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

  • The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning

    的區別所在

  • is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

    結果主義道德倫理最典型的一個例子

  • So we will look at those two different modes

    便是功利主義 18世紀英國的

  • of moral reasoning, assess them,

    政治哲學家Jeremy Bentham

  • and also consider others.

    提出了該學說

  • If you look at the syllabus, you'll notice that we read

    而最著名的絕對主義道德倫理哲學家

  • a number of great and famous books,

    是18世紀的德國哲學家Immanuel Kant

  • books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,

    我們將要分析這兩種道德倫理的

  • and others.

    推理模式 評價他們

  • You'll notice too from the syllabus

    同時也會涉及其他理論

  • that we don't only read these books

    看過教學大綱之後 你們會發現我們將會

  • we also take up contemporary political, and legal controversies

    閱讀許多名著

  • that raise philosophical questions. We will debate equality and inequality,

    例如亞里士多德 John Locke 還有Immanuel Kant和John Stewart Mill

  • affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage,

    等人的著作

  • military conscription, a range of practical questions. Why?

    同時你會發現

  • Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books

    我們不僅要讀這些書

  • but to make clear, to bring out what's at stake

    我們還將討論當代政治和法律問題

  • in our everyday lives, including our political lives,

    以及其哲學考量 我們將探討平等與非平等的定義

  • for philosophy.

    平權法案 言論自由與仇恨言論 同性婚姻

  • And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues,

    兵役法 等等一系列實際問題 原因何在?

  • and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other.

    因為我們不僅要將這些抽像的 脫離生活的書學活

  • This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning.

    還要弄明白我們生活中

  • And the warning is this, to read these books

    有哪些事情 包括我們的政治生活

  • in this way as an exercise in self knowledge,

    是有風險的

  • to read them in this way carries certain risks,

    因此 我們將解讀這些書 討論這些話題

  • risks that are both personal and political,

    我們將看到它們之間的關聯

  • risks that every student of political philosophy has known.

    這些聽起來很吸引人 但是在此我要提醒一下

  • These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us

    我們通過讀這些書

  • and unsettles us by confronting us with

    來瞭解自己

  • what we already know.

    將帶來一定的風險

  • There's an irony. The difficulty of this course consists in the fact

    這些是個人以及政治上的風險

  • that it teaches what you already know.

    是所有政治哲學系學生都瞭解的風險

  • It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings

    這是因為哲學

  • and making it strange.

    會使我們對我們所瞭解的知識

  • That's how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began,

    產生質疑

  • with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.

    諷刺的是這個課程的難點卻是

  • It's also how these philosophical books work.

    你已經懂了它教給你的知識

  • Philosophy estranges us from the familiar,

    我們將發現習以為常的事情

  • not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking

    不再熟悉

  • a new way of seeing but, and here's the risk,

    通過課程開始時那些看似有趣卻很嚴肅的假設場景

  • once the familiar turns strange, it's never quite the same again.

    我們將學習到這些知識

  • Self knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it

    這也是這些哲學書起到的作用

  • it can never be un-thought or un-known.

    哲學使熟悉的事物變得陌生

  • What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting

    這並非是通過提供給我們新知識 而是指引我們

  • is that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don't know

    一種新的看待事物的新方式 然而風險便在此

  • where the story will lead.

    一旦熟悉的事物變陌生了 它就不再和以前一樣了

  • But what you do know is that the story is about you.

    自我認識讓人不再無知 不管它是如何使人不安

  • Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks?

    你都永遠無法避免去想它

  • One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you

    這個課程困難卻又有趣

  • that by reading these books and debating these issues,

    正是由於道德與政治哲學就像一個故事 而你永遠不知道

  • you will become a better, more responsible citizen

    事情會如何發展

  • you will examine the presuppositions of public policy,

    但是你卻知道這個故事與你息息相關

  • you will hone your political judgment,

    這些就是個人風險 那麼政治風險又是什麼呢?

  • you will become a more effective participant in public affairs.

    像這樣介紹這門課後 我承諾

  • But this would be a partial and misleading promise.

    通過讀這些書和討論這些話題

  • Political philosophy, for the most part,

    你會成為一個更守法 有責任心的公民

  • hasn't worked that way.

    你會思考制定國家政策的前提是否正確

  • You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy

    你會訓練你對政治的判斷力

  • may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one

    你將更加有效的參與進公眾事務中

  • or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one,

    但是這是一個片面的 產生誤導的承諾

  • and that's because philosophy is a distancing,

    大部分政治哲學

  • even debilitating activity.

    並非如此

  • And you see this going back to Socrates, there's a dialogue,

    你要允許有其他可能存在 比如政治哲學

  • the Gorgias, in which one of Socrates' friends, Callicles,

    會使你成為更差的公民而非更好的

  • tries to talk him out of philosophizing.

    或者在你成為好公民之前使你變差

  • Callicles tells Socrates "Philosophy is a pretty toy

    這是因為哲學與我們的生活有一定距離

  • if one indulges in it with moderation

    甚至會破壞我們的生活

  • at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should,

    這可以追溯到蘇格拉底時期 在柏拉圖的高爾吉亞篇裡

  • it is absolute ruin."

    有一段這樣的對話 蘇格拉底的一個朋友Callicles

  • "Take my advice," Callicles says, "abandon argument.

    試圖說服蘇格拉底放棄哲學

  • Learn the accomplishments of active life,

    Callicles說"如果一個人只是適當的

  • take for your models not those people who spend

    瞭解一下哲學

  • their time on these petty quibbles but those who have a good livelihood

    那將會很有趣 但是如果一個人過度追求哲學

  • and reputation and many other blessings."

    這絕對不是一件好事"

  • So Callicles is really saying to Socrates "Quit philosophizing, get real,

    "聽我的勸告吧"Callicles說 "放棄你的爭論

  • go to business school."

    看看生活的美好之處

  • And Callicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy

    別總研究那些喜愛說模棱兩可話的人

  • distances us from conventions, from established assumptions,

    把重心放在那些生活美好

  • and from settled beliefs.

    功成名就的人身上"

  • Those are the risks, personal and political.

    Callicles實際上說的是"脫離哲學思維 現實點

  • And in the face of these risks,

    去商學院吧"

  • there is a characteristic evasion.

    Callicles有一點說的很對 哲學

  • The name of the evasion is skepticism, it's the idea...

    會讓我們與日常生活 已建立的假設以及固有思想

  • well, it goes something like this... we didn't resolve once and for all

    疏遠開來

  • either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began

    這些就是個人與政治上的風險

  • and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill

    面對這些風險時

  • haven't solved these questions after all of these years,

    有一種獨特的避免方法

  • who are we to think, that we here in Sanders Theatre,

    這種避免方法就是懷疑主義 這是種理想的...

  • over the course of a semester, can resolve them?

    這麼說好了... 對於我們剛剛開始時討論的這些情況以及理論

  • And so, maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own

    我們無法一次性解決

  • principles and there's nothing more to be said about it,

    並且如果這麼多年來 亞里士多德 Locke和Kant以及Mill

  • no way of reasoning.

    都沒能解決這些問題

  • That's the evasion, the evasion of skepticism,

    那麼我們以為自己是誰? 難道我們坐在Sanders禮堂裡

  • to which I would offer the following reply.

    上了一個學期的課 就能解決問題?

  • It's true, these questions have been debated for a very long time

    或者說我們只需堅持自己的原則

  • but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted

    不必評頭論足

  • may suggest that though they're impossible in one sense,

    也不必思考更多

  • they're unavoidable in another.

    這就是風險的避免方法 懷疑主義的逃避方式

  • And the reason they're unavoidable, the reason they're inescapable

    對此 我將作出以下回應

  • is that we live some answer to these questions every day.

    這些問題的確已經被討論了很長時間了

  • So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection

    然而事實上 它們的反覆出現

  • is no solution.

    說明它們也許在某種意義上不可能發生

  • Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism

    卻在另一種情況下是不可避免的

  • when he wrote "Skepticism is a resting place

    它們之所以不可避免

  • for human reason, where it can reflect upon

    正是因為這些問題的答案在我們的生活中處處可見

  • its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place

    因此像懷疑主義這樣 放棄進行道德思考

  • for permanent settlement."

    絕不是解決辦法

  • "Simply to acquiesce in skepticism," Kant wrote,

    Immanuel Kant很好地形容了懷疑主義產生的問題

  • "can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason."

    他寫道"懷疑主義是人類思考中的一個休息階段

  • I've tried to suggest through these stories

    他會讓我們在教條主義之間徘徊

  • and these arguments some sense of the risks

    卻絕不是我們永久的

  • and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities.

    安身之所"

  • I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course

    "如果只是使用懷疑主義"Kant寫道

  • is to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead.

    "永遠無法解決無止境的問題"

  • Thank you very much.

    通過這些故事和論據

  • Like, in a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive.

    我在試圖告訴你們

  • You have to do what you have to do?

    一些可能存在的風險與疑惑

  • Yeah. You got to do what you got to do, pretty much.

    我簡單的總結一下 這個課程的目的

  • If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know,

    是為了激發大家長期思考的習慣 看看最後事情會如何發展

  • someone just has to take the sacrifice.

    謝謝大家

  • Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.

    比如說 在一個危機環境中 你要想盡一切辦法生存下來

  • Alright, that's good. What's your name?

    你要想盡一切辦法?

  • - Marcus. - Marcus, what do you say to Marcus?

    對 你要想盡一切辦法 差不多是那樣

  • Last time, we started out last time

    如果你們已經19天沒有食物了

  • with some stories, with some moral dilemmas

    有人必須要做點犧牲

  • about trolley cars and about doctors

    必須有人犧牲才能讓其他人活下來

  • and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims

    很好 你叫什麼?

  • of organ transplantation.

    - 我叫Marcus - 你對Marcus的話有何想法?

  • We noticed two things about the arguments we had,

    上一節課 我們開始時講了一些小故事

  • one had to do with the way we were arguing.

    是一個有關於電車 醫生

  • We began with our judgments in particular cases.

    和是否要取出健康的病人

  • We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind

    器官來拯救其他傷者

  • our judgments.

    的進退兩難的道德問題

  • And then confronted with a new case,

    我們提到了兩點

  • we found ourselves reexamining those principles,

    一點是我們討論事情的方法

  • revising each in the light of the other.

    我們一開始提到了一些特殊的情況 以供我們判斷

  • And we noticed the built in pressure

    我們試著弄清是什麼原因導致了

  • to try to bring into alignment our judgments

    我們的判斷結果

  • about particular cases and the principles

    接下來 通過一個新的案例

  • we would endorse on reflection.

    我們開始懷疑這些道德準則是否正確

  • We also noticed something about the substance

    並多方面思考 改進了這些道德準則

  • of the arguments that emerged from the discussion.

    我們發現想要將這些案例

  • We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate

    以及案例背後的道德準則

  • the morality of an act in the consequences, in the results,

    歸納在一起

  • in the state of the world that it brought about.

    是一件十分困難的事

  • And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.

    同時 我們發現了討論中

  • But we also noticed that in some cases,

    論點的主旨所在

  • we weren't swayed only by the result.

    我們發現我們有時

  • Sometimes, many of us felt, that not just consequences

    通過行為帶來的結果

  • but also the intrinsic quality or character

    來判定這個行為是否道德

  • of the act matters morally.

    我們稱此為結果主義道德倫理

  • Some people argued that there are certain things

    但是同時我們也發現在某些情況下

  • that are just categorically wrong even if they bring about

    我們不僅僅只是通過結果來判斷

  • a good result, even if they saved five people

    有時我們覺得不只是結果

  • at the cost of one life.

    還有行為本身的特徵

  • So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones.

    影響到我們的判斷

  • Today and in the next few days, we will begin to examine

    有些人認為一些事情

  • one of the most influential versions of consequentialist moral theory.

    就算結果是好的 也絕對是錯誤的

  • And that's the philosophy of utilitarianism.

    比如為了拯救五個人的生命

  • Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century

    而犧牲掉一個的生命

  • English political philosopher gave first the first clear

    於是我們將結果主義道德準則與絕對主義道德準則進行了對比

  • systematic expression to the utilitarian moral theory.

    今天還有接下來幾天

  • And Bentham's idea, his essential idea,

    我們將討論結果主義道德理論中最具影響力的觀點之一

  • is a very simple one.

    這就是功利主義哲學

  • With a lot of morally intuitive appeal,

    18世紀英國政治哲學家Jeremy Bentham

  • Bentham's idea is the following,

    第一次明確地提出了

  • the right thing to do, the just thing to do

    功利主義道德理論系統的表述

  • is to maximize utility.

    而Bentham最重要的觀點

  • What did he mean by utility?

    非常簡單

  • He meant by utility the balance of pleasure over pain,

    Bentham的觀點很直接

  • happiness over suffering.

    他是這樣認為的

  • Here's how he arrived at the principle of maximizing utility.

    正確的事情 公正的事情

  • He started out by observing that all of us,

    就是取得最大的效益

  • all human beings are governed by two sovereign masters,

    什麼叫做最大的效益?

  • pain and pleasure.

    他的意思是要讓愉悅戰勝痛苦

  • We human beings like pleasure and dislike pain.

    快樂戰勝折磨

  • And so we should base morality, whether we're thinking about

    他是這樣推出最大效益理論的

  • what to do in our own lives or whether as legislators or citizens,

    他最開始是觀察我們所有人

  • we're thinking about what the laws should be.

    人類的世界由兩件事主宰

  • The right thing to do individually or collectively is to maximize,

    痛苦與快樂

  • act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness.

    我們喜愛快樂 討厭痛苦

  • Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed up

    因此 我們應該以道德為基礎

  • with the slogan

    不管我們關心的是自己的生活 還是作為一個統治者或市民

  • "The greatest good for the greatest number."

    我們都會關心法律是如何制定的

  • With this basic principle of utility on hand,

    個人或團體應該做的正確的事

  • let's begin to test it and to examine it

    就是想辦法讓我們感到最快樂

  • by turning to another case, another story, but this time,

    Bentham的功利主義有時被總結為

  • not a hypothetical story, a real life story,

    一句口號

  • the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens.

    "最大化謀求絕大多數人的利益"

  • This was a 19th century British law case

    有了這個基本原則

  • that's famous and much debated in law schools.

    讓我們來通過另一個例子

  • Here's what happened in the case. I'll summarize the story

    探討一下這是否正確 但是這一次

  • then I want to hear how you would rule,

    就不是虛構的了 而是現實生活中的故事

  • imagining that you were the jury.

    女王與Dudley和Stevens之間的故事

  • A newspaper account of the time described the background.

    這是一起發生在19世紀的英國法律案件

  • A sadder story of disaster at sea was never told

    非常著名 而且法學院裡經常討論

  • than that of the survivors of the yacht, Mignonette.

    事情是這樣的 我會先簡要描述下這個案例

  • The ship floundered in the South Atlantic,

    然後我想聽聽 你們會如何裁決

  • 1300 miles from the Cape.

    想像一下 你們就是陪審團

  • There were four in the crew, Dudley was the captain,

    當時的一家報紙描述了整個事件

  • Stevens was the first mate, Brooks was a sailor,

    這是海難中最悲慘的一次了

  • all men of excellent character or so the newspaper account tells us.

    是有關Mignonette號帆船生還者的

  • The fourth crew member was the cabin boy,

    帆船在南大西洋上掙扎

  • Richard Parker, 17 years old.

    離好望角1300海里

  • He was an orphan, he had no family,

    船上有四人 Dudley是船長

  • and he was on his first long voyage at sea.

    Stevens是大副 Brooks是船員

  • He went, the news account tells us,

    所有人都具備優秀的品格 或者說報紙是這麼告訴我們的

  • rather against the advice of his friends.

    第四個人是名見習海員

  • He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition,

    叫Richard Parker 17歲

  • thinking the journey would make a man of him.

    他是個孤兒 沒有家人

  • Sadly, it was not to be. The facts of the case

    這是他第一次出海遠航

  • were not in dispute.

    據報道稱 他不顧

  • A wave hit the ship and the Mignonette went down.

    朋友們的勸告

  • The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat.

    懷揣著年輕人的雄心壯志 踏上了這次航程

  • The only food they had were two cans of

    他認為 這次航行定能讓他成為真正的男人

  • preserved turnips, no fresh water.

    不幸的是 事與願違 這次航行的結果如何

  • For the first three days, they ate nothing.

    已經毫無異議

  • On the fourth day, they opened one

    一個大浪打在船上 Mignonette號開始下沉

  • of the cans of turnips and ate it.

    四名船員乘救生艇逃生

  • The next day they caught a turtle.

    他們唯一的食物是兩罐

  • Together with the other can of turnips,

    醃蘿蔔 沒有飲用水

  • the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days.

    頭三天 他們什麼也沒吃

  • And then for eight days, they had nothing.

    到了第四天 他們開了

  • No food. No water.

    一罐醃蘿蔔吃了

  • Imagine yourself in a situation like that,

    接下來一天 他們捉到一隻海龜

  • what would you do? Here's what they did.

    加上另一罐醃蘿蔔

  • By now the cabin boy, Parker, is lying at the bottom

    這個海龜能讓他們再多維持幾天

  • of the lifeboat in the corner

    然後連著八天 他們什麼也沒了

  • because he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others

    沒吃的 也沒喝的

  • and he had become ill and he appeared to be dying.

    想想你自己在那種情況下

  • So on the 19th day, Dudley, the captain,

    會怎麼做? 他們是這樣做的

  • suggested that they should all have a lottery,

    那時 那個見習海員Parker躺在救生船底的

  • that they should draw lots to see who would die

    一個角落裡

  • to save the rest.

    由於不聽其他人勸告喝了海水

  • Brooks refused. He didn't like the lottery idea.

    他生病了 似乎要死了

  • We don't know whether this was

    所以到了第19天 Dudley船長

  • because he didn't want to take the chance

    提議他們應該抽籤決定

  • or because he believed in categorical moral principles.

    他們當中誰應該去死

  • But in any case, no lots were drawn.

    來救剩下的人

  • The next day there was still no ship in sight

    Brooks不同意 他不喜歡抽籤的辦法

  • so Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze

    我們不知道到底是

  • and he motioned to Stevens that the boy, Parker,

    因為他不想冒險呢

  • had better be killed.

    還是因為他相信絕對道德原則呢

  • Dudley offered a prayer, he told the boy his time had come,

    但無論如何 沒有進行抽籤

  • and he killed him with a pen knife,

    接下來一天裡仍然沒看見有船經過

  • stabbing him in the jugular vein.

    所以Dudley讓Brooks改變想法

  • Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection

    他還慫恿Stevens說 最好殺了

  • to share in the gruesome bounty.

    Parker那小孩

  • For four days, the three of them fed

    Dudley做了禱告 告訴男孩 他的大限到了

  • on the body and blood of the cabin boy.

    然後用小刀殺了他

  • True story. And then they were rescued.

    直插頸靜脈

  • Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism.

    Brooks擺脫了良心上的抗拒

  • "On the 24th day, as we were having our breakfast,

    並分享了這次可怕的盛宴

  • a ship appeared at last."

    四天裡 剩下的三個

  • The three survivors were picked up by a German ship.

    以男孩的肉和血為生

  • They were taken back to Falmouth in England

    真人真事 然後他們得救了

  • where they were arrested and tried.

    Dudley在他的日記裡以驚人的委婉語言描述營救的場景

  • Brooks turned state's witness. Dudley and Stevens went to trial.

    "第24天 我們正享用早餐

  • They didn't dispute the facts. They claimed they had

    終於一艘船出現了"

  • acted out of necessity, that was their defense.

    三名倖存者被一艘德國船救起

  • They argued in effect better that one should die

    他們被帶回英國的Falmouth港

  • so that three could survive. The prosecutor wasn't swayed

    在那兒 他們被逮捕了並接受審訊

  • by that argument.

    Brooks成了公訴方證人 Dudley和Stevens接受審判

  • He said murder is murder, and so the case went to trial.

    他們對事實供認不諱 但他們自稱

  • Now imagine you are the jury. And just to simplify the discussion,

    是受需求所逼 他們是如此辯護的

  • put aside the question of law, let's assume that you as the jury

    他們辯稱 用一個人的死來換

  • are charged with deciding whether what they did

    三個人活下來 最終結果更好 檢察官並沒有

  • was morally permissible or not.

    受此言論左右

  • How many would vote 'not guilty',

    他說 謀殺就是謀殺 所以要提起訴訟

  • that what they did was morally permissible?

    現在 假設你們是陪審團 當然為了簡化討論

  • And how many would vote 'guilty',

    法律相關問題都撇開一邊 僅僅假設你們作為陪審團

  • what they did was morally wrong?

    要求做出判決 他們的所作所為究竟

  • A pretty sizeable majority.

    在道德上是否能被允許

  • Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with those

    有多少人會認為'無罪'

  • who are in the minority.

    覺得他們的行為在道德上是被允許的?

  • Let's hear first from the defense of Dudley and Stevens.

    有多少人認為'有罪'

  • Why would you morally exonerate them?

    覺得他們的行為是不道德的?

  • What are your reasons? Yes.

    絕大多數啊

  • I think it's... I think it is morally reprehensible

    好 我們來聽聽大家的理由 那我們從

  • but I think that there is a distinction

    少數人的開始

  • between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone

    首先聽聽為Dudley和Stevens辯護的同學怎麼說

  • legally accountable.

    你為何不追究他們道德上的責任?

  • In other words, as the judge said,

    你的理由是什麼? 就你

  • what's always moral isn't necessarily against the law

    我覺得... 我認為道德上是應受譴責的

  • and while I don't think that necessity justifies theft

    但我認為 道德上應受譴責

  • or murder or any illegal act, at some point your degree

    與法律上應受制裁

  • of necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt.

    還是存在差異的

  • Okay. Good. Other defenders. Other voices for the defense.

    換句話說 正如法官所言

  • Moral justifications for what they did. Yes.

    道德不一定與法律相牴觸

  • Thank you. I just feel like

    我認為需求的必要性並不能作為偷盜

  • in the situation that desperate, you have to do

    謀殺或者任何違法行為的主要判決依據 但某些時候

  • what you have to do to survive.

    行為的必要程度 確實能免除你的罪責

  • You have to do what you have to do.

    好 很好 其他辯護者呢 聽聽其他意見

  • Yeah, you've got to do what you've got to do.

    覺得他們的行為是道德上可行的 你了

  • Pretty much. If you've been going

    謝謝 我就覺得吧

  • 19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice,

    在那種絕望的情況下 你必須

  • someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.

    想盡一切辦法 才能活下來

  • And furthermore from that, let's say they survive

    你必須想盡一切辦法

  • and then they become productive members of society

    嗯 你必須想盡一切辦法

  • who go home and start like a million charity organizations

    就是那樣 如果你也是

  • and this and that and this and that.

    19天不吃不喝了 也就是說 必定要有人做出犧牲

  • - I mean they benefited everybody in the end. - Yeah.

    有人要做出犧牲 那麼其他人就能活下來

  • So, I mean I don't know what they did afterwards,

    更進一步來說 假如說他們活下來了

  • they might have gone and like, I don't know,

    然後他們成為對社會有積極意義的人

  • - killed more people, I don't know. Whatever but. - What?

    他們回家後 成立了比如說百萬美元的慈善組織

  • Maybe they were assassins.

    又或是這些那些的

  • What if they went home and they turned out to be assassins?

    - 我的意思是 他們最終造福於人 - 是啊

  • What if they'd gone home and turned out to be assassins? Well...

    所以 當然 我不知道他們後來怎麼樣了

  • You'd want to know who they assassinated.

    他們也可能 比如說 我不清楚

  • That's true too. That's fair. That's fair. I would want to know

    - 殺了更多的人 我不知道啊 但仍然 - 什麼?

  • who they assassinated.

    可能他們成了殺手

  • All right. That's good. What's your name?

    如果他們回家後成了職業殺手呢?

  • - Marcus. - Marcus. All right.

    如果他們回家後成了職業殺手? 呃...

  • We've heard a defense, a couple of voices

    你就想知道他們刺殺了誰

  • for the defense.

    沒錯 的確如此 我會想知道

  • Now we need to hear from the prosecution.

    他們刺殺了誰

  • Most people think what they did was wrong. Why?

    好吧 不錯 你叫什麼?

  • - Yes. - One of the first things that I was thinking was

    - Marcus - Marcus 很好

  • they haven't been eating for a really long time

    我們聽了辯護 一些

  • maybe they... they're... they're mentally like affected and so

    辯方意見

  • then that could be used as a defense,

    現在得聽聽控方意見了

  • a possible argument that they weren't

    絕大多數人認為他們的行為是有罪的 為什麼?

  • in the proper state of mind, they weren't making decisions

    - 你吧 - 首先我想的是

  • they might otherwise be making.

    他們可能並沒有真的很長時間不吃不喝

  • And if that's an appealing argument that... that you have to be

    可能他們... 他們... 他們只是裝成那樣 然後

  • in an altered mindset to do something like that,

    那樣就能作為辯護

  • it suggests that people who find that argument convincing

    一種可能的借口 說他們當時

  • do think that they were acting immorally.

    已經神志不清了 如果還清醒的話

  • But what do you... I want to know

    他們絕對不會那麼做

  • what you think. You defend them.

    如果那種說法很有可能 你必須

  • - No, no, no. - I'm sorry, you vote to convict, right?

    變換心境去做出類似的事情

  • Yeah, I don't think that they acted in a morally

    也就是說 覺得那種說法可信的人

  • appropriate way.

    確實會認為他們的行為是不道德的

  • And why not? What do you say,

    但你... 我想知道

  • here's Marcus, he just defended them.

    你怎麼想的 你是為他們辯護了

  • He said... you heard what he said.

    - 沒 沒有 沒 - 抱歉 你認為他們有罪 是吧?

  • Yes.

    嗯 我認為他們的行為在道德上

  • Yes.

    是不恰當的

  • That you've got to do what you've got to do

    為什麼不恰當? 你要怎麼回應

  • - in a case like that. What do you say to Marcus? - Yeah.

    Marcus的觀點 他剛為他們辯護

  • That there's no situation that would allow

    他說... 你該聽見他說的了吧

  • human beings to take the idea of fate or

    聽了

  • the other people's lives in their own hands,

    聽了的

  • that we don't have that kind of power.

    在那種情況下 你必須

  • Good. Okay. Thank you.

    - 想盡一切辦法 你怎麼回應Marcus? - 嗯

  • And what's your name?

    在任何情況下都不會允許我們

  • Britt.

    把別人的命運

  • - Britt. Okay. Who else? What do you say? Stand up. - Yes.

    或是生命掌握在我們自己手中

  • I'm wondering if Dudley and Stevens had asked Richard Parker's... for Richard Parker's

    我們沒有那種權力

  • consent in you know, dying, if that would exonerate them

    好 很好 謝謝

  • from... from an act of murder and if so,

    你叫什麼?

  • is that still morally justifiable?

    我叫Britt

  • That's interesting. All right. Consent.

    - Britt 好吧 還有誰? 你說什麼? 起立 - 是的

  • Wait wait, hang on. What's your name?

    我在想 Dudley和Stevens會不會問... 徵得了Richard Parker的同意

  • Kathleen.

    就是 殺死他 如果那樣能免除他們的

  • Kathleen says suppose they had that,

    呃... 謀殺罪了 果真如此的話

  • what would that scenario look like?

    這在道德上是否仍然說得過去呢?

  • So in the story Dudley is there, pen knife in hand,

    很有意思 好吧 徵求同意

  • but instead of the prayer or before the prayer,

    等等 等一下 你叫什麼?

  • he says "Parker, would you mind?"

    我叫Kathleen

  • "We're desperately hungry",

    Kathleen說 假設他們徵得同意了

  • as Marcus empathizes with, "we're... we're desperately hungry.

    那會是怎樣的場景呢?

  • - You're not going to last long anyhow." -Yeah. You can be a martyr.

    那麼事件裡 Dudley站在這 手持小刀

  • "Would you be a martyr? How about it Parker?"

    但沒有禱告 或者在禱告之前

  • Then, then, what do... what do you think? Would it be morally justified then?

    他說 "Parker 你介意嗎?"

  • - I don't think... - Suppose... suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says "Okay."

    "我們餓得不行了"

  • I don't think it would be morally justifiable but I'm wondering if...

    就像Marcus強調的 "餓得前胸貼後背了

  • - Even then, even then it wouldn't be? - No.

    - 反正你也活不長了" - 嗯 你能當烈士

  • You don't think that even with consent

    "你想當烈士嗎? 怎麼樣 Parker?"

  • it would be morally justified?

    那麼 你怎麼想? 那樣道德上就合理了嗎?

  • Are there people who think, uh, who want to take up

    - 我認為不能... - 假設... 假設Parker神志不清地說"好吧"

  • Kathleen's consent idea and who think that

    我覺得這在道德上還是說不過去 但我在想 如果...

  • that would make it morally justified?

    - 即使那樣 即使那樣也說不過去嗎? - 是的

  • Raise your hand if it would, if you think it would.

    甚至連徵得同意了 你也覺得

  • That's very interesting. Why would consent

    還不能在道德層面合理化嗎?

  • make a moral difference? Why would it? Yes.

    在座的有人認為 呃 想接著

  • Well, I just think that if he was making

    Kathleen的觀點往下說嗎? 或是認為

  • his own original idea and it was his idea

    這樣就在道德上合理了?

  • to start with, then that would be

    如果認為這樣可以說得通 請舉手

  • the only situation in which I would see it

    很有意思 為何徵得同意

  • being appropriate in any way because that way

    在道德上就會造成不同的結果? 為什麼? 請說

  • you couldn't make the argument that he was pressured,

    呃 我認為如果他所做的決定

  • you know it's three-to-one or whatever the ratio was.

    完全是出於他自己意志 那麼後面發生的事

  • - Right. - And I think that if he was making a decision

    就是源於他自己的意願

  • to give his life and he took on the agency

    那我就會將他們的做法看成是合理的

  • to sacrifice himself which some people

    因為那樣的話

  • might see as admirable and other people might disagree

    你就不能妄斷 說他是被逼的

  • with that decision.

    儘管當時是三人 或者不管是幾人對一人

  • So if he came up with the idea,

    - 好的 - 我想 如果他決定要

  • that's the only kind of consent we could have

    犧牲自己 也確實做了

  • confidence in morally then it would be okay.

    自我犧牲的決定 有些人

  • Otherwise, it would be kind of coerced consent

    可能覺得那樣可欽可佩 其他人可能不同意

  • under the circumstances, you think.

    他的決定

  • Is there anyone who thinks that even the consent of Parker

    所以 如果他提出這種想法

  • would not justify their killing him? Who thinks that? Yes.

    這也是唯一在道德上值得

  • Tell us why. Stand up.

    我們相信的同意 那這些行為就變得合理了

  • I think that Parker would be killed with the hope

    否則 在那種情況下

  • that the other crew members would be rescued so there's no

    就會是被迫同意 你這麼認為的

  • definite reason that he should be killed

    還有沒有人覺得 即使Parker同意了

  • because you don't know when they're going to get rescued

    也不能說就有正當理由殺他了? 有誰這樣認為? 你啦

  • so if you kill him, it's killing him in vain,

    告訴我們原因 起立

  • do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued

    我認為 Parker是抱著其他船員

  • and then you're left with no one because someone's going

    可活下來的希望被殺的 所以

  • to die eventually?

    並沒有確切的理由說 他就應該死

  • Well, the moral logic of the situation seems to be that,

    因為你並不知道他們什麼時候才會得救

  • that they would keep on picking off the weakest maybe,

    因此即使你殺了他 也可能是徒勞無功

  • one by one, until they were rescued.

    在被營救之前 你會一直殺船員

  • And in this case, luckily, they were rescued when three at least

    直到一個不剩了嗎? 因為大家最後

  • were still alive. Now, if Parker did give his consent,

    都會死掉

  • would it be all right, do you think or not?

    這個情況下道德邏輯似乎是這樣的

  • - No, it still wouldn't be right. - And tell us why

    他們會逐個殺掉最虛弱的船員

  • it wouldn't be all right.

    一個接著一個 直到他們獲救為止

  • First of all, cannibalism, I believe, is morally incorrect

    在這個案例中 幸運的是 當他們等到救援的時候

  • so you shouldn't be eating human anyway.

    還有三人活著 好 現在如果Parker同意了

  • So cannibalism is morally objectionable as such so then,

    是否就合理了呢 你覺得呢?

  • even on the scenario of waiting until someone died,

    - 不 還是說不通 - 說說你的理由

  • still it would be objectionable.

    為什麼說不通

  • Yes, to me personally, I feel like it all depends

    首先 同類相殘 我覺得在道德層面上就是不對的

  • on one's personal morals and like we can't sit here and just,

    所以你不管怎麼樣都不能吃人類

  • like this is just my opinion, of course other people

    所以這樣來看 同類相殘在道德上講是有傷風化的

  • are going to disagree, but...

    即使 不這麼做就會有人在等待中死去

  • Well we'll see, let's see what their disagreements are

    同類相殘仍然是有悖倫理的

  • and then we'll see if they have reasons that can

    是的 我個人來看 這完全取決於

  • persuade you or not.

    一個人的道德 他們不會只是在那坐等

  • Let's try that. All right.

    這只是我的個人觀點 肯定會有其他人

  • Now, is there someone who can explain,

    來反駁 但是...

  • those of you who are tempted by consent,

    我們來看看 不同意你的人會怎麼說

  • can you explain why consent makes such

    然後再看看他們的理由

  • a moral difference?

    能不能說服你

  • What about the lottery idea? Does that count as consent?

    來試一試 好的

  • Remember at the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery,

    有誰可以解釋一下

  • suppose that they had agreed to a lottery,

    那些被"徵得同意"這件事迷惑的人

  • then how many would then say it was all right?

    你們能否解釋為什麼"徵得同意"可以造成

  • Suppose there were a lottery, cabin boy lost,

    如此大的道德差異?

  • and the rest of the story unfolded, then how many people would say

    那個抓鬮的想法呢? 那算是徵得同意嗎?

  • it was morally permissible?

    記住 在一開始 Dudley提出抓鬮的方法

  • So the numbers are rising if we had a lottery.

    假設他們都同意了這個提議

  • Let's hear from one of you for whom the lottery

    那有多少人會覺得這個提議是可行的?

  • would make a moral difference. Why would it?

    假設說抓鬮之後 見習男孩輸了

  • I think the essential element, in my mind,

    故事的結局我們已經知道了 那麼會有多少人認為

  • that makes it a crime is the idea that they decided

    這在道德上是說得通的?

  • at some point that their lives were more important than his,

    所以如果抓鬮的話 認為可行的人就多了

  • and that, I mean, that's kind of the basis for really any crime.

    讓我們找一個人來說說

  • Right? It's like my needs, my desires are more important

    為什麼抓鬮會造成道德差異?

  • than yours and mine take precedent.

    我覺得一個使這種行為

  • And if they had done a lottery where everyone consented

    成為犯罪最重要的因素是 他們在某種程度上認為

  • that someone should die and it's sort of like they're all

    他們的生命比他的更重要

  • sacrificing themselves to save the rest.

    那就是真正犯罪的基本思想

  • Then it would be all right?

    就像是我的需要 我的慾望

  • - A little grotesque but... - But morally permissible?

    比其他人的都重要 那麼我就該有特權

  • - Yes. - And what's your name?

    如果他們都同意抽籤來決定

  • - Matt. - So Matt, for you,

    某個人需要犧牲 這就像是他們都已準備好

  • what bothers you is not the cannibalism

    犧牲自己來挽救其他人的生命

  • but the lack of due process.

    那就可行了嗎?

  • I guess you could say that.

    - 有點奇怪 但是... - 但是在道德上可以接受?

  • Right? And can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more

    - 是的 - 你叫什麼?

  • about why a lottery would make it, in your view, morally permissible.

    - Matt - 那麼Matt 對於你來說

  • Go ahead.

    困擾你的不是同類相殘的問題

  • The way I understood it originally was that

    而是缺少必要的程序

  • that was the whole issue is that the cabin boy

    我想可以這麼說

  • was never consulted about whether or not

    是吧? 有沒有支持Matt的人再說一下為什麼

  • something was going to happen to him,

    抓鬮可以獲得你們道德上的認可

  • even with the original lottery whether or not

    說吧

  • he would be a part of that, it was just decided

    我一開始理解這件事的方式是

  • that he was the one that was going to die.

    在整個事件中 那個見習男孩

  • Right, that's what happened in the actual case.

    關於有可能在他身上發生的事

  • Right.

    是否一直都沒人過問他的意見

  • But if there were a lottery and they'd all agreed to the procedure,

    即使是會不會抓鬮 他也不知道

  • you think that would be okay?

    是不是會參與其中 他們就自己決定了

  • Right, because then everyone knows that there's going to be a death,

    他就是要犧牲的那個

  • whereas the cabin boy didn't know that this discussion was even happening,

    好的 現實案例中正是如此

  • there was no forewarning for him to know that

  • "Hey, I may be the one that's dying."

    但是如果他們都同意抓鬮

  • All right. Now, suppose everyone agrees

    你認為那樣的話可行嗎?

  • to the lottery, they have the lottery, the cabin boy loses,

    對 因為那時候每個人都知道有個人會犧牲

  • and he changes his mind.

    但是見習男孩不知道曾有這麼個討論

  • You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract.

    沒人提前警告他

  • You can't go back on that, you've decided,

    "嘿 我可能就是那個要犧牲的人"

  • the decision was made.

    好 現在假設每個人都同意

  • If you know that you're dying for the reason of others to live.

    抓鬮 抓鬮之後 見習男孩被抽中了

  • If someone else had died, you know that you would

    但他改變主意了

  • consume them so...

    你們之前已經同意了 就像是口頭協議

  • Right. But then you could say, "I know, but I lost".

    不能毀約 你們已經同意了

  • I just think that that's the whole moral issue

    已經是潑出去的水了

  • is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy

    如果你知道你的死是為了讓其他人活

  • and that's what makes it the most horrible

    如果有別人已經死了 你知道你也會

  • is that he had no idea what was even going on.

    吃掉他們 所以...

  • That had he known what was going on,

    對 但是你可以說"我知道 但是我被抽中了"

  • it would be a bit more understandable.

    我只是覺得這整個事件中

  • All right. Good. Now I want to hear...

    一直都沒有人問過見習男孩的意見

  • so there are some who think it's morally permissible

    那才是最不人道的地方

  • but only about 20%, led by Marcus.

    他甚至對所有這一切一無所知

  • Then there are some who say the real problem here

    如果他知道事情的原委

  • is the lack of consent, whether the lack of consent

    倒還有一點可以理解

  • to a lottery, to a fair procedure or, Kathleen's idea,

    好的 現在我想聽一下...

  • lack of consent at the moment of death.

    所以 還有很多人認為這在道德層面上是可行的

  • And if we add consent, then more people are willing

    但大約只有20% 以Marcus為代表

  • to consider the sacrifice morally justified.

    還有一些人認為真正的問題在於

  • I want to hear now, finally, from those of you

    他們沒有徵求同意 無論是同意抓鬮

  • who think even with consent, even with a lottery,

    同意通過必要的程序來決定 還是 就像Kathleen說的

  • even with a final murmur of consent by Parker,

    在死亡到來時 也沒有徵得同意

  • at the very last moment, it would still be wrong.

    如果他們有徵得同意 那會有多一些人願意

  • And why would it be wrong? That's what I want to hear. Yes.

    考慮這個犧牲在道德層面的合理性

  • Well, the whole time I've been leaning off towards

    我現在想聽一聽 說到底 你們這些認為

  • the categorical moral reasoning and I think that there's a possibility

    即使徵得了同意 即使這是抓鬮的結果

  • I'd be okay with the idea of a lottery

    即使Parker最後模模糊糊同意了犧牲

  • and then the loser taking into their own hands to kill themselves

    但這行為仍然無法在道德層面說通的人的想法

  • so there wouldn't be an act of murder,

    為什麼還是無法說通呢? 我想聽聽你們的意見 請講

  • but I still think that even that way, it's coerced.

    嗯 我一直試圖從絕對道德倫理方面

  • Also, I don't think that there is any remorse,

    想怎樣做才能算合理 我覺得

  • like in Dudley's diary, "We're eating our breakfast,'

    我可能會同意抓鬮的做法

  • it seems as though he's just sort of like, you know,

    抽中的人自己了結自己

  • the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life.

    這樣就沒有謀殺的行為了

  • So that makes me feel like I have to take the...

    但我仍覺得即使是這種辦法 也是強制行為

  • You want to throw the book at him when he lacks remorse

    另外 我覺得他們絲毫沒有感到自責

  • or a sense of having done anything wrong.

    就像Dudley的日記中說的 "我們當時正在吃早餐"

  • Right.

    這聽起來他就像是 你知道

  • So, all right. Good. Are there any other defenders

    完全不尊重他人的生命

  • who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent?

    所以這讓我覺得我必須...

  • Yes. Stand up. Why?

    你恨不得拿書砸他 因為他毫無自責

  • I think undoubtedly the way our society is shaped

    或者說他沒覺得自己做錯了

  • murder is murder.

  • Murder is murder in every way

    所以 好吧 好 有沒有反對者認為

  • and our society looks at murder down on the same light

    不管有沒有徵得同意 這行為絕對是錯的?

  • and I don't think it's any different in any case.

    你吧 請起立 為什麼?

  • Good. Let me ask you a question. There were three lives at stake versus one.

    我想 無須質疑我們的社會準則

  • Okay.

    謀殺就是謀殺

  • The one, the cabin boy, he had no family,

    謀殺怎麼說都是謀殺

  • he had no dependents, these other three had families

    人類社會對於謀殺的定義在本質上是統一的

  • back home in England, they had dependents,

    我覺得在任何情況下謀殺是沒有本質區別的

  • they had wives and children. Think back to Bentham.

    好的 我問你一個問題 現在你可以救三人或者救一人

  • Bentham says we have to consider

  • the welfare, the utility, the happiness of everybody.

    那個見習男孩 他沒有親人

  • We have to add it all up so it's not just numbers,

    他無依無靠 另外三個人都有親人

  • three against one, it's also all of those

    家在英國 他們有親人

  • people at home.

    他們有妻子孩子 再想想Bentham的話

  • In fact, the London newspaper at that time and popular opinion

    Bentham說我們必須考慮

  • sympathized with them, Dudley and Stevens,

    整體的福利 幸福 和帶來的效益

  • and the paper said if they weren't motivated

    我們必須把它們都結合起來看待 這就不僅是數字上

  • by affection and concern for their loved ones at home

    三個對一個了 還有那些

  • and their dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this.

    家人們

  • Yeah and how is that any different

    事實上 當時倫敦的報紙 很有些觀點

  • from people on a corner trying, with the same desire

    在支持他們 Dudley和Stevens

  • to feed their family. I don't think it's any different.

    報紙上說 如果他們不是出於感情原因

  • I think in any case, if I'm murdering you

    不是考慮到家中的親人們

  • to advance my status, that's murder,

    他們肯定不會這麼做

  • and I think that we should look at all that

    是啊 那這和那些

  • in the same light instead of criminalizing

    在角落裡乞討 為了養家餬口的人

  • certain activities and making certain things

    有什麼區別 我覺得沒有區別

  • seem more violently savage when in the same case,

    我覺得任何情況下 如果我為了自己的利益

  • it's all the same, it's all the same act and mentality that goes

    殺你 那就是謀殺

  • into murder, necessity to feed your family so...

    我覺得我們應該對這些事一視同仁

  • Suppose it weren't three, suppose it were 30? 300?

    不該只視某些行為為犯罪

  • One life to save 300? Or in wartime? 3000?

    在同樣的情況下

  • Suppose the stakes are even bigger.

    只把某些行為看做暴力犯罪

  • Suppose the stakes are even bigger?

    都是一樣的 這都是一樣的謀殺行為和心理

  • I think it's still the same deal.

    為了養家餬口就可以...

  • You think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do

    假設當時不止三個人 而有30人? 抑或是300人?

  • is to add up the collective happiness?

    犧牲一條人命去救300個人? 或者是戰爭時期 救3000個人?

  • You think he's wrong about that?

    假設利害關係更明顯一些

  • I don't think he's wrong but I think murder is murder

    利害關係更明顯一些?

  • in any case.

    我覺得還是一回事

  • Well, then Bentham has to be wrong.

    你覺得Benthan說應該考慮整體利益最大化

  • If you're right, he's wrong.

    是錯誤的?

  • Okay, then he's wrong. I'm right.

    你覺得他錯了嗎?

  • All right. Thank you. Well done. All right.

    我覺得他沒錯 但是我覺得謀殺就是謀殺

  • Let's step back from this discussion and notice how many objections

    任何情況下都一樣

  • have we heard to what they did?

    嗯 那Bentham肯定錯了

  • We heard some defenses of what they did.

    如果你是對的 他就錯了

  • The defenses had to do with necessity, their dire circumstance and,

    好吧 那他錯了 我是對的

  • implicitly at least, the idea that numbers matter.

    好吧 謝謝你 說得好 好了

  • And not only numbers matter but the wider effects matter,

    討論告一段落 請注意 我們聽到了多少種對他們行為的

  • their families back home, their dependents.

    反對意見?

  • Parker was an orphan, no one would miss him.

    我們也聽到了一些為他們辯護的聲音

  • So if you add up, if you try to calculate the balance

    支持者會考慮生存需求 他們所處的惡劣環境

  • of happiness and suffering, you might have a case

    還有這個行為將對多少人有影響

  • for saying what they did was the right thing.

    不只是直接受影響的人 之後的廣泛影響也很重要

  • Then we heard at least three different types of objections.

    這個行為影響了他們的家庭 他們的親人

  • We heard an objection that said what they did

    Parker是個孤兒 沒人會想念他

  • was categorically wrong, like here at the end,

    所以如果你結合起來看 你嘗試計算一下

  • categorically wrong, murder is murder,

    這個行為將帶來多少幸福和多少痛苦 你可能就會

  • it's always wrong even if it increases the overall

    說他們做的是對的

  • happiness of society, a categorical objection.

    然後我們聽到了至少三種不同的反對觀點

  • But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong.

    有一種反對觀點認為

  • Is it because even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights?

    他們的行為絕對是錯的 就像最後說的

  • And if that's the reason, where do those rights come from

    絕對錯誤 謀殺就是謀殺

  • if not from some idea of the larger welfare

    無論它是否使整個社會的幸福最大化

  • or utility or happiness?

    它就是錯的 一種無條件的反對

  • Question number one. Others said a lottery

    但我們還得繼續研究 為什麼謀殺從根本上就是錯的

  • would make a difference, a fair procedure Matt said,

    是因為見習男孩有某些基本權利嗎?

  • and some people were swayed by that.

    如果真是這個原因 那如果不是基於

  • That's not a categorical objection exactly.

    對整體社會的福利 效益和幸福的考量

  • It's saying everybody has to be counted as an equal

    何來這些權利?

  • even though at the end of the day, one can be sacrificed

    這是第一個問題 另外有人說抓鬮

  • for the general welfare.

    會不一樣 Matt說那是個公平的程序

  • That leaves us with another question to investigate.

    有些人被這個觀點說服了

  • Why does agreement to a certain procedure,

    這不算是個根本上的反對意見

  • even a fair procedure, justify whatever result flows

    這種觀點認為 每個人都該被一視同仁

  • from the operation of that procedure?

    即使最終 有一個人

  • Question number two. And question number three,

    會為了集體利益而犧牲

  • the basic idea of consent. Kathleen got us on to this.

    這就留給我們另一個問題

  • If the cabin boy had agreed himself, and not under duress, as was added,

    為什麼大家會同意使用某一程序來決定命運

  • then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest

    即使是公平的程序 就能夠讓最後無論得出什麼結果

  • and even more people signed on to that idea.

    都是公正的呢?

  • But that raises a third philosophical question:

    這是第二個問題 還有第三個問題

  • What is the moral work that consent does?

    Kathleen提出的"徵得同意"這件事

  • Why does an act of consent make such a moral difference,

    如果見習男孩自己同意了 不是被脅迫的

  • that an act that would be wrong,

    那殺了他來救其他人就沒問題

  • taking a life without consent, is morally permissible with consent?

    多數人同意這個觀點

  • To investigate those three questions, we're going to have to read

    但那就引出了第三個哲學問題:

  • some philosophers.

    "徵得同意"在道德判斷上起了什麼作用?

  • And starting next time, we're going to read Bentham

    為什麼徵得同意就能有如此大的道德影響

  • and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers.

    如果沒有徵得同意就殺人 就是錯的

  • Don't miss the chance to interact online

    徵得同意後殺人 就可以被道德所允許?

  • with other viewers of Justice. Join the conversation,

    為了探索以上三個問題 我們需要

  • take a pop quiz, watch lectures you've missed

    看看哲學家們的觀點

  • and learn a lot more. Visit JusticeHarvard.org.

    下節課 我們將會探討

  • it's the right thing to do.

    Bentham和John Stuart Mill等功利主義哲學家的觀點

  • Funding for this program is provided by...

    別錯過在網上與其他人

  • Additional funding provided by...

    交流關於公正觀點的機會 去參加討論

  • 做個隨堂小測驗 看看你錯過了的講座

Funding for this program is provided by...

本片由以下企業提供贊助...

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋