Activists talk about economic justice.

活動家談經濟正義。

Police and lawyers talk about criminal justice.

警察和律師談刑事司法。

Parents, teachers, and students talk about justice a lot, too, though they may never use that word.

家長、老師和學生也經常談論正義，雖然他們可能從來沒有用過這個詞。

When there’s a fight on the playground, or you get a grade you think you don’t deserve, we find ourselves talking about what’s fair.

當操場上發生爭執，或者你得到了一個你認為不應該得到的成績時，我們會發現自己在討論什麼是公平。

And that is talking about justice.

這就是在說正義。

And we think we know what it is, but we probably don’t – or at least, we don’t agree.

我們認為我們知道它是什麼，但我們可能不知道--或者至少，我們不同意。

Is justice about equality? Fairness? Getting what we deserve? Or getting what we need?

公正就是平等嗎？公平嗎？得到我們應得的東西？還是得到我們所需要的？

Sometimes we talk about balancing the scales of justice.

有時候我們會說要平衡正義的天平。

This goes back to an ancient Greek understanding of justice as harmony.

這可以追溯到古希臘人對正義是和諧的理解。

In this view, a just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles, so that society runs smoothly.

在這種觀點看來，一個公正的社會是每個人都能履行自己的職責，使社會平穩運行。

In that case, violating your place in the social order – even if it’s a place you don’t want to hold – is considered unjust.

在這種情況下，侵犯你在社會秩序中的地位--即使是你不想佔有的地位--也被認為是不公正的。

Other times, justice has been understood in a more utilitarian way, where a just society is one that tries to increase the overall quality of life for its citizens.

其他時候，正義被理解為更功利的方式，一個公正的社會是一個試圖提高公民整體生活品質的社會。

And for a political libertarian, a just society is simply one that allows its citizens to be maximally free.

而對於一個政治自由主義者來說，一個公正的社會只是讓公民獲得最大限度的自由。

So which is it?

那麼是哪一個呢？

Is justice buying a meal for someone in need?

正義是為需要幫助的人買一頓飯嗎？

Is it sending a criminal to jail?

是把一個罪犯送進監獄嗎？

Is it doling out rewards and punishments based on merit?

是按功行賞，還是按賞罰罰？

The reason people talk about justice all the time is that it’s one of the most fundamental social, ethical, and moral principles we deal with every day.

人們之所以一直在談論正義，是因為它是我們每天都要面對的最基本的社會、倫理和道德原則之一。

And in the end, what justice means to you personally, pretty much defines how you think society should work.

而到最後，正義對你個人的意義，幾乎決定了你認為社會應該如何運作。

[Theme Music]

[主題音樂]

You might have already noticed this, but when people talk about justice, a lot of the time, they’re really talking about stuff.

你可能已經注意到了，但是當人們談論正義的時候，很多時候，他們真的是在談論東西。

Like, who has more stuff – whether that’s money, food, or access to services like healthcare and sanitation.

比如，誰的東西更多--無論是錢、食物，還是獲得醫療和衛生等服務。

Who gets to decide who gets what? And on what basis?

誰能決定誰得到什麼？依據是什麼？

The area of moral philosophy that considers these questions is known as distributive justice, and there are many different schools of thought here.

考慮這些問題的道德哲學領域被稱為分配正義，這裡有許多不同的學派。

For example, some people believe that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff, no matter what.

例如，有些人認為，無論怎樣，每個人都應該得到相同種類和數量的東西。

This concept is known as justice as equality.

這個概念被稱為正義即平等。

It sounds totally fair.

這聽起來完全公平。

But, is everyone getting the same stuff really justice?

但是，每個人都能得到同樣的東西，就真的公正了嗎？

Because I need – or want – different kinds and amounts of stuff than you do.

因為我需要--或者說想要--與你不同種類和數量的東西。

So, there’s also the idea of need-based justice.

所以，也有基於需求的司法理念。

This says everyone shouldn’t get the same, because our needs aren’t the same.

這說每個人都不應該得到同樣的，因為我們的需求不一樣。

By this logic, justice is getting based on what we need.

按照這個邏輯，正義是根據我們的需要得到的。

So those who need more, get more.

所以，需要的人多，得到的就多。

And some say that this makes sense, while others argue that it amounts to favoring some people over others, putting those who happen to not be in need, at a disadvantage.

有人說這是有道理的，也有人認為，這相當於偏袒一些人，而不是另一些人，讓那些恰好不需要的人處於劣勢。

And if that’s how you look at things, then you probably espouse some kind of merit-based justice, which says that justice actually means giving unequally, based on what each person deserves.

如果你是這樣看問題的，那麼你可能擁護某種基於功績的正義，它說正義實際上意味著不公平地給予，基於每個人應得的東西。

And you deserve stuff – or don’t – based on what you’ve done.

而你應得的東西--或者不應得的東西--基於你所做的事情。

So this view rewards hard work and punishes trouble-makers.

所以這種觀點是獎勵勤奮工作，懲罰搗亂者。

Finally, there’s the very simple-sounding approach advanced by twentieth century American political philosopher John Rawls.

最後，還有二十世紀美國政治哲學家約翰-羅爾斯提出的聽起來非常簡單的方法。

He argued that justice is fairness.

他認為，公正就是公平。

Any inequalities that exist in a social system, Rawls said, should favor the least well-off, because this levels the playing field of society.

羅爾斯說，社會制度中存在的任何不平等，都應該有利於最不富裕的人，因為這樣可以使社會的競爭環境更加公平。

This is a form of need-based justice that focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs.

這是一種基於需求的司法形式，它特別注重確保每個人都能真正實現自己的基本需求。

Rawls reasoned that the world is full of natural inequalities.

羅爾斯的推理是，世界上充滿了自然的不平等。

Think of all the things we talked about when we discussed moral luck;

想一想我們討論道德運勢的時候，我們談的那些事情。

a lot of factors that will shape your life are totally out of your control.

很多因素會影響你的生活，完全不受你的控制。

So Rawls’ sense of justice means correcting for those disadvantages that are beyond our control.

所以羅爾斯的正義感意味著要糾正那些我們無法控制的不利因素。

Once again, there are some who argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to those who have gotten the most – either through hard work, or because they happened to win life’s natural lottery.

再次，有人認為，正義就是公平，其實對那些得到最多的人--或者是通過努力工作得到的，或者是因為他們碰巧贏得了人生的自然彩票，是不公平的。

20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls’ idea that justice-is-fairness.

20世紀美國哲學家羅伯特-諾齊克不同意羅爾斯的正義即公平的觀點。

And to demonstrate why, he posed this thought experiment, about professional basketball, which we will explore in the Thought Bubble with some Flash Philosophy.

而為了說明原因，他提出了這個關於職業籃球的思想實驗，我們將在《思想泡影》中用一些Flash哲學來探討。

Wilt Chamberlain was a wildly popular basketball player when Nozick created this example.

諾齊克創造這個例子的時候，威爾特-張伯倫是一個狂熱的籃球運動員。

So Nozick said: What if Chamberlain – probably the most famous athlete of his day – decided that he’d play only under certain conditions?

所以諾齊克說。如果張伯倫 -- 可能是他那個時代最著名的運動員 -- 決定他只在特定的條件下打球，會怎麼樣？

Suppose that Chamberlain decides that tickets for games he plays in should cost 25 cents more than games he doesn’t play in.

假設張伯倫決定他參加的比賽的票價應該比他不參加的比賽的票價高25美分。

And what’s more, Chamberlain will be paid $100,000 more than the other players.

更重要的是，張伯倫的工資將比其他球員多出10萬美元。

Now, Chamberlain is really popular, so everyone knows that more people will show up to see a game he’s playing in, even if the tickets cost more.

現在，張伯倫真的很受歡迎，所以大家都知道，會有更多的人來看他打的比賽，哪怕票價更高。

Since he is the draw, isn’t he entitled to ask for more money than his teammates?

既然他是引援，那他是不是有資格比隊友多要錢？

Nozick argued that we can’t – and shouldn’t – try to even out the naturally uneven playing field here.

諾齊克認為，我們不能--也不應該--試圖在這裡抹平天然不平等的競爭環境。

Sure, we start out with unequal amounts of stuff.

當然，我們一開始的東西數量不等。

But Nozick said, we’re each entitled to the stuff we have, provided we didn’t steal it or otherwise obtain it unjustly.

但諾齊克說，我們每個人都有權得到我們所擁有的東西，前提是我們沒有偷竊或以其他方式不公正地獲得它。

So, if you’re the world’s most famous basketball player, you are entitled to have, and want, more stuff, even if others don’t have it.

所以，如果你是世界上最著名的籃球運動員，你就有資格擁有，想要更多的東西，即使別人沒有。

If Chamberlain’s awesomeness at basketball lets him amass a bunch of wealth, while other people go hungry, well, that’s not Wilt’s fault.

如果張伯倫在籃球上的厲害讓他積累了一堆財富，而其他人卻在捱餓，那就不是威爾特的錯了。

Thanks, Thought Bubble!

謝謝，思想泡泡！

As you can see, there is a lot of disagreement about what it means to distribute justly.

大家可以看到，對於什麼叫公平分配，大家有很多分歧。

And this is an incredibly important topic, because a lot of what we argue about politically has to do exactly this with issue.

而這是一個非常重要的話題，因為我們在政治上爭論的很多事情，恰恰是與問題有關。

People who believe there are essential human rights, for example, argue that we’re simply entitled to have our most basic needs fulfilled –

例如，相信有基本人權的人認為，我們只是有權讓我們最基本的需求得到滿足----。

things like having enough to eat, and being able to go to the doctors when we’re sick.

比如有足夠的食物，生病時可以去看醫生。

But not everyone believes it’s the government’s job to provide us with those things, if we’re not able to get them ourselves.

但並不是每個人都認為，如果我們自己不能得到這些東西，政府的工作就是為我們提供這些東西。

Those people might argue that your rights are negative.

那些人可能會說，你的權利是消極的。

A negative right is the right not to be interfered with, not to be stopped from pursuing the things you need.

消極的權利就是不被幹涉的權利，不被阻止追求自己需要的東西。

So in this view, I can’t prevent you from trying to fulfill your needs, but I don’t have to help you to fulfill them, either.

所以在這種觀點下，我不能阻止你去滿足你的需求，但我也不必幫你去滿足。

By contrast, you might believe in positive rights.

相比之下，你可能會相信積極的權利。

If you have a positive right to something, you are entitled to help in getting it, if you can’t get it yourself.

如果你對某件事情有積極的權利，如果你自己不能得到，你就有權利幫助得到它。

So, if you can’t afford a doctor, you have a right to get assistance in affording one.

所以，如果你看不起醫生，你有權利在看病時得到幫助。

But notice that in this view, a right implies an obligation.

但請注意，在這種觀點中，權利意味著義務。

Your rights – in this case, your right to see a doctor, even if you can’t afford one – might make obligatory demands on me, because I might end up helping to pay for it.

你的權利--在這種情況下，你看病的權利，即使你負擔不起醫生的費用--可能會對我提出強制性的要求，因為我最終可能會幫助支付費用。

Of course, someone like Nozick would ask, where would such a right come from?

當然，諾齊克這樣的人會問，這樣的權利從何而來？

How could I incur an obligation to help you, just because I’m better off than you are?

我怎麼能因為我比你強，就招致幫助你的義務呢？

Sure, it might be nice if I helped, but it’s certainly not a duty, and no one should compel me to do it.

當然，如果我幫了忙可能會很好，但這肯定不是一種責任，任何人都不應該強迫我去做。

But that’s exactly what the government does when it takes taxes from those who have more in order to assist those who have less.

但這正是政府的做法，當它從那些擁有更多的人那裡收稅，以幫助那些擁有更少的人。

So you see what I mean: when people talk about taxes, and healthcare, and income inequality, they’re really talking about justice.

所以你明白我的意思：當人們談論稅收、醫療、收入不平等的時候，他們真正談論的是正義。

But of course, a lot of the time, justice isn’t at all about stuff.

但當然，很多時候，正義根本不是為了東西。

It’s also about punishment.

這也是為了懲罰。

Like most subjects, philosophers disagree about the most appropriate way to respond to wrongdoing.

像大多數主題一樣，哲學家們對應對不法行為的最恰當方式存在分歧。

One concept is known as retributive justice.

其中一個概念就是所謂的報應性司法。

This holds that the only way for justice to be satisfied is for a wrongdoer to suffer in proportion to the way he’s made others suffer.

這就認為，滿足正義的唯一途徑就是讓不法分子按他使他人受苦的方式受苦。

This is your good old fashioned, Biblical, eye-for-an-eye justice.

這就是你的老式的、符合聖經的、以眼還眼的正義。

And in this view, punishment is supposed to hurt; that’s the only way to “make things right.”

而在這種觀點中，懲罰應該是傷害，只有這樣才能 "撥亂反正"。

Historically, this would mean things like, if you cause physical harm to someone, your punisher must do the same thing to you.

從歷史上看，這將意味著，如果你對某人造成身體傷害，你的懲罰者必須對你做同樣的事情。

Today, though, in the interest of being civilized, we tend to mete out the pain in terms of incarceration and fines, rather than straight-up tit-for-tat.

但今天，為了文明，我們傾向於用監禁和罰款的方式來減輕痛苦，而不是直接針鋒相對。

But still, just retribution is one of the driving philosophical forces behind capital punishment;

但公正的報應還是死刑的哲學動力之一。

the idea that there’s simply no way to right the wrong of taking a life, other than by taking the life of the life-taker.

除了殺死殺人者的生命之外，根本沒有辦法糾正殺人的錯誤。

But utilitarians have other theories of punishment.

但功利主義者有其他的懲罰理論。

Rather than making wrongdoers suffer for suffering’s sake, these thinkers favor what’s known as welfare maximization.

這些思想家並不是為了苦難而讓不法分子受苦，而是贊成所謂的福利最大化。

In this view, there’s no good to be found in vindictively causing pain to wrongdoers.

如此看來，報復性地給不法分子帶來痛苦是沒有好處的。

But some form of punishment is still in order.

但某種形式的懲罰還是要的。

So one option is rehabilitation.

所以，一個選擇就是康復。

Here, the approach is to give wrongdoers help, so they can learn how to get along in society and follow its rules.

在這裡，我們的做法是給犯錯者以幫助，讓他們學會如何在社會上相處，遵守社會規則。

The focus is often on education and, if needed, therapy.

重點往往是教育，必要時是治療。

This is sometimes criticized as being paternalistic, because it carries with it the assumption that wrongdoers are in need of our help, that they don’t know any better, and that they need to be “cured” of some social disease.

這有時被責備為家長式的做法，因為它帶有一種假設，即不法分子需要我們的幫助，他們不知道更好的事情，他們需要被 "治癒 "某種社會疾病。

But another approach to just punishment is deterrence.

但另一種公正懲罰的方法是威懾。

For eons, people have assumed that punishment prevents a wrongdoer from committing further crimes, while also discouraging others from breaking the rules.

千百年來，人們一直認為，懲罰可以防止不法分子進一步犯罪，同時也可以阻止其他人違反規則。

So, rather than making a wrongdoer suffer for what they’ve done, supporters of deterrence see punishment as being for the good of society as a whole.

所以，威懾的支持者認為懲罰是為了整個社會的利益，而不是讓一個犯錯的人為他們的所作所為而痛苦。

Sometimes, we punish people to send a message to other people.

有時候，我們懲罰別人是為了給別人傳遞一個資訊。

One more approach to just punishment is the concept of restorative justice.

還有一種公正懲罰的方法是恢復性司法的概念。

Here, you must right your wrongs.

在這裡，你必須糾正你的錯誤。

The focus is on making amends, rather than making the wrongdoer suffer.

重點是彌補，而不是讓犯錯的人痛苦。

So if you make a mess, you have to clean it up.

所以，如果你弄得一團糟，你必須清理它。

And if you hurt someone, you need to take steps to try and make it right.

如果你傷害了別人，你需要採取措施來彌補。

This is the logic behind assigning community service to offenders.

這就是給罪犯分配社區服務的邏輯。

The hope here is that the right approach to wrongdoing will lead to healing and growth, both for the wrongdoer and for the wronged.

這裡希望正確對待錯誤行為，無論是對錯誤者還是對被錯誤者來說，都能得到治癒和成長。

It’s about restoration and forgiveness – basically the polar opposite of the retributive approach.

它是關於恢復和寬恕--基本上是報應方式的極端相反。

So, take this advice: Give some thought to your own views on these topics.

所以，接受這個建議。考慮一下你自己對這些話題的看法。

Because what you see as the right answer should shape the way you vote, how you spend your money, and the way you punish your kids.

因為你認為正確的答案應該塑造你的投票方式，你如何花錢，以及你懲罰孩子的方式。

You might discover that, upon reflection, you should change the way you’re doing some things.

你可能會發現，經過反思，你應該改變你做一些事情的方式。

Like I said, everyone talks about justice, but before you can, you really have to decide what it means.

就像我說的，每個人都在談論正義，但在你之前，你真的必須決定它的含義。

Today we talked about various theories of justice.

今天我們談了各種正義的理論。

We talked about just distribution, and we also considered different approaches to punishment.

我們談到了公正的分配，我們還考慮了不同的懲罰方式。

Next time, we’ll talk about discrimination.

下一次，我們將討論歧視問題。

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

哲學速成班》是與PBS數字工作室聯合制作的。

You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:

你可以前往他們的頻道，查看最新的劇集播放列表，如。

Coma Niddy, Deep Look, and First Person.

昏迷尼迪，深看，和第一人稱。

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

本集《速成班》是在謝麗爾-C-金尼博士速成班工作室拍攝的。

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

在所有這些了不起的人的幫助下，我們同樣神奇的圖形團隊是Thought Cafe。