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

  • five lives, at least these people thought that

    五條生命,至少這些人是這麼認為的

  • in the second version of each story we reconsidered

    在每個例子的版本二中,我們都會重新思考

  • so this points

    這顯示出

  • to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning

    第二種絕對主義的道德推理法

  • categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements

    絕對主義的道德推理認為是否道德取決於特定的絕對道德規則

  • in certain categorical duties and rights

    取決於絕對的義務和權利

  • regardless of the consequences.

    而不考慮後果為何

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

    我們會花費幾天到幾週的時間來探討

  • the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.

    結果論和道德絕對主義間的差異

  • The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism,

    結果論中,最具影響力的便是「功利主義」(效益論)

  • a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham,

    這個學說由傑瑞米‧邊沁所提出

  • the eighteenth century English political philosopher.

    他是18世紀的英國政治哲學家

  • The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the

    道德絕對主義裡,最重要的哲學家則是

  • eighteenth century German philosopher Emmanuel Kant.

    18世紀的德國哲學家伊曼努爾‧康德

  • So we will look at

    我們將會著眼

  • those two different modes of moral reasoning

    這兩種不同模式的道德推理

  • assess them

    評定它們

  • and also consider others.

    並考慮其他模式

  • If you look at the syllabus, you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books.

    如果你看過教學大綱,你會注意到我們要讀多本偉大名著

  • Books by Aristotle

    有亞里士多德、

  • John Locke

    約翰‧洛克、

  • Emanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill,

    伊曼努爾‧康德、約翰‧史都華‧彌爾

  • and others.

    以及其他人的著作

  • You'll notice too from the syllabus that we don't only read these books,

    從課綱中你也會發現我們不只閱讀這些著作

  • we also

    我們也

  • take up

    將探討

  • contemporary political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions.

    當代政治、法律爭議所引發的哲學問題

  • We will debate equality and inequality,

    我們會爭辯平等與不平等、

  • affirmative action,

    平權行動、

  • free speech versus hate speech,

    言論自由和仇恨言論、

  • same sex marriage, military conscription,

    同性婚姻、徵兵制度

  • a range of practical questions, why?

    等等現實問題;為什麼呢?

  • not just to enliven these abstract and distant books

    不只是為了讓這些抽象深奧的著作顯得生動

  • but to make clear to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives

    更要弄清楚日常生活裡,什麼才是最關鍵的

  • including our political lives for philosophy.

    包括我們的政治生活哲學

  • So we will read these books

    所以我們將閱讀這些書籍

  • and we will debate these issues

    並針對這些議題進行辯論

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

    我們將看看它們之間如何相互啟發、互相闡釋

  • This may sound appealing enough

    這聽起來或許很吸引人

  • but here

    但是,在此

  • I have to issue a warning,

    我必須事先提醒各位

  • and the warning is this

    那就是:

  • to read these books in this way,

    通過這種方式閱讀這些著作

  • as an exercise in self-knowledge,

    把它當作「自我認知的訓練」

  • to read them in this way carry certain risks

    用這樣的方式閱讀會產生某些風險

  • risks that are both personal and political,

    包括個人風險和政治風險

  • risks that every student of political philosophy has known.

    每位政治哲學系的學生都知道的風險

  • These risks spring from that fact that philosophy

    這些風險來自於一個事實:

  • teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.

    哲學藉由挑戰我們熟知的事物,來教導、動搖我們

  • There's an irony

    這是很諷刺的

  • the difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know.

    這堂課的困難就在於,它教的都是你們已知的事物

  • It works by taking

    它教導你,藉由將

  • what we know from familiar unquestioned settings,

    我們原本熟知無虞的環境

  • and making it strange.

    變得陌生

  • That's how those examples work, worked

    正如剛剛舉的那些例子所做的

  • the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.

    讓你思考那些嚴肅又不乏趣味的假設性問題

  • it's also how these philosophical books work.

    那也是這些哲學著作的進行方式

  • Philosophy estranges us from the familiar

    哲學使我們不再熟悉於原本的環境

  • not by supplying new information

    不是透過提供新的訊息

  • but by inviting

    而是通過引導

  • and provoking

    並且啟發我們

  • a new way of seeing

    用新的方式看問題

  • but, and here's the risk,

    但,這正是風險所在

  • once

    一旦

  • the familiar turns strange,

    原本熟悉的事物變得陌生

  • it's never quite the same again.

    它將再也不會完全相同

  • Self-knowledge

    自我認知

  • is like lost innocence,

    就像失去純真一樣

  • however unsettling, you find it,

    無論你有多不安

  • it can never

    都沒辦法

  • be unthought

    不去思考

  • or unknown

    或是充耳不聞了

  • what makes this enterprise difficult

    使這個過程既困難

  • but also riveting,

    卻又精彩的地方

  • is that

    在於

  • moral and political philosophy is a story

    道德和政治哲學就像是故事一樣

  • and you don't know where this story will lead, but what you do know

    你不知道故事會如何發展,但你確知

  • is that the story

    這個故事

  • is about you.

    與你息息相關

  • Those are the personal risks,

    這些都屬於個人風險

  • now what of the political risks.

    那麼政治風險又是什麼?

  • one way of introducing of course like this

    有一門介紹課程的方法是這樣的:

  • would be to promise you

    向你承諾

  • that by reading these books

    藉由閱讀這些書籍、

  • and debating these issues

    辯論這些議題

  • you will become a better more responsible citizen.

    你將成為一個更有責任感的公民

  • You will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political judgment

    你將審視公共政策的假定前提,你將有更好的政治判斷力

  • you'll become a more effective participant in public affairs

    你將更有效地參與公共事務

  • but this would be a partial and misleading promise

    但這可能是個片面且誤導的承諾

  • political philosophy for the most part hasn't worked that way.

    政治哲學在大多數情況下,不是那樣運作的

  • You have to allow for the possibility

    你必須接受其中一個可能性

  • that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen

    那就是:政治哲學可能使你成為一個更糟的公民

  • rather than a better one,

    而不是更優秀的

  • or at least a worse citizen

    或至少先成為一個糟糕的公民

  • before it makes you a better one.

    而後才成為更優秀的公民

  • and that's because philosophy

    這是因為,哲學是種

  • is a distancing

    使人疏離現實、

  • even debilitating

    甚至弱化行動力

  • activity.

    的活動

  • And you see this

    這可以

  • going back to Socrates

    追溯至蘇格拉底時代

  • there's a dialogue, the Gorgias

    《高爾吉亞篇》中有段對話

  • in which one of Socratesfriends

    蘇格拉底的一個朋友

  • Callicles

    卡利克利斯

  • tries to talk him out

    試圖說服他

  • of philosophizing.

    放棄哲學思考

  • Callicles tells Socrates philosophy is a pretty toy

    卡利克利斯告訴蘇格拉底:「哲學就像是個漂亮的玩具

  • if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life

    如果一個人在正確時間點適度沉浸其中尚可

  • but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin.

    但如果過度耽溺其中,他必走向毀滅」

  • Take my advice Callicles says,

    「聽我勸吧!」卡利克利斯說:

  • abandon argument

    「放棄辯論、

  • learn the accomplishments of active life,

    學習積極參與生活

  • take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles,

    不要效法那些滿口詭辯之人

  • but those who have a good livelihood and reputation

    而要學習那些生活富足、聲名卓著

  • and many other blessings.

    及福澤深厚之人」

  • So Calicles is really saying to Socrates

    卡利克利斯真的要對蘇格拉底說的是:

  • quit philosophizing,

    「放棄哲學、

  • get real

    現實一點

  • go to business school

    去讀商學院吧!」

  • and Callicles did have a point

    卡利克利斯所言的確有道理

  • he had a point

    他點出

  • because philosophy distances us

    哲學會讓我們遠離

  • from conventions from established assumptions

    原本的傳統習俗、既定假設

  • and from settled beliefs.

    和固有信念

  • those are the risks,

    這些都是可能風險

  • personal and political

    個人的和政治上的風險

  • and in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion,

    面對這些風險,有種典型的迴避方式

  • the name of the evasion is skepticism. It's the idea

    這個方式就叫「懷疑論」

  • well it goes something like this

    它大致的概念如下:

  • we didn't resolve, once and for all,

    我們無法一勞永逸地解決問題

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

    不論是我們一開始爭執的案例或是原則皆然

  • and if Aristotle

    況且,若亞里士多德、

  • and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all of these years

    洛克、康德和彌爾多年來都不能解決這些問題

  • who are we to think

    我們又是何德何能

  • that we here in Sanders Theatre over the course a semester

    在桑德斯劇院的這堂課裡,光是花一學期

  • can resolve them

    就能解決它們?

  • and so maybe it's just a matter of

    所以,也許這本就只是

  • each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about it

    仁者見仁、智者見智的事情,沒什麼好多說

  • no way of reasoning

    也沒辦法推理辯證

  • that's the evasion.

    這就是迴避的方法

  • The evasion of skepticism

    懷疑論使用的迴避之法

  • to which I would offer the following

    對此,我提出的

  • reply:

    回應如下:

  • it's true

    的確

  • these questions have been debated for a very long time

    這些問題已被爭論多時

  • but the very fact that they have reoccurred and persisted

    但正因為這些問題持續反覆發生

  • may suggest

    也許表明了

  • that though they're impossible in one sense

    它們一方面難以被解決、

  • their unavoidable in another

    另一方面卻無可避免

  • and the reason they're unavoidable

    而使它們變得無法避免、

  • the reason they're inescapable is that we live

    無法迴避的原因是由於我們

  • some answer to these questions every day.

    每天都處於這些答案所構成的生活之中

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

    因此懷疑論不過只是攤開雙手、放棄道德反思

  • is no solution

    並不是解決之道

  • Emanuel Kant

    伊曼努爾‧康德

  • described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote

    將懷疑論的問題描述得非常好:

  • skepticism is a resting place for human reason

    「懷疑論是人類理性的休息區

  • where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings

    在那裡可以讓人反思武斷的想法

  • but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement.

    但不應該永久停留」

  • Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote,

    康德寫道:「單純順從懷疑論

  • can never suffice to overcome the restless of reason.

    永遠無法滿足對理性的渴望」

  • I've tried to suggest through theses stories and these arguments

    我嘗試藉由這些案例和爭議來啟發

  • some sense of the risks and temptations

    一些風險的觀念

  • of the perils and the possibilities I would simply conclude by saying

    以及吸引人的危險跟可能性,簡而言之

  • that the aim of this course

    這門課的目的

  • is to awaken

    是為了喚醒

  • the restlessness of reason

    對理性的渴望

  • and to see where it might lead

    並看看這麼做會產生什麼結果

  • thank you very much.

    謝謝大家

  • Like, in a situation that desperate,

    在那樣的絕境之中,

  • you have to do what you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do you?

    –你要用必要手段以求生存 –必要的手段?

  • You've gotta do what you gotta do.

    你需做出必要的決斷

  • pretty much, If you've been going nineteen days without any food

    如果你已經19天沒吃東西

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

    總得有人必須做出犧牲,好讓其他人活下來

  • Alright that's good, what's your name? Marcus.

    –你叫什麼名字?–馬可士

  • Marcus, what do you say to Marcus?

    馬可士,其他人對他所言有什麼想法?

  • Last time

    上次

  • we started out last time

    我們的課程開始時

  • with some stories

    以一些故事做為開頭

  • with some moral dilemmas

    談到一些道德兩難

  • about trolley cars

    有電車的例子

  • and about doctors

    還有醫生的例子

  • and healthy patients

    提到健康的病人

  • vulnerable

    被迫

  • to being victims of organ transplantation

    成為器官移植受害者

  • we noticed two things about the arguments we had

    在這些爭辯中我們注意到兩件事:

  • one had to do with the way we were arguing

    其中一點是我們爭論的方式

  • we began with our judgments in particular cases

    我們在各案例中以自身判斷開場

  • we tried to articulate the reasons or the principles

    我們試圖分析背後的理由和原則

  • lying behind our judgments

    來說明我們的判斷

  • and then confronted with a new case

    接著我們面對一個新的案例

  • we found ourselves re-examining those principles

    我們發現自己會重新檢視先前的原則

  • revising each in the light of the other

    並根據情況逐步進行修正

  • and we noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring into alignment

    而後我們發現內心有股壓力試著要讓判斷具有連貫性

  • our judgments about particular cases

    即使是針對不同的案例

  • and the principles we would endorse on reflection

    使我們開始省思自己的理念

  • we also noticed something about the substance of the arguments

    同時我們也注意到了,討論中逐漸顯現出

  • that emerged from the discussion.

    問題的本質

  • We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences

    我們發現,有時我們傾向於依據行為所產生的後果

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

    以及它對外界的影響去判斷它是否道德

  • We called is consequentialist

    我們稱之為結果論

  • moral reason.

    道德推理

  • But we also noticed that

    但我們也發現到

  • in some cases

    在某些例子中

  • we weren't swayed only by the results

    不只是結果才能影響我們

  • sometimes,

    有時

  • many of us felt,

    我們覺得

  • that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act

    除了結果之外,行為的道德本質或特性

  • matters morally.

    也很重要

  • Some people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong

    有些人認為某些行為就是絕對錯誤的

  • even if they bring about

    即使該行為帶來了

  • a good result

    好的結果

  • even

    就算

  • if they save five people

    可救五人性命

  • at the cost of one life.

    而用一人的性命當代價

  • So we contrasted consequentialist

    因此,我們比較了結果論

  • moral principles

    道德推理

  • with categorical ones.

    以及道德絕對論的說法

  • Today

    今天

  • and in the next few days

    和接下來的幾天裡,

  • we will begin to examine one of the most influential

    我們將會開始分析結果論中

  • versions of consequentialist moral theory

    最具影響力的一個版本

  • and that's the philosophy of utilitarianism.

    也就是功利主義(效益論)的哲學

  • Jeremy Bentham,

    傑瑞米‧邊沁

  • the eighteenth century

    十八世紀的

  • English political philosopher

    英國政治哲學家

  • gave first

    第一個

  • the first clear systematic expression

    系統化地表述

  • to the utilitarian

    功利主義

  • moral theory.

    道德理論

  • And Bentham's idea,

    邊沁的觀點

  • his essential idea

    他的核心觀點

  • is a very simple one

    非常簡單

  • with a lot of morally intuitive appeal.

    有著十分直觀的訴求

  • Bentham's idea is

    邊沁的想法

  • the following

    如下:

  • the right thing to do

    「正確的事情、

  • the just thing to do

    正義的事情

  • it's to

    就是要

  • maximize utility.

    將效益最大化」

  • What did he mean by utility?

    他指的效益為何?

  • He meant by utility the balance

    他指的效益是在衡量之後,

  • of pleasure over pain,

    快樂勝過痛苦

  • happiness over suffering.

    幸福勝過受苦

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

    他是如此推論出效益最大化原則的

  • He started out by observing

    他開始從觀察中發現到

  • that all of us

    我們所有人

  • all human beings

    所有的人類

  • are governed by two sovereign masters,

    都被兩個關鍵所主導:

  • pain and pleasure.

    痛苦和歡愉

  • We human beings

    我們人類

  • like pleasure and dislike pain

    喜歡快樂、不喜歡痛苦

  • and so we should base morality

    所以我們的道德應該立基於利益

  • whether we are thinking of what to do in our own lives

    不管是我們在做人生抉擇時

  • or whether

    或是

  • as legislators or citizens

    以公民和民代的角度去

  • we are thinking about what the law should be,

    思考如何訂立法律

  • the right thing to do individually or collectively

    無論是對個體或團體而言,所謂正確行為

  • is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes

    都應該

  • the overall level of happiness.

    以整體快樂最大化為目標

  • Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan

    邊沁的功利主義有時會被簡化成一句口號:

  • the greatest good for the greatest number.

    「最多數人的最大幸福」

  • With this basic principle of utility on hand,

    在掌握基本的功利概念之後

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

    讓我們試著開始測試、檢驗它

  • by turning to another case

    我們要看到另一個案例

  • another story but this time

    但是這個故事

  • not a hypothetical story,

    並不是一個假設的故事

  • a real-life story

    而是真實發生的事件

  • the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens.

    我們要談的是:「英國女王訴杜德利與史帝芬斯案」

  • This was a nineteenth-century British law case

    這是十九世紀的英國法律案件

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

    它在法學院非常有名、被反覆辯論過

  • Here's what happened in the case

    接下來是案例發生經過

  • I'll summarize the story

    我將長話短說

  • and then I want to hear

    然後我想聽聽看

  • how you would rule

    你們會如何判決?

  • imagining that you are the jury.

    把自己想像成陪審團

  • A newspaper account of the time

    當時的新聞報導

  • described the background:

    描述案件背景如下:

  • A sadder story of disaster at sea was never told

    從來沒有什麼故事

  • than that of the survivors of the yacht Mignonette.

    比「木樨草號」倖存者所歷經的災難更哀傷了

  • The ship foundered in the south Atlantic

    此艘船在南大西洋上

  • thirteen hundred miles from the cape

    距岬角約1300英里處被尋獲

  • there were four in the crew,

    船上有四名船員

  • Dudley was the captain

    船長是杜德利

  • Stephens was the first mate

    大副是史帝芬斯

  • Brooks was a sailor,

    水手是布魯克斯

  • all men of excellent character,

    每個人都品格高尚

  • or so the newspaper account tells us.

    (至少報紙是這樣說的)

  • The fourth crew member was the cabin boy,

    第四名成員是船上的服務生

  • Richard Parker

    理查.帕克

  • seventeen years old.

    他十七歲

  • He was an orphan

    是個孤兒

  • he had no family

    沒有任何家人

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

    那是他的第一次的海上長途旅行

  • He went, the news account tells us,

    根據報紙的報導

  • rather against the advice of his friends.

    即便朋友並不贊成

  • He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition

    他仍帶著希望和青春的抱負出發

  • thinking the journey would make a man of him.

    以為那趟旅程將可以讓他成為真正的男子漢

  • Sadly it was not to be,

    很遺憾的是

  • the facts of the case were not in dispute,

    結果證明,事與願違

  • a wave hit the ship

    一道大浪打向船

  • and the Mignonette went down.

    將「木樨草號」擊沉

  • The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat

    四名船員乘坐救生艇逃了出來

  • the only food they had

    他們唯一有的食物

  • were two cans of preserved turnips

    是兩罐醃蘿蔔

  • no fresh water

    沒有清水

  • for the first three days they ate nothing

    起初三天他們什麼都沒吃

  • on the fourth day that opened one of the cans of turnips

    第四天他們打開了一罐醃蘿蔔

  • and ate it.

    吃完了它

  • The next day they caught a turtle

    第二天他們抓到了一隻烏龜

  • together with the other can of turnips

    搭配著另一罐醃蘿蔔

  • the turtle

    烏龜肉

  • enabled them to subsist

    讓他們撐過

  • for the next few days and then for eight days

    接下來的幾天,而後來的八天

  • they had nothing

    他們什麼也沒吃

  • no food no water.

    沒有食物、沒有飲水

  • Imagine yourself in a situation like that

    想像一下,如果你身處那種情況

  • what would you do?

    你會怎麼做?

  • Here's what they did

    這是他們的做法:

  • by now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in a corner

    理查.帕克當時躺在船底,奄奄一息地縮在角落

  • because he had drunk sea water

    因為他不顧他人建議

  • against the advice of the others

    自顧自喝下了海水

  • and he had become ill

    他生病了

  • and he appeared to be dying

    而且看起來快死了

  • so on the nineteenth day Dudley, the captain, suggested

    所以,在第十九天時,船長杜德利建議

  • that they should all have a lottery.

    大家應該要來抽籤

  • That they should all draw lots to see

    他們必須要抽籤決定

  • who would die

    誰要犧牲

  • to save the rest.

    好讓其他人活下來

  • Brooks

    布魯克斯

  • refused

    拒絕了

  • he didn't like the lottery idea

    他不喜歡抽籤的點子

  • we don't know whether this

    我們不知道那是因為

  • was because he didn't want to take that chance or because he believed in

    他不想要冒險,或是因為他相信

  • categorical moral principles

    絕對的道德原則

  • but in any case

    但不論如何

  • no lots were drawn.

    最後並沒有抽籤

  • The next day

    隔天

  • there was still no ship in sight

    還是沒有任何船隻的蹤影

  • so a Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze

    所以杜德利叫布魯克斯挪開視線

  • and he motioned to Stephens

    然後對史帝芬斯比出手勢

  • that the boy Parker had better be killed.

    表示應該殺死理查‧帕克

  • Dudley offered a prayer

    杜德利唸了禱告、

  • he told a the boy his time had come

    告訴那男孩時候到了

  • and he killed him with a pen knife

    而後用一把小刀殺死了他

  • stabbing him in the jugular vein.

    刺穿他的頸靜脈

  • Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty.

    布魯克斯克服了自己良心上的抗拒,和他們分享了這次的戰果

  • For four days

    接下來的四天

  • the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy.

    倖存的三人靠著這男孩的血肉存活

  • True story.

    這是真實故事

  • And then they were rescued.

    而後他們獲救了

  • Dudley describes their rescue

    杜德利敘述了獲救的過程

  • in his diary

    在他的日記中

  • with staggering euphemism, quote:

    他委婉地表示:

  • "on the twenty fourth day

    「在第二十四天,

  • as we were having our breakfast

    當我們正在吃『早餐』時,

  • a ship appeared at last."

    一艘船終於出現」

  • The three survivors were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back to Falmouth in England

    這三名倖存者被德國船隻救起,並被帶回英國

  • where they were arrested and trialed

    在法爾茅斯被逮捕、起訴

  • Brooks

    布魯克斯

  • turned state's witness

    轉為污點證人

  • Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They didn't dispute the facts

    杜德利和史蒂芬斯則接受審判;他們並未爭辯事實

  • they claimed

    他們宣稱:

  • they had acted out of necessity

    他們是出於必要而行事

  • that was their defense

    那是他們的抗辯

  • they argued in effect

    他們爭辯說

  • better that one should die

    一人犧牲、拯救其他三人

  • so that three could survive

    是比較好的

  • the prosecutor

    而檢察官

  • wasn't swayed by that argument

    並沒有被這種說法動搖

  • he said murder is murder

    他認為,謀殺就是謀殺

  • and so the case went to trial. Now imagine you are the jury

    於是案子進入審理程序;現在,想像你們是陪審團

  • and just to simplify the discussion

    為了簡化討論內容

  • put aside the question of law,

    不要考慮法律層面的問題

  • and let's assume that

    讓我們假設

  • you as the jury

    你身為陪審團一員

  • are charged with deciding

    擁有權利去決定

  • whether what they did was morally

    他們是否道德?

  • permissible or not.

    在道德上能否被接受?

  • How many

    有多少人

  • would vote

    會投下

  • not guilty, that what they did was morally permissible?

    「無罪」,認為他們的行為在道德上可被接受?

  • And how many would vote guilty

    又有多少人會投「有罪」

  • what they did was morally wrong?

    認為他們做的事違背道德?

  • A pretty sizable majority.

    絕大多數人覺得有罪

  • Now let's see what people's reasons are, and let me begin with those who are in the minority.

    讓我們從少數意見開始,來聽聽看大家的理由

  • Let's hear first from the defense

    讓我們首先來聽聽

  • of Dudley and Stephens.

    為杜德利和史帝芬斯辯解的說法

  • Why would you morally exonerate them?

    你為何覺得他們在道德上可被接受

  • What are your reasons?

    你的理由是什麼?

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

    我覺得他們在道德上該被譴責

  • but I think that there's a distinction between what's morally reprehensible

    但我認為道德層面該被譴責

  • what makes someone legally accountable

    不代表需要背負法律責任

  • in other words as the judge said what's always moral isn't necessarily

    換句話說,就如法官所言,不道德的事不見得違法

  • against the law and while I don't think that necessity

    雖然我不覺得他們所說的「必要性」

  • justifies

    可以合理化

  • theft or murder any illegal act,

    偷竊、殺人等等任何罪行

  • at some point your degree of necessity does in fact

    但就某種程度上而言

  • exonerate you form any guilt. ok.

    –必要性的確會使你無罪 –好的

  • other defenders, other voices for the defense?

    有其他的辯護說法嗎?

  • Moral justifications for

    有道德方面的

  • what they did?

    辯護說法嗎?

  • yes, thank you

    是的,謝謝你

  • I just feel like

    我只是覺得

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

    你要用必要手段以求生存

  • You have to do what you have to do

    必要的手段?

  • ya, you gotta do what you gotta do, pretty much.

    對,你要做出必要的行為,就是那樣

  • If you've been

    如果你已經

  • going nineteen days without any food

    19天沒吃任何東西

  • you know someone just has to take the sacrifice has to make sacrifices and people can survive

    總得有人必須做出犧牲,好讓其他人活下來

  • and furthermore from that

    此外,

  • let's say they survived and then they become productive members of society who go home and then start like

    假設他們活下來以後,成為社會上有產出貢獻的人

  • a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that, I mean they benefit everybody in the end so

    可能回家後創辦了百萬個慈善機構等等之類的,造福所有人

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

    我的意思是,我並不知道他們之後做了什麼,他們也可能

  • gone on and killed more people

    出去殺了更多人

  • but whatever.

    不過…

  • what? what if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?

    –你說什麼?–萬一他們回家後成為殺手呢?

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

    萬一他們回家後成為殺手呢?

  • You would want to know who they assassinated.

    你會想知道他們殺了誰

  • That's true too, that's fair

    的確,那很正常

  • I would wanna know who they assassinated.

    我會想知道他們殺了誰

  • alright that's good, what's your name? Marcus.

    –很好,說得很不錯,你叫什麼名字? –馬可士

  • We've heard a defense

    我們已經聽過辯方說法

  • a couple voices for the defense

    聽了幾個為他們辯護的聲音

  • now we need to hear

    現在我們需要聽聽

  • from the prosecution

    控方的說法

  • most people think

    大部分人覺得

  • what they did was wrong, why?

    他們做的是錯的,為什麼呢?

  • One of the first things that I was thinking was, oh well if they haven't been eating for a really long time,

    我第一個想到的是,他們已經很久沒有進食

  • maybe

    或許

  • then

    可以辯解說

  • they're mentally affected

    他們「身心受到摧殘」

  • that could be used for the defense,

    這可以成為辯護的理由

  • a possible argument that oh,

    一種可能的論點是

  • that they weren't in a proper state of mind, they were making

    他們當下已經神智不清,如果清醒便不會那麼做

  • decisions that they otherwise wouldn't be making, and if that's an appealing argument

    而如果這個說法可行

  • that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that it suggests that

    就表示我們必須要在異常的心智狀態才能做出這種決定

  • people who find that argument convincing

    接受這論點的人

  • do you think that they're acting immorally. But I want to know what you think you're defending

    –確實會認為他們的行為是不道德的 –但我想知道替他們辯護的你是怎麼想的?

  • you voted…I’m sorryyou voted to convict right? yeah I don't think that they acted in morally

    –抱歉,你是投他們有罪,對吧? –的確,我不認為他們所作所為在道德上是正確的

  • appropriate way. And why not? What do you say, Here's Marcus

    為什麼不道德呢? 這是馬可士

  • he just defended them,

    他剛剛替他們辯護

  • he said,

    他說

  • you heard what he said,

    你們都聽到他說了什麼

  • yes I did

    我聽到了

  • yes

  • that you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that.

    危急時刻你應該為所當為

  • What do you say to Marcus?

    你要怎麼回應馬可士?

  • They didn't,

    他們不行…

  • that there is no situation that would allow human beings to take

    無論任何情況,人類都不該有那種想法

  • the idea of fate or the other people's lives into their own hands that we don't have

    不應該掌握他人的命運或生殺大權

  • that kind of power.

    我們沒有那種權力

  • Good, okay

    很好

  • thank you, and what's your name?

    謝謝,你叫什麼名字?

  • Britt? okay.

    布麗特 好的

  • who else?

    還有誰?

  • What do you say? Stand up

    你說什麼?請起立

  • I'm wondering if Dudley and Stephens had asked for Richard Parker's consent in, you know, dying,

    我想知道杜德利和史帝芬斯有沒有徵求理查‧帕克的同意(被殺的意願)?

  • if that would

    這樣是否

  • would that exonerate them

    可以讓他們免除謀殺罪?

  • from an act of murder, and if so is that still morally justifiable?

    這樣是否可以在道德上說的過去?

  • That's interesting, alright consent, now hang on, what's your name? Kathleen.

    –這說法很有趣,「雙方合意」…等等,你叫什麼? –凱瑟琳

  • Kathleen says suppose so what would that scenario look like?

    凱瑟琳說「假設他們徵得同意了」故事會變成怎樣的場景?

  • so in the story

    所以如果在故事中

  • Dudley is there, pen knife in hand,

    杜德利在那裡,手握小刀

  • but instead of the prayer

    卻沒有禱告

  • or before the prayer,

    或可能在禱告前

  • he says, Parker,

    他說:「帕克,

  • would you mind

    你會不會介意……

  • we're desperately hungry,

    因為我們快餓死了

  • as Marcus empathizes with

    (就像馬可士所強調的)

  • we're desperately hungry

    我們餓得快要死掉了

  • you're not going to last long anyhow,

    而你也不會活太久… 」

  • you can be a martyr,

    你可以成為一位烈士

  • would you be a martyr

    「你是否願意成為烈士犧牲

  • how about it Parker?

    帕克,你覺得怎樣?」

  • Then, then

    那麼

  • then what do you think, would be morally justified then? Suppose

    你怎麼想?那樣可以讓行為變得道德嗎?

  • Parker

    假設帕克

  • in his semi-stupor

    在半昏迷中

  • says okay

    說了「可以」

  • I don't think it'll be morally justifiable but I'm wondering. Even then, even then it wouldn't be? No

    –我還是不認為這是道德上可以被接受的 –即使這樣你也不認同? –不

  • You don't think that even with consent

    你認為即使對方同意

  • it would be morally justified.

    這在道德上還是不正確?

  • Are there people who think

    還有誰也這麼認為?

  • who want to take up Kathleen's

    誰願意繼續接續

  • consent idea

    凱瑟琳的「合意」說法?

  • and who think that that would make it morally justified? Raise your hand if it would

    有沒有人覺得那樣一來,行為就會變得道德?

  • if you think it would.

    如果你認同的話請舉手

  • That's very interesting

    非常有趣

  • Why would consent

    為什麼「同意」

  • make a moral difference? Why would it?

    會產生道德上的差異呢?為什麼?

  • Well I just think that if he was making his own original idea

    我認為如果這是他自己原本的意思

  • and it was his idea to start with

    一開始就是他自己產生的想法

  • then that would be the only situation in which I would

    這才是唯一一種我可以認同的情況

  • see it being appropriate in anyway because that way you couldn't make the argument that

    因為在其他狀況下,你都可以說他被施壓

  • he was pressured you know it’s three

    當時有三比一的壓力

  • to one or whatever the ratio was,

    其實不管比例如何都會有壓力

  • and I think that

    我認為

  • if he was making a decision to give his life then he took on the agency

    如果那是他的選擇、他決定犧牲自己的生命

  • to sacrifice himself which some people might see as admirable and other people

    也許某些人會覺得那樣的犧牲值得敬佩

  • might disagree with that decision.

    其他人則有可能不同意他的決定

  • So if he came up with the idea

    但如果這是他想出來的點子

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

    就能成為我們唯一認可的合意

  • morally, then it would be okay

    在道德上可以接受的看法

  • otherwise

    否則

  • it would be kind of coerced consent

    其他的都會被認為是強迫的合意

  • under the circumstances

    是被情境強迫的合意

  • you think.

    你是這麼想的

  • Is there anyone who thinks

    有沒有任何人認為

  • that the even the consent of Parker

    即使有了帕克的同意

  • would not justify

    也無法合理化

  • their killing him?

    他們殺死他的行為?

  • Who thinks that?

    有嗎?

  • Yes, tell us why, stand up

    請站起來,告訴我們為什麼

  • I think that Parker

    我認為帕克

  • would be killed

    會被殺

  • with the hope that the other crew members would be rescued so

    是希望其他的船員有一天會獲救

  • there's no definite reason that he should be killed

    沒有絕對的理由必須殺害他

  • because you don't know

    因為你不知道他們什麼時候會獲救

  • when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him you're killing him in vain

    所以殺害他也是白費力氣

  • do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued and then you're left with no one?

    難道你在獲救前要不停殺人、將船員殺的一個不剩嗎?

  • because someone's going to die eventually?

    反正有人會死就一直殺人?

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

    這個狀況的道德邏輯似乎的確如此

  • That they would

    他們會

  • keep on picking off the weakest maybe, one by one,

    持續挑選最弱的那個,一個接一個的殺

  • until they were

    直到他們獲救為止

  • rescued and in this case luckily when three at least were still alive.

    而在此案中,他們在尚有三人存活的時候便幸運獲救了

  • Now if

    現在

  • if Parker did give his consent

    如果帕克確實同意了

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

    你覺得殺了他會是正確的嗎?

  • No, it still wouldn't be right.

    不會,殺人仍是錯的

  • Tell us why wouldn't be all right.

    告訴我們為什麼你覺得那不對

  • First of all, cannibalism, I believe

    首先,我相信,自相殘殺

  • is morally incorrect

    是不道德的

  • so you shouldn’t be eating a human anyway.

    所以你無論如何都不該吃人

  • So

    所以

  • cannibalism is morally objectionable outside

    自相殘殺無論如何都是不對的

  • so then even in the scenario

    即使是在那樣的情境下

  • of waiting until someone died

    等待某人死掉再吃掉他

  • still it would be objectionable.

    吃人依舊會是錯誤的?

  • Yes, to me personally

    至少我個人是這麼認為的

  • I feel like of

    我認為

  • it all depends on

    那應該根據

  • one's personal morals, like we can't just, like this is just my opinion

    個人的道德判斷,例如「我們就是不能那樣做」,這只是我個人的看法

  • of course other people are going to disagree.

    其它人當然可以不同意我

  • Well let's see, let's hear what their disagreements are

    恩,我們可以聽聽他們為何不同意

  • and then we'll see

    然後我們可以看看

  • if they have reasons

    他們的理由

  • that can persuade you or not.

    是否可以說服你

  • Let's try that

    我們可以試試看

  • Let's

    讓我們看看

  • now is there someone

    現在,你們當中有誰

  • who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent

    可以解釋你們被「同意與否」改變心意的原因?

  • can you explain

    你們可以解釋

  • why consent makes

    為什麼「同意」會造成

  • such a moral difference,

    道德上如此大的差異嗎?

  • what about the lottery idea

    那麼抽籤呢?

  • does that count as consent. Remember at the beginning

    這算不算某種程度的合意? 請記得一開始

  • Dudley proposed a lottery

    杜德利有提議抽籤,

  • suppose that they had agreed

    假設他們都同意

  • to a lottery

    抽籤了

  • then

    那麼

  • how many would then say

    有多少人會說

  • it was all right. Say there was a lottery,

    這是可以接受的? 假設抽籤的結果

  • cabin boy lost,

    是服務生抽到了

  • and the rest of the story unfolded. How many people would say it's morally permissible?

    接著發生了前面說到的故事,有多少人會認為這是道德上可以接受的?

  • So the numbers are rising if we add a lottery, let's hear from one of you

    如果有抽籤的話,看來接受的人數增加了,讓我們來聽聽看那些

  • for whom the lottery would make a moral difference

    認為抽籤造成差別的人

  • why would it?

    為什麼呢?

  • I think the essential

    我認為關鍵的

  • element,

    因素

  • in my mind that makes it a crime is

    在我心中可以達成犯罪條件之處

  • the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his, and that

    在於他們決定眾人的生命比男孩來得重要

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

    我認為這是任何犯罪的基礎

  • right? It's like

    沒錯吧?就像是:

  • my needs, my desire is a more important than yours and mine take precedent

    「我的需要、我的慾望比起你而言更重要,所以應該優先考慮」

  • and if they had done a lottery were everyone consented

    而如果他們在眾人同意之下抽籤

  • that someone should die

    決定某人應該犧牲

  • and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves,

    這代表他們都同意應該犧牲自己

  • to save the rest,

    拯救其它人

  • Then it would be all right?

    那麼,這樣就合理了嗎?

  • A little grotesque but,

    有些血腥

  • But morally permissible? Yes.

    –但道德上可以接受? –是的

  • what's your name? Matt.

    –你叫什麼名字? –麥特

  • so, Matt for you

    所以,對於麥特你來說

  • what bothers you is not

    困擾你的並不是自相殘殺

  • the cannibalism, but the lack of due process.

    而是缺乏正當的過程

  • I guess you could say that

    就是這樣

  • And can someone who agrees with Matt

    有沒有同意麥特意見的人

  • say a little bit more

    可以解釋更多?

  • about why

    為什麼

  • a lottery

    「抽籤」

  • would make it, in your view,

    以你的看法而言能夠讓行為

  • morally permissible.

    在道德上可被接受?

  • The way I understood it originally was that that was the whole issue is that the cabin boy was never

    就我的看法,這件事一開始關鍵在於這服務生的意見完全

  • consulted

    沒被考慮

  • about whether or not it something was going to happen to him even though with the original

    即使是最一開始都沒有問他

  • lottery

    要不要抽籤

  • whether or not he would be a part of that it was just decided

    不管他的意見就決定了

  • that he was the one that was going to die. Yes that's what happened in the actual case

    –決定他是要犧牲的那一個 –沒錯,在真實案例裡面就是這樣

  • but if there were a lottery and they all agreed to the procedure

    但如果抽籤的前提是大家都同意

  • you think that would be okay?

    你認為這樣就可以了嗎?

  • Right, because everyone knows that there's gonna be a death

    沒錯,因為每個人都知道會有人犧牲

  • whereas

    然而

  • you know the cabin boy didn't know that

    因為服務生甚至不知道

  • this discussion was even happening

    有這樣的討論在進行

  • there was no

    當時並沒有

  • you know forewarning

    任何事先警告

  • for him to know that hey, I may be the one that's dying. Okay, now suppose the everyone agrees

    –讓他知道「我可能就是犧牲的那一個」 –好的,那麼假設每個人都同意了

  • to the lottery they have the lottery the cabin boy loses any changes his mind.

    抽籤之後抽到男孩,然後他反悔了

  • You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract, you can't go back on that. You've decided the decision was made

    你已經同意了,就像是口頭約定一樣,既然決定就不能反悔下了決定

  • you know if you know you're dying for the reason for at others to live,

    如果你了解你的犧牲是為了讓其它人活下去

  • you would, you know

    你知道…

  • if the someone else had died

    如果別人死了

  • you know that you would consume them, so

    你也會吃他們的血肉

  • But then he could say I know, but I lost.

    但是你當然可以說,「我都清楚,但抽到的是我。」

  • I just think that that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy and that that's

    我只是認為整個道德判斷的關鍵,是在於沒有人問過當事人意見

  • what makes it the most horrible

    這才是最恐怖的地方

  • is that he had no idea what was even going on, that if he had known what was going on

    他根本不知道最後會發生什麼事情,如果他知道會發生什麼事情

  • it would

    那樣一來

  • be a bit more understandable.

    至少比較可以了解

  • Alright, good, now I want to hear

    好,很好,我想聽聽…

  • so there's some who think

    有些人認為

  • it's morally permissible

    這道德上可以接受

  • but only about twenty percent,

    但大概只有大約20%

  • led by Marcus,

    和馬可士一樣的意見

  • then there are some who say

    然後有些人認為

  • the real problem here

    真正的問題是在:

  • is the lack of consent

    「是否缺少了合意基礎」

  • whether the lack of consent to a lottery to a fair procedure

    無論是缺少合意的抽籤或缺少合意的公平流程

  • or

    或是

  • Kathleen's idea,

    如凱瑟琳所言

  • lack of consent

    缺乏合意的

  • at the moment

    死亡

  • of death

    時刻

  • and if we add consent

    接著我們加上了合意基礎

  • then

    如此一來

  • more people are willing to consider

    有更多人會認為

  • the sacrifice morally justified.

    犧牲是道德的

  • I want to hear now finally

    最後我想聽聽

  • from those of you who think

    你們當中有誰覺得:

  • even with consent

    即便有合意基礎、

  • even with a lottery

    即便是用抽籤、

  • even with

    即便

  • a final

    謀殺

  • murmur of consent from Parker

    經過帕克的同意

  • at the

  • very last moment

    最後一刻他同意了

  • it would still

    這件事仍然

  • be wrong

    是錯的

  • and why would it be wrong

    又,為什麼這是錯的呢?

  • that's what I want to hear.

    這是我想要聽到的

  • well the whole time

    從頭到尾

  • I've been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning

    我都比較傾向認同絕對的道德理論

  • and I think that

    同時我覺得

  • there's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea of the lottery and then loser

    也有一絲絲可能我會接受抽籤,然後被抽到的人

  • taking into their own hands to

    可以用自己的雙手

  • kill themselves

    自我了斷

  • so there wouldn't be an act of murder but I still think that

    如此一來就不算是謀殺了,但我仍然覺得

  • even that way it's coerced and also I don't think that there's any remorse like in

    即便是那樣都做仍有脅迫意味

  • Dudley's diary

    杜德利的日記中

  • we're getting our breakfast

    提到「正當我們吃早餐時」

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

    看起來他似乎

  • you know that whole idea of not valuing someone else's life

    似乎一點也不珍惜別人的性命

  • so that makes me

    那讓我

  • feel like I have to take the categorical stance. You want to throw the book at him.

    –認為我應該站在絕對的道德立場 –你想把書丟在他頭上?

  • when he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong. Right.

    –因為他一點也不後悔做錯事? –沒錯

  • Alright, good so are there any other

    很好,有任何其它的

  • defenders who

    辯護者嗎?

  • who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent, yes stand up. Why?

    誰認為不管有無眾人合意,這在道德上都是絕對錯誤的? 好,請站起來,為什麼?

  • I think undoubtedly the way our society is shaped, murder is murder

    我認為我們社會的定義中,毫無疑問的,謀殺就是謀殺

  • murder is murder and every way our society looks down at it in the same light

    無論從什麼角度看,謀殺都是謀殺,我們的社會用同樣的角度評斷謀殺

  • and I don't think it's any different in any case. Good now let me ask you a question,

    –我不認為在任何情況下的謀殺會有差異 –很好,讓我問你一個問題

  • there were three lives at stake

    現在有三個人的性命危在旦夕

  • versus one,

    對上一個人

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

    這個男孩沒有家庭

  • he had no dependents,

    他沒有家屬

  • these other three had families back home in England they had dependents

    其它三個人都有家庭,他們在英國都有家庭

  • they had wives and children

    他們家有妻小

  • think back to Bentham,

    回頭想想邊沁的說法

  • Bentham says we have to consider

    邊沁說我們必須要考量

  • the welfare, the utility, the happiness

    每個人的利益、福祉與幸福

  • of everybody. We have to add it all up

    我們必須把它們都加起來

  • so it's not just numbers three against one

    不只是數字,不只是三對一

  • it's also all of those people at home

    更是所有家屬加起來對上一個人

  • in fact the London newspaper at the time

    事實上,當年的倫敦報紙

  • and popular opinion sympathized with them

    和主流民意其實同情

  • Dudley and Stephens

    杜德利和史帝芬斯

  • and the paper said if they weren't

    報紙還說,如果他們不是

  • motivated

    因為

  • by affection

    「愛家之心」

  • and concern for their loved ones at home and dependents, surely they wouldn't have

    關心家鄉的親人和家屬,他們絕對不會那樣做

  • done this. Yeah, and how is that any different from people

    是啦,但這樣又有何差異?

  • on the corner

    他們的「愛家之心」

  • trying to having the same desire to feed their family, I don't think it's any different. I think in any case

    就像是困苦的家庭想養活自己一樣,我認為兩者毫無差異;我認為不管怎麼說

  • if I'm murdering you to advance my status, that's murder and I think that we should look at all

    如果我殺了你只是為了讓自己過得更好,這就是謀殺;我認為我們都應該

  • of that in the same light. Instead of criminalizing certain

    一視同仁地思考、公平的對待;而不是汙名化

  • activities

    特定行為

  • and making certain things seem more violent and savage

    讓某些行為看來更野蠻殘暴

  • when in that same case it's all the same act and mentality

    而事實上這些根本都是一樣的謀殺行為和心理

  • that goes into the murder, a necessity to feed their families.

    跟要不要養活家人並沒有關係

  • Suppose there weren't three, supposed there were thirty,

    假設不是三個人,是三十個人?

  • three hundred,

    三百個人呢?

  • one life to save three hundred

    殺一人救三百人?

  • or in more time,

    或者更多,

  • three thousand

    三千人?

  • or suppose the stakes were even bigger.

    甚或假設數目更大……

  • Suppose the stakes were even bigger

    如果籌碼更大的話怎麼辦?

  • I think it's still the same deal.

    我認為這依然一樣

  • Do you think Bentham was wrong to say the right thing to do

    你認為邊沁的看法──「正確的事

  • is to add

    就是要

  • up the collected happiness, you think he's wrong about that?

    達到最大幸福」你認為他是錯的嗎?

  • I don't think he is wrong, but I think murder is murder in any case. Well then Bentham has to be wrong

    –我不認為他是錯的;但我認為無論如何,謀殺就是謀殺 –照你這麼說,邊沁就是錯的

  • if you're right he's wrong. okay then he's wrong.

    –如果你是對的,他就是錯的 –好吧,那他錯了

  • Alright thank you, well done.

    好的,謝謝你,做得很好

  • Alright, let's step back

    讓我們退後一步

  • from this discussion

    跳脫這個討論

  • and notice

    然後注意一下

  • how many objections have we heard to what they did.

    我們聽到了多少反對他們的意見

  • we heard some defenses of what they did

    我們聽到了部分人替他們辯護

  • the defense has had to do with

    主要的辯護理由是:

  • necessity

    「行為有必要」、

  • the dire circumstance and,

    「狀況很極端」以及

  • implicitly at least,

    委婉一點來說:

  • the idea that numbers matter

    「數目是關鍵」

  • and not only numbers matter

    而不只數量是關鍵

  • but the wider effects matter

    廣泛的外部影響也有關係

  • their families back home, their dependents

    他們老家的親人、家屬都有關係

  • Parker was an orphan,

    帕克則是孤兒

  • no one would miss him.

    沒有人會想念他

  • so if you

    所以如果你

  • add up

    把所有影響相加

  • if you tried to calculate

    嘗試計算

  • the balance

    衡量出

  • of happiness and suffering

    幸福和痛苦

  • you might have a case for

    你可能就會採取認同立場

  • saying what they did was the right thing

    認為他們所做的是正確的事

  • then we heard at least three different types of objections,

    而後我們聽到了至少三種類型的反對意見

  • we heard an objection that's said

    我們聽到一種反對意見說

  • what they did was categorically wrong,

    他們殺人就是絕對錯誤

  • right here at the end

    就像剛剛最後的討論一樣

  • categorically wrong.

    絕對錯誤

  • Murder is murder it's always wrong

    謀殺就是謀殺,永遠是錯的

  • even if

    即便

  • it increases the overall happiness

    謀殺會增加整體社會的幸福

  • of society

    謀殺會增加整體社會的幸福

  • the categorical objection.

    這是絕對論的反對說法

  • But we still need to investigate

    我們仍須探討:

  • why murder

    為什麼謀殺

  • is categorically wrong.

    是絕對錯誤的一件事

  • Is it because

    是因為

  • even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights?

    即便是船上服務生也有基本權利嗎?

  • And if that's the reason

    如果這是理由的話

  • where do those rights come from if not from some idea

    這些基本權利又從何而來?

  • of the larger welfare or utility or happiness? Question number one.

    既不是來自於大眾福祉,也不是所謂的整體幸福? 這是問題一

  • Others said

    其它人說

  • a lottery would make a difference

    抽籤會有所不同

  • a fair procedure,

    它帶來「一個公平的流程」

  • Matt said.

    麥特這麼說

  • And some people were swayed by that.

    有些人被這樣的說法給動搖了

  • That's not a categorical objection exactly

    這不完全是絕對論的反對意見

  • it's saying

    這種說法認為

  • everybody has to be counted as an equal

    每個人都應被同等對待

  • even though, at the end of the day

    就算到了最後

  • one can be sacrificed

    有一個人會死

  • for the general welfare.

    為了大眾福祉而犧牲

  • That leaves us with another question to investigate,

    這又讓我們必須探討另外一個問題:

  • Why does agreement to certain procedure,

    為什麼眾人同意某些特定流程

  • even a fair procedure,

    僅僅是個公平的流程

  • justify whatever result flows

    都可以正當化任何

  • from the operation of that procedure?

    由這個流程所導致的結果?

  • Question number two.

    這是第二個問題

  • and question number three

    而第三個問題

  • the basic idea of consent.

    是「合意」的基本概念

  • Kathleen got us on to this.

    由凱瑟琳引出的說法

  • If the cabin boy had agreed himself

    如果船上服務生自己同意了

  • and not under duress

    且沒有外界給予的壓力

  • as was added

    (就如同後續補充所說的)

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

    那麼犧牲他的性命救其它人就是對的

  • Even more people signed on to that idea

    有更多人同意這個看法

  • but that raises

    但這又引起了

  • a third philosophical question

    第三個哲學上的問題:

  • what is the moral work

    在道德上面

  • that consent

    「合意」這件事

  • does?

    有什麼影響?

  • Why does an act of consent

    為什麼合意這個動作

  • make such a moral difference

    會造成道德上如此大的差異?

  • that an act that would be wrong, taking a life, without consent

    一個本來錯誤的行為(沒有合意基礎的謀殺行為)

  • is morally

    在道德上

  • permissible

    會變得可接受

  • with consent?

    只要有合意的基礎?

  • To investigate those three questions

    為了探討這三個問題

  • we're going to have to read some philosophers

    我們必須閱讀一些哲學家的著作

  • and starting next time

    從下次開始

  • we're going to read

    我們將會閱讀

  • Bentham,

    邊沁

  • and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers.

    和約翰‧史都華‧彌爾等功利主義哲學家的作品

  • Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice

    別錯過與其他觀課者線上互動的機會

  • join the conversation,

    加入討論

  • take a pop quiz, watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit www.justiceharvard.org. It's the right thing to do.

    參與小考、觀看你錯過的課程並學習更多 造訪網站 這才是正確該做的事

  • Funding for the program is provided by

    本節目贊助人:

  • Additional funding provided by

    額外資金贊助提供:

Funding for this program is provided by:

本節目贊助人:

字幕與單字
已審核 字幕已審核

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋