\All right, let's hear someone who...你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.行啊有道理\All right, fair enough.那如今应该是多少\So what would the number be now?那是35年前\This was 35 years ago.两百万美元\Two million dollars.两百万美元你会定价两百万吗\Two million dollars? You would put two million?你叫什么名字\And what's your name?佛伊泰克\Voytek佛伊泰克说我们必须考虑通胀\Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.应该更慷慨些\We should be more generous.这样你就满意了吗\Then would you be satisfied that这样思考这个问题就可以了吗\this is the right way of thinking about the question?我觉得不幸的是...\I guess, unfortunately, it is for...有时确实需要标价\there needs to be a number put somewhere,不过我不确定具体数字\like, I'm not sure what that number would be,但我确实认同\but I do agree that人的生命也许可以被标价\there could possibly be a number put on the human life.很好所以佛伊泰克不同意朱莉的看法\All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie. 朱莉认为我们不该为了成本效益分析\Julie says we can't put a number on human life给人的生命标价\for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.佛伊泰克认为我们别无选择\Voytek says we have to因为不管怎样我们必须做出决定\because we have to make decisions somehow.别的人怎么看\What do other people think about this?有没人来赞同成本效益分析的\Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here认为它精确合宜吗你说\as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.我觉得要是福特和其他汽车公司\I think that if Ford and other car companies不使用成本效益分析的话\didn't use cost-benefit analysis,他们最后就会倒闭\they'd eventually go out of business因为他们无法盈利\because they wouldn't be able to be profitable这样就会有数百万人无法开车上班\and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,没法赚钱养不起小孩\to put food on the table, to feed their children.所以我认为此种情况下如果不用成本效益分析\So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,会牺牲更多人的利益\the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.很好我加一句你叫什么名字\All right, let me add. What's your name?劳尔\Raul.劳尔最近有一项\Raul, there was recently a study done关于司机开车时使用手机的研究\about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, 关于是否应该禁止此行为有一场争论\and there was a debate whether that should be banned.数据显示每年有2000人左右\And the figure was that some 2,000 people因开车时使用手机而死于车祸\die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.而目前哈佛风险分析中心\And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done作出的成本效益分析表明\by the center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that如果考虑使用手机带来的效益\if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use并与生命的价值做比较\and you put some value on the life,就会得出同样的结论\it comes out about the same因为这样做经济效益巨大\because of the enormous economic benefit of可以使人们更有效地利用时间\enabling people to take advantage of their time,不浪费时间边开车边谈生意\not waste time, be able to make deals边和朋友聊天等\and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.这不就表明\Doesn't that suggest that用金钱衡量人的生命是个错误吗\it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?我觉得如果绝大多数人想要\Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to从某项服务中获得最大功利\derive maximum utility out of a service,比如使用手机享受手机所带来的便利\like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,那么为了满足需求这种牺牲就是必要的\that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur. 你是个彻底的功利主义者嘛\You're an outright utilitarian.是的可以这么说\Yes. Okay.好那么最后一个问题劳尔\All right then, one last question, Raul.我也问过佛伊泰克\And I put this to Voytek,在决定是否禁止使用手机这件事时\what dollar figure should be put on human life人命应该如何定价\to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?我不想武断地算出一个数字\Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,我是指马上就算出我觉得...\I mean, right now. I think that...你想要深思熟虑之后再决定\You want to take it under advisement?对我会深思熟虑\Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.但大概有多少\But what, roughly speaking, would it be?会死2300人\You got 2,300 deaths.你必须用金钱来衡量\You got to assign a dollar value to know是否需要禁止司机使用手机\whether you want to prevent those deaths by来避免此类事件发生\banning the use of cell phones in cars.那你感觉是多少钱一百万\So what would your hunch be? How much? A million?两百万佛伊泰克觉得是两百万\Two million? Two million was Voytek's figure.-这么多可以吗 -也许一百万吧\- Is that about right? - Maybe a million.-一百万 -对\- A million? - Yeah.很好谢谢\You know, that's good. Thank you.以上即为近来对成本效益分析\So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days引发的一些争论\from cost-benefit analysis,尤其是其中那些\especially those that involve认为可以用金钱衡量一切的观点\placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.现在我想听听反对意见\Well, now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections不一定仅仅针对成本效益分析\not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically,因为那只是功利主义逻辑现今的实践之一\because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today,而是针对整个功利主义理论\but to the theory as a whole,针对那些认为正确之举\to the idea that the right thing to do,就是以功利最大化作为政策法律基础的观点\the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility. 有多少人不同意\How many disagree功利主义在法律及公共利益方面的做法\with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good? 有多少人同意\How many agree with it?看来多数表示同意\So more agree than disagree.我们来听听批判声吧请说\So let's hear from the critics. Yes?我对此的异议是\My main issue with it is我觉得不能因为一些人占少数\that I feel like you can't say that just because someone's in the minority,就断定他们的需要和欲望不如多数人的重要\what they want and need is less valuable than someone who's in the majority所以我反对\So I guess I have an issue with the idea"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一观点\that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay因为还有...\because there are still...占少数的人怎么办呢\what about people who are in the lesser number?这对他们不公平\Like, it's not fair to them.他们对此没有发言权\They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.很好这是个有趣的异议\All right. That's an interesting objection.你担心其对少数人的影响\You're worried about the effect on the minority.是的\Yes.顺便问一句你叫什么名字\What's your name, by the way?安娜\Anna.谁能回答\Who has an answer to安娜对于少数人影响的担心\Anna's worry about the effect on the minority?你怎么回答安娜\What do you say to Anna?她说少数人的价值被低估了\Um, she said that the minority is valued less.我认为事实并非如此因为\I don't think that's the case because少数人当中每个个体的价值\individually, the minority's value is just和多数人的个体价值是一样的\the same as the individual of the majority.只不过多数在数量上胜过少数\It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority.有时你必须做出选择\And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision我对少数表示遗憾\and I'm sorry for the minority但有时这是牺牲小我成全大我\but sometimes, it's for the general, for the greater good.成全大我安娜你怎么看\For the greater good. Anna, what do you say?你叫什么名字\What's your name?杨达\Yang-Da.你怎么反驳杨达\What do you say to Yang-Da?杨达说必须总体考虑人们的选择\Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences而其中少数人的选择其实也被衡量过了\and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed. 你能举个你所担心的类似例子吗\Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about 即你所说的担心\when you say you're worried about功利主义缺少对少数的关心和尊重\utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?举个例子\give an example.我就举一个我们讨论过的案例\Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about,比如海上食人惨案中我认为被吃的男孩\like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten 仍然与其他人享有相等的生存权\still had as much of a right to live as the other people仅仅因为他是少数\and just because he was the minority in that case,他存活的机率可能最小\the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living,并不意味着其他人就自然而然有权利吃他\that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him就为了让多数人有存活的机会\just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live.所以可能少数人\So there may be certain rights或个体的某些权利\that the minority members have that the individual has不该为了功利最大化而被牺牲\that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility?是的\Yes.是吗安娜下面这个例子我来考考扬达\Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.在古罗马\Back in Ancient Rome,基督徒被扔去斗兽场与狮子搏斗\they threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. 如果以功利主义方式演算\If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go,没错丢给狮子的基督徒\yes, the Christian thrown to the lions确实经历了撕心裂肺的剧痛\suffers enormous excruciating pain.但看看罗马人共同的心醉神迷啊\But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans!杨达\Yang-Da.在那个时代我不... 要是如今\Well, in that time, I don't...if in modern day of time,衡量观众获得的快乐\to give a number to the happiness given to the people watching,我觉得没有任何政策制定者会认为\I don't think any policymaker would say一个人的痛苦煎熬会比\the pain of one person, of the suffering of one person is much, much... 众人因之获得的快感更...\is, I mean, in comparison to the happiness gained, it's不但你必须承认\No, but you have to admit that要是有足够多的罗马人对这种快感足够狂热\if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness,那就会胜过\it would outweigh even the少数几个被丢给狮子的基督徒承受的极端剧痛\most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.因此我们确实对功利主义有两点异议\So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism.一点是关于功利主义\One has to do with whether utilitarianism是否充分尊重个体和少数的权利\adequately respects individual rights or minority rights,另一点是关于\and the other has to do with加总功利或偏好或价值的看法\the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values. 所有的价值都有可能用金钱衡量吗\Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms?二十世纪三十年代\There was, in the 1930s,有位心理学家试图解决第二个问题\a psychologist who tried to address this second question.他试图证明功利主义者的假设\He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes,所有的利益价值人类的心声\that it is possible to translate all goods, all values,都可能被统一衡量\into a single uniform measure,并通过对年轻的救济金领取者的调查来证明此点\and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief,当时是二十世纪三十年代\this was in the 1930s, and he asked them,他给了他们一张不愉快经历的清单问他们\he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them,给你多少钱你就愿意忍受以下经历\"How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?"并作了记录\and he kept track.比如给你多少钱\For example, how much would you have to be paid你才愿意拔掉自己的一颗门牙\to have one upper front tooth pulled out?抑或给你多少钱\Or how much would you have to be paid你才愿意砍掉一根小脚趾\to have one little toe cut off?抑或吃一条六英寸长的蚯蚓\Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long?抑或后半生居住在堪萨斯农场\Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}堪萨斯位于美国西部平原\N1930年代遭受重大自然灾害抑或亲手掐死一只流浪猫\Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?你们觉得清单里的哪一项最贵\Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list? 堪萨斯\Kansas?没错是堪萨斯\You're right, it was Kansas.他们认为余生都住堪萨斯农场\For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them至少得给他们30万美元\they have to be paid $300,000.你们觉得第二贵的是什么\What do you think was the next most expensive?不是猫\Not the cat.也不是门牙\Not the tooth.也不是脚趾\Not the toe.是蚯蚓\The worm!他们说给10万美元才肯吃蚯蚓\People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm.你们觉得最便宜的是哪项\What do you think was the least expensive item?不是猫\Not the cat.是门牙\The tooth.大萧条时期\During the Depression,人们愿意为了区区4500美元拔掉自己的牙\people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4,500.什么\What?桑代克得出的结论是\Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.任何需求或满足都能有个价钱\Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount 因此能用金钱衡量\and is therefore measurable.狗猫小鸡的生命\The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken都充斥着各类嗜好渴望欲望以及满足感\consists of appetites, cravings, desires, and their gratifications.人亦如此\So does the life of human beings,只是人的嗜好和欲望更加复杂罢了\though the appetites and desires are more complicated.但桑代克的研究说明了什么呢\But what about Thorndike's study?它是不是支持了边沁的观点\Does it support Bentham's idea认为所有利益所有价值都可以\that all goods, all values can be captured用统一的方式衡量\according to a single uniform measure of value?抑或清单上那些荒谬的项目\Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list恰恰揭示了相反的结论\suggest the opposite conclusion也许\that maybe,不论是生命堪萨斯还是蚯蚓\whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm,还是我们重视珍爱的东西\maybe the things we value and cherish都是不能用统一方式衡量的?\can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value? 如果不能\And if they can't,那么功利主义道德理论意义何在\what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality? 我们下次将会继续探讨这一问题\That's a question we'll continue with next time.{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}公正课下讲预告好现在我们再投个票\All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,哪个是最高级的体验或快乐\which is the highest experience or pleasure.{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}第四讲《如何衡量快乐》多少人认为是莎士比亚\How many say Shakespeare?多少人认为是《挑战恐惧极限》\How many say Fear Factor?你开玩笑的吧是吧\No, you can't be serious. Really?上节课我们开始思考一些\Last time, we began to consider some objections to对杰里米·边沁功利主义的反对观点\Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.讨论中提出了两点异议\People raised two objections in the discussion we had.第一点异议是说功利主义\The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism,只关注"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"\by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,没有充分地尊重个人权利\fails adequately to respect individual rights.今天我们要讨论严刑拷打和恐怖主义\Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.假设一名恐怖主义嫌犯在9丒11慜堦揤旐曔\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th你桳棟桼憡怣\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you had reason to believe这柤寵斊彾埇椆\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}that the suspect had crucial information彨导抳3000恖嬾难揑嫲晐袭击揑廳梫忣报\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people你撬晄开懠揑岥\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you couldn't extract the information.为椆漒摓忣报帶对懠严孻崏懪惀斲崌棟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information梷埥你晄赞摨\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}or do you say no,你认为桳懜廳槩恖权棙揑绝对摴 责擟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights?朸种掱搙忋変们枖夞摓椆嵟弶揑问题\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}In a way, we're back to thequestions we started with。

哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：全五课：英文字幕

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.。

哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目

哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目

哈佛公开课是哈佛大学开设的一系列可以上线免费观看的课程，涵盖了丰富多彩的学科和领域，其中也包括了“公平与正义”这一主题。

在这篇文章中，我们将深入探讨哈佛公开课中涉及公平与正义的书目，帮助您更好地了解这一重要主题。

1. 《公正》（Justice）- 迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel）本书作者迈克尔·桑德尔是哈佛大学政治学教授，他的公开课《公正》（Justice）深受学生和听众的喜爱。

在这本书中，桑德尔教授以深入浅出的方式探讨了公平与正义的重要性，并引导读者思考有关道德、政治和社会正义的问题。

2. 《正义是什么》（What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets）- 迈克尔·桑德尔迈克尔·桑德尔的另一部作品《正义是什么》（What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets）也是哈佛公开课中涉及公平与正义的重要书目之一。

在这本书中，桑德尔教授深入探讨了金钱在现代社会中的作用，以及金钱与公平正义之间的关系，引发了人们对道德和伦理问题的思考。

3. 《《公民不服从》（Civil Disobedience）- 亨利·戴维·梭罗（Henry David Thoreau）亨利·戴维·梭罗的《公民不服从》作为哈佛公开课中探讨公平与正义的重要阅读之一，帮助人们理解了公民不服从的概念，强调了对公平与正义的追求。

这本书不仅揭示了个人与政府、权威之间的关系，也引导人们思考社会正义和个人责任的问题。

4. 《自由论》（On Liberty）- 约翰·斯图尔特·密尔（John Stuart Mill）约翰·斯图尔特·密尔的《自由论》也是哈佛公开课中探讨公平与正义的重要书目之一。

在这本书中，密尔探讨了自由、权利以及个体与社会之间的关系，帮助人们更好地理解公平与正义的内涵和重要性。

哈佛大学公开课程-JUSTICE中英

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。

哈佛公开课Justice 第一课字幕 中英对照精解

哈佛公开课Justice 第一课字幕 中英对照精解

JusEpisode OnPART ONE If you ha five oth would di What wou Professo After the to save conundru difficul becomes contradi always b PART TWO Sandel i Bentham,shipwrec decides the rest a classr doctrine for the stice: What’s One E: THE MORAL S ad to choose b ers and (2) d e right befor ld be the rig r Michael Sane majority of the lives of ms—each one t. As studen clear that th ctory, and th lack and whit O: THE CASE FO introduces the with a famou cked crew of f to kill the w t can feed on room debate ab e that the righ greatest numb s the Right T SIDE OF MURDE between (1) ki oing nothing re your eyes i ht thing to d ndel uses to l students vote five others, artfully desi nts stand up to he assumptions e question of te.OR CANNIBALISM e principles o us nineteenth four. After n weakest amongs his blood and bout the moral ht thing to do ber.Thing to Do?ER 谋杀的道德侧illing one per even though y f you did not o? That’s t launch his co es for killing Sandel prese igned to make o defend their s behind our m what is right SM 食人肉案件of utilitaria h century lega nineteen days st them, the d body to sur l validity of is whatever p侧面rson to save t you knew that thing—what wo the hypothetic urse on moral g the one pers nts three sim the decision r conflicting moral reasonin t and what is w an philosopher al case involv lost at sea, young cabin b rvive. The c f utilitariani produces the gr the lives of five people ould you do? cal scenariol reasoning. son in order milar moral n more choices, it ng are often wrong is not r, Jeremy ving a the captain boy, so that case sets up ism—and its reatest good episode ['epi moral ['m ɔr hypothetical ['scenario [si'na reasoning ['ri:vote [v əut] n conundrum [k artfully ['a:tful defend [di'fen conflict ['k ɔnfl conflicting [k defend [di'fen assumption [contradictory cannibalism ['utilitarian [.ju legal ['li:g əl]shipwrecked [crew [kru:] amongst [ə'm cabin ['kæbi survive [s ə'vdebate [di'be validity [væ'l doctrine ['d is əud] n. 插曲əl] adj. 道德的'haip əu'θetik əl]a:ri əu] n. 情节zni ŋ] n. 推论n. 投票, 选举v k ə'n ʌndr əm] n li] adv.艺术地,有d] v. 防护, 辩likt] n.冲突,矛ən'flikti ŋ] adj d] v. 防护, 辩护ə's ʌmp ʃən] n.假 [.k ɔntr ə'dikt əri 'kænib əliz əm] n u:tili't ɛəri ən] n.功 adj. 法律的, 合'ʃiprekt] adj. 失 n. 全体船员ʌŋst] prep. 在 n] n. 船舱, 机vaiv] 活下来, 幸eit] n.v. 辩论liditi] n. 有效性ɔktrin] n. 教义曲, 一段情节, 片的 ] adj.假设的,假节梗概, 剧本 论, 推理, 论证 v. 投票, 选举, n. 谜语, 难题 有技巧地,熟练地辩护, 防守 矛盾vi. 冲突,争. 相冲突的 护, 防守 假定,设想,担任(职i] adj. 矛盾的n n.吃人肉的习性功利主义者adj 合法的, 法定的失事的, 遭海难... 之中,在...之机舱, 小木屋幸存; 残留 论, 讨论 性, 正确性, 正当义, 主义, 学说片段, 轶事假定的,爱猜想的表决 地,狡诈地 争执 职责等),假装 n.矛盾 性, 同类相食 j.功利的,实用的的 难的 之间(=among) 当的Funding for this program is provided by... 此节目由以上公司 fund [fʌnd]资金,基金,专款Additional funding provided by... 以上人士提供赞助This is a course about justice 这是一堂关于公平与正义的公共课 course [kɔ:s]学科，课程，教程and we begin with a story. 让我们先从一个故事讲起 hurtle ['hə:tl] v.猛冲;飞驰,猛烈碰撞Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, 假设你现在是一辆有轨电车的司机 suppose [sə'pəuz] 假定; 设想，料想and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. 而你的电车正在铁轨上以时速60英里疾驶 trolley ['trɔli] 〔英〕手推车；〔美〕(有轨)电车And at the end of the track 在铁轨末端 brake [breik]制动器<->break [breik]毁坏,打破you notice five workers working on the track. 你发现有五个工人在铁轨上工作You try to stop but you can't, 你尽力想停下电车, 但是你做不到your brakes don’t work. 电车的刹车失灵了 美剧绝望的主妇Desperate HousewivesYou feel desperate because you know 你觉得十分绝望，因为你知道 desperate:绝望的,穷途末路的,拼命的that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. 如果你就这样撞向这5个工人，他们必死无疑 crash into 碰到，撞在Let’s assume you know that for sure. 假定你很清楚这一点 assume [ə'sjuːm] 假定，想像，设想And so you feel helpless until you notice 正当你感到无助的时候, 你突然发现that there is, off to the right, 就在右边a side track and at the end of that track, 一条岔道，那根轨道的尽头there is one worker, working on the track. 只有一个工人在那里工作Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, 你的方向盘没有失灵, 只要你愿意 steering ['stiəriŋ] 舵把,方向盘；掌舵,驾驶,转向。

(完整word版)哈佛大学公开课 公正,该如何做是好？

(完整word版)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。

公正哈佛大学公开课 公正课 观后感 英文版 500字以上 绝对原创

公正哈佛大学公开课 公正课 观后感 英文版 500字以上 绝对原创

The Moral Side of MurderSteering wheel 方向盘on the side track转向分叉口Give sb a shove 推某人一下a handful of people 很少的人Transplant surgeonthe purpose of this course is to awaken the recklessness of my reasoning. I hope I can achieve this goal.once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite same again.utilitarianism 功利主义Utilitarianism 功利主义 a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham. Immanuel Kant is the most important philosopher of categorically moral reasoning.结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果-功利主义（18世纪英国哲学家Jeremy Bentham)；而另一种情况代表绝对主义的道德推理，有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样。

----（18世纪德国哲学家康德）Uniilitarianism Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act in the state of the rule that resolve from the thing you do. 结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果，它取决于我们最后的结果。

Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements certain categorical duties and rights, regardless the consequence.绝对主义的道德推理认为，道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样。

相关主题
  1. 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. 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. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

Funding for this programis provided by:本节目的赞助来自... ...Additional funding provided by:另外的赞助来自... ...Last time,we argued about上次,我们谈到the case ofThe Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件,the lifeboat case,the case of cannibalism at sea.那个救生艇上,海上吃人的案件.And with the argumentsabout the lifeboat in mind,带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论the arguments for and againstwhat Dudley and Stephens 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 utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.让我们回头来看看Bentham的功利主义哲学.Bentham was born in England in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学. At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 1915岁时,他去了法学院.19岁就取得了律师资格but he never practiced law.但他没有从事于律师行业.Instead, he devoted his life tojurisprudence and moral philosophy.相反,他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学.Last time, we began to considerBentham's version of utilitarianism.上一次,我们开始考虑Bentham版本的功利主义. The main idea is simply statedand it's this:简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest principle of morality,whether personal or political morality,道德的最高原则,无论个人或政治道德,is to maximize the general welfare,or the collective happiness,就是将公共福利,或集体的幸福最大化,or the overall balanceof 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.Bentham arrives at this principleby the following line of reasoning:Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：We're all governedby pain and pleasure,我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制,they are our sovereign masters,and so any moral system他们是我们的主宰,所以任何道德体系has to take account of them.都要考虑到这点.How best to take account?By maximizing.如何能最好地考虑这一点?通过最大化.And this leads to the principle of thegreatest good for the greatest number.从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的.What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Bentham tells us happiness,or more precisely, utility -Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用- maximizing utility as a principlenot only for individuals最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人but also for communitiesand for legislators.而且还适用于社区及立法者."What, after all, is a community?"Bentham asks.“毕竟,什么是社区?”Bentham问道.It's the sum of the individualswho comprise it.它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和.And that's why in decidingthe best policy,这就是为什么在决定最好的政策,in deciding what the law should be,in deciding what's just,在决定法律应该是什么样,在决定什么是公正时, citizens and legislatorsshould ask themselves the question公民和立法者应该问自己的问题if we add up all of the benefitsof 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 balanceof happiness over suffering.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 often goes,this utilitarian logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑,under the name ofcost-benefit analysis,名为成本效益分析,which is used by companiesand by governments all the time.也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的 .And what it involvesis placing a value,它的内涵是用一个价值usually a dollar value,to stand for utility on the costs通常是由美元,来代表不同提案的效用and the benefitsof various proposals.这效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recently, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal最近,在捷克共和国,有一个提案to increase the excise tax on smoking.Philip Morris, the tobacco company,对吸烟增加货物税.Philip Morris烟草公司,does huge businessin the Czech Republic.该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.They commissioned a study,a cost-benefit analysis他们委托了一个研究,of smoking in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-benefit关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.analysis found was the governmentgains by having Czech citizens 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 arenegative effects to the public finance确实,捷克政府的公共财政体系of the Czech governmentbecause there are increased 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 developsmoking-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 included,for the most part,积极效益包括,在大多数情况下,various tax revenues that thegovernment 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 included但也包括health care savings to thegovernment when 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 savings -- you don't have topay pensions for as long -养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-and also, savings inhousing costs for the elderly.还有,老年人住房费用.And when all of the costsand benefits 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 gainPhilip 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 given the savings in housing,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 government enjoys savingsof over $1,200 for each personwho dies prematurely due to smoking.每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.Cost-benefit analysis.成本效益分析.Now, those among youwho are defenders of utilitarianism现在,你们中间,那些功利主义的捍卫者may think that this is an unfair 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 calculation.他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's missing hereis something that the utilitarian你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏can easily incorporate,namely the value to the person它没有正确评估人的价值and to the families of those who diefrom lung cancer.以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.What about the value of life?如何评估生命价值?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporatea measure for the value of life.一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估. One of the most famousof these involved the Ford Pinto case.其中最有名的要数Ford Pinto案件.Did any of you read about that?你们有没有阅读过这个案件?This was back in the 1970s.那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you rememberwhat the Ford Pinto was,你还记得Ford Pinto是,a kind of car?Anybody?什么样的车么?谁能记得?It was a small car,subcompact car, very popular,那是一种小型车,超小型车,很受欢迎, but it had one problem,which is the fuel tank但它也有问题,车后座的油箱was at the back of the carand in rear collisions,少数情况下,碰撞会导致the fuel tank explodedand some people were killed油箱爆炸并且有些人会因此死去and some severely injured.还有人因此严重受伤.Victims of these injuriestook Ford to court to sue.这些受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case,it turned out that Ford而在诉讼案件,人们发现福特原来had long since known about thevulnerable fuel tank早已知道油箱的脆弱and had done a cost-benefit analysisto determine whether it would be并且已做了成本效益分析,以确定是否worth it to put ina special shield that would值得来放入一个特殊的盾牌protect the fuel tankand prevent it from exploding.用来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-benefit analysis.他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per partto increase the safety of the Pinto,增加Ford Pinto安全的每部件费用,they calculated at $11.00 per part.他们算出,要每部件$ 11.00.And here's -- this was the cost-benefitanalysis that emerged in the trial.这里-这就是当时审判中出示的成本效益分析.Eleven dollars per partat 12.5 million cars and trucks每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车came to a total cost of$137 million to improve the safety.得到一个总成本,需要13700万美元来改善安全性.But then they calculated the benefitsof spending all this money不过,他们随后计算了一下花这笔钱来改善安全性的收益率on a safer carand they counted 180 deaths(如果不花这笔钱来改善安全,)假设会导致180人死亡and they assigned a dollar value,$200,000 per death,他们对此用美元价值来代替,每个死去的人赔偿$ 200,000180 injuries, $67,000,and then the costs to repair,180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67,000,然后是维修受损车的费用,the replacement costfor 2,000 vehicles,2 000辆车,it would be destroyed withoutthe safety device $700 per vehicle.由于没有安装安全设施,每辆车将会需要$700来维修.So the benefits turned out to beonly $49.5 million结论是总效益只有$49.5 million(相对于修复安全隐患总成本需要$137 million)and so they didn'tinstall the device.因此他们没有安装那个安全设备.Needless to say,when this memo of the毫无疑问,福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录Ford Motor Company's cost-benefitanalysis came out in the trial,在审判中出现时,it appalled the jurors,who awarded a huge settlement.震惊了陪审团,也因此裁定了福特公司巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a counterexample to theutilitarian idea of calculating?这是一个功利主义计算的反例么?Because Ford included a measureof the value of life.因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defendcost-benefit analysis好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例from this apparent counterexample?来捍卫成本效益分析?Who has a defense?谁来辩护?Or do you think thiscompletely destroys the whole或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了utilitarian calculus?Yes?功利主义计算? 你来Well, I think that once again,they've made the same mistake嗯,我想再次指出,他们犯了同样的错误the previous case did,that they assigned a dollar value和以前的情况一样,他们对人的生命赋予to human life,and once again,一个美元为单位的价值,同样的,they failed to take accountthings like suffering他们没有考虑到家属的痛苦和损失and emotional losses by the families.诸如此类的因素.I mean, families lost earningsbut they also lost a loved one我的意思是,家庭损失了收入来源,但他们也失去了爱人and that is more valuedthan $200,000.这些的价值远远超过$200,000的.Right and -- wait, wait, wait,that's good. What's your name?好的-等等,等等,等等,很好.你叫什么名字?Julie Roteau .Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie,is too low a figure因此,Julie, 如果$200,000 是个太低的金额, because it doesn't include theloss of a loved one因为它不包括失去爱人and the loss of those years of life,what would be -以及那些在没有亲人的岁月里的损失,你认为what do you thinkwould be a more accurate number?更准确的金额是多少?I don't believe I could give a number.I think that this sort of analysis我不认为, 我可以对此给出一个金额. 我认为这类分析shouldn't be applied to issuesof human life.不适用于人类生命相关的问题.I think it can't be used monetarily.我认为不能用金钱来衡量.So they didn't just puttoo low a number, Julie says.因此,Julie认为,他们不只是金额定的太低.They were wrong to tryto put any number at all.他们压根就不应该用金额来衡量.All right, let's hear someone who -You have to adjust for inflation.好吧,让我们听听还有谁-You have to adjust for inflation. (这个金额)要根据通货膨胀进行调整.All right, fair enough.好吧,很公平.So what would the number be now? 那么现在这个金额将是?This was 35 years ago.这发生在35年前.Two million dollars.两百万美元.Two million dollars?You would put two million?200万美元? 你认为是200万?And what's your name?你的名字是?VoytekVoytekVoytek says we have toallow for inflation.Voytek说,我们必须允许通货膨胀.We should be more generous.我们应该更慷慨些.Then would you be satisfiedthat this is the right way of然后,你认为这就是考虑这个问题的thinking about the question?正确的方式么?I guess, unfortunately, it is for -我想,不幸的是,现在-there needs to be a numberput somewhere, like, I'm not sure我们需要有一个金额,我不确定what that number would be,but I do agree that合适的金额是多少,但我同意there could possiblybe a number put on the human life.对人类生命定一个金额是可行的.All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie.好的,Voytek说,他不同意Julie.Julie says we can't put a numberon human life朱莉认为,我们不能在成本效益分析中for the purpose of acost-benefit analysis.对人的生命定一个金额.Voytek says we have to becausewe have to make decisions somehow.Voytek认为,我们必须这样做因为我们无论如何需要作出某种决定. What do other peoplethink about this?其他人觉得呢?Is there anyone preparedto defend cost-benefit analysis这里有人打算为能足够准确的成本效益分析辩护么?here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.好?请继续.I think that if Fordand other car companies我认为, 如果福特和其他汽车公司didn't use cost-benefit analysis,they'd eventually go out of business没有使用成本效益分析,他们会最终歇业because they wouldn't be able to beprofitable and millions of people因为他们将无法盈利,(从而导致)数百万的人wouldn't be able to use their carsto get to jobs,将无法使用这些汽车去上班,to put food on the table,to feed their children.(没钱)购买餐桌上的食物,(没钱)来喂养孩子.So I think that if cost-benefitanalysis isn't employed,因此,我认为, 如果不利用成本效益分析,the greater good is sacrificed,in this case.在这种情况下,(我们将会)牺牲更大的利益.All right, let me add.What's your name?好吧,让我来补充. 你叫什么名字?Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recently a study doneabout cell phone use by a driverRaul,最近有一项研究表明,关于开车时驾驶者使用手机when people are driving a car,and there was a debate有一场辩论, 关于这种行为whether that should be banned.是否应被禁止.Yeah.是啊。

相关文档
最新文档