Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Funding for this program is provided by...

    本片由以下企業提供贊助...

  • 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 thatand 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.

    他們會考慮這個行為

  • At least people thought that in the second version

    本身的原因

  • of each story we considered.

    而非行為導致的結果 人們的想法改變了

  • So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.

    他們會覺得這件事做錯了 是不正確的

  • Categorical moral reasoning locates morality

    就算是為了挽救五條生命

  • in certain absolute moral requirements,

    而殺害一個無辜的人也是不對的

  • certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences.

    至少在我們討論的幾個故事中

  • We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come

    殺害一個無辜的人都不是首選項

  • the contrast between consequentialist and categorical

    由此 我們得出了第二種道德推理法 絕對主義道德倫理

  • moral principles.

    絕對主義道德倫理中

  • The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning

    道德具有絕對的道德準則

  • is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented

    明確的職責與權力 無論行為結果如何

  • by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century

    我們會在今後的課程中探討

  • English political philosopher.

    結果主義和絕對主義道德原則