Name: 誰的生命更有價值？人類還是動物？ (Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker)
Uploaded: 2023-02-03T21:01:30.000Z
Duration: 6 min 6 s

情態副詞

Smallpox is one of the deadliest diseases in history, but fortunately, it's been eradicated for over 40 years.

天花是歷史上最致命的疾病之一，但幸運的是，它已經被根除了四十多年。

情態助動詞 B1

However, samples of the virus that causes smallpox still exist, leading to concern that rogue actors might try to weaponize it.

然而，導致天花的病毒樣本仍然存在，導致人們擔心無賴行為者可能試圖將其武器化。

轉承詞

This is especially worrying because older smallpox vaccines can have serious side effects, and modern antiviral drugs have never been tested against this disease.

這一點尤其令人擔憂，因為舊的天花疫苗可能有嚴重的副作用，而現代抗病毒藥物從未對這種疾病進行過測試。

To protect against this potential threat, the US government is funding research to improve smallpox treatments and vaccines.

為了防止這種潛在的威脅，美國政府正在資助改善天花治療方法的研究和疫苗。

And since it's unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus, labs are using humanity's closest biological relatives as research subjects.

而且由於讓人們接觸高度致命的病毒是不道德的，實驗室正在使用人類最親密的生物親屬作為研究對象。

But is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat?

但是，為了保護人類免受潛在的威脅而傷害這些動物是否正確呢？

Or should our closest relatives also be protected against lethal experiments?

或者說，我們最親近的人也應該受到保護，免受致命實驗的傷害？

What would you do as a scientist faced with this very real scenario?

作為一個科學家，面對這種非常真實的情況，你會怎麼做？

在許多方面，這種兩難境地並不新鮮。

Animals have been used in research aimed at improving human welfare for centuries, typically at the cost of their lives.

幾個世紀以來，動物一直被用於旨在改善人類福利的研究，通常以他們的生命為代價。

This practice reflects the widespread belief that human lives are more valuable than non-human lives.

這種做法反映了一種普遍的信念，即比起非人類的生命，人的生命更有價值。

People have different views about the ethics of animal testing and how it's conducted.

人們對動物試驗的倫理及其進行方式有不同的看法。

But whatever your opinion, this scenario raises an important philosophical question:

但無論你的意見如何，這種情況引出了一個重要的哲學問題：

How do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human?

我們如何確定一個生命的價值，無論是人類還是非人類？

One tool philosophers have used to consider this question is moral status.

哲學家們用來考慮這個問題的一個工具是道德地位。

Beings with moral status should have their needs and interests taken into consideration by those making decisions that impact them.

具有道德地位的人應該讓那些做出影響他們決定的人考慮到他們的需求和利益。

Traditionally, moral status has been seen as binary, either a being's interests matter for their own sake, or they don't.

傳統上，道德地位被看作是二元的，一個人的利益要麼是為了他們自己而重要，要麼是為了他們自己而不重要。

And historically, many philosophers believed that humans had moral status and other animals didn't.

而在歷史上，許多哲學家認為，人類具有道德地位而其他動物沒有。

Some contemporary philosophers like Shelly Kagan have argued that moral status comes in degrees.

一些當代哲學家如謝利·卡根的學者認為，道德地位是有程度的。

But even in this model, he argues that people have the most moral status.

但即使在這種模式下，他也認為人們的道德地位最高。

However, determining what grants any degree of moral status can be difficult.

然而，確定什麼授予任何程度的道德地位可能很困難。

Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant thought humans have moral status because of their rational nature and ability to will their actions.

啟蒙哲學家伊曼紐爾·康德認為人類具有道德地位是因為他們的理性和意志行為的能力。

A binary conception of moral status then suggests that beings with these capacities are "persons" bearing full moral status, while all other creatures are "things" without moral status.

道德地位的二元概念表明，具有這些能力的人是具有完全道德地位的「人」，而所有其他生物都是沒有道德地位的 「物」。

But thinkers like Christine Korsgaard have argued a Kantian view should include many non-human animals because of how they value their own good.

但像克里斯汀·柯斯嘉德這樣的思想家認為，康德的觀點應該包括許多非人類的動物，因為他們會重視自己的利益。

Another line of argument, suggested by utilitarianism's founding father Jeremy Bentham and elaborated by Peter Singer, claims that a capacity for suffering makes an entity worthy of moral consideration.

由功利主義的創始人傑瑞米·邊沁提出並由彼得·辛格闡述的另一種論點聲稱，能夠承受痛苦的能力使得一個實體值得道德上的考慮。

These inclusive ways of thinking about moral status dramatically widen the scope of our moral responsibility, in ways some people might find unnerving.

這些關於道德地位的包容性思考方式極大地拓寬了我們道德責任的範圍，有些人可能會感到不舒服。

Our closest genetic relatives have high social and intellectual capacities.

我們最親近的遺傳親屬具有很高的社會和智力能力。

They live cooperatively in complex social groups and recognize members of their community as individuals.

他們在復雜的社會群體中合作生活，並將群體中的成員視為個體。

There's even evidence they respond to inequality.

甚至有證據表明他們對不平等的狀況會做出反應。

And of course, they're capable of suffering.

當然，他們也有承受痛苦的能力。

Yet despite all this, it's still generally common opinion that a human's life is more valuable than a monkey's.

儘管如此，大眾普遍認為人的生命比猴子的生命更有價值。

And that while killing one human to save five others is typically wrong, killing one monkey to save five humans is regrettable, but morally acceptable, even morally required.

雖然殺一個人救五個人通常是錯誤的，但殺一隻猴子救五個人是令人遺憾的，但在道德上是可以接受的，甚至在道德上是需要的。

At some point, however, this calculation starts to feel unstable.

然而，在某些時候，這種計算方式開始變得不穩定。

Should we kill 100 monkeys to save five people?

我們應該殺死 100 隻猴子來救五個人嗎？

If moral status is binary and monkeys don't have it, then theoretically, any number of monkeys could be sacrificed to save just one person.

如果道德地位是二元的而猴子沒有，那麼從理論上講，可以犧牲任意數量的猴子來拯救一個人。

But if moral status comes in degrees and monkeys have any at all, then at some point the balance will tip.

但是，如果道德地位是分等級的，而猴子有確實有道德地位，那麼在某個時候天平就會傾斜。

The situation you're in complicates things even further.

你所處的情況使事情變得更加複雜。

Unlike the scenarios above, there's no guarantee your work will ever save human lives.

與上述情況不同，無法保證你的努力一定會挽救人類生命。

This is true of any animal experiment—the process of scientific discovery only sometimes leads to improved medical care.

任何動物實驗都是如此——科學發現的過程有時只會導致醫療保健的改善。

但在你的情況下，這就更棘手了！

While the government is worried smallpox might be weaponized, if they're wrong, the disease will remain eradicated, and your research won't save anyone from smallpox.

雖然政府擔心天花可能被武器化，但如果他們錯了，這種疾病仍將被根除，而你的研究也無法拯救任何人免受天花的侵害。

You could try to quantify this uncertainty to help make your decision.

你可以試著量化這種不確定性來幫助你做出決定。

But how do you determine what an acceptable amount of risk is?

但是你要如何確定可接受的風險是多少？

And what if there's so much uncertainty that your calculations are essentially wild guesses?

如果不確定性太大以至於你的計算本質上是胡亂猜測怎麼辦？

These kinds of moral mathematics get complicated fast, and some philosophers would argue they're not even the best way to make moral decisions.

這些道德的數字計算很快變得複雜，一些哲學家會爭辯說它們甚至不是做出道德決定的最佳方式。

But whatever you decide,  your choice should be well-justified.

但無論你做出什麼決定，你的選擇都應該是合理的。