Name: 你會拯救溺水男孩嗎？ (Would You Save A Boy From Drowning?)
Uploaded: 2025-07-26T17:45:08.000Z
Duration: 7 min 16 s

基礎被動語態

Once upon a time, there was a boy who was born into a family of simple tailors in the middle of sub-Saharan Africa.

很久很久以前，有一個男孩出生在撒哈拉以南非洲中部的一個普通裁縫家庭。

The boy's father wanted him to continue the family business, but the boy wanted a better life, and one night decided to leave his home and go to Europe.

男孩的父親希望他繼續經營家族生意，但男孩想要更好的生活，於是在一天晚上決定離開家去歐洲。

反身代名詞

To cross the sea, the boy built himself a raft, but once he left the shore, there was only a little wind, and it didn't take long for his supplies to run out.

為了渡海，小男孩自己做了一個木筏，但一旦離開海岸，只有一點點風，沒過多久，他的補給就用完了。

And there he was, hungry and lonely, floating in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.

就這樣，他又餓又孤獨地漂浮在地中海中央。

Imagine you live on the coast of southern Europe, and one morning read about the boy's fate in a local paper.

想象一下，你住在南歐的海岸邊，某天早上在當地報紙上讀到了這個男孩的命運。

Four influential philosophers, Aristotle, Mill, Kant, and Nietzsche, can help us answer this and other difficult moral questions with their respective theories.

亞里士多德、密爾、康德和尼采這四位頗具影響力的哲學家用他們各自的理論幫助我們回答了這個問題和其他棘手的道德問題。

Virtue theorists like Aristotle ask how to live a good life.

亞里士多德等美德理論家提出瞭如何過上美好生活的問題。

The best life, according to him, is the life of someone who demonstrates excellence in aspects of a virtuous character, the capacities for emotion, theoretical ideas, and practical wisdom.

他認為，最美好的人生是在品德、情感能力、理論思想和實踐智慧等方面都表現出卓越的人的人生。

Aristotle would argue that if helping the boy is a manifestation of a personality that's virtuous, then you should save him, because being a person of good character is what matters.

亞里士多德會爭辯說，如果幫助男孩是一種品德高尚的人格體現，那麼你就應該救他，因為品德高尚才是最重要的。

What that exactly means differs for every one of us.

具體是什麼意思，我們每個人都不一樣。

If you are rich and powerful, saving the boy could be easy.

如果你有錢有勢，拯救男孩可能很容易。

It might still be the right thing to do, but it doesn't reveal much of your personality, and hence isn't particularly virtuous.

這樣做也許仍然是正確的，但並不能彰顯你的個性，是以也不是特別美德。

If you have little to no means, your decision to save the boy is much harder.

如果你幾乎沒有任何經濟來源，那麼你拯救男孩的決定就難上加難了。

If you still try to do so, then this truly reveals character, is virtuous, and is something you should probably try doing.

如果你仍然嘗試這樣做，那麼這就真正體現了你的品格，是一種美德，也許你應該嘗試這樣做。

Utilitarians such as John Stuart Mill ask which action increases well-being for most people.

功利主義者（如約翰-斯圖亞特-米爾）會問，哪種行動能增加大多數人的福祉。

So, when faced with a choice, they do what seems most beneficial to most people, as if they could calculate what consequences lead to the highest net happiness.

是以，在面臨選擇時，他們會做看起來對大多數人最有利的事，就好像他們能計算出什麼樣的後果能帶來最高的淨幸福感。

When thinking about saving the boy's life, you should consider all the happiness the boy and his family get, the joy it may bring you, and the benefits for society now and for generations to come.

在考慮拯救男孩的生命時，你應該考慮到男孩和他的家人所得到的所有幸福，可能給你帶來的快樂，以及現在和未來幾代人對社會的益處。

This you then compare with what else you could be doing, known as your opportunity costs.

然後將其與您可以做的其他事情進行比較，這就是您的機會成本。

For example, instead of risking your life at sea, you could work the day in a coffee shop and donate the money you make to an effective charity which then saves two kids from starvation somewhere else.

例如，與其在海上冒著生命危險，你可以在咖啡店工作一天，然後把賺到的錢捐給一個有效的慈善機構，這樣就能在其他地方拯救兩個免於飢餓的孩子。

Comparing the two options, you decide not to save the boy, but instead work, donate, and double the total potential well-being of humanity.

比較這兩個選擇，你決定不救那個男孩，而是去工作、捐款，讓人類潛在的福祉總量翻一番。

Deontologists like Immanuel Kant focus on the intent rather than consequences.

伊曼紐爾-康德（Immanuel Kant）等道義論者關注的是意圖而非後果。

They believe in universal moral laws such as don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat.

他們信奉不撒謊、不偷竊、不欺騙等普遍道德法則。

The golden rule is the so-called categorical imperative.

黃金法則就是所謂的絕對命令。

Our decisions are then morally right when they can become a rule everyone else should follow.

當我們的決定成為其他人都應遵守的規則時，我們的決定在道德上就是正確的。

If you help the boy because it makes you look good, your intentions are wrong because you treat him as a means to an end, and we don't want to live in a world in which false heroism is a universal moral norm.

如果你幫助這個男孩是因為這讓你看起來很好，那麼你的意圖就是錯誤的，因為你把他當成了達到目的的一種手段，而我們不希望生活在一個假英雄主義成為普遍道德準則的世界裡。

If you save the boy because you want to live in a world in which helping those in need is always the right thing, then you should do that.

如果你救那個男孩是因為你希望生活在一個幫助需要幫助的人永遠是正確的世界裡，那麼你就應該這麼做。

You should even do so if you have reason to believe that the kid may end up taking advantage of your kindness.

如果你有理由相信孩子最終可能會利用你的善意，你甚至應該這樣做。

Friedrich Nietzsche would ask what's in your own interest?

弗里德里希-尼采會問，什麼符合你自己的利益？

He argued that self-interested behavior is morally right as it makes us stronger, and if we are stronger, so is society.

他認為，利己行為在道義上是正確的，因為它會讓我們變得更強大，如果我們變得更強大，社會也會變得更強大。

Acting against your own interest is immoral because it hinders this development.

違背自身利益的行為是不道德的，因為它阻礙了這種發展。

So if you want to help the boy because you think that is good for you, do it.

所以，如果你想幫助這個男孩，因為你覺得這對你有好處，那就去做吧。

But if you think saving the boy could hurt you, don't.

但如果你認為救那個男孩會傷害你，那就不要救他。

It's not your responsibility to save those who are too weak to help themselves.

你沒有責任拯救那些無力自救的人。

Did any of the four help you with that decision?

這四個人中有誰幫你做出了這個決定？

Scholar Moshe Koppel made the interesting observation that utilitarians and Kantians don't use their own moral principles when trying to falsify each other's theories.

學者 Moshe Koppel 提出了一個有趣的觀點：功利主義者和康德主義者在試圖證偽對方的理論時，並沒有使用自己的道德原則。

Both rather appeal to a feeling, as if we all inside us actually know what's right and what's wrong.

二者都更多地訴諸於一種感覺，就好像我們每個人內心其實都知道什麼是對的，什麼是錯的。

Kantians would say, you don't want to live in a world in which children die in the open because you decided to save two strangers instead.

康德主義者會說，你不會想生活在這樣一個世界裡：因為你決定救兩個陌生人，孩子們就會死在野外。

Utilitarians would counter, surely you wouldn't want to save, say, a psychopath from drowning who then go on to kill you and your family just because helping people is always right by principle.

功利主義者會反駁說，你肯定不會想去救一個溺水的精神病患者，然後再去殺了你和你的家人，這只是因為從原則上講，幫助別人總是正確的。

現在告訴我們，你會救那個男孩嗎？

Is your decision based on the character you strive to become?

你的決定是基於你努力成為的角色嗎？

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

在下面的評論中分享您的想法。

If you like how we explain complicated ideas in simple cartoon animation, you can support us.

如果您喜歡我們用簡單的卡通動畫來解釋複雜的想法，您可以支持我們。

Just visit us, learn how it works and what's in it for you.

請訪問我們，瞭解它是如何工作的，以及它對您有什麼好處。

And if you are a parent or educator, check out our website sproutschools.com.

如果您是家長或教育工作者，請訪問我們的網站 sproutschools.com。

There you can find this and other video lessons, additional resources and classroom activities.

在那裡，您可以找到本課和其他視頻課程、其他資源和課堂活動。

If you found this helpful, check out our other videos and subscribe.

如果您覺得這對您有幫助，請查看我們的其他視頻並訂閱。

If you want to support our work, join us on patreon.com slash sprouts.

如果您想支持我們的工作，請登錄 patreon.com slash sprouts 加入我們。

For more information and additional content, visit sproutschools.com.

欲瞭解更多資訊和其他內容，請訪問 sproutschools.com。