Additional funding provided by...

聯合贊助商包括...

This is a course about "Justice"

--==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

and we begin with a story.

--==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 時間軸：暗之忆 翻譯: 天天@天宇 Ivy CH被射之雕 天天@天真 校對: 呆狗

Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car,

哈佛大學課程

and your trolley car is hurtling down the track

公正 Micheal Sandel教授

at 60 miles an hour. And at the end of the track

殺人的道德側面

you notice five workers working on the track.

這是一個關於"公正"的課程

You try to stop but you can't,

我們以一個故事作為開篇

your brakes don't work.

假設你是一輛電車的司機

You feel desperate because you know

你的這輛車飛速的行駛在一條軌道上

that if you crash into these five workers,

時速每小時60英里 而在軌道的盡頭

they will all die.

你發現有五個工人在施工

Let's assume you know that for sure.

你盡力地想停下來 但卻做不到

And so you feel helpless until you notice

因為剎車失靈了

that there is, off to the right,

你覺得很絕望 因為你知道

a side track and at the end of that track,

如果直接衝向這五個工人

there is one worker working on the track.

他們就都會死掉

Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car,

我們假設他們一定會死

if you want to, onto the side track

你覺得很無助 但是你發現

killing the one but sparing the five.

就在那 在右邊

Here's our first question: what's the right thing to do?

有一條側軌 而在這條側軌的盡頭

What would you do? Let's take a poll.

只有一個工人在施工

How many would turn the trolley car

方向盤還有用 所以如果你願意的話

onto the side track? Raise your hands.

你可以把你的電車轉到側軌上

How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead?

去撞死一個而不是五個

Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead.

這就是我們的第一個問題 怎麼做才是正確的?

A handful of people would,

你會怎麼做? 我們來投票

the vast majority would turn.

有多少會把電車

Let's hear first, now we need to begin

拐到側軌上? 舉一下手

to investigate the reasons why you think

有多少不會拐彎兒 會直走?

it's the right thing to do.

那些要直走的不要放下手

Let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to go

屈指可數

onto the side track. Why would you do it?

大部分人還是會拐彎兒

What would be your reason? Who's willing to volunteer a reason?

我們先聽一下 我們要聽聽

Go ahead. Stand up.

你們為什麼會認為

Because it can't be right to kill five people

這麼做是對的

when you can only kill one person instead.

首先從大多數人的選擇開始

It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill

那些要拐到側軌上的人 你們為什麼那麼做?

one person instead. That's a good reason.

你有什麼理由? 誰想說一下?

That's a good reason. Who else?

說吧 站起來

Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead.

因為當你明明可以只殺掉一個人的時候

Well I was thinking it's the same reason on 9/11 with regard

你卻選擇了殺掉五個人 這顯然不是最佳選項

to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field

能只犧牲一個的時候就

as heroes because they chose to kill the people on the plane

不能犧牲五個 是個好理由

and not kill more people in big buildings.

是個好理由啊 還有誰?

So the principle there was the same on 9/11.

都同意這個觀點嗎? 請說

It's a tragic circumstance but better to kill one

我認為這和9.11是一個道理

so that five can live.

那些使飛機墜毀在賓州地域的人們被當做英雄

Is that the reason most of you had,

就是因為他們選擇去犧牲飛機上的人

those of you who would turn? Yes?

而不是那些高樓大廈裡更多的人

Let's hear now from those in the minority,

所以這個選擇的出發點和9.11是一樣的

those who wouldn't turn. Yes.

這種情景是很悲慘 但是犧牲一個更好

Well, I think that's the same type of mentality

這樣其他五個就得以活命

that justifies genocide and totalitarianism.

其他人也是這個想法?

In order to save one type of race,

那些要拐彎的 是嗎?

you wipe out the other.

我們來聽聽少數人的意見

So what would you do in this case?

那些不轉彎的 你說

You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide,

我認為這和論證種族滅絕和極權主義

you would crash into the five and kill them?

是一樣的邏輯

Presumably, yes.

為了保留一個族群

- You would? - Yeah.

而消滅其他族群

Okay. Who else? That's a brave answer.

所以在這個故事中 你會怎麼做?

Thank you.

你會阻止種族主義的傷害

Let's consider another trolley car case

你會直接衝向這五個人殺死他們?

and see whether those of you in the majority

我可能會

want to adhere to the principle

- 你會那麼做? - 是的

"better that one should die so that five should live."

好的 還有誰? 剛才的答案很勇敢

This time you're not the driver of the trolley car,

謝謝

you're an onlooker. You're standing on a bridge

下面是另一個電車的案例

overlooking a trolley car track.

看一看大多數人這邊

And down the track comes a trolley car,

會不會堅守你們的想法

at the end of the track are five workers,

"一個人死比五個人死要好"

the brakes don't work, the trolley car

這次你不是電車司機了

is about to careen into the five and kill them.

你是一個旁觀者 你正站在橋上

And now, you're not the driver, you really feel helpless

俯瞰一條電車軌道

until you notice standing next to you,

路上來了一輛電車

leaning over the bridge is a very fat man.

軌道盡頭有五個工人

And you could give him a shove.

剎車失靈了

He would fall over the bridge onto the track right in the way

電車就要衝向這五個人 撞死他們了

of the trolley car. He would die

現在 你不是司機 你感到很無助

but he would spare the five.

直到你發現在你旁邊

Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge?

有個胖子正向橋欄杆外探出身體

Raise your hand.

你可以推他一把

How many wouldn't?

他會掉下橋 就摔在

Most people wouldn't. Here's the obvious question.

電車行駛的軌道上 他會死

What became of the principle "better to save five lives

但另外五個就得以活命

even if it means sacrificing one?"

好 有多少人會把胖子推下橋?

What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed

請舉手

in the first case? I need to hear from someone

有多少不會推他?

who was in the majority in both cases.

大多數人不會推 這裡出現一個很明顯的矛盾

How do you explain the difference between the two? Yes.

"即便有一人要死 總比五個人都死要好"

The second one, I guess, involves an active choice

這個原則現在怎麼不適用了呢?

of pushing a person down which I guess that person himself

為什麼幾乎所有人在第一個案例中都同意這個原則?

would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all.

我要找一個在兩個案例中

And so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to involve him

都在大多數人裡的人說一說

in something that he otherwise would have escaped is,

你怎麼解釋這兩個案例的不同之處? 請說

I guess, more than what you have in the first case

第二個案例 包含了推人

where the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers,

這個主動行為 我認為那個人自己

are already, I guess, in the situation.

並不希望被牽扯進去

But the guy working, the one on the track

如果要代他選擇 我認為 讓他牽扯進這樣一件

off to the side, he didn't choose

原本與他無關的事是不必要的

to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did, did he?

這與第一個案例中那樣的情景不一樣

That's true, but he was on the tracks and...

即司機和兩邊的工人這三方

This guy was on the bridge.

都已經在整個事件中了

Go ahead, you can come back if you want. All right.

但是那個在側軌上工作的工人

It's a hard question. You did well. You did very well.

他並不比那個胖子更想要

It's a hard question.

犧牲自己的生命吧?

Who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction

確實 但是他在軌道上啊...

of the majority in these two cases? Yes.

那個胖子在橋上呢

Well, I guess in the first case where you have the one worker

繼續 如果你願意你可以反駁 好的

and the five, it's a choice between those two

這是個難題 你做得很好了

and you have to make a certain choice and people

真是個難題

are going to die because of the trolley car,

誰還能為大多數人在這兩個案例中的

not necessarily because of your direct actions.

不同反應給出合理的解釋? 請說

The trolley car is a runaway thing and you're making a split second choice.

我認為 在一個工人和五個工人的那個案例中

Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act

是個二選一的問題

of murder on your part.

你必須做出明確的判斷

You have control over that whereas you may not have control

總有人會因為剎車失靈的電車犧牲掉

over the trolley car.

和你的直接行為沒有必然聯繫

So I think it's a slightly different situation.

電車是不會停的 你需要在一瞬間作出判斷

All right, who has a reply? That's good. Who has a way?

然而推那個胖子下去則是

Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this?

由於你的主觀行為造成的謀殺

I don't think that's a very good reason

你對你的行為是可以控制的

because you choose to... either way you have to choose

但是對電車是無能為力的

who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the person,

所以我認為是兩個有著細微區別的情景

which is an act of conscious thought to turn,

好的 誰想回應? 說得好 誰還有想法?

or you choose to push the fat man over

誰想回應? 這是最好的解答嗎?

which is also an active, conscious action.

我不認為那是個好理由

So either way, you're making a choice.

因為你選擇... 不管怎麼選擇都會有人死

Do you want to reply?

你或者選擇轉彎去犧牲一個

I'm not really sure that that's the case.

這是個有意識的行為

It just still seems kind of different.

或者選擇把胖子推下橋

The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks

這也是個主動地 有意識的行為

and killing him, you are actually killing him yourself.

所以兩種方式 其實都是出自你的決定

You're pushing him with your own hands.

你想回應嗎?

You're pushing him and that's different

我對她的講法不是很贊同

than steering something that is going to cause

這兩種情況還是有不同之處的

death into another...

那個把某人推到軌道上導致他死亡的行為

You know, it doesn't really sound right saying it now.

是的的確確你自己殺了他

No, no. It's good. It's good. What's your name?

是你用自己的手把他推下去

Andrew.

是你在推他 而這

Andrew. Let me ask you this question, Andrew.

跟駕駛即將導致死亡的某物

Yes.

是不一樣的...

Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man,

現在說起來可能聽著不那麼對

I didn't have to push him, suppose he was standing over

沒有 說得很好 你叫什麼?

a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that.

我是Andrew

Would you turn?

Andrew 我問你一個問題

For some reason, that still just seems more wrong.

好的

Right?

假設你在橋上 站在胖子身邊

I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel

我不必去推他 假設他正站在

or something like that.

一個陷阱蓋上 我可以轉動控制盤打開那個蓋子

But... Or say that the car is hurtling

你會去轉嗎?

towards a switch that will drop the trap.

從某些方面看來 那樣做就更離譜了

Then I could agree with that.

是嗎?

That's all right. Fair enough.

我是說 如果你不小心碰到了或是怎麼樣轉動了

It still seems wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong

那個控制盤

in the first case to turn, you say.

但是... 或者說那輛車在急速駛向

And in another way, I mean, in the first situation

一個能打開這個蓋子的開關

you're involved directly with the situation.

那樣我會贊成犧牲胖子

In the second one, you're an onlooker as well.

好的 有道理

- All right. - So you have the choice of becoming involved or not

你說 在某種程度上 第一個案例中讓車轉彎 用一人換五人沒問題

by pushing the fat man.

但在第二個案例中就行不通了

All right. Let's forget for the moment about this case.

另一方面 我的意思是 在第一個情景當中

That's good. Let's imagine a different case.

你是直接參與在整個事件中

This time you're a doctor in an emergency room

在第二個案例中 你只是一個旁觀者

and six patients come to you.

- 好的 - 所以通過是否推那個胖子

They've been in a terrible trolley car wreck.

你可以選擇參與其中或者置身事外

Five of them sustain moderate injuries,

好的 我們先不要管這個案例

one is severely injured, you could spend all day

說得很好 我們來想想另一個案例

caring for the one severely injured victim.

這一次你是一個急診室的醫生

But in that time, the five would die.

來了六個病號

Or you could look after the five, restore them to health

他們經歷了一場嚴重的電車車禍

but during that time, the one severely injured person

其中五個中度受傷

would die.

一個受了重傷 你可以花一整天

How many would save the five? Now as the doctor,

去照顧那個重傷病號

how many would save the one?

但是在那段時間 另外五個會死去

Very few people, just a handful of people.

或者你可以去照顧那五人 讓他們恢復健康

Same reason, I assume. One life versus five?

但是在這段時間裡 那一個重傷病人

Now consider another doctor case.

會死去

This time, you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients,

有多少人會救那五人? 現在作為一個醫生

each in desperate need of an organ transplant

有多少人會救那一個人?

in order to survive.

很少的人 屈指可數

One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney,

我覺得是同樣的理由 一條命對五條命?

one a liver, and the fifth a pancreas.

那想想另一個醫生的案例

And you have no organ donors. You are about to see them die.

這一次 你是個器官移植外科醫生 有五個病號

And then it occurs to you that in the next room

每個人都急需器官移植

there's a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.

才能活下來

And he's – you like that – and he's taking a nap,

一人需要心臟 一個要肺 一個要腎

you could go in very quietly, yank out the five organs,

一個要肝 還有一個要胰臟

that person would die, but you could save the five.

你沒有器官捐獻者 你就要眼見著他們死去

How many would do it? Anyone? How many?

這時你突然想到在隔壁的屋裡

Put your hands up if you would do it.

有個健康的人來做個體檢

Anyone in the balcony?

並且他 - 如你所願 - 他正在小睡

I would.

你可以悄悄地進去 強行取出五個器官

You would? Be careful, don't lean over too much.

那個人會死去 但是你能救五個人

How many wouldn't? All right. What do you say?

有多少人會那麼做? 有嗎? 有多少?

Speak up in the balcony,

如果你會那麼做的話 舉手

you who would yank out the organs. Why?

樓上的同學呢?

I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility

我會的

of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ

你會的? 當心點兒 別太往前傾

who dies first and using their four healthy organs

多少人不會? 好吧 這又怎麼解釋?

to save the other four.

大聲點兒

That's a pretty good idea. That's a great idea

會強行取走器官的人 為什麼這麼做?

except for the fact that you just wrecked

其實我想稍微擴展一下選項

the philosophical point.

在五個需要器官移植的人中

Let's step back from these stories and these arguments

誰第一個死了 就用他剩下的健康器官

to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments

去救其他四個人

have begun to unfold.

這個想法很不錯 這個想法好啊

Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge

只是你剛剛破壞了

from the discussions we've had.

我們正在討論的哲學問題

And let's consider what those moral principles look like.

讓我們暫時放下這些故事和引發的爭議

The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion

轉而注意一下這些爭議

said the right thing to do, the moral thing to do

為我們揭示出的某些東西

depends on the consequences that will result from your action.

一些道德原則在我們之前的對話中

At the end of the day, better that five should live

逐漸顯現出來

even if one must die.

我們來想想看 這些原則是關於什麼的

That's an example of consequentialist moral reasoning.

第一個原則是關於怎樣做才是正確的

Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality

從你言行的後果來考慮

in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world

怎麼做才是更道德的

that will result from the thing you do.

最終的討論結果是 讓五個人活著更好

But then we went a little further, we considered those other cases

就算一個人會死

and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning.

這便是一個結果主義道德倫理的典例

When people hesitated

結果主義道德倫理中 道德與否取決於

to push the fat man over the bridge

行為的結果

or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient,

取決於你所做事情的後果

people gestured toward reasons having to do with

進一步 我們考慮了另一些案例

the intrinsic quality of the act itself,

在這種情況下人們無法確信結果主義道德倫理正確與否

consequences be what they may. People were reluctant.

當人們猶豫

People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong,

是否要把胖子推下橋

to kill a person, an innocent person,

或者是從一個無辜的病人體內取出器官時

even for the sake of saving five lives.