哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记

合集下载

哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记.doc

哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记.doc公正是一个关键的理论和实际问题。

参加正义的追求，是大多数文化的一个中心问题。

公正是哲学、政治和法律学的重要主题。

在哲学中，公正是价值和道德基础的探究，而在政治科学中，则是权利和权力的探究。

公正是自治的标志。

自治有时显然是重要的，因为人们会认为，只有自主选择，才能使人们成为自己的主人。

课程注重分析公正所涉及的几个关键问题：1.分配公正（distributive justice）——财产、权利、机会分配的公正性。

2.修补公正（corrective justice）——如何修正不公正的分配，如何弥补由不公正引起的损失和伤害。

3.诉讼公正（judicial justice）——法律程序和司法制度的公正性。

我们如何理解正义？正义是一个广泛的概念。

在不同的情境下，正义有不同的含义。

正义包含以下几个要素：2.平等（equality）：平等可以有很多不同的含义，但是，基本上平等要求对待某个人或群体时不进行歧视，而且对待所有人时包括适当的地位和敬意。

3.尊重（respect）：尊重指的是对所有人的自由和权利的尊重，尊重他们的意志或决定。

在本意义上，正义与自由、尊重等价。

分配公正分配公正是指资源分配是公正、合理、合法和合法的问题，这个问题是至关重要的，因为这牵涉到人们的生活、权利和机会。

效用学派认为公正需要基于效用，也就是人类的福利最大化。

原则：最大化幸福，最小化不幸福。

资源主义认为资源应当按照人们所做的贡献进行分配。

自由主义者认为，重要的是人们能够获得自己选择的东西、自己的财产和自己的立场，重要的是不受不正当干涉和不当限制。

马克思主义强调，分配应基于不同的需求，而不是贡献，应该根据各个人的基本需要以均等的方式进行分配。

修补公正人们无法忽略的是，虽然我们都希望进行公正的资源分配，但有时它仍会失败。

此时，我们则需要进行一些修补，来纠正不正当的分配。

此时就涉及到了“修补公正”。

有两种基本的思路：1.撤销（restitution)：撤销原来有利的状态，消除不公正的结果。

哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 06-Mind Your Motive The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机道德的

Justice 06 Mind Your Motive / The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机/道德的最高准则When we ended last time, we were discussing Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose, "What are the limits on government that even the agreement of the majority can't override?" That was the question we ended with.We saw in the case of property rights that on Locke's view a democratically elected government has the right to tax people.It has to be taxation with consent because it does involve the taking of people's property for the common good but it doesn't require the consent of each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected.What it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society, to take on the political obligation but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.So much for taxation.But what you may ask, about the right to life?Can the government conscript people and send them into battle?And what about the idea that we own ourselves?Isn't the idea of self-possession violated if the government can, through coercive legislation and enforcement powers, say "You must go risk your life to fight in Iraq." What would Locke say?Does the government have the right to do that?Yes. In fact he says in 139, he says, "What matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary, that's what matters." And he gives a wonderful example.He says "A sergeant, even a sergeant, let alone a general, a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to a face of a cannon where he is almost sure to die, that the sergeant can do.The general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post or for not obeying even a desperate order.But with all their power over life and death, what these officers can't do is take a penny of that soldier's money because that has nothing to do with the rightful authority, that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt." So consent winds up being very powerful in Locke, not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order, but consent to join the government and to be bound by the majority in the first place.That's the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully that even the limited government created by the fact that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, even that limited government is only limited in the sense that it has to govern by generally applicable laws, the rule of law, it can't be arbitrary.That's Locke.Well this raises a question about consent.Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the obligation to obey?Today we begin to investigate the question of consent by looking at a concrete case, the case of military conscription.Now some people say if we have a fundamental right that arises from the idea that we own ourselves, it's a violation of that right for government to conscript citizens to go fight in wars.Others disagree.Others say that's a legitimate power of government, of democratically elected governments, anyhow, and that we have an obligation to obey.Let's take the case of the United States fighting a war in Iraq.News accounts tells us that the military is having great difficulty meeting its recruitment targets.Consider three policies that the U.S. government might undertake to deal with the fact that it's not achieving its recruiting targets.Solution number one: increase the pay and benefits to attract a sufficient number of soldiers.Option number two: shift to a system of military conscription, have a lottery, and whose ever numbers are drawn, go to fight in Iraq.System number three: outsource, hire what traditionally have been called mercenaries, people around the world who are qualified, able to do the work, able to fight well, and who are willing to do it for the existing wage.So let's take a quick poll here.How many favor increasing the pay?A huge majority.How many favor going to conscription?Maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription.What about the outsourcing solution?Okay, so there may be two, three dozen.During the Civil War, the Union used a combination of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military to fight in the Civil War.It was a system that began with conscription but if you were drafted and didn't want to serve, you could hire a substitute to take your place and many people did.You could pay whatever the market required in order to find a substitute, people ran ads in newspapers, in the classified ads offering 93 for a substitute who would go fight the Civil War in their place.In fact, it's reported that Andrew Carnegie was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place for an amount that was a little less than the amount he spent in the year on fancy cigars.Now I want to get your views about this Civil War system, call it the hybrid system, conscription but with a buyout provision.How many think it was a just system?How many would defend the Civil War system?Anybody?Anybody else?How many think it was unjust?Most of you don't like the Civil War system, you think it's unjust.Let's hear an objection.Why don't you like it?What's wrong with it? Yes.Well by paying $300 to be exempt one time around, you're really putting a price on valuing human life and we established earlier, that's really hard to do so they're trying to accomplish something that really isn't feasible.Good. So paying someone $300 or $500 or $1,000 - You're basically saying that's what their life is worth to you.That's what their life is worth, it's putting a dollar v alue on life.That's good. What's your name?-Liz.Liz.Well, who has an answer for Liz.You defended the Civil War system, what do you say?If you don't like the price then you have the freedom to not be sold or hired so it's completely up to you.I don't think it's necessarily putting a specific price on you and if it's done by himself, I don't think there's anything that's really morally wrong with that.So the person who takes the $500, let's say, he's putting his own price on his life or on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom to choose to do that.Exactly.What's your name?- Jason.Jason. Thank you.Now we need to hear from another critic of the civil war system. Yes.It's a kind or coercion almost, people who have lower incomes, for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft, $300 is an irrelevant in terms of his income but someone of a lower income, they're essentially being coerced to draft, to be drafted, it's probably they're not able to find a replacement.Tell me your name.Sam.Sam. All right so you say, Sam, that when a poor laborer accepts $300 to fight in the Civil War, he is in effect being coerced by that money given his economic circumstances whereas Carnegie can go off, pay the money, and not serve.Alright. I want to hear someone who has a reply to Sam's argument, that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive.Who has an answer to Sam?Go ahead.I'd actually agree with him in saying that - You agree with Sam.I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs individual of his ability to reason.Okay, and what's your name?Raul.All right. So Raul and Sam agree that what looks like a free exchange, free choice, voluntary act actually involves coercion.It's profound coercion of the worst kind because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society.Good. Alright. So Raul and Sam have made a powerful point.Who would like to reply?Who has an answer for Sam and Raul?Go ahead.I don't think that these drafting systems are really terribly different from all volunteer army sort of recruiting strategies.The whole idea of having benefits and pay for joining the army is sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join.It is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country where you can use like patriotism to try and coerce people to feel like it's the right thing to do to volunteer and go over to Iraq.And tell me your name.Emily.Alright, Emily says, and Raul you're going to have to reply to this so get ready.Emily says fair enough, there is a coercive element to the Civil War system when a laborer takes the place of Andrew Carnegie for $500.Emily concedes that but she says if that troubles you about the Civ il War system shouldn't that also trouble you about the volunteer army today?Before you answer, how did you vote in the first poll?Did you defend the volunteer army?I didn't vote.You didn't vote.By the way, you didn't vote but did you sell your vote to the person sitting next to you?No. Alright.So what would you say to that argument.I think that the circumstances are different in that there was conscription in the Civil War.There is no draft today and I think that volunteers for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism that is of an individual choice than those who were forced into the military in the Civil War.Somehow less coerced?Less coerced.Even though there is still inequality in American Society?Even though, as Emily points out, the makeup of the American military is not reflective of the population as a whole?Let's just do an experiment here.How many here have either served in the military or have a family member who has served in the military in this generation, not parents?Family members. In this generation.And how many have neither served nor have any brothers or sisters who have served?Does that bear out your point Emily?Yes.Alright. Now we need to hear from - most of you defended the idea of the all volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly, people considered the Civil War system unjust.Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the Civil War system, it took place against a background of inequality and therefore the choices people made to buy their way in to military service were not truly free but at least partly coerced.Then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge.Alright, everyone here who voted in favor of the all volunteer army should be able - should have to explain what's the difference in principle.Doesn't the all volunteer army simply universalize the feature that almost everyone found objectionable in the Civil War buyout provision?Did I state the challenge fairly Emily?Yes.Okay. So we need to hear from a defender of the all volunteer military who can address Emily's challenge.Who can do that?Go ahead.The difference between the Civil War system and the all volunteer army system is that in the Civil War, you're being hired not by the government, but by an individual and as a result, different people who get hired by different individuals get paid different amounts.In the case of the all volunteer army, everyone who gets hired is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount.It's precisely the universalization of essentially paying your way to the army that makes the all volunteer army just.Emily?I guess I'd frame the principle slightly differently.On the all volunteer army, it's possible for somebody to just step aside and not really think about the war at all.It's possible to say, "I don't need the money, I don't need to have an opinion about this, I don't need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country.With the coercive system, or sorry, with an explicit draft then there's the threat at least that every individual will have to make some sort of decision regarding military conscription and perhaps in that way, it's more equitable.It's true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case but in one, he can completely step aside from it, and the other there's some level of responsibility.While you're there, Emily, so what system do you favor, conscription?I would be hard pressed to say but I think so because it makes the whole country feel a sense of responsibility for the conflict instead of having a war that's maybe ideologically supported by a few but only if there's no real responsibility.Good. Who wants to reply?Go ahead.So I was going to say that the fundamental difference between the all volunteer army and then the army in the Civil War is that in the all volunteer army, if you want to volunteer that comes first and then the pay comes after whereas in the Civil War system, the people who are accepting the pay aren't necessarily doing it because they want to, they're just doing it for the money first.What motivation beyond the pay do you think is operating in the case of the all volunteer army?Like patriotism for the country.Patriotism. Well what about - And a desire to defend the country.There is some motivation in pay but the fact that it's first and foremost an all volunteer army will motivate first I think, personally.Do you think it's better?And tell me your name.Jackie.Jackie do you think it's better if people serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money?Yes, definitely because the people who - that was one of the main problems in the Civil War is that the people that you're getting to go in it to go to war aren't necessarily people who want to fight and so they won't be as good soldiers as they will be had they been there because they wanted to be.Alright, what about Jackie's having raised the question of patriotism, that patriotism is a better or a higher motivation than money for military service.Who would like to address that question?Go ahead.Patriotism absolutely is not necessary in order to be a good soldier because mercenaries can do just as good of a job as anyone who waves the American flag around and wants to defend what the government believes that we should do.Did you favor the outsourcing solution?Yes sir.Alright, so let Jackie respond.What's your name?Philip.What about that Jackie?So much for patriotism.If you've got someone whose heart is in it more than another person, they're going to do a better job.When it comes down to the wire and there's like a situation in which someone has to put their life on the line, someone who's doing it because they love this country will be more willing to go into danger than someone who's just getting paid, they don't care, they've got the technical skills but they don't care what happens because they really have - they have nothing like nothing invested in this country.There's another aspect though once we get on to the issue of patriotism.If you believe patriotism, as Jackie does, should be the foremost consideration and not money, does that argue for or against the paid army we have now?We call it the volunteer army though if you think about it, that's a kind of misnomer.A volunteer army as we use the term, is a paid army.So what about the suggestion that patriotism should be the primary motivation for military service not money?Does that argue in favor of the paid military that we have or does it argue for conscription?And just to sharpen that point building on Phil's case for outsourcing, if you think that the all volunteer army, the paid army, is best because it lets the market allocate positions according to people's preferences and willingness to serve for a certain wage, doesn't the logic that takes you from a system of conscription to the hybrid Civil War system to the all volunteer army, doesn't the idea of expanding freedom of choice in the market, doesn't that lead you all the way if you followed that principle consistently to a mercenary army?And then if you say no, Jackie says no, patriotism should count for something, doesn't that argue for going back to conscription if by patriotism, you mean a sense of civic obligation?Let's see if we can step back from the discussion that we've had and see what we've learned about consent as it applies to market exchange.We've really heard two arguments, two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service.One was the argument raised by Sam and Raul, the argument about coercion, the objection that letting the market allocate military service may be unfair and may not even be free if there's severe inequality in the society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities that that's their best choice and Sam and Raul say there's an element of coercion in that, that's one argument.Then there is a second objection to using the market to allocate military service, that's the idea that military service shouldn't be treated as just another job for pay because it's bound up with patriotism and civic obligation.This is a different argument from the argument about unfairness and inequality and coercion, it's an argument that suggests that maybe where civic obligations are concerned, we shouldn't allocate duties and rights by the market.Now we've identified two broad objections.What do we need to know to assess those objections?To assess the first, the argument from coercion, inequality, and unfairness, Sam, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor, question number one.Question number two: to assess the civic obligation patriotism.Argument: we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship?Is military service one of them or not?What obligates us as citizens?What is the source of political obligation?Is it consent or are there some civic obligations we have, even without consent, for living and sharing in a certain kind of society?We haven't answered either of those questions but our debate today about the Civil War system and the all volunteer army has at least raised them and those are questions we're going to return to in the coming weeks.Today I'd like to turn our attention and get your views about an argument over the role of markets in the realm of human reproduction and procreation.Now with infertility clinics, people advertise for egg donors and from time to time, in the Harvard Crimson ads appear for egg donors.Have you seen them?There was one that ran a few years ago that wasn't looking for just any egg donor, it was an ad that offered a large financial incentive for an egg donor from a woman who was intelligent, athletic, at least 5'10", and with at least 1400 or above on her SATs.How much do you think the person looking for this egg donor was willing to pay for an egg from a woman of that description?What would you guess?A thousand dollars?Fifteen thousand? Ten?I'll show you the ad.Fifty thousand dollars for an egg but only a premium egg.What do you think about that?Well there are also sometimes ads in the Harvard Crimson and the other college newspapers for sperm donors.So the market in reproductive capacities is an equal opportunity market.Well not exactly equal opportunity, they're not offering $50,000 for sperm but there is a company, a large commercial sperm bank that markets sperm, it's called California Cryobank, it's a for-profit company, it imposes exacting standards on the sperm it recruits, and it has offices in Cambridge, between Harvard and MIT, and in Palo Alto near Stanford.Cryobank's marketing materials play up the prestigious source of its sperm.Here is, from the website of Cryobank, the information.Here they talk about the compensation although compensation should not be the only reason for becoming a sperm donor, we are aware of the considerable time and expense involved in being a donor.So do you know what they offer?Donors will be reimbursed $75 per specimen, up to $900 a month if you donate three times a week, and then they add "We periodically offer incentives such as movie tickets or gift certificates for the extra time and effort expended by participating donors." It's not easy to be a sperm donor.They accept fewer than five percent of the donors who apply.Their admission criteria are more demanding than Harvard's.The head of the sperm bank said the ideal sperm donor is 6 feet tall, with a college degree, brown eyes, blond hair, and dimples for the simple reason that these are the traits that the market has shown that customers want.Quoting the head of the sperm bank, "If our customers wanted high school dropouts, we would give them high school dropouts." So here are two instances, the market in eggs for donation and the market in sperm, that raisea question, a question about whether eggs and sperm should or should not be bought and sold for money.As you ponder that, I want you to consider another case involving market and in fact a contract in the human reproductive capacity and this is the case of commercial surrogate motherhood, and it's a case that wound up in court some years ago.It's the story of Baby M.It began with William and Elizabeth Stern, a professional couple wanting a baby but they couldn't have one on their own, at least not without medical risk to Mrs. Stern.They went to an infertility clinic where they met Mary Beth Whitehead, a29-year-old mother of two, the wife of a sanitation worker.She had replied to an ad that The Standard had placed seeking the service of a surrogate mother.They made a deal.They signed a contract in which William Stern agreed to pay Mary Beth Whitehead a $10,000 fee plus all expenses in exchange for which Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artificially inseminated with William Stern's sperm, to bear the child, and then to give the baby to the Sterns.Well, you probably know how the story unfolded.Mary Beth gave birth and changed her mind, she decided she wanted to keep the baby.The case wound up in court in New Jersey.So let's take, put aside any legal questions, and focus on this issue as a moral question.How many believe that the right thing to do in the Baby M case, would have been to uphold the contract, to enforce the contract?And how many think the right thing to do would have been not to enforce that contract?The majority say enforce so let's now hear the reasons that people had, either for enforcing or refusing to enforce this contract.First I want to hear from someone in the majority.Why do you uphold the contract?Why do you enforce it?Who can offer a reason?Yes. Stand up.It's a binding contract, all the parties involved knew the terms of the contract before any action was taken, it's a voluntary agreement, the mother knew what she was getting into, all four intelligent adults, regardless of formal education, whatever.So it makes sense that if you know that you're getting into beforehand and you make a promise, you should uphold that promise in the end.Okay, a deal is a deal in other words.Exactly.- And what's your name?Patrick.Is Patrick's reason the reason that most of you in the majority favored upholding the contract?Yes. Alright, let's hear now someone who would not enforce the contract.What do you say to Patrick?Why not? Yes.Well, I mean, I agree, I think contracts should be upheld when all the parties know all the information but in this case, I don't think there's a way a mother, before the child exists, could actually know how she's going to feel about that child so I don't think the mother actually had all the information.She didn't know the person that was going to be born and didn't know how much she would love that person so that's my argument.So you would not, and what's your name?Evan Wilson.Evan says he would not uphold the contract because when it was entered into the surrogate mother couldn't be expected to know in advance how she would feel so she didn't really have the relevant information when she made that contract.Who else?Who else would not uphold the contract? Yes.I also think that a contract should generally be upheld but I think that the child has an inalienable right to its actual mother and I think that if that mother wants it then that child should have the right to that mother.You mean the biological mother not the adoptive mother?Right.And why is that?First of all, tell me your name.Anna.Anna. Why is that Anna?Because I think that that bond is created by nature is stronger than any bond that is created by a contract.Good. Thank you.Who else? Yes.I disagree. I don't think that a child has an inalienable right to her biological mother.I think that adoption and surrogacy are both legitimate tradeoffs and I agree with the point made that it's a voluntary agreement, the individua l who made it, it's a voluntary agreement and you can't apply coercion to this argument.You can't apply the objection from coercion to this argument?Correct.What's your name?- Kathleen.Kathleen, what do you say to Evan that though there may not have been - Evan claimed that the consent was tainted not by coercion but by lack of adequate information.She couldn't have known the relevant information namely how she would feel about the child.What do you say to that?I don't think the emotional content of her feelings plays into this.I think in a case of law, in the justice of this scenario, her change of feelings are not relevant.If I give up my child for adoption and then I decide later on that I really want that child back, too bad, it's a tradeoff, it's a tradeoff that the mother has made.So a deal is a deal, you agree with Patrick?I agree with Patrick, a deal's a deal.A deal is a deal.Yes.- Good. Yes.I would say that though I'm not really sure if I agree with the idea that the child has a right to their mother.I think the mother definitely has a right to her child and I also think that there's some areas where market forces shouldn't necessarily penetrate.I think that the whole surrogate mother area smacks a little bit of dealing in human beings seems dehumanizing.It doesn't really seem right so that's my main reason.And what is - could you tell us your name.I'm Andrew.Andrew, what is dehumanizing about buying and selling the right to a child, for money, what is dehumanizing about it?Well because you're buying someone's biological right.I mean you can't - in the law as it stated, you can't sell your own child were you to have a child, I'd believe that the law prohibits you selling it to another person or - So this like baby selling?Right. To a certain extent.Though there's a contract with another person, you've made agreements and what not, there is an undeniable emotional bond that takes place between the mother and the child and it's wrong to simply ignore this because you've written out something contractually.。

哈佛公正课的详细笔记及思考

哈佛公正课的详细笔记及思考迈克尔•桑德尔（Michael Sandel）第一讲：杀人的道德侧面【案例引子】电车刹车失灵，正高速行驶在轨道上。

如果继续往前，会撞死五个工人。

转弯开向侧轨，会撞死一个工人，此时你的方向盘并没有坏。

何为正确的选择？你会怎么做？→大部分人选择开向侧轨，这样做的原则是“牺牲一人保全五人”。

更换案例的条件：假如我不是电车司机，而是站在桥上的旁观者，身边正有一个大胖子，我只要把他推下去，也能阻止电车撞向前面的五人。

这时，我会怎么做？→绝大部分人都拒绝这一行为。

同样是“牺牲一人保全五人”，这个原则出现了什么问题？【争论的本质】我们在特定的情况下作出判断，然后试图阐明作出这些判断的理由或原则。

当我们面临新的情况时，我们重新检验这些原则，根据新的情况修正这些理由或原则，然后我们发现，要在特定案例之下自圆其说我们的判断，校正我们一再确认的原则，难度越来越大，我们也注意到了这些争论的本质：两种不同的道德推理：1、结果主义（Consequentialist）：取决于你行为所导致的后果。

2、绝对主义（Cateorical）：取决于特定的绝对道德准则，个人的权利与义务。

两种不同道理推理的代表性思想家：边沁VS. 康德第二讲：食人惨案【功利主义哲学】核心观点：最大化功利。

“为最多的人谋求最大的幸福”。

道德推理：痛苦和快乐是我们至高无上的主人，所有人类均受这两大因素所支配。

人的本性是趋乐避苦，因此功利（utility）等于快乐减去痛苦，幸福减去苦难。

代表人物：边沁（1748-1832）英国政治哲学家。

【案例】女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案真实案例简述：1884年7月5日，英国米格诺耐特号在好望角外1600英里公海上失事，水手达德利、斯蒂芬斯、布鲁克斯和客舱侍役爬上一条救生船，除两罐咸菜外没有任何给养。

7月24日，达德利提议，如果第二天早上仍看到不到船只，将杀了客舱侍役（此时已生病，且是孤儿）以挽救其他人，布鲁克斯表示不同意。

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。

公正：该如何是好听课笔记中

第五节Hired.Guns.&.For.Sale.Motherhood1、民主制度的“同意”特征洛克认为只要政府是民主的，不是专制的，就可以强制人们服兵役去战场。

这里又是涉及到“同意”的问题，民主制度给人的感觉，就是有一个大部分人同意的程序，再根据这个程序由大部分人同意来选出管理者，管理者制定出大部分人都同意的政策来执行。

从本质来说，这样的制度设置，本身的目的并不是保证社会管理达到一个最优化，最幸福的结果。

而是从心理学角度制造的认同感－－－－人只要认为某件事是自己“同意”过的，不论这件事是否被自己理解，都会导致更多的概率去维护它。

这种以“同意”为基础的制度其实无论在产生过程和执行的结果上，并不一定能够得到多数人的真正的认同。

因为这种同意并不是信息对等的情况下产生的，也就是说，很多人“同意”了这个程序或者管理者，但他或她其实不论对程序还是对领导者都不够了解。

并且，即便所有的人对这个民主程序都有足够的理解，但也很少有人能够保证这个程序运作出的结果会让人满意。

以民主最彻底的美国为例，美国在总统选举上的投票率也就刚好过半，而且还曾一度跌落到接近50%。

尽管有各种原因，但如此低的投票率还是体现了很多人对投票会产生什么样的结果没有办法预料，也就没有必要参与。

（美国的投票率远低于欧洲，主要是以下几点原因，一是选民登记手续需要自己办，比较繁琐。

二是美国人需要投票的事情太多，小到所在区郡县议员，大到国会的参众议员、总统，以及党派候选人、重大事件的公投等等，有些地区在四年一届的总统任期内需要投票过百次，也确实繁重。

但象英国的内阁民主制，民众投票次数不多，投票率也高，但这种民主一旦决定哪个党派当选，剩下的就都是政客集团内部协商，没有民众什么事。

也就更谈不到有多少“同意”基础。

）在洛克那个时代，是民族国家的发展期，英国做为民主制度的发源地，确实是摸索出了人们基于“同意”而认同所带来的好处，那就是有利于形成一个更紧密也更精密的共同体－－－－现代国家。

哈佛大学公开课听课笔记公正

哈佛大学公开课听课笔记：公正哈佛大学（harvard university），简称哈佛，坐落于美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市，是一所享誉世界的私立研究型大学…… 哈佛大学公开课听课笔记具体内容请看下文。

哈佛大学公开课听课笔记：公正课程：哈佛大学公开课——公正：该如何做是好主讲：michael sandel (迈克尔•桑德尔)时间：201X年8月14日晚8点半-10点笔记：迈克尔：第一个事例，你驾驶了一辆失控的电车即将撞到轨道尽头，而尽头的一侧有5名施工人员;如果电车转到侧面，则是一名施工人员。

如果只有这两种选择，怎么办?牺牲1人拯救5人?问题是：何为正确的选择?学生：绝大多数支持牺牲1人保全5人学生1(支持转向牺牲1人)：当可以只牺牲1人时，牺牲5人是不正确的。

学生2(同上)：这类似与911事件，那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人，被称之为英雄。

因为他们选择牺牲自己，而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多的人。

学生3(支持电车不转向)：这是为种族灭亡以及极权主义正名，这是同样的思维模式，为了让一个种族生存下来而牺牲另一个种族。

迈克尔：修改一下条件，如果此刻你不是司机，而是一位旁观者，站在桥上目睹一辆失控的电车即将向尽头驶来，尽头是5名施工人员，面对这即将发生悲剧，你爱莫能助。

这个时候，你发现，在你旁边，靠着桥站着一位超级大胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在轨道上挡住了电车，他必死无疑，但是可以拯救那5个人，现在，有多少人愿意将这个大胖子推下去?学生：无人举手同意。

迈克尔：一个显而易见的问题出现了，“牺牲一人来保全五人”的原则出现的问题，前一种情况中绝大多数人支持这个原则，但是在第二种情况中，却没有人支持。

如何来解释这两种情况下绝大多数人所作的这个选择?学生1(细眉细眼的亚洲裔boy)：我觉得第二种情况在于牵扯到主动推人。

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justice 03-Free to Choose Who Owns Me 自由选择我属于谁？

Justice 03 Free to Choose / Who Owns Me? 自由选择/我属于谁？When we finished last time, we were looking at John Stuart Mill's attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's Utilitarianism.In his book Utilitarianism Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.And the results of our experiment seem to call into question Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be the higher or the worthier pleasure.That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.What about Mill's attempt to account for the especially weighty character of individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism.He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect.In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part of morality.But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.Why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality?Well, he says because in the long run, if we do justice and if we respect rights, society as a whole will be better off in the long run.Well, what about that?What if we have a case where making an exception and violating individual rights actually will make people better off in the long run?Is it all right then to use people?And there is a further objection that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights.Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.Is that the right reason?Is that the only reason to respect people?If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from the healthy patient who came in for a checkup to save five lives, there would be adverse effects in the long run.Eventually, people would learn about this and would stop going in for checkups.Is it the right reason?Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs out of the healthy patient that you think, well, if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual?And if that reason matters and it's not so clear that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it, fully to examine these two worries or objections, toMill's defense we need to push further.And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worth of pleasure?If so, what do they look like?That's one question.In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity or respect for person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian, we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares, the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.Strong theories of right say individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a larger social purpose or for the sake of maximizing utility, individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories or rights, it's a mistake to think about justice or law by just adding up preferences and values.The strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism.Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.It's called libertarianism because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty precisely because we are separate individual beings.We're not available to any use that the society might desire or devise precisely because we are individual separate human beings.We have a fundamental right to liberty, and that means a right to choose freely, to live our lives as we please provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.That's the fundamental idea.Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers we read for this course, puts it this way: Individuals have rights.So strong and far reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.So what does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state?Well, there are three things that most modern states do that on the libertarian theory of rights are illegitimate or unjust.One of them is paternalist legislation.That's passing laws that protect people from themselves, seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.The libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seatbelts but that should be up to them and the state, the government, has no business coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law.It's coercion, so no paternalist legislation, number one.Number two, no morals legislation.Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.Take the example of, well, a classic example of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians.The libertarian says nobody else is harmed, nobody else's rights are violated, so the state should get out of the business entirely of trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor.Redistribution is a ®C if you think about it, says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.What it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority, if we're talking about a democracy, from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money.Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs, the national defense, police force, judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights, but that's it.Now, I want to get your reactions to this third feature of the libertarian view.I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why.But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake, consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.Now, is this just or unjust?Well, what does the libertarian say?Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or result whether it's just or unjust.You have to know how it came to be.You can't just look at the end stage or the result.You have to look at two principles.The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.And what that means simply is did people get the things they used to make their money fairly?So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods that enabled them to make all that money?If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was that enabled them to gather the wealth, the first principle is matched.The second principle is did the distribution arise from the operation of free consent, people buying and trading on the market?As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to a free market conception of justice provided people got what they used fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things, the distribution is just.And if not, it's unjust.So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion, take an actual example.Who's the wealthiest person in the United States ®C wealthiest person in the world?Bill Gates.It is. That's right.Here he is.You'd be happy, too.Now, what's his net worth?Anybody have any idea?That's a big number.During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy donors?Big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above, someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom, Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night for the next sixty six thousand years.Somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft, I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess, and you calculate this net wealth, it turns out that his rate of pay is over 150 dollars, not per hour, not per minute 150 dollars per second 187 which means that if on his way to the office, Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street, it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.Now, most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing.They need it more than he does.And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?What tax policy would you have?You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?Because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some, a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it, but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare of those at the bottom.But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up an aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.We have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer, then it would be wrong, it would be a form of coercion to take it away Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did pretty well for himself.You wanna see Michael Jordan.There he is.His income alone in one year was 211 he made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike and other companies.So his income was, in one year, $78 million.To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to the government to support good causes like food and health care and housing and education for the poor, that's coercion, that's unjust.That violates his rights.And that's why redistribution is wrong.Now, how many agree with that argument, agree with the libertarian argument that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?And how many disagree with that argument?All right, let's begin with those who disagree.What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?Yes.I think these people like Michael Jordan have received we're talking about working within a society and they receive a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation in return to give that through redistribution, you know, you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works, you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 231 I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him, on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?Go ahead.My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.I've since bought a hundred skateboards.I live in a society of a hundred people.I'm the only one with skateboards.Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.They come to my house, they take my they take 99 of my skateboards.I think that is unjust.Now, I think in certain circumstances it becomes necessary to overlook that unjustness, perhaps condone that injustice as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food.If people are on the verge of dying, perhaps it is necessary to overlook that injustice, but I think it's important to keep in mind that we're still committing injustice by taking people's belongings or assets.Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say, at a 33 percent tax rate for good causes to feed the hungry is theft?I think it's unjust.Yes, I do believe it's theft but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.But it's theft.Yes.Why is it theft, Joe?Because -- Why is it like your collection of skateboards?It's theft because, or at least, in my opinion and by the libertarian opinion he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him.So to take it from him is by definition theft.All right, let's hear if there is°≠ Who wants to reply to Joe?Yes, go ahead.I don't think this is necessarily a case in which you have 99 skateboards and the government°≠ or you have a hundred skateboards and the government is taking 99 of them.It's like you have more skateboards than there are days in a year.You have more skateboards that you're going to be able to use in your entire lifetime and the government is taking part of those.And I think that if you are operating in a society in which the gov ernment's not ®C in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth, then that allowsfor people to amass so much wealth that people who haven't started from this very the equal footing in our hypothetical situation, that doesn't exist in our real society get undercut for the rest of their lives.So you're worried that if there isn't some degree of redistribution of some or left at the bottom, there will be no genuine equality of opportunity.All right, the idea that taxation is theft, Nozick takes that point one step further.He agrees that it's theft.He's more demanding than Joe.Joe says it is theft, maybe in an extreme case it's justified, maybe a parent is justified in stealing a loaf of bread to feed his or her hungry family.So Joe I would say, what would you call yourself, a compassionatequasi-libertarian?Nozick says, if you think about it, taxation amounts to the taking of earnings.In other words, it means taking the fruits of my labor.But if the state has the right to take my earning or the fruits of my labor, isn't that morally the same as according to the state the right to claim a portion of my labor?So taxation actually is morally equivalent to forced labor because forced labor involves the taking of my leisure, my time, my efforts, just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor.And so, for Nozick and for the libertarians, taxation for redistribution is theft, as Joe says, but not only theft is morally equivalent to laying claim to certain hours of a person's life and labor, so it's morally equivalent to forced labor.If the state has a right to claim the fruits of my labor, that implies that it really has an entitlement to my labor itself.And what is forced labor?Forced labor, Nozick points out, is what, is slavery, because if I don't have the right, the sole right to my own labor, then that's really to say that the government or the political community is a part owner in me.And what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me?If you think about it, it means that I'm a slave, that I don't own myself.So what this line of reasoning brings us to is the fundamental principle that underlies the libertarian case for rights.What is that principle?It's the idea that I own myself.It's the idea of self possession if you want to take right seriously.If you don't want to just regard people as collections of preferences, the fundamental moral idea to which you will be lead is the idea that we are the owners or the propietors of our own person, and that's why utilitarianism goes wrong.And that's why it's wrong to yank the organs from that healthy patient.You're acting as if that patient belongs to you or to the community.But we belong to ourselves.And that's the same reason that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves or to tell us how to live, to tell us what virtues we should be governed by, and that's also why it's wrong to tax the rich to help the poor even for good causes, even to help those who are displaced by the Hurricane Katrina.Ask them to give charity.But if you tax them, it's like forcing them to labor.Could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip the next week's games and go down to help the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina?Morally, it's the same.So the stakes are very high.So far we've heard some objections to the libertarian argument.But if you want to reject it, you have to break in to this chain of reasoning which goes, taking my earnings is like taking my labor, but taking my labor is making me a slave.And if you disagree with that, you must believe in the principle of self possession.Those who disagree, gather your objections and we'll begin with them next time.Anyone like to take up that point? Yes.I feel like when you live in a society, you'd give up that right.I mean, technically, if I want to personally go out and kill someone because they offend me, that is self possession.Because I live in a society, I cannot do that.Victoria, are you questioning the fundamental premise of self possession?Yes. I think that you don't really have self possession if you choose to live in a society because you cannot just discount the people around you.We were talking last time about libertarianism.I want to go back to the arguments for and against the redistribution of income.But before we do that, just one word about the minimal state, Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, he points out that many of the functions that we take for granted as properly belonging to government don't.They are paternalist.One example he gives is social security.He says it's a good idea for people to save for their retirement during their earning years but it's wrong.It's a violation of people's liberty for the government to force everyone whether they want to or not to put aside some earnings today for the sake of their retirement.If people want to take the chance or if people want to live big today and live a poor retirement, that should be their choice.They should be free to make those judgments and take those risks.So even social security would still be at odds with the minimal state that Milton Friedman argued for.It sometimes thought that collective goods like police protection and fire protection will inevitably create the problem of free riders unless they're publicly provided.But there are ways to prevent free riders.There are ways to restrict even seemingly collective goods like fire protection.I read an article a while back about a private fire company, the Salem Fire Corporation, in Arkansas.You can sign up with the Salem Fire Corporation, pay a yearly subscription fee, and if your house catches on fire, they will come and put out the fire.But they won't put out everybody's fire.They will only put it out if it's a fire in the home of a subscriber or if it starts to spread and to threaten the home of a subscriber.The newspaper article just told the story of a home owner who had subscribed to this company in the past but failed to renew his subscription.His house caught on fire.The Salem Fire Corporation showed up with its trucks and watched the house burn, just making sure that it didn't spread.The fire chief was asked, well, he wasn't exactly the fire chief.I guess he was the CEO.He was asked how can you stand by with fire equipment and allow a person's home to burn?He replied, once we verified there was no danger to a member's property, we had no choice but to back off according to our rules.If we responded to all fires, he said, there would be no incentive to subscribe.The homeowner in this case tried to renew his subscription at the scene of the fire.But the head of the company refused.You can't wreck your car, he said, and then buy insurance for it later.So even public goods that we take for granted that's being within the proper province of government can many of them in principle be isolated, made exclusive to those who pay.That's all to do with the question of collective goods and the libertarians injunction against paternalism.But let's go back now to the arguments about redistribution.Now, underlying the libertarian's case for the minimal state is a worry about coercion, but what's wrong with coercion?The libertarian offers this answer: To coerce someone, to use some person for the sake of the general welfare is wrong because it calls into question the fundamental fact that we own ourselves the fundamental moral fact of self possession or self ownership.The libertarian's argument against redistribution begins with this fundamental idea that we own ourselves.Nozick says that if the society as a whole can go to Bill Gates or go to Michael Jordan and tax away a portion of their wealth, what the society is really asserting is a collective property right in Bill Gates or in Michael Jordan.But that violates the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves.Now, we've already heard a number of objections to the libertarian argument.What I would like to do today is to give the libertarians among us a chance to answer the objections that have been raised and some have been some have already identified themselves and have agreed to come and make the case for libertarianism to reply to the objections that have been raised.So raise your hand if you are among the libertarians who's prepared to stand up for the theory and respond to the objections.You are?Alex Harris.Alex Harris, who's been a star on the web blog.All right, Alex, come here.Stand up.Come.We'll create a libertarian corner over here.And who else?Other libertarians who will join.What's your name?John.John?Sheffield.John Sheffield.Who else wants to join?Other brave libertarians who are prepared to take on Yes, what's your name?Julia Rotto.Julia Rotto.Julia, come join us over there.Now, while the ®C while team libertarian Julie, John, Alex.While team libertarian is gathering over there, let me just summarize the main objections that I've heard in class and on the website.Objection number one®C and here I'll come down to- I wanna talk to team libertarian over here.So objection number one is that the poor need the money more.That's an obvious objection, a lot more than -- thanks ®C than do Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.Objection number two, it's not really slavery to tax because at least in a democratic society it's not a slave holder.It's congress.It's a democratic°™ you're smiling, Alex, already.You're confident you can reply to all of these?So taxation by consent of the governed is not coercive.Third, some people have said don't the successful like Gates owe a debt to society for their success that they repay by paying taxes.Who wants to respond to the first one, the poor need the money more?All right, and you're?John.John. All right, John, what's the, here I'll hold it.All right.The poor need the money more.That's quite obvious.I could use the money.You know, I certainly wouldn't mind if Bill Gates give me a million dollars.I mean, I'd take a thousand.But at some point you have to understand that the benefits of redistribution of wealth don't justify the initial violation of the property right.If you look at the argument the poor need the money more, at no point in that argument do you contradict the fact that we've extrapolated from, agreed upon principles that people own themselves.We've extrapolated that people have property rights and so whether or not it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even a necessary thing for the survival of some people, we don't see that that justifies the violation of the right that we've logically extrapolated.Good. Okay.And so that also, I mean, there still exist this institution of like individual philanthropy.Milton Friedman makes this argument- All right, so Bill Gates can give to charity if he wants to.Right.But it would still be wrong to coerce him.Exactly.To meet the needs of the poor.Exactly.Are the two of you happy with that reply?Anything to add?All right, go ahead. Julie?Julia, yes.I think I can also add, it's okay.I guess I could add that there's a difference between needing something and deserving something.I mean, in an ideal society everyone's needs would be met but here we're arguing what do we deserve as a society and, yeah.And the poor don't deserve don't deserve the benefits that would flow from taxing Michael Jordan to help them.Based on what we've covered here I don't think you deserve something like that.All right, let me push you a little bit on that, Julia.The victims of Hurricane Katrina are in desperate need of help.Would you say that they don't deserve help that would come from the federal government through taxation?Okay, that's a difficult question.I think this is a case where they need help, not deserve it, but I think, again, if you had a certain level of requirements to meet sustenance, you're gonna need help, like, if you don't have food or a place to live, that's a case of need.So need is one thing and deserve is another.Exactly.All right.Who would like to reply?Yes.Going back to the first point that you made about the property rights of individual.The property rights are established and enforced by the government, which is a democratic government, and we have representatives to enforce those rights.If you live in a society that operates under those rules, then it should be up to the government to decide how those resources[inaudible]taxation are distributed because it is through the consent of the government.If you disagree with it, you don't have to live in that society where that operates.All right, good, so, and tell me your name.Raul.Raul is pointing out, actually, Raul is invoking point number two.If the taxation is by the consent of the governed, it's not coerced.It's legitimate.Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are citizens of the United States.They get to vote for congress.They get to vote their policy convictions just like everybody else.Who would like to take that one on? John?Basically, what the libertarians are objecting to in this case is the middle 80 percent deciding what the top ten percent are doing for the bottom ten percent.Wait, wait, wait, John.Majority.Don't you believe in democracy?Well, right, but at some point -- Don't you believe in, I mean, you say 80 percent, Majority rule is what?549 The majority.Exactly, but -- In a democracy.。

哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记

Professor: Michael sandelClass 1: the moral side of murderFirst question: What is the right thing to do? Kill one instead of five?Backgrounds: Suppose that you are a trolley（电车） driver, your breaks don’t work, you still could control the steering wheel, and there are two tracks in front of youOne opinion: go straightSecond one: turn around to the track where only one people standingPrinciple: better to save five lives even if it means to sacrificing one 第一种观点：转弯牺牲一个人的做法和极权主义和种族主义（genocide and totalitarianism）的出发点一致第二种观点：你不能做出杀死五个人而放弃牺牲一个人就能救五人性命的选择。

（多数选择）场景转换：你变成了一个onlooker（旁观者）在桥上看着轨道，身边有一个胖子探出身子再看，你会把他推下桥从而救五个人的命吗？不会（多数选择）:推人是主观行动而且是你可控制的行为，而电车的情况你无法控制Moral principle: 1 what you should do depends on the consequences that will result from your actions. (consequentialist moral reasoning 结果主义道德伦理 locates morality in the consequence of an act) related to utilitarianism(功利主义)2 categorical moral reasoning 绝对主义道德伦理 locates morality in certain duties and rightsPhilosophy estranges us from the familiar by inviting and provoking usa new way of seeing哲学使得熟悉的事物变得陌生通过引进和启发我们一个看待事物的新方式Once the familiar turns strange is never quite same againImmanuel kant skepticism is a resting place for human reasonOne of the most important and influential versions of consequentialist moral theory: philosophy of utilitarianism, Jeremy bentham,english philosopher first gave this conceptUtilitarianism : Jeremy bentham idea is maximize the utility(效益最大化)，utility: Pleasure over pain, the slogan of it “the greatest good for the greatest number”故事：19世纪的英国法律案件，在所在帆船被风浪击毁，超过二十天在救生艇上飘荡的四名英国船员，三人因为生存的需要杀了他们奄奄一息的同伴并以他的血和肉生存下来并且最终得救，回到英国三人面临抹杀罪名的审判，他们的行为在道德上能否被接受？It still unaccepted to killing one for survival (vast majority): you don’t own this power to decide others’ fatesClass two: putting a price tag on lifeUtility logic :cost-benefit analysis(成本收益分析)，placing a value to stand for utility on cost and benefits of various proposalssmokeSavings from premature deaths $1227 per personRepairing the ford pinto(斑马)(a flawed car produced by ford who haveObjections to utilitarianism:1 fails to respect individual/minority rights2 not possible to aggregate(合计) all values into $-using a single measure like $-isn’t there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasureBentham says :“pushpin(图钉游戏) is as good as poetry”，which shows he just address the duration and intensity of pleasureWho to say their pleasures are higher、wealthier and nobler than othersAny want or satisfaction which exists exists in some account and therefore measurableA latter-day(近代) utilitarian John Stuart mill try to humanize utilitarianism accommodate humanitarian concerns(纳入人道关怀)The only test for distinguish higher and lower pleasure is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it.“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than be a pig satisfied .”said by mill, because we would prefer higher pleasure that we know it can engages our higher human faculties(系，才能),and for receiving the higher pleasure need education、cultivation(培养)、appreciation.Bentham(who died in 1832) provided his body be preserved in embalmed and displayed in university of London where he still wore his actual clothes with waxed head in a glass case. He fulfills his concept of philosophy to maximize a body of a dead people.Class three: free to chooseQuestion one:are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worthy of pleasure, if so, what do they look like?Strong theories of rights say that individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a lager social purpose or for the sake of the utility, individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect. And it is a mistake according to the strong theories that think about justice or law just by adding up preferences and values, which we talk about now is libertarianism (自由意志论)，it think the fundamental individual right is the right to be liberty. Provided we respect others”have the same right to choose freely and live our lives as please.1 no paternalist legislation (家长式立法)2 no moral legislation3 no redistribution (再分配) of income from rich to poor.Nozick : what makes income distribution just?1 justice in acquisition (initial holdings)2 justice in transfer (free marketNozick”s arguments against taxation:Taxation=taking of earningsTaking of earnings = forced laborForced labor=slaveryViolate the principle of self-possessionBut what if we don’t have self-possession cause we agree to live in a society ,which don’t allow you choose whatever you want to do.Class four: this land is my land.Under the law of nature, I’m not free to take someone else`s life or liberty, or property, nor am I free to take my own life or liberty and property. (nature`s constrains)Nature rights are unalienable and nontransferable for mankind, which means that the state of nature (we have it before state comes out) ask us to keep the rights to ourselves and not allow us to trade or give up them.Locker and other libertarians say that cause we own the property in ourselves furthermore we our own labor and from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labor with that is un-owned becomes our property.Locker thinks that private property is raised without consent(同意)Problem: If the right to private property is natural, not conventional(协议性), if it is something that we acquire even before we agree to government, how does this right constrain what a legitimate(合法的)government can do? Furthermore, it rises what becomes our natural right once it enters society?We consent to be governed by a legitimate government and human laws just when it respects our unalienable natural rights to life、liberty and property. No parliament (议会)，no legislature(立法机构) can legitimate violate our natural roghts.Locker`s two big ideas, one is private property and another one is consent.With the idea of consent that everyone is an executer of the law of nature to punish the ones who against the law of nature, everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature, in this situation people tend to overreact use the punish power, which makes the inconveniences that every is insecure.So for escape the state of nature to protect themselves, they agree togive up the enforcement power to do whatever the majority decides. Question: what the majority can decide?First of all, the government limited by respecting and enforcing our fundamental natural rights, we didn`t give up the rights when we entered the society.Question: what is the work of consent? And meanwhile the consent is not the personal decision but based on the collective consent when we first entered into this society.(i.e. the taxation)Question :if we don`t have the power to give up our natural rights ,which is the limits of the government ,how can we agree to be bound(约束)by a majority that will enforce us to sacrifice our lives or the property(like the military conscription 征兵制度 and taxation)To answer this question that john locker actually support that only if the government or the authority not arbitrarily(蛮横、专制的) take individual`s life or property, but the majority according to fair procedure to make generally applicable law to require individual, that is not a violation, which justify the conscription and taxation..Class five: hired guns?Question: why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and obligation to obey?Us government is facing a huge difficulties meeting recruitment.Ways to increase recruitment for the force:1 increase the pay and benefit.2 shift to military conscription(a draft选择)强制征兵3 outsource: hire mercenaries(雇佣兵)During civil war, the union used a combination of conscription and market system to recruit solider. which means if you were chosen you could find a substitute (代替者)。

公正课笔记

第一课案例一：电车失灵事件道德原则：1.结果主义：正确的选择以及道德的选择，取决于行为所导致的后果。

即是否道德取决于行为的后果，取决于行为对外界造成的影响代表：功利主义，18世纪英国政治哲学家边沁提出。

核心观点：正确的选择，公正的选择就是最大化功利。

功利=快乐-痛苦，人类受痛苦和快乐的原则指导，人的本性是趋向快乐回避痛苦的。

口号：为最多数的人谋取幸福。

2.绝对主义：是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则，取决于绝对明确的义务与权力，而不管结果如何。

代表：康德，18世纪德国哲学家案例二：食人惨案第二课边沁功利主义：1.道德的最高标准，无论是个人道德还是政治道德，都是最大化公共福利（集体幸福感），或者说权衡苦乐，将幸福最大化，即功利最大化2.我们都被痛苦和快乐统治，他们就像是至高无上的主宰，所以任何道德体系都应该通过最大化考虑这些。

---为最多的人谋求最大的幸福方法：成本效益分析，通常用于企业和政府中案例：福特平托功利主义的争议：1.不尊重个体和少数的权利2.加总功利、偏好、价值的看法不可能用金钱衡量批判：任何一种物品都充斥着各类嗜好、渴望、欲望以及满足感，人亦如此。

3.不同高低程度的快乐，不能用单一的衡量标准，应当区分好坏针对功利主义的质疑，提出穆勒主义-----穆勒主义：试图将功利主义人性化区分高级/低级快乐：1.尝试过，更偏好高级快乐2.通过教育，能区分高级/低级快乐，并更喜欢高级快乐第三课对穆勒主义的批判：穆勒认为，个人权利应当受到尊重，从长远来看，可以使每一个人过得更好，但是，这一理由不充分，个人是独立的存在，有独立的生命值得尊重，不应该成为尊重个人权利的唯一原因，不该只以偏好和价值的加总来考虑公正和法律。

自由主义（libertarianism）基本内容：个体独立存在，享有自由基本权利，有权自由选择，同时尊重他人的自由选择。

1.不设立家长式法律（交通规则等）2.没有道德法律（禁止同性恋等行为）3.不存在任何为劫富济贫进行财富再分配而设置的收入分配政策和税收政策分配是否公正需有两个原则：1.生产资料的获得是否公正2.分配是否基于自由市场交易自由主义认为，征税=拿走收入=强迫劳动=奴役，征税后，失去对个体的尊重，因此，功利主义倡导的征税行为是错误的。

哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记

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

如果在最后,可以有五个人活下来。

那么哪怕牺牲一个人的生命也是值得的。

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

能增加最大快乐值的即是善；反之即为恶。

即使是为了救回5条人命。

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

这就引出了第二种道德推理，绝对主义的道德推理。

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

公正笔记集doc

忘了多久没读一本书读的这么爽了，上一本带给我如许多思考体验，思考所得以及阅读快感的书应该是源泉我原以为这是十二堂公开课讲义与课上互动情形的记录，所以迟迟没入，在万圣立读片刻，大呼相见恨晚，诚然，公开课是少有的成功课程，循循善诱，互动成功，讲解精彩，深入浅出，但是不可避免的有课堂教学特有的慢步调，以及部分学生提问的重复和没有代表性，而且，有些深邃的问题即使是哈佛学生也是问不出的，有些太深刻的东西也是不合适在课堂短短的时间里拿出来讲的，于是有了这本书，这本书将公开课所涵盖的部分囊括进去，并进行了重新的整理，将反面思想有代表性的观点高度概括性的拿出来分析讨论，条理更清楚论证更缜密而详尽，也更加的深入，更多的旁征博引，真是非常好的一本书，唯一的缺点是，这本书的编纂完全跳出了公开课中学生的那一部分，学生问出了几个非常精彩的问题，本书将其遗漏，不仅是遗憾，也导致了部分问题讨论的不全面，所以这是本配合公开课看的教科书，真想叹一句，此书生而为人必读啊这本书是围绕一句话写就的，【试图为公正和权利寻求一种远离所有争论的基础】，这本书介绍了有代表性的争论，几大家提出的理想的基础，以及，什么是绝对自由和真正的公正开卷是飓风过后灾区冰块，桶装水，屋顶修理等价格飞涨的问题，争论集中在自由市场供求关系决定的价格正常变动与民众愤怒呼声之间孰对孰错的问题，分析了此时的自由市场是否具备【自由】的要素，指出这时的购买者完全没有选择，属于被动的购买，此时的涨价属于敲诈，是趁火打劫的行为，因此应该予以禁止，就像当年长江大学大学生救人溺毙后，捞尸船坐地起价的恶劣行径一般，由于这种恶意的不合理的高价，可能导致最需要帮助的一部分人由于缺少钱财而进入一个极为悲惨的境况之中这是个行为定性的问题，但是要由小见大推广开的话，没这么简单首先，此时如果不允许商品涨价，那么由于灾祸导致的供给不足，修理屋顶危险加大之类的问题完全被忽视，无法从价格变化中得到体现，价格无法反映供求关系不难想到，此时涨价是合理的，把一瓶平时卖一块钱的水卖三块，不算敲诈，应该说是个合理的价格，那么，为什么涨一点合理涨多了就是敲诈呢？合理的价格和敲诈之间的界限又是什么呢？？一瓶水卖9.99是合理，卖10.01就是敲诈吗？这个问题，也许最好的答案是，在灾区这种特殊环境，市场应当服务于需求，供求关系应该暂时搁置，也就是，不要涨价问题解决了吗？还没呢因为，没有合理的理由阻止人们涨价，尤其正如上文所述，涨价在一定范围之内是很难定性的，是敲诈还是合理的，本书也在提问，此时这种行为怎样判别是否正当，是否应该禁止，什么样的行为算是价格欺诈，又怎样制止价格欺诈其次，此时如果禁止涨价，出于不安心理以及部分人恶劣的囤积居奇心理，很可能出现抢购，导致库存迅速脱销，使得一部分人拥有用不掉的东西而其他人一无所有，修理屋顶的人也可能在为最早出现的顾客修理屋顶的一个小洞，而屋顶被砸穿的人无助的站在雨里哭泣，这个时候，市场分配指导作用丧失，是另一种罪如果在这种情况下，采取限购的手段防止恶性抢购，囤积居奇【我忍不住去想SB的抢盐众】，是比较有效的，但是，如果一个富有的独居老妪，无论水涨的多贵她也买得起，但是限购以后她老迈的身躯反而无法顺利的买到水，是谁之过？也许你会说，限购让很多人得到了好处，牺牲老妪是可以的，那么，哪种民主允许多数人牺牲少数人？社会主义民主？为什么少数人的利益优先级一定在多数人之下？为什么呢？多数人福利胜于少数人是边沁功利主义思想的主要内容，但是读过本书的人就会发现本书集中批驳的靶子就是边沁，多数人福利胜于少数人这点也确实站不住脚此时最佳的方案实际是按需分配，需要强有力有权威性的政府介入，我只能想到这一步，实际上我有意无意的忽略了很多其他因素，这是个很乱的问题啊之后讨论的是我过去认真思考过的问题，次贷危机后美国重金救市，拿到救济金的金融高管依旧发放巨额奖金，这种行为是对是错作者分析美国人震怒的缘由不是因为他们在奖励贪婪，对金融业的贪婪，每个人都有充分的认识，他们愤怒的是，这种行为意味着对失败的奖励，很多金融从业者分辩道这次危机天灾大于人祸，他们已经尽力，但是大局无可挽回，因此不是他们的失败这时作者的分析真是漂亮，他指出如果金融大亨不必为天时导致的失败负责的话，之前可能是由于天时所导致的成功，他们为什么欣然笑纳巨额的奖金呢？真是漂亮，真是漂亮的论述啊可是【以下是我的观点】熟悉体育比赛的人都会知道,如果裁判有了不利于一方的误判,这时候最不应该做的事情就是下意识进行第二次误判,将局面扯平这个问题究其根源在于金融业薪酬体系完全乱了，高度膨胀的工资和福利待遇并非一日两日，而始终没有完善的机制来限制过分的薪水，也没有法令制约贪婪，就算过去的高福利一直是一个错误，但是始终没有得到纠正，实际上，按照约定俗成的惯例，这个时候金融高管分享巨额奖金不能算错，金融业长期以来就是以高薪水高福利为特点的行业，此时如果单凭民众的愤怒就来收回奖金，更改制度，实际上是不理智的行为，是属于法例条令被民意裹挟的情形，例如药家鑫案【此处不多说】，如果纠缠过去的年头是属于天时带来的成功还是高管努力的成就都无用了，只能陷入扯皮的深渊，而且就算此时起更改条令，之前发放奖金的既成事实，都是不知者无罪的情形作者只是单纯就民众愤怒的缘由进行了分析，没有细说这种愤怒究竟对还是错，我想作者其实是不支持这种愤怒的，因为公正首先要建立在对共同承认的已生效的条例的遵守上，不容丝毫的徇情与苟且，虽说众怒难犯，但是为维护公正的绝对正义，只能虽千万人吾往矣读到这里心情实在太好，丢下书跑出去给女朋友打电话，【啊，我太爽了】，内子立刻怒斥【你流氓你！】，我张口结舌，【怎么了我】，【大白天的不想好事，回去好好上班】，我对着被挂了的电话目瞪口呆，回去老老实实上班言归正传，第一个例子还是电车司机的故事，分析的很到位，但是，这本书没有考虑公开课学生问题的缺点暴露了公开课里，就身为电车司机是否扭转车头，救五人杀一人，与身为旁观者是否应该推下去一个胖纸挡住电车，救五人杀一人展开讨论的时候，一个人站起来发言，认为大多数人会做前者而不做后者的原因是，前者已经必不可免的置身事内，而前者什么也不做就可以置身事外，推下去胖纸虽然救了人，但是也犯了杀人罪这实际上是最为重要的理由，本书将其遗漏，使得连篇累牍关于这个问题的讨论如空中楼阁接下来讨论的是失事船只船员为求生吃掉了同伴的故事，这其实是大多数人身临其境会做，但是未到那时绝对不会承认自己会做的事情，他们对自己犯罪这个事实毫无异议，大家也都没什么异议，但是，如果这个人自愿献身，是否就正义了呢？这个问题的升级版【自愿被杀】，【安乐死】，是否就正确了呢？【后文康德的思想对这个问题给出了答案，但是我不喜欢康德的逻辑，这个问题可不可以从其他角度出发解决呢】接下来作者介绍了边沁，密尔和他们分别的功利主义思想，功利主义看起来很简单很迷人，仔细想来不寒而栗，功利主义是一种对多数人压迫少数人暴政的默许，它的优点一是简明，二是高度的实用性，只是【欢乐】【痛苦】这个效用量度实在是不很好衡量，于是经常造成我们在电影小说，现实生活中遇到的两难情形，单就书中所举几个例子以及这几类例子，我发现无论做与不做都是可以争论，可以批评，可以原谅的，所以这种时候往往放弃思考，先下手为强的会得到好处，因为做与不做都有争议啊，这种先手优势明显的行为实在太类似丛林法则了，我不喜欢，但是我喜欢边沁那种不加评判的精神，他和古希腊哲人一样，如其所是的接受人们各种偏好，而不对它们的道德价值做任何评判，如同那些想智慧就讨论，想吃就去觅食，想女人就去操的爱利亚学派一样边沁的一个失着恰恰也在这里，他接受人们各种偏好，而不对价值做评判，也无视乐趣与痛苦的高下之分，将其盲目的混为一谈，密尔有所进步，认为快乐可以排序，但是不可以赋值，就好比他认为读书之乐胜于打dota，但是他确定不了读书之乐是打dota之乐的6.54倍还是1.23倍，这原本也是个大进步，可惜，他无法解决多种快乐与悲伤杂糅的效应束高下问题烟草公司和福特公司对人命赋值所做的报告是一种标准的nerd 心理，这种事怎么做怎么错，有些东西可以做不能说，可以做不能让人知，他们蠢到把这种东西曝光，真是没话讲，人命理论无价，现实几千块到几亿不等，这些公司所做的报告是对的科学，错的公关而功利主义认为我们给人类性命设定货币价格所表现出的退缩倾向是一种应该克服的冲动，是一种妨碍清醒思考和理性社会选择的禁忌，这个想法对不对姑且不说，单从表面就可以看出功利本身和给人命赋值一样，都是能做，不能说的事情毛泽东肯定不喜欢密尔，理由不解释康德认为我们需要高度的道德自律，核心价值是尊敬人，我们甚至无权不尊敬自己，这点很重要，可以解决以上很多问题，但是他对动机的推崇让我很难接受，对纯粹理性限制条件下的高度自律更是让我怀疑其可行性，边沁认为感性主宰我们的行为，而康德主张理性，生活中很容易发现类似边沁所描绘的，感性的偏好与成瘾性控制人生活的案例，却从未见过康德描绘的绝对理性的场合，康德做的最好的一点是成功建立了一个完善，可以自圆其说的体系，对上述所有问题都可以解答，尽管有时我不喜欢他有些冒迂气的答案，他把帮助他人的动机与义务的动机区分开来，在他眼中只有内心道德感逼迫自己在无外力压迫的情况下做不情愿的有益他人的事情才算得上道德，这实在太苛刻而且，在众人理性无冲突这一点，康德的理论没有说服力，必须是强大的理性存在才可以参与，而且如果参与，就要按照他制定的条框来规范自己的行为【他认为理性存在必然可以理解】，这是极为困难的条件，而且我想，康德自己未必有信心，所以提出了二律背反，自己证明两个理性存在的决定是会矛盾的而且，康德普遍法准则没有说明如果理性个体认为可以成为普遍规律的准则错了该怎么办但是我尊敬康德，尊敬他的目的，他尊敬存在于我们所有人当中，毫无差别的理性能力，这种能力是和外在任何特质都不同的，觉醒程度不同的原始强大的理性，我没见过，很想见见另外康德对于性实在是迂腐，这也许算是时代局限，而对于善意谎言，实在让我吐槽无力，他所构建杀人犯与朋友的模型只能说明绝对命令这个概念极度愚蠢，是毫不实用的道德高标，为了弥补，康德居然使用了误导，而且还振振有词，我又骇又笑，这样真的可以吗…..克林顿关于【性行为】和【口交】的康德式误导让我啼笑皆非，尽管他赞美并高度评价了我喜欢而且擅长的文字游戏和语言艺术的作用，我还是感觉这太勉强了然后是罗尔斯老实说罗尔斯在我心中的地位高于康德，康德形而上太严重，罗尔斯是走实用路线的，无知之幕这个概念让人叫绝，只是在这种情形下，任何有可能发生的小概率事件均会得到通过，比如之前所说的【自愿被杀】，一个人会这样想【如果我是正常人，这个议案通不通过对我毫无影响，但是如果我有那个嗜好，这个议案如果不能通过我就会非常痛苦，所以为策万全还是通过了吧】，这样，类似吸烟，酗酒，吸毒，自愿被杀，安乐死，一夫多妻，一妻多夫之类的议题也会被广泛认可成为共识，这肯定有问题而罗尔斯对于公正的议论更是可议之处颇多，首先，罗尔斯认为根据出生的偶然性来分配收入财富机会和权力是不公平的，他心目中理想的社会制度是将这些完全平均化，那么，可想而知，具有天赋优势的人将占尽便宜实际上天赋优势和出生优势是春兰秋菊各擅胜场的，出生优势诚然是最方便最容易兑现的优势，但是财产是可以花尽的，如扬州盐商之子般遍天撒金银箔般败家的人也不少，而富人一旦贫穷，其下场往往惨过一直穷苦的人，天赋优势比较难以兑现，但是一旦兑现，此生无忧，这两种优势很难说清哪种更好，而将出生优势铲掉，天赋优势者就无人可挡了所以有人将罗尔斯言论增强到【一种均等】，此时能力都被拉低到同一层次【可见冯内古特小说】，但这无疑是痴人说梦，天赋能力方面众多，难以量化，就算可以量化，如何降低到大家均等的标准？大家均等的标准必然是社会各个方面的最低标准，因为肯定没有可以提升能力的设备，如果有，早就天下无忧，所以只能将大家的能力都降低到社会最低值才能达到完全的等同，此时，这样的社会还哪有一点值得生存值得依恋的地方所以最后给出的结论是，抹平出生优势，让天赋优势者尽情发挥，然后将其所得分配给大家，能否顺利分配不谈，这种社会最后的结局必然是等级制度或是精英民主，两极分化不可避免，但是，这是实用性最强，也是目前为止我最喜欢的社会样式阅读这本书的时候经常觉得想得越多水反而越混,这是本让你不由自主的思考的书,一环套一环,将每个小问题逐步深入到大概念的冲突,往往在这种大概念范畴中,两种或多种相异甚多的思路彼此冲突碰撞已数百年而难分高下,自然,一个抱着玩票心态的业余阅读者就算将这本书读烂也未必能找到让自己满意的答案,但是这个过程,一定伴随着思考实际上我觉得, 在一种大概念范畴下,两种或多种相异甚多的思路彼此冲突碰撞已数百年犹自难分高下,这件事实的本身就可以说明很多事情,绝大多数情况下,是不会出现每种思路均错,正确答案几百年思考犹自未出现这样的情况的,而且,绝大多数情况下是不存在几百年都未被证伪的思想突然被满盘推翻的【人文思想与自然科学不同】，因此，这些问题的答案应该是这些对立思路的调和，是它们的加权平均，所要确定的，是权数这就意味着面对大多数问题时要同时考虑几方面的内容，意味着东方的思想智慧较之西方更为正确而实用，意味着出于对具体情况的分析，权数和界限往往不能轻易确定，需要掌握技巧与恰到好处的把握能力，这些似乎都更加东方当然我说的并非指毫无原则的和稀泥，比如正确的市场经济形式应该是在有限的管制下的自由市场，管制有上线，自由有底线，绝对的管制和绝对的自由都不可取，这并非凯恩斯学派理论，我认为凯恩斯管的太多，而新自由主义学派想得太美然而,对于绝对自由究竟如何定义这种大是大非,观点之间完全没有调和余地的问题,我陷入了迷惘有种把自己绕住了的感觉,我都能够感到这篇文章如同我的心境一般,磕磕巴巴词不达意,现在是一种瓶颈状态,看到了新的东西,怀疑起自己原有的东西,于是两种都不成体系公正,是个既要求理论正确,又要求实际可行的严苛概念,该如何做是好…………..呢最后是我的问题：1. 为什么两个人快乐一定比一个人好呢？2. 不考虑康德思想，一个人有没有对自己行为，禀赋的自由处理权，有没有权利卖掉自己的第二个肾，有没有权利做坏事，有没有权利允许他人拿走自己生命呢？3. 本书对征兵制的讨论重要而有深度，目前美国采用志愿兵制，那么，若在书中给出的理想状态，每个人都有充分的选择空间的情况下，无人选择入伍应该怎么办？4. 一旦战争爆发，美国若强行征兵，是否违反自由，自由是离心力么？5. 存不存在一些义务和权利，纵使按照罗尔斯，康德等人的方法无人会去选择会去认可，但是依然必须存在呢6. 美国招募陪审员制度，是不是把运气因素也带入了审判呢？7. 有哪些职业不仅仅是职业，还有着更高的使命感，如何保证从事这些职业的人保有这样的使命感呢？8. 康德认为某物给很多人带来快乐，并不能使它成为正当的，那么，香烟是不是正当的？廉价的致瘾咳嗽药水是不是正当的？9. 罗尔斯认为努力获得成功者应该把自己的收入拿出一部分来补贴他人，以回报他所享受的安定环境，那么，同样享受安定环境，庸碌者为何不必付出代价？安定环境是公共产品，无排他性，对公共产品收费是可以理解的，但是同样的东西不同的价格，是可以接受的吗？10. 请告诉我这本书中你所欣赏的哲学家或思想，给出理由，谢谢这本书大约买于半年前，当时信手翻了一半便放下了，带回了家。

哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受（共5篇）

哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受（共5篇）第一篇：哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受网络时代，教师如何更好的学习和教学——哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受自从有了智能手机、平板电脑等这些移动便捷的设备以后，让想学习的人可以利用一切可以利用的时间来进行学习。

我在网上看到一篇题为《像追美剧一样追网络》的文章介绍到现在已经到了MOOC （大规模在线开放课程）时代，其中Coursera，Udacity，edX是MOOC的三座大山。

让学习变成像追美剧一样，足见学习者学习的热情。

而在网易公开课这个平台，我有幸看到了哈佛大学桑德尔教授的《公正》课，让我受益匪浅。

一、选择这门课的缘由选择《公正》课源于我以前的教学师傅沈亚琴老师，她给我讲了其中的两个小故事。

一个故事是这样的：电车司机刹车失灵，既可以选择往前开，但那边有5个工人在干活，也可选择转弯，有1个工人在干活，问题是你会怎么选择？大部分人选择转弯，因为那样只会牺牲一个人。

另一种情形，你是一个旁观者，在电车经过的前方有一个胖子，如果你将它推倒，他就可以阻止电车的运行，而让5个工人免于灾难，你会选择推那个胖子吗？大部分人不选择推。

经过一番激烈的讨论，教授引出了以边沁为代表的结果主义道德理论和以康德为代表的行为主义道德理论，这里没有绝对的对和错，而要看评价的标准。

她还给我介绍了另一个真实的故事是发生在救生艇上的人吃人的事件。

有4个人，其中一个喝了海水而病重的派克是个没有家庭没有父母的下士，其他3人在食物严重短缺的情况下做出决定杀死了派克，最终其他3人得救，问题是其他三人的行为道德吗？这些小故事引起了我强烈的兴趣，于是我开始追随这门课程。

二、学习过程及主要内容摘要假期里进行学习，时间相对较为宽裕，但是要克服惰性。

当我真正的进入课程学习时，发现课程虽然有意思，但是毕竟是大学的课程，而且又是外文的翻译，所以看起来有一定的难度，而且不能保证完全掌握其中的精神实质，即便如此，我坚持看了8个视频（共有12个视频，每个视频约为55分钟），并将主要内容整理如下：1、谋杀背后的道德逻辑教授引用上面的第一个故事引出了结果主义和行为主义，并且列举了“医生可以杀死一个健康人取他的器官去挽救其他五个需要器官移植的病人吗？”这样的事例让学生进行讨论。

公正--该如何是好开放课程笔记_40153

《公正该如何做是好》课程笔记The.Moral.Side.of.Murder.&.The.Case.of.Cannibalism1、同一概念下的两种假设的差异迈克尔桑德尔首先通过经典的电车难题以及一个医院假设，来引出两种主要的道德理论----功利主义的道德理论以及绝对主义的道德理论。

电车难题就是假设在电车刹车失灵的时候，按照电车正常路线走会撞死五个人，而司机可以选择进入另一条岔道，这样就只会撞死一个人，这个问题在各个人群中得出的答案都差不多，就是会有相当一部分人选择进入岔道杀死一个人来救五个人。

不过由于这个岔道上的人从某种意义上说并不是这起事故的最初参与者，他的死亡是司机有意的选择造成的，这就导致会有相当一部分人选择保持原来的道路，避免主动的罪恶。

从这里可以看出，选择杀死一个人是在选择一个好的客观结果，而选择保持既定路线的是在选择避免主观错误。

把这个电车难题延伸开来，就是假设当这起事故将发生时，一个旁观者（或者是司机本人，只要他能通过某种装置做到的话。

）身边有一个胖子，他可以选择把这个胖子推到轨道上阻止电车，从而救下五个人。

显而易见，几乎没有人会选择主动杀死胖子，即便是可以救五个人。

而医院假设和电车难题类似，只不过医院假设的第一种情况是在一个重症病人和五个中度病人中选择，也就是选择救一个还是救五个的问题。

在这个问题中，因为自己主动选择而造成的一人死亡过程中，其主动性更小，而且有更合理的解释----因为有救活五个人的成就。

所以，这个问题的选择就更没异议。

仔细思考一下，会发现两种假设的区别就在于是否感觉自己亲自动手杀人，或者说杀人时的自己的动手性有多高。

因为对杀人的厌恶－－－－确切的说是对被别人知道自己有杀人的意图的情境的厌恶－－－－是大多数人的本能，这是进化心理学内容，也是人类以群体方式繁衍至今的一个基础优势----因为本能地厌恶杀人不仅使得群体中减少了自相残杀，而且这种共有的心理特征还增强了群体内的信任程度。

《公正》-精读笔记

《公正》-精读目录Day 1 利益·自由·德性№.1 导读人生而在世，总有几个亘古难题。

除了“我从哪来？”“我要到哪里去？”“我是谁？”这些被玩烂的梗，作者迈克尔·桑德尔又给大家提了一个永远回答不好、就算回答好也做不好的问题——什么是公正？怎样做事才是正确的？事实上，越是难回答的问题往往越有价值。

既然回答不出上述问题，我们不妨一起来掰开它，慢慢分析所谓的“公正”到底是什么，又是如何被糊里糊涂的乌合之众传承下去的。

本书从伦理学和经济学的角度入手，用生动的事例讲解不同的理论，以期辨明公正存在的基础，公正的原则等问题。

对于本书的阅读，希望你能够有耐心。

法哲分析总是注重逻辑的，道德分析也不例外。

那么相比其他书籍，我们总是偏于枯燥冗杂，需要耐心读下去。

№.2 法律与道德今日导读在开始阅读这本书之前，我们先试着问自己，什么是公正？什么是不公正？你在最近的新闻里看到过觉得不公正的事吗？在中国，不满1 4岁的人犯罪不需追究刑事责任是公正的吗？高考加分政策是公正的吗？2004年，“查理”飓风在席卷美国海岸的同时，也在拷问商人们的良心。

在灾害地区，日常用品的价格攀升了十倍以上；受灾群众还没有从失去家园的悲痛中苏醒过来，就被利欲熏心的商人打了耳光。

从道德的角度来讲，“企图利用他人的困难和痛苦发财是不对的”。

愤怒的群众纷纷抗议，希望有关部门进行监管，或者在立法或判决中大力惩戒这些商人。

但在立法或判决中，政府会不会考虑到群众的心情呢？其实未必。

所谓“法无明文禁止即可为”。

作为商人，法律没有禁止他们这种提高服务价格的行为，那么他们为什么不可以借用这样的机会牟利呢？举个简单的例子，在改革开放前，计划经济禁止自由买卖，因此在中国做生意，一不小心就会因为“投机倒把”被抓进监狱，这样具有时代特色的罪名，简直像极了封建社会的重农抑商。

改革开放后，投机倒把罪名被取消，于是再也没有谁因为正当的买卖而被判刑，再高的利润也是一个愿打、一个愿挨的结果。

《公正》笔记

《公正》笔记第一章做正当之事福利、自由与德性事件：2004年夏，飓风“查理”横扫佛罗里达，导致该地物价飙升。

结果：处以罚款，以赔偿消费者损失。

争论：一些拥护自由市场的经济学家认为价格欺诈有利于限制消费者使用这些物品，也有利于刺激别处的供应商给飓风受灾地区提供最急需的物品和服务；反价格欺诈等拥护者认为这一益处会被高价给那些无法支付得起的人们所带来的负担抵消。

同时，自由市场并不是真正的自由，被迫的购买者并没有自由。

困境：诸多对反价格欺诈法对支持都源自于一种直觉的反应，而并没有真正考虑到福利或自由。

这并非是一种欠考虑的怒气，是对不公正的愤怒，与德性相关。

德性的论证认为贪婪是一种国家应当反对的恶。

然而，应当由谁来判断什么是善，什么是恶？难道多元社会中的公民们不是对这些事物存在分歧吗？难道将关于德性对评判引入法律不会有危险吗？政治哲学中的重要问题：一个公正的社会应当努力推进其公民的德性吗？或者，法律是否应当在各种德性观念保持中立，以使公民们能够自由地为自己选择最佳的生活方式？德性与荣誉紫心勋章：那些坚持认为只有流血的创伤才应当算数的人们相信，创伤后应激障碍反应出一种不值得尊敬的性格上的软弱；那些认为心理创伤也应当算数的人们则反驳说，那些受到长期性的心理创伤和严重抑郁症所折磨的老兵们，与那些失去一只胳膊的老兵们为他们的国家做出的牺牲同样确凿无疑，同样光荣。

如今，我们大多数的争论都是关于如何分配经济繁荣的成果和困难时期的重负，以及如何界定公民的基本权利。

在这些领域中，关于福利和自由的考虑占统治地位。

然而这些事例追溯到有关荣誉和德性的古代伦理。

失败、成功与公正2008～2009经济危机期间，国家拨款来拯救国内大型银行和金融公司。

有些领取了公众救济金的公司却将数百万美元作为奖金发放给它们的高层管理人员。

那些奖金似乎是在奖励贪婪，然而，对失败的奖励是反对之声和愤怒的更深层原因。

要看一个社会是否公正，就要看它如何分配我们所看重的物品——收入与财富、义务与权利、权利与机会、公共职务与荣誉等问题。

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.doc

哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 06-Mind Your Motive The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机道德的

哈佛公正课的详细笔记及思考

哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记

公正：该如何是好听课笔记中

哈佛大学公开课听课笔记公正

哈佛公开课《公正：该如何是好？》笔记 (桑德尔教授)

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justice 03-Free to Choose Who Owns Me 自由选择我属于谁？

哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记

公正课笔记

哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记

公正笔记集doc

哈佛大学公开课《公正》学习感受（共5篇）

公正--该如何是好 开放课程笔记_40153

《公正》-精读笔记

《公正》笔记

公正--该如何是好开放课程笔记_40153