Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • When we finished last time,

    --==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

  • 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

  • All right, let's begin with those who disagree.

    這侵犯了他的權利

  • What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?

    這就是為什麼重新分配是錯誤的

  • Yes.

    現在 有多少人贊同這個論點 贊同自由主義觀點

  • I think these people like Michael Jordan have received

    認為為了嘗試幫助窮人而進行重新分配是錯誤的?

  • we're talking about working within a society and they receive

    那麼有多少人不同意這個觀點?

  • a larger gift from the society and they have a larger obligation

    好的 由反對的同學開始

  • in return to give that through redistribution, you know,

    反對重新分配的自由主義論案例有什麼問題?

  • you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,

  • you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day, but he's receiving more.

    我覺得 像邁克爾·喬丹這些人已經獲得了

  • I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him,

    社會的回報 而且他們

  • on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.

    從社會中獲得了更多饋贈 他們理應有更大的責任

  • All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.

    通過重新分配的方式回報社會 你知道嗎

  • Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?

    你可能會說 邁克爾·喬丹可能就像某些人一樣努力工作

  • Go ahead.

    那些在洗衣房連續工作12-14小時的人 但是他得到的更多

  • My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.

    我覺得這樣說不公平 你明白嗎 這全靠他自己

  • I've since bought a hundred skateboards.

    憑借他的 呃 與生俱來的 嗯 勤奮

  • I live in a society of a hundred people.

    好吧 讓我們聽聽自由主義論支持者的聲音

  • I'm the only one with skateboards.

    為什麼在原則上 對富人徵稅來幫助窮人的做法是錯誤的?

  • Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.

    你來