Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • Funding for this program is provided by:

    本節目贊助人:

  • Additional funding provided by:

    額外資金贊助提供:

  • This is a course about Justice and we begin with a story

    這是關於正義的一課,我們將用一個故事來開始

  • suppose you're the driver of a trolley car,

    假設你是一位電車駕駛

  • and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at sixty miles an hour

    你的電車正以時速六十公里的速度在軌道上向下奔馳

  • and at the end of the track, you notice five workers working on the track

    在軌道的盡頭,你注意到有五個工人正在這軌道上工作

  • you tried to stop but you can't

    你試著停下來卻沒辦法

  • your brakes don't work

    你的煞車起不了作用

  • you feel desperate because you know

    你感到非常的絕望,因為你知道

  • that if you crash into these five workers

    如果你撞上那五個工人

  • they will all die

    他們會全部身亡

  • let's assume you know that for sure

    讓我們假設你非常確定結果

  • and so you feel helpless

    因此你覺得很無助

  • until you notice that there is

    直到你注意到

  • off to the right

    在右手邊

  • a side track

    軌道有個分岔

  • at the end of that track

    在分岔那軌道的盡頭`

  • there's one worker

    有一個工人

  • working on track

    正在軌道上工作

  • your steering wheel works

    你的方向盤可以控制

  • so you can turn the trolley car if you want to

    所以如果你想的話,你可以把電車轉向

  • onto this side track

    到軌道的另一邊

  • killing the one

    殺死一個人

  • but sparing the five.

    但拯救其他五人

  • Here's our first question

    我們的第一個問題如下:

  • what's the right thing to do?

    你該怎麼做才是正確的?

  • What would you do?

    你會怎麼做?

  • Let's take a poll,

    讓我們來表決一下

  • how many would

    你們有多少人

  • turn the trolley car onto the side track? raise your hand.

    會把電車轉向分岔的軌道?舉手

  • How many wouldn't?

    有多少人不會呢?

  • How many would go straight ahead

    那有多少人會直接撞上去?

  • keep your hands up, those of you who'd go straight ahead.

    你們當中會直接撞上去的人請繼續把手舉著

  • A handful of people would, the vast majority would turn

    少數人會這麼做,絕大多數的人會轉向

  • let's hear first

    讓我們先聽聽

  • now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think it's the right thing to do.

    現在我們需要開始來探討,你們認為這是正確選擇的原因為何

  • Let's begin with those in the majority, who would turn

    讓我們從多數人這方開始,誰會轉向

  • to go onto side track?

    到分岔軌道?

  • Why would you do it,

    你為什麼會這麼做?

  • what would be your reason?

    你這麼做的原因為何?

  • Who's willing to volunteer a reason?

    誰自願說明一個理由?

  • Go ahead, stand up.

    請說,站起來

  • Because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead.

    因為當你可以只殺一個人時,殺害五個人就是不對的

  • it wouldn't be right to kill five

    殺死五個人是不對的

  • if you could kill one person instead

    如果你可以只殺一個人

  • that's a good reason

    這理由很好

  • that's a good reason

    這是一個好理由

  • who else?

    還有其他的嗎?

  • does everybody agree with that reason?

    大家都同意這個理由嗎?

  • Go ahead.

    請說

  • Well I was thinking it was the same reason as it was on 9/11

    我想,911事件當中有類似案例,也是基於相同理由

  • we regard the people who flew the plane

    我們把那些駕駛飛機的人

  • who flew the plane into the

    那些駕飛機衝入

  • Pennsylvania field as heroes

    賓州田野的人當作英雄

  • because they chose to kill the people on the plane

    因為他們選擇犧牲飛機上的乘客

  • and not kill more people in big buildings.

    而非殺害在建築物裡的更多人

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

    所以在911事件中也可看見相同原則

  • it's a tragic circumstance,

    它雖然是個悲劇

  • but better to kill one so that five can live

    但殺死一人,而讓其他五人活下來是較好的

  • is that the reason most of you have, those of you who would turn, yes?

    這就是大多數人持有的理由,也就是那些選擇轉向人們的看法,是嗎?

  • Let's hear now

    現在,讓我們聽聽

  • from those in the minority

    那些少數人的意見

  • those who wouldn't turn. Yes.

    那些不願轉向的人,請說

  • Well I think that's same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism

    嗯,我認為正是這樣的心態合理化了種族屠殺和極權主義

  • in order to save one type of race you wipe out the other.

    為了拯救一個種族而消滅其他種族

  • so what would you do in this case? You would

    所以在這案例中你會怎麼做?你會

  • to avoid

    為了避免

  • the horrors of genocide

    恐怖的種族滅絕

  • you would crash into the five and kill them?

    你會撞死那五人嗎?

  • Presumably yes. You wouldYeah.

    –大概會 –你確定?–是的

  • okay who else?

    好,還有其他人嗎?

  • That's a brave answer, thank you.

    那是一個勇敢的答案,謝謝你

  • Let's consider another

    讓我們思考其他的

  • trolley car case

    電車案例

  • and see whether

    並看看是否

  • those of you in the majority

    那些持多數意見的人

  • want to adhere to the principle,

    會想要繼續堅守這個原則:

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

    「殺一人救五人是比較好的」

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

    這次,你不是電車駕駛,你只是一位旁觀者

  • standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track

    正站在橋上俯瞰著電車軌道

  • and down the track comes a trolley car

    沿著軌道駛來一輛電車

  • at the end of the track are five workers

    軌道盡頭處有五個工人

  • the brakes don't work

    煞車失靈

  • the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them

    電車會直接撞死那五人

  • and now

    現在

  • you're not the driver

    你不是駕駛

  • you really feel helpless

    你真的覺得很無助

  • until you notice

    直到你注意到

  • standing next to you

    你旁邊有個人

  • leaning over the bridge

    正把身體探出橋外

  • is a very fat man.

    他是個非常肥胖的人

  • And you could

    而你可以

  • give him a shove

    推他一把

  • he would fall over the bridge

    他將從橋上墜落

  • onto the track

    掉在軌道上

  • right in the way of the trolley car

    正好擋住電車行進的方向

  • he would die

    他會死

  • but he would spare the five.

    但他可以讓其他五人活下來

  • Now, how many would push

    現在,有多少人會

  • the fat man over the bridge? Raise your hand.

    把那胖男人推出橋樑?請舉手

  • How many wouldn't?

    有多少人不會?

  • Most people wouldn't.

    大部分的人都不會

  • Here's the obvious question, what became of the principal

    這裡有個顯而易見的問題:剛剛的原則怎麼了?

  • better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one, what became of the principal

    「犧牲一人拯救五人比較好」的這條原則

  • that almost everyone endorsed in the first case

    幾乎所有人在第一個案例中支持的原則怎麼了?

  • I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases

    我需要聽聽在兩個案例中都屬於多數意見的人怎麼說

  • how do you explain the difference between the two? yes.

    你如何解釋兩者間的差異?請說

  • The second one I guess involves an active choice of pushing a person down

    在第二個案例中,我認為牽涉到了把人推下去的主動選擇

  • which I guess that

    我猜想

  • that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all

    那人本來可以完全不參與在狀況裡

  • and so

    因此

  • to choose on his behalf I guess to

    用他的角度去想的話,我認為,

  • involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is

    讓他參與在某件他本來可以避免的事情當中

  • I guess more than

    我認為這麼做

  • what you have in the first case where

    跟第一個案例並不相同

  • the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers, are

    第一例裡的三方人馬,也就是駕駛和兩組工人

  • already I guess in this situation.

    他們本身就已經牽涉在情況當中了

  • but the guy working, the one on the track off to the side

    但是那個正在軌道岔路工作的人

  • he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat guy did, did he?

    他和那胖男人一樣,並未選擇犧牲自己,對嗎?

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

    是沒錯,但他當時就在軌道上

  • this guy was on the bridge.

    而胖男人是在橋上

  • Go ahead, you can come back if you want.

    如果你想要的話,可以繼續跟我討論

  • Alright, it's a hard question

    這是個困難的問題

  • but you did well you did very well it's a hard question.

    但你做得不錯,你真的做得很好,這問題真的很難

  • who else

    還有誰

  • can find a way of reconciling the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes?

    誰可以解釋這兩個案例的不同之處?請說

  • Well I guess

    嗯,我想

  • in the first case where

    在第一個案例中

  • you have the one worker and the five

    你有一個工人和其他五位

  • it's a choice between those two,

    這是個兩者擇一的選擇

  • and you have to make a certain choice and people are going to die because of the trolley car

    你必須做出選擇,而總有人要被電車撞死

  • not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is on a runway,

    那和你的直接行為沒有必然關聯;電車在軌道上

  • then you need to make in a split second choice

    你必須在瞬間做出選擇

  • whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part

    然而,把胖男人推下橋對你而言則是一個實際謀殺的動作

  • you have control over that

    你對這個行為有控制力

  • whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.

    但是你對於電車卻是無能為力的

  • So I think that it's a slightly different situation.

    所以我認為兩個例子的情況有些許差別

  • Alright who has a reply? Is that, who has a reply to that? no that was good, who has a way

    很好,誰要回應?誰想回應這說法?剛剛那回答很好,誰有方法回應?

  • who wants to reply?

    誰想回應?

  • Is that a way out of this?

    有什麼其他的說法嗎?

  • I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose

    我不認為那是個好理由,因為你選擇

  • either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill a person which is an act of conscious

    哪種方法都必須決定要讓誰死,你要嘛選擇轉向殺死一個人

  • thought to turn,

    轉向是個有意識的行為

  • or you choose to push the fat man

    或是你選擇推那胖男人一把

  • over which is also an active

    那也是一個主動、

  • conscious action so either way you're making a choice.

    有意識的行為,所以兩種方式你都是在做一個選擇

  • Do you want to reply?

    你想回應嗎?

  • Well I'm not really sure that that's the case, it just still seems kind of different, the act of actually

    嗯,我不是很確定情況是否真是那樣,兩者間看起來還是有些不同,實際去做出行為

  • pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him,

    把某人推到軌道上而導致他死亡

  • you are actually killing him yourself, you're pushing him with your own hands, you're pushing and

    你是真的親手殺了他、用你自己的雙手推了他一把,你推了他

  • than steering something that is going to cause death into another...you know

    而這跟駕駛著即將導致他們死亡的東西是有差別的

  • it doesn't really sound right saying it now when I'm up here.

    不過我現在站在這裡這樣說,聽起來似乎不太對

  • No that's good, what's your name?

    不,那很好,你叫什麼名字?

  • Andrew.

    安德魯

  • Andrew and let me ask you this question Andrew,

    安德魯,讓我請教你這個問題:

  • suppose

    假設

  • standing on the bridge

    我正站在橋上

  • next to the fat man

    身旁有個胖男人

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

    我不需要推他,假設他正站在

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

    一個活門上方,而我可以轉動方向盤去打開它

  • would you turn it?

    你會轉開它嗎?

  • For some reason that still just seems more

    不知道為什麼,這聽起來似乎更

  • more wrong.

    離譜

  • I mean maybe if you just accidentally like leaned into this steering wheel or something like that

    我是說,也許你可能只是意外靠近方向盤、不小心轉開了它之類的

  • or but,

    或者

  • or say that the car is

    或是說那輛車正

  • hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap

    駛向一個會讓活門打開的開關

  • then I could agree with that.

    那我就能同意

  • Fair enough, it still seems

    你說的很有道理,

  • wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn, you say

    在一個案例中轉向似乎沒錯,但在這裡似乎仍然是不對的

  • And in another way, I mean in the first situation you're involved directly with the situation

    換種說法就是:在第一種案例裡你是直接參與在狀況中

  • in the second one you're an onlooker as well.

    在第二個案例中你只是一個旁觀者

  • So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man.

    所以你可以選擇是否要參與其中,關鍵在於要不要推下那胖男人

  • Let's forget for the moment about this case,

    讓我們暫時擱置這個案例

  • that's good,

    這很好

  • but let's imagine a different case. This time you're doctor in an emergency room

    但是讓我們想像一個不同的案例:這次你是個急診室醫生

  • and six patients come to you

    有六個病人來找你

  • they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck

    他們經歷了一場嚴重的電車車禍

  • five of them sustained moderate injuries, one is severely injured. you could spend all day

    其中五人傷勢穩定,最後一人則是重傷。你可以花一整天的時間

  • caring for the one severely injured victim,

    照顧這個重傷病患

  • but in that time the five would die, or you could look after the five, restore them to health, but

    但同時,其他五人會死;或者你可以照顧這五個人,讓他們恢復健康

  • during that time the one severely injured person would die.

    而傷勢嚴重的這個人在這期間將會死亡

  • How many would save the five now as the doctor?

    身為醫生,有多少人會救這五人?

  • How many would save the one?

    有多少人會只救那一個人?

  • Very few people,

    極少數人

  • just a handful of people.

    屈指可數

  • Same reason I assume,

    我猜想理由相同

  • one life versus five.

    「一條命對五條命」?

  • Now consider

    現在考慮一下

  • another doctor case

    另一個醫生案例

  • this time you're a transplant surgeon

    這次你是位移植外科醫生

  • and you have five patients each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive

    你有五個為了生存急需器官移植的病人

  • on needs a heart, one a lung,

    一人需要心臟、一人需要肺

  • one a kidney,

    一人需要腎

  • one a liver

    一人需要肝

  • and the fifth

    第五人則需要

  • a pancreas.

    胰臟

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

    你沒有器官捐贈者,所以你將看著他們死去

  • and then

    接著

  • it occurs to you that in the next room there's a healthy guy who came in for a checkup.

    你想到在另一個房間裡,有個健康的人來做體檢

  • and he is...

    而他

  • you like that

    你看來很喜歡這點子

  • and he's taking a nap

    他正在小睡

  • you could go in very quietly

    你可以非常安靜地走進去

  • yank out the five organs, that person would die

    快速取走五個器官,那人會死

  • but you can save the five.

    但你可以救其他五人

  • How many would do it? Anyone?

    有多少人會這麼做?有人嗎?

  • How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.

    有多少人?會這麼做的人請舉手

  • Anyone in the balcony?

    樓上有人會這麼做嗎?

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

    你會嗎?小心不要把身體探得太出來

  • How many wouldn't?

    有多少人不會這麼做?

  • All right.

    很好

  • What do you say, speak up in the balcony, you who would

    你怎麼說?樓上那位請大聲說出來

  • yank out the organs, why?

    你會去取走器官,為什麼?

  • I'd actually like to explore slightly alternate possibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first, and using their four

    其實我想探討個稍微不同的可能性:要移植的五人之中誰先死了,就取他的其他四個

  • healthy organs to save the other four

    健康器官來救剩下四個人

  • That's a pretty good idea.

    那是個不錯的主意

  • That's a great idea

    那真是個好點子!

  • except for the fact

    唯一的問題是

  • that you just wrecked the philosophical point.

    你破壞了哲學性的糾結點

  • Let's step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things

    讓我們從幾個的案例和爭論之中跳脫出來,去注意一下

  • about the way the arguments have began to unfold.

    有關這些爭論開始展開時的情況

  • Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions we've had

    某些特定的道德原則已經從我們剛才的討論中形成

  • and let's consider

    讓我們來思考

  • what those moral principles look like

    那些道德原則都是怎樣的

  • the first moral principle that emerged from the discussion said

    在討論中出現的第一個道德原則談到:

  • the right thing to do the moral thing to do

    所謂正確、道德的事

  • depends on the consequences that will result from your action

    應當取決於你行為所導致的結果

  • at the end of the day

    最終的結論是:

  • better that five should live

    「犧牲一人、拯救五人」

  • even if one must die.

    是較好的選擇

  • That's an example of consequentialist moral reasoning.

    這就是運用結果論的道德推理範例

  • consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act.

    結果論認為道德與否取決於行為的結果

  • In the state of the world that will result from the thing you do

    取決於你的行為對外界所造成的影響

  • but then we went a little further, we considered those other cases

    但之後當我們繼續深入,考慮了其他的情況後

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

    人們對於結果論的道德推論不再那麼確定

  • when people hesitated

    當人們開始猶豫是否

  • to push the fat man

    要把胖男人

  • over the bridge

    推出橋下

  • or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient

    或是取走一個無辜病人的器官

  • people gestured towards

    人們傾向於

  • reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself.

    判斷行為本身的特質(原因)

  • Consequences be what they may.

    無論結果如何

  • People were reluctant

    人們都會有所猶豫

  • people thought it was just wrong

    認為那就是錯的

  • categorically wrong to kill a person, an innocent person

    殺害一個無辜的人是絕對錯誤的

  • even for the sake

    即便是為了

  • of saving

    拯救