we were looking at John Stuart Mill's

--==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 --==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: 冷兔子 專采油菜花 格蘭思 校對: 橙心橙譯

attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's utilitarianism.

哈佛大學

In his book utilitarianism, Mill tries to show that critics

公正:該如何做是好? 講師:Michael Sandel

to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework

自由選擇/我屬於誰

to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.

上節課的最後

It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested

我們談到了約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒

that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.

他試圖去回應對邊沁的功利主義的批判

And the results of our experiment seem to call into question

在功利主義一書中 穆勒極力證明

Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer

反對這一理論的批評家們 在功利主義的框架下

the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be

是可以區分出高級樂趣和低級樂趣的

the higher or the worthier pleasure.

對價值作出質的區分是可能的 我們已經用

That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.

辛普森一家和莎士比亞的短片驗證過這點

What about Mill's attempt to account for the especially weighty character

實驗的結果似乎有悖於穆勒的區分理論

of individual rights and justice in chapter five of utilitarianism.

因為你們很多人雖然說更喜歡

He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect.

辛普森一家 但你們也認為莎士比亞

In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is

代表著更高 更有價值的樂趣

the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part

這就是我們的實驗面對穆勒時遇到的兩難境地

of morality.

穆勒試圖在功利主義的第五章 說明個人權利和公正

But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.

尤為有力的特點

Why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality?

他想說明的是個人權利應高度重視

Well, he says because in the long run,

實際上 他甚至說公正是

if we do justice and if we respect rights,

道德中最神聖 具有至高約束力的

society as a whole will be better off in the long run.

部分

Well, what about that?

但穆勒的這部分辯護可能面臨同樣的挑戰

What if we have a case where making an exception and

為什麼公正應該是道德最主要 最具約束力的部分?

violating individual rights actually will make people better off

他說 因為長久看來

in the long run?

如果我們維持公正並尊重權利

Is it all right then to use people?

整個社會終究會變得更好

And there is a further objection that could be raised

這個觀點如何?

against Mill's case for justice and rights.

有這樣一個案例

Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run

侵犯了個人權利 但長期看來

works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights

人們的境遇卻更加優渥

is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.

利用別人對嗎?

Is that the right reason?

對於穆勒關於公正和權利的理論

Is that the only reason to respect people?

還有一個更深層的反對

If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from

假如功利主義演算真如他所言

the healthy patient who came in for a checkup

尊重人們的權利並最終

to save five lives,

使每個人的生活都優裕起來

there would be adverse effects in the long run.

這就是正當理由嗎?

Eventually, people would learn about this and

這是尊重他人的唯一出發點嗎?

would stop going in for checkups.

如果一名醫生偷了一位

Is it the right reason?

去做體檢的健康病人的器官

Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs

去救另外五條生命

out of the healthy patient that you think, well,

這終究是會產生負面作用的

if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?

最終 這件事會被宣揚出去

Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect

再不會有人光顧這家醫院

for the person as an individual?

這是正當理由嗎?

And if that reason matters and it's not so clear

作為一名醫生 你不去偷健康人器官的唯一原因

that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it,

是因為你認為

fully to examine these two worries or objections,

這麼做 終究會有更多人喪生?

to Mill's defense we need to push further.

還是出於對個人權利的

And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures

發自內心的尊重?

are there theories of the good life that can provide

如果真是這樣 並且這也不甚明晰

independent moral standards for the worth of pleasure?

即使穆勒的功利主義能將其納入考慮範圍

If so, what do they look like? That's one question.

要完全解釋對穆勒的辯論的兩種擔憂或反對

In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill

我們需要更深入

is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity

我們需要探討一下 在更高更有價值的樂趣這個問題上

or respect for person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,

是否有關於優質生活的理論

we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories

能夠為樂趣的價值提供獨立的道德標準?

of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares,

如果有 應該是什麼樣的? 這是一個問題

the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals

關於公正和權利 假設穆勒是借用了

and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.

人類尊嚴或對個人的尊重這些概念

Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.

而且這些概念嚴格說來並不算是功利主義的

Strong theories of right say individuals matter not just as

我們需要知道關於權利是否有更有力的理論

instruments to be used for a larger social purpose

能夠用來解釋穆勒提到的直覺

or for the sake of maximizing utility,

這一直覺是尊重個人的原因

individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.

長期看來 亦不會超越效用

And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories

今天 我們就來看一個這樣的強勢權利理論

of rights, it's a mistake to think about justice

強勢權利理論認為個體

or law by just adding up preferences and values.

不僅是實現更大社會目的的手段

The strong rights theory we turn to today is

或者是為了實現效用最大化

libertarianism.

個體兼具獨立性與獨立生活性 是值得尊重的

Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.

所以這是一個錯誤 根據有關權利的強勢理論

It's called libertarianism because it says

僅僅通過綜合優先選擇和價值來看待公正

the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty

或法律是錯誤的

precisely because we are separate individual beings.

今天我們要學習的有關權利的強勢理論是

We're not available to any use that the society

自由意志論

might desire or devise precisely because we are

自由意志論將個人權利看得很重

individual separate human beings.

自由意志論名稱的由來是因為

We have a fundamental right to liberty,

這一理論認為個人的基本權利是人身自由權

and that means a right to choose freely,

因為我們是獨立的個體

to live our lives as we please

我們無法提供任何社會需要或

provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.

圖謀的任何用途 而這正是因為

That's the fundamental idea.

我們是獨立的個體

Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers

我們有基本的人身自由權

we read for this course, puts it this way:

這就意味著我們有自由選擇的權利

Individuals have rights.

按照自己意願生活的權利

So strong and far reaching are these rights that they

只要我們尊重他人的這一權利

raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.

這就是它的基本觀點

So what does libertarianism say about the role of government

羅伯特·諾齊克 一位自由主義哲學家

or of the state?

他作過這樣的表述:

Well, there are three things that most modern states do

個體擁有權利

that on the libertarian theory of rights are

這些權利是如此強大 深遠 甚至可以

illegitimate or unjust.

要求國家履行其職責

One of them is paternalist legislation.

那麼自由主義對於政府和國家的角色

That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,

持何種觀點呢?

seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.

有三件大多數現代國家所做的事情

The libertarian says it may be a good thing

在自由主義權利論看來

if people wear seatbelts

是不合法或不公正的

but that should be up to them and the state,

其一為家長式立法

the government, has no business coercing them,

即制定使人們保護自我的法律

us, to wear seatbelts by law.

例如 安全帶法 或者摩托車頭盔法

It's coercion, so no paternalist legislation, number one.

自由意志論者認為 人們系安全帶

Number two, no morals legislation.

也許是好事

Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens

但這應該取決於他們自己

or try to give expression to the moral values of the society as a whole.

國家和政府沒有權利通過法律強迫他們

Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.

或者我們系安全帶

Take the example of, well, a classic example

家長式立法是強制性的 所以不應該有家長式立法 這是第一條

of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality

第二條 沒有道德立法

traditionally have been laws that prevent sexual intimacy

許多法律嘗試提高公民的德行

between gays and lesbians.

或者嘗試體現整個社會的道德價值觀

The libertarian says nobody else is harmed,

自由意志論者認為這也是對自由權的侵犯

nobody else's rights are violated,

舉一個經典的例子

so the state should get out of the business entirely of

有一條以提高德行為名義制定的法律

trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.

傳統上是用來禁止男同與女同

And the third kind of law or policy that is ruled out

之間的性親密的法律

on the libertarian philosophy is any taxation or other policy

自由意志論者認為沒有人受到傷害

that serves the purpose of redistributing income or wealth

沒有人的權利受到侵犯

from the rich to the poor.

所以國家應該完全停止

Redistribution is a... if you think about it,

嘗試提高道德或制定道德法律

says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.

自由意志派哲學反對的第三種法律或政策是

What it amounts to is theft by the state or by the majority,

任何以把富人的收入或財富重新分配

if we're talking about a democracy, from people who happen to

給窮人為目的

do very well and earn a lot of money.

的稅收政策

Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that there can be

重新分配是... 自有主義者認為 稍加考慮

a minimal state that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,

你就會知道那是一種強迫

the national defense, police force,

這相當於國家或大多數人實行的盜竊

judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,

如果我們是在討論一個民主國家的話 這就是從那些

but that's it.

優秀的高收入的人那兒搶錢

Now, I want to get your reactions to this third feature

諾齊克和其他一些自由意志論者允許

of the libertarian view.

最弱意義國家的存在 為了大眾利益 徵收稅款

I want to see who among you agree with that idea and who disagree and why.

如 國防 警力

But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake,

或司法系統執行合同與財產權利

consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.

但僅此而已

United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as

現在 我想知道你們對自由意志理論

the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.

第三條的闡述有何看法

Now, is this just or unjust?

持贊成意見和反對意見的 都可以說說你們的理由

Well, what does the libertarian say?

但為了更具體一點 並且看看有什麼潛在風險

Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.

看一下美國的財富分配

You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.

在眾多的先進的民主國家中

You can't know just by looking at a pattern or a distribution or

美國是貧富差距最大的國家之一

result whether it's just or unjust.

那麼 這是公正還是不公正?

You have to know how it came to be.

那麼 自由意志論者如何說呢?

You can't just look at the end stage or the result.

自由意志論者認為你們不能從我給你的事實中得到什麼

You have to look at two principles.

你們無法知道分配是公正的還是不公正的

The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.

你們不能僅憑一種模式或分配

And what that means simply is did people get the things they used

或結果來決定其是公正還是不公正

to make their money fairly?

你必須要知道是如何分配的

So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?

你不能只看最後階段或結果

Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods

你必須知道兩條原則

that enabled them to make all that money?

第一條他稱之為獲得物或原始積累中的公正

If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was

道理很簡單 就是人們是用公正合法的手段得到

that enabled them to gather the wealth,

使他們發家的東西的嗎?

the first principle is matched.

所以我們要知道在最初的財產積累中有公正嗎?

The second principle is did the distribution arise from

他們起初是通過偷地 偷工廠或者貨物

the operation of free consent, people buying and trading

來發財的嗎?

on the market?

如果沒有 如果他們是堂堂正正得到

As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice corresponds to

最初使他們發跡的財富

a free market conception of justice provided people got what they used

那麼就符合第一條準則

fairly, didn't steal it, and provided the distribution results

第二條是 分配是在

from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things,

自由意志之下進行的嗎 人們是在市場上

the distribution is just.

自由買賣嗎?

And if not, it's unjust.

從這可以看出 公正的自由觀點與

So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,

公正的自由市場概念相一致 只要人們的所得

take an actual example.

是通過公正合法的手段 而不是通過偷竊 只要分配結果是

Who's the wealthiest person in the United States...

出於個人買賣的自由意志

wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.

這種分配就是公正的

It is. That's right. Here he is.

如果不是就是不公正的

You'd be happy, too.

那麼讓我們 為了給這次辯論找出答案

Now, what's his net worth? Anybody have any idea?

舉一個實例

That's a big number.

美國最有錢的人是...

During the Clinton years, remember there was a controversy donors?

世界首富是誰? 比爾·蓋茨

Big campaign contributors were invited to stay overnight

是的 正確 請看屏幕

in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?

你們也很高興

I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above,

那麼他的淨資產是多少? 有人知道嗎?

someone figured out at the median contribution that got you invited

天文數字

to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,

還記得克林頓執政時期 有一個很有爭議的捐助者風波嗎?

Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night

那些大的選舉捐款人受邀在白宮的

for the next sixty six thousand years.

林肯臥室過夜?

Somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?

如果你捐2萬5千美元或更多

And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,

處在中上游水平 你就可以受邀

I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,

在林肯臥室過一夜

and you calculate this net wealth, it turns out that his rate of pay

比爾·蓋茨的資產足夠他在接下來的6萬6千年的每一晚

is over 150 dollars, not per hour, not per minute

在林肯臥室中過夜

150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second

有人想知道 他每小時賺多少?

which means that if on his way to the office,

他們算出 自從他創建微軟

Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,

我猜他每天工作14小時 這猜想很合理

it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.

算算他的淨資產 結果顯示他賺錢的速度

Now, most of you will say someone that wealthy surely we can tax them

是150多美元 不是每小時 也不是每分鐘

to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education or lack enough

是每秒鐘150多美元

to eat or lack decent housing.

就是說如果在他上班的路上

They need it more than he does.

看到地上躺著100美元

And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?

根本就不值得他彎腰去撿

What tax policy would you have?

現在 你們中的多數人可能會說我們可以向富人徵稅

You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?

來滿足 得不到教育 缺吃少喝或者沒有體面住房的人的

Because you would know being a good utilitarian that taking some,

迫切需求

a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it,

他們比富人更需要這些

but it will make a huge improvement in the lives and in the welfare

如果你是功利主義者 你會怎麼做?

of those at the bottom.

你會採取哪種稅收政策?

But remember, the libertarian theory says we can't just add up an

你們會馬上就實行重新分配 是嗎?

aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.

因為你將會知道 作為一個出色的功利主義者

We have to respect persons and if he earned that money fairly without

拿出一小部分金額 小到他幾乎不會注意到

violating anybody else's rights in accordance with the two principles

但是這將會在生活和福利方面 為那些生活在底層的人們

of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,

帶來顯著的提高

then it would be wrong, it would be a form of coercion to take it away.

但是記住 自由主義理論中提到 我們不能只像那樣

Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates but he did

把所有的偏好度和滿意度進行累加

pretty well for himself.

我們必須尊重個人 如果他通過正當途徑賺錢

You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.

不侵害他人的權益 並且符合

His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars and then

公平獲取和公平轉讓這兩條原則

he made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike

那麼這是錯誤的 剝奪他的財產就成了一種強制性手段

and other companies.

邁克爾·喬丹並不像比爾·蓋茨那麼有錢

So his income was, in one year, $78 million.

但他的收入也相當可觀

To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings to

想看看邁克爾·喬丹嗎 他在那

the government to support good causes like food and health care and

他一年的個人收入是3100萬美元

housing and education for the poor, that's coercion, that's unjust.

並且他通過為Nike還有其他公司代言

That violates his rights.

又賺取了4700萬美元

And that's why redistribution is wrong.

因此 他的年收入為7800萬美元

Now, how many agree with that argument, agree with the libertarian argument

假如說 需要將他收入的三分之一上交給政府

that redistribution for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?

用來支持公益事業 像為窮人提供食品 醫療保健

And how many disagree with that argument?

住房和教育 那是強制性的 是不公平的