Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Last time we began trying to... we began by trying to navigate

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途

  • our way through Kant's moral theory.

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 時間軸:Money1026 翻譯: 煦煦 XQ 曹卡卡 校對: 甜蜜的嚮往

  • Now, fully to make sense of Kant moral theory in the groundwork

    公正:該如何做是好?

  • requires that we be able to answer three questions.

    謊言的教訓

  • How can duty and autonomy go together?

    上一次我們... 對康德的道德論

  • What's the great dignity in answering to duty?

    進行了有益的探討

  • It would seem that these two ideas are opposed duty and autonomy.

    現在 為了從根本上理解康德的道德論

  • What's Kant's answer to that?

    我們必須回答三個問題

  • Need someone here to speak up on Kant's behalf.

    義務和自律如何統一?

  • Does he have an answer?

    什麼是履行義務的偉大尊嚴?

  • Yes, go ahead, stand up.

    從表面看來 義務和自律無法共存

  • Kant believes you the only act autonomously when you are pursuing

    對於這一點 康德的回答是什麼呢?

  • something only the name of duty and not because of your own circumstances

    這裡需要有人代表康德來講幾句

  • such as... like you're only doing something good and moral

    他給出回答了嗎?

  • if you're doing it because of duty and not because something

    好的 你說吧 站起來

  • of your own personal gain.

    康德認為當一個人是出於義務而不是由於出於對自身的考慮

  • Now why is that acting... what's your name?

    來做一件事時 這種行為才是自主的

  • My name is Matt.

    例如... 當你做有益的 符合道德觀的事

  • Matt, why is that acting on a freedom? I hear what you're saying about duty?

    只是出於一種義務

  • Because you choose to accept those moral laws in yourself

    並非為了個人利益

  • and not brought on from outside upon onto you.

    為什麼這種行為... 你叫什麼名字?

  • Okay, good. Because acting out of duty

    我叫Matt

  • - Yeah. - is following a moral law

    Matt 為什麼這種行為是自主決定的? 我聽你說是因為義務?

  • That you impose on yourself.

    因為你自已選擇了接受這些道德律

  • that you impose on yourself. That's what makes duty

    而非外界對你施壓 使你逼迫接受

  • - compatible with freedom. - Yeah.

    好的 很好 因為這種出於義務的行為

  • Okay, that's good Matt. That is Kant's answer. That's great.

    - 是的 - 是你遵從自已選擇的

  • Thank you. So, Kant's answer is it is not in so far as I am subject

    道德律的表現

  • to the law that I have dignity but rather in so far as with regard

    是你施加給自己的 這個論據證明義務與自由

  • to that very same law, I'm the author and I am subordinated

    - 可以並存 - 是的

  • to that law on that ground that I took it as much as at I took it upon myself.

    好的 很好 Matt 這就是康德的回答 很好

  • I willed that law. So that's why for Kant acting according

    謝謝 所以 康德的回答是 我們並非只有受限於法律時

  • to duty and acting freely in the sense of autonomously are one and the same.

    才能享有尊嚴 而是針對同一項法律

  • But that raises the question, how many moral laws are there?

    我說了算 我遵守這項法律

  • Because if dignity consists and be governed by a law that I give myself,

    但前提是我們主動接受這一規則

  • what's to guarantee that my conscience will be

    我們願意遵循法律 因此康德表明出於義務的行為

  • the same as your conscience? Who has Kant's answer to that? Yes?

    和自主決定的行為本質上是統一的

  • Because a moral law trend is not contingent upon seductive conditions.

    但這又提出了一個問題 有多少道德律存在呢?

  • It would transcend all particular differences between people

    因為如果尊嚴是由一種 我們給予自身的法律組成的

  • and so would be a universal law and in this respect there'd only be

    那麼如何能保證我們的是非觀是一致的呢?

  • one moral law because it would be supreme.

    誰知道康德的回答是什麼? 你說?

  • Right. That's exactly right. What's your name?

    因為道德律不受主觀條件所左右

  • Kelly.

    它超越了所有人與人之間的具體區別

  • Kelly. So Kelly, Kant believes that if we choose freely

    因此它是一項通用法律 從這方面來說

  • out of our own consciences, the moral law we're guarantee

    只會存在一項道德律 因為它是至高無上的

  • - to come up with one and the same moral law. - Yes.

    對 非常對 你叫什麼名字?

  • And that's because when I choose it's not me, Michael Sandel choosing.

    我叫Kelly

  • It's not you, Kelly choosing for yourself.

    Kelly 那麼Kelly 康德認為如果我們用自已的是非觀

  • What is it exactly? Who is doing the choosing?

    來自主選擇 道德律 我們一定會

  • Who's the subject? Who is the agent? Who is doing the choosing?

    - 選擇同一項道德律 - 是的

  • - Reason? - Well reason... - Pure reason.

    那是因為我們選擇的時候 不是我 Michael Sandel在選擇

  • Pure reason and what you mean by pure reason is what exactly?

    也不是你 Kelly在選擇

  • Well pure reason is like we were saying before not subject to any

    那到底是什麼呢? 誰在做抉擇呢?

  • external conditions that may be imposed on that side.

    這一主體是誰? 誰是媒介? 誰在做決定?

  • Good that's' great. So, the reason that does the willing,

    - 理性? - 理性... - 純粹的理性

  • the reason that governs my will when I will the moral law

    純粹的理性 你具體是指什麼?

  • is the same reason that operates when you choose the moral law

    嗯 純粹的理性就是我們在不受任何外部條件

  • for yourself and that's why it's possible to act autonomously

    左右的情況下所持有的想法

  • to choose for myself, for each of us to choose for ourselves

    很好 很好 那麼 讓一種意願得以實現的理性

  • as autonomous beings and for all of us to wind up willing the same moral law,

    也就是在我們履行道德律時支配我們意願的理性

  • the categorical imperative.

    也同樣是在我們為自已選擇道德律時起作用的理性

  • But then there is one big and very difficult question left even

    因此我們每一個人才有可能自主選擇

  • if you accept everything that Matt and Kelly had said so far.

    每個人作為個體為自己做選擇

  • How is a categorical imperative possible?

    這樣我們最終都會遵循同一個道德律

  • How is morality possible? To answer that question,

    這就是定言命令

  • Kant said we need to make a distinction.

    但是即使你接受Matt和Kelly所說的一切觀點

  • We need to make a distinction between two standpoints,

    仍然存在一個重要而難以回答的問題

  • two standpoints from which we can make sense of our experience.

    定言命令有存在的可能嗎?

  • Let me try to explain what he means by these two standpoints.

    道德有存在的可能嗎? 想要回答這個問題

  • As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world.

    康德說我們需要作一個區分

  • There my actions are determined by the laws of nature

    我們需要區別兩種觀點

  • and by the regularities of cause and effect.

    從這兩種觀點中 我們可以理解自身經歷

  • But as a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world here

    我來解釋一下他所說的這兩種觀點的內涵

  • being independent of the laws of nature I am capable of autonomy,

    作為人生經歷的客體 我們屬於感知世界

  • capable of acting according to a law I give myself.

    在這一世界中我們的行為由自然定律

  • Now Kant says that, "Only from this second standpoint can I regard myself

    以及因果關係所決定

  • as free for to be independent of determination by causes

    但作為人生經歷的主體 我們存在於智思世界中

  • in the sensible world is to be free."

    我們可以獨立於自然定律之外 主宰自已

  • If I were holy and empirical being as the utilitarian assume,

    我們可以根據自已認定的法律主宰我們的行為

  • if I were a being holy and only subject to the deliverances of my senses,

    康德說只有基於第二個觀點我們才能認為

  • the pain and pleasure and hunger and thirst and appetite,

    在感知世界中 決策不受定律支配的自由

  • if that's all there were to humanity, we wouldn't be capable of freedom,

    才是真正的自由

  • Kant reasons because in that case every exercise of will would be

    如果像功利論者所說的 我是一個聖尊 一個經驗主義者

  • conditioned by the desire for some object.

    如果我是一個聖尊 而且只受自身感覺支配

  • In that case all choice would be heteronomous choice governed

    像是疼痛 快樂 飢渴 食慾

  • by the pursued of some external end. "When we think of ourselves as free,"

    如果人性只有這些 我們將無法獲得自由

  • Kant writes, "we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members

    康德說 因為在那種情況下 任何一種意願的執行

  • and recognize the autonomy of the will." That's the idea of the two standpoints.

    都將會受到對某一事物慾望的支配

  • So how are categorical imperatives possible? Only because the idea

    那樣的話 所有選擇都會成為他律性選擇

  • of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world?

    為涉及某種外在目的的對象所支配當我們認為自已是自由人的時候

  • Now Kant admits we aren't only rational beings.

    康德寫道我們將自已看成智思世界中的一員

  • We don't only inhabit the intelligible world, the realm of freedom.

    並且認可意志自律這就是兩種觀點

  • If we did... if we did, then all of our actions

    那麼定言命令怎麼可能存在呢? 只是由於自由觀

  • would invariably accord with the autonomy of the will.

    使我們成為智思世界中的一員嗎?

  • But precisely because we inhabit simultaneously the two standpoints,

    康德承認我們不只是理性的個體

  • the two realms, the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity

    我們不只存在於智思世界這個自由王國裡

  • precisely because we inhabit both realms there is always potentially a gap

    如果我們只存在於這個世界... 那麼我們所有的行為

  • between what we do and what we ought to do between is and ought.

    就一定會符合意志自律的規則

  • Another way of putting this point and this is the point with which

    但正是因為我們腦中同時存在兩種觀念

  • Kant concludes the groundwork, morality is not empirical.

    存在兩個王國之中 即自由王國和必然王國

  • Whatever you see in the world, whatever you discover through science

    正是因為我們同時存在於兩種王國 所以在我們所做之事和應做之事之間

  • can't decide moral questions.

    總有一個潛在的差距是和應該是之間的差距

  • Morality stands at a certain distance from the world,

    還有一種解釋這一觀點的方法 康德利用這一觀點

  • from the empirical world.

    來總結他的依據 那就是 道德並非經驗主義

  • And that's why no science could deliver moral truth.

    在這個世上無論你看到了什麼 無論你通過科學發現了什麼

  • Now I want to test Kant's moral theory with the hardest possible case,

    都無法用來判定道德問題

  • a case that he raises, the case of the murderer at the door.

    道德是屹立於世界以外的

  • Kant says that lying is wrong. We all know that.

    在經驗世界之外

  • We've discussed why. Lying is at odds with the categorical imperative.

    因此科學無法闡釋道德真理

  • A French Philosopher, Benjamin Constant wrote an article responding

    現在我想用一個最不可能發生的例子來檢驗康德的道德論

  • to the groundwork where he said, "This absolute probation online is wrong. It can't be right."

    這個例子由他自已提出來 是一個關於在門口的殺手的例子

  • What if a murderer came to your door looking for your friend

    康德說撒謊是不對的 這點我們都知道

  • who was hiding in your house?

    原因我們已經討論過 撒謊是不符合定言命令的

  • And the murderer asked you point blank, "Is your friend in your house?"

    一位名叫本傑明·康斯坦特的法國哲學家在一篇針對這一論點

  • Constant says, "It would be crazy to say that the moral thing to do

    的文章裡寫道這種絕對化的檢驗是錯的 不可能對

  • in that case is to tell the truth."

    如果一個殺手敲你的門 想找你的朋友

  • Constant says the murderer certainly doesn't deserve the truth

    而你的朋友藏在你家裡 你會怎麼辦?

  • and Kant wrote to reply.

    這個殺手直截了當地問你,你的朋友在你房裡嗎?

  • And Kant stuck by his principle that lying even to the murderer

    康斯坦特說如果有人說在這個例子中說出真相才是道德的

  • at the door is wrong.

    那他簡直是瘋了

  • And the reason it's wrong, he said is once you start taking

    康斯坦特說這個殺手很顯然不配知道真相

  • consequences into account to carve out exceptions to the categorical imperative,

    而康德也寫信回復了

  • you've given up the whole moral framework.

    但康德堅持他自已的原則 說哪怕對門口的殺手說謊

  • You've become a consequentialist or maybe a rule utilitarian.

    也是不對的

  • But most of you and most to our Kant's readers think there's something odd

    他說不對的理由是 一旦你開始考慮後果

  • and impossible about this answer.

    你這種做法已給定言命令開創了先例

  • I would like to try to defend Kant on this point

    你已經脫離了整個道德架構

  • and then I want to see whether you think that my defense is plausible,

    你就變成了一個後果論者 或者一個規則功利主義者

  • and I would want to defend him within the spirit of his own account of morality.

    但是你們大多數人 大多數康德理論的讀者都認為

  • Imagine that someone comes to your door.

    這個答案有些怪異並且不大可能

  • You were asked that question by this murder.

    這點上我想嘗試為康德辯護

  • You are hiding your friend.

    之後再聽聽看你們認為我的辯護是否有理

  • Is there a way that you could avoid telling a lie

    我想以他的道德論給他辯護

  • without selling out your friend?

    想像一下有人敲你的門

  • Does anyone have an idea of how you might be able to do that?

    然後這個殺手問你那個問題

  • Yes? Stand up.

    你當時想要將你朋友藏起來

  • I was just going to say if I were to let my friend in my house

    有沒有一種方法可以讓你不必說謊

  • to hide in the first place, I'd probably make a plan with them

    但也不會出賣你朋友?

  • so I'd be like, "Hey I'll tell the murderer you're here,

    有人想到辦法沒有?

  • but escape," and that's one of the options mentioned.

    你說? 站起來

  • But I'm not sure that's a Kantian option. You're still lying though.

    我會說 如果一開始我就讓我朋友躲在我家裡

  • No because he's in the house but he won't be.

    我可能會和我朋友制定一項計劃

  • Oh I see. All right, good enough. One more try.

    然後我會說嘿,我會告訴殺手你在這裡

  • If you just say you don't know where he is because he might not

    但是你逃走了,這是常見的一種選擇

  • be locked in the closet.

    但我認為這不屬於康德提倡的做法 你仍然在撒謊

  • He might have left the closet. You have no clue where he could be.

    不 因為他現在在屋子裡 可之後就不在了

  • So you would say, I don't know which wouldn't actually be a lie

    噢 我知道了 好的 很好 聽一下其他人的意見

  • because you weren't at that very moment looking in the closet.

    如果你只是說你不知道他在哪兒 是因為

  • - Exactly. -So it would be strictly speaking true.

    他可能並沒有被鎖在衣櫃裡

  • Yes.

    他可能已經從衣櫃裡出來了 你根本不知道他在哪

  • - And yet possibly deceiving, misleading. -But still true.

    所以你可以說 我不知道 這其實並不算撒謊

  • - What's your name? -John.

    因為那一刻你並沒有檢查衣櫃

  • John. All right, John has... now John may be on to something.

    - 是的 - 所以嚴格上說你說的是真話

  • John you're really offering us the option of a clever evasion

    是的

  • that is strictly speaking true.

    - 但是可能是欺騙性的 誤導性的 - 但仍然是事實

  • This raises the question whether there is a moral difference between

    - 你叫什麼名字? - John

  • an outright lie and a misleading truth.

    John 好的 John... John的想法很貼近了

  • From Kant's point of view there actually is a world of difference between a lie

    John 你的確想到了一種方法 可以在講真話的同時

  • and a misleading truth.

    聰明地逃避問題

  • Why is that even though both might have the same consequences?

    這提出了一個問題 就是徹頭徹尾的謊言

  • But then remember Kant doesn't base morality on consequences.

    和誤導性的事實之間有無道德上的區別

  • He bases it on formal adherence to the moral law.

    依康德看來 謊言和誤導性的事實

  • Now, sometimes in ordinary life we make exceptions for the general rule against

    之間是有許多區別的

  • lying with the white lie. What is a white lie?

    為什麼就算兩者都會導致同樣的結果 二者還是有區別的?

  • It's a lie to make... you're well to avoid hurting someone's feelings for example.

    但請記住康德沒有將道德建立於結果基礎之上

  • It's a lie that we think of as justified by the consequences.

    他將道德建立在嚴格遵循道德准律的基礎上

  • Now Kant could not endorse a white lie but perhaps he could endorse

    平時我們儘管不說謊言 可也偶爾破個例

  • a misleading truth.

    說一些善意的謊言 什麼是善意的謊言?

  • Supposed someone gives you a tie, as a gift, and you open the box

    這種謊言可以... 比如說可以幫你避免傷害別人的感情

  • and it's just awful. What do you say? Thank you?

    從後果的角度來說 我們認為撒這種謊是情有可原的

  • You could say thank you.

    康德可能不支持善意的謊言 但有可能支持

  • But they're waiting to see what you think of it or they ask you

    誤導性的事實

  • what do you think of it?

    假設有人將一個領帶送給你作為禮物 你打開禮物盒

  • You could tell a white lie and say it's beautiful.

    發現領帶很差勁 你怎麼說? 謝謝?

  • But that wouldn't be permissible from Kant's point of view.

    你可以說謝謝

  • Could you say not a white lie but a misleading truth,

    但是那個人想知道你覺得禮物怎麼樣 或者他會問你

  • you open the box and you say, "I've never seen a tie like that before.

    你覺得怎麼樣?

  • Thank you." You shouldn't have.

    你可以說一個善意的謊言 說它很漂亮

  • That's good.

    但從康德的角度來說 這是不容許的

  • Can you think of a contemporary political leader who engaged... you can?

    你可以避免說善意的謊言 而講一個誤導性的事實嗎

  • Who are you thinking of?

    你打開盒子 說道我以前從來沒見過這樣的領帶

  • You remember the whole carefully worded denials in the

    謝謝,你可別

  • Monica Lewinsky affair of Bill Clinton.

    說得好

  • Now, those denials actually became the subject of very explicit debate

    你們能想到一個當代的政治領袖做例子嗎... 可以?

  • in argument during the impeachment hearings.

    你們想到的是誰?

  • Take a look at the following excerpts from Bill Clinton.

    你們記得比爾·克林頓利用巧辯否認

  • Is there something do you think morally at stake in the distinction between a lie

    與Monica Lewinsky的關係吧

  • and a misleading carefully couched truth?

    他否認的言辭實際上成為了彈劾聽證會上

  • I want to say one thing to the American people.

    公開爭論的對象

  • I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again.

    我們看一下比爾·克林頓講話的片段

  • I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky.

    你們認為在區分謊言和措辭謹慎的 有誤導性的事實上

  • I never told anybody to lie not a single time, never. These allegations are false.

    存在道德關鍵點嗎?

  • Did he lie to the American people when he said I never had sex with that woman?

    我想對美國人民說一件事

  • You know, he doesn't believe he did and because of the...

    你們聽我說 我再重複一遍

  • Well he didn't explain it.

    我和那位Lewinsky小姐沒有發生過性關係

  • He did explain that, explain congressman.

    我從沒讓任何人撒謊 一次都沒有 從來沒有 這些指控是錯誤的

  • What he said was to the American people that he did not have sexual relations

    當他說他從沒和那個女人發生性關係時 他對美國人民撒謊了嗎?

  • and I understand you're not going to like this congressman

    他不認為他做了 因為...

  • because you will see it as a hair-splitting evasive answer.

    他並沒有給出解釋

  • But in his own mind his definition was not...

    他解釋過了 議員 他解釋了

  • - Okay, I understand that argument. - Okay.

    他對美國人民所說的是 他沒有發生過性關係

  • All right, so there you have the exchange.

    我知道你們可能不喜歡這個國會議員

  • Now at the time, you may have thought this was just a

    因為你們會認為這個回答只是滿口托辭的含糊回答

  • legalistic hair-splitting exchange between a Republican who wanted to

    但在他看來 他的定義不是...

  • impeach Clinton and a lawyer who is trying to defend him.

    - 好的 我明白你的意思了 - 好的

  • But now in the light of Kant, do you think there is something

    好了 你們已經看了這段對話了

  • morally at stake in the distinction between a lie and an evasion,

    你們現在可能覺得這只是一次

  • a true but misleading statement? I'd like to hear from defenders of Kant.

    吹毛求疵的條文主義的爭辯 一方是想要彈劾克林頓的共和黨

  • People who think there is a distinction. Are you ready to defend Kant?

    另一方是想要為他辯護的律師

  • Well I think when you try to say that lying and misleading truths are the same thing;

    但是依照康德的理論 你們認為在危急時刻區分謊言

  • you're basing it on consequentialist argument which is that they achieve the same thing.

    和一個真實但有誤導性的托辭上

  • But the fact to the fact to the matter is you told the truth

    存在道德關鍵點嗎? 我想聽聽康德的辯護者的看法

  • and you intended that people would believe what you are saying

    那些認為有明顯區別的人 你們打算為康德辯護嗎?

  • which was the truth which means it is not morally the same

    我覺得當你說說謊和誤導性的事實是同一個概念時

  • as telling a lie and intending that they believe it is the truth

    你是以結果論判定 其導致的結果是一樣的

  • even though it is not true.

    但是實際上當你給別人說了實話

  • - Good. What's your name? - Diana.

    並且希望別人相信你所說的話是真話

  • So Diana says that Kant has a point here and it's a point that might even come

    在道德層面上 這和你說假話

  • to the aid of Bill Clinton and that is... well what about that?

    並且打算以此來欺騙別人

  • There's someone over here.

    是完全不同的

  • For Kant motivation is key, so if you give to someone

    - 很好 你叫什麼名字? - Diana

  • because primarily you want to feel good about yourself

    Diana認為康德有個觀點 此觀點可能還能為

  • Kant would say that has no moral worth. Well with this, the motivation is the same.

    比爾.克林頓做辯護... 其他人是怎麼想的?

  • It's to sort of mislead someone, it's to lie, it's to sort of throw them

    那邊有人有話說了

  • off the track and the motivation is the same. So there should be no difference.

    對康德而言 動機是關鍵的因素

  • Okay, good. So here isn't the motive the same, Diana?

    如果你的行為是為了使自己更好受

  • What do you say to