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 would？Yeah.

–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