the case of the Queen vs. Dudley & Stephens,

--==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 時間軸：MAXの依依 翻譯: 冷兔子 小品 元寶大瑩 校對: 岸

the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea.

哈佛大學

And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,

公正:該如何做是好? 講師:Michael Sandel

the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,

給生命一個價格標籤

let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.

上節課 我們討論了

Bentham was born in England in 1748. At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.

Dudley和Stephens的公訴案

At 15, he went to law school. He was admitted to the bar at age 19

救生船事件 海上的同類自殘事件

but he never practiced law.

趁大家還沒忘記救生船事件的討論

Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.

還有對Dudley和Stephens的所為贊成與反對的意見

Last time, we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.

我們回到哲學 傑瑞米·邊沁的功利主義哲學

The main idea is simply stated and it's this:

邊沁於1748年生於英格蘭 12歲的時候進入哈佛

The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality,

15歲進入法學院 19歲取得律師資格

is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,

但卻從未當過律師

or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;

相反 他把畢生奉獻於法理學與倫理學

in a phrase, maximize utility.

上節課 我們已經開始涉及到了邊沁的功利主義

Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning:

其主要思想簡單明瞭:

We're all governed by pain and pleasure,

不論個人還是政治道德 它的最高原則

they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system

都是最大化公共福利 集體幸福

has to take account of them.

或者說 幸福與痛苦的差額

How best to take account? By maximizing.

一句話 效用最大化

And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Bentham通過以下推理得出這一原則:

What exactly should we maximize?

我們在痛苦與幸福的主宰下生活

Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility...

它們是我們的主導 所以任何道德體系

maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals

都要將這兩點納入其中

but also for communities and for legislators.

怎樣納入才最好呢? 通過最大化

"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.

這就產生了絕大多數人的最大利益這條準則

It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.

具體應怎樣最大化呢?

And that's why in deciding the best policy,

邊沁告訴我們 幸福 或者更準確地說 效用...

in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,

作為一條準則 效用最大化不僅適用於個人

citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question

同時還適用於團體和立法者

if we add up all of the benefits of this policy

Bentham問 "團體究竟是什麼?"

and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do

它是構成這個團體的個體總和

is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.

所以在制定最佳政策

That's what it means to maximize utility.

制定合適法律 裁定公正的時候

Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it,

公民以及立法者應該捫心自問

and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,

如果我們將此政策的所有利益加總

under the name of cost-benefit analysis,

減去所有的成本 正確的做法就是

which is used by companies and by governments all the time.

最大化幸福和痛苦的差額

And what it involves is placing a value,

這就是效用最大化的主旨所在

usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on the costs

今天 我想知道你們是否同意這點

and the benefits of various proposals.

通常 這種功利邏輯

Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal

被命名為成本收益分析

to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris, the tobacco company,

一直以來被企業和政府採用

does huge business in the Czech Republic.

它通常用美元來明碼標價

They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis

表示出不同方案的成本

of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit

以及收益的效用

analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.

最近 捷克共和國有一項提議

Now, how do they gain?

對吸煙徵收消費稅 Philip Morris煙草公司

It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance

在捷克共和國擁有龐大的業務

of the Czech government because there are increased health care

他們委託進行了一項研究 對捷克的吸煙現象

costs for people who develop smoking-related diseases.

做了一份成本收益分析 結果發現

On the other hand, there were positive effects

公民的吸煙行為可以讓政府獲益

and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.

那麼 他們如何獲益呢?

The positive effects included, for the most part,

固然捷克政府的公共財政會受到負面影響

various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale

因為由吸煙導致的疾病

of cigarette products, but it also included

會增加政府的醫療支出

health care savings to the government when people die early,

但另一方面 這也產生了正面影響

pension savings... you don't have to pay pensions for as long...

這些影響在總賬的另一邊加總

and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.

絕大部分正面影響是

And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,

政府從煙草產品銷售中得到的

the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain

各種稅收收入 但其中也包括

in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,

由於公民早逝 政府得到的醫療儲蓄

and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs,

以及退休金支出... 政府不必支付退休金...

the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person

並且還節省了年長者的住房支出

who dies prematurely due to smoking.

綜合考慮所有的成本及收益後

Cost-benefit analysis.

Philip Morris的調查發現捷克政府的

Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism

公共財政淨收益為147萬美元

may think that this is an unfair test.

考慮到住房 醫療和退休儲蓄

Philip Morris was pilloried in the press

政府可從每名因吸煙而早逝的

and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.

公民身上獲益1200美元

You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian

成本收益分析

can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person

你們之中有些人是功利主義的捍衛者

and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.

可能會覺得這個分析不公平

What about the value of life?

Philip Morris公司受到了媒體的嘲笑

Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life.

公司為這樣無情的計算表示了歉意

One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.

你可能會說 這裡缺少的是

Did any of you read about that?

功利主義者無疑會納入的東西 即

This was back in the 1970s.

因肺癌而早逝的人及其家人的價值

Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was,

那麼生命的價值呢?

a kind of car? Anybody?

一些成本收益分析加入了生命價值的評價標準

It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,

其中尤為著名的福特斑馬車案件

but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank

有人知道嗎?

was at the back of the car and in rear collisions,

這要追溯到20世紀70年代

the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed

誰還記得福特斑馬車是

and some severely injured.

什麼車嗎? 有人知道嗎?

Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.

它是一種超小型汽車 很受歡迎

And in the court case, it turned out that Ford

但它本身卻存在問題 油箱安裝在

had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank

汽車的後部 追尾碰撞時

and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be

油箱爆炸導致有人死亡

worth it to put in a special shield that would

且有人重傷

protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.

這些事故的受害者將福特告上了法庭

They did a cost-benefit analysis.

在庭審中發現

The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,

福特早已知道油箱的瑕疵

they calculated at $11.00 per part.

並做了成本收益分析 來決定

And here's... this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.

加上能夠保護油箱的特殊裝置

Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks

來避免其爆炸 是否值得

came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.

他們做了成本收益分析

But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money

提高每部斑馬車安全性能的成本

on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths

他們估計為11美元

and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death,

這個... 這就是庭審中出現過的成本效益分析

180 injuries, $67,000, and then the costs to repair,

每部花費11美元 一共有1250萬輛轎車和卡車

the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,

提高安全性能的總成本是1億3千7百萬美元

it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.

但他們計算了為提高安全性能而付出的這些成本之後

So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million

所能獲得的收益 他們將死亡人數定為180人

and so they didn't install the device.

設定死亡價值為每人20萬美元

Needless to say, when this memo of the

受傷人數為180 價值為6萬7千美元

Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial,

2000輛汽車因沒有安全配置

it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.

產生的維修以及更換費用 每輛700美元

Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?

這樣一算 收益僅為4950萬美元

Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.

所以他們就沒安裝該設備

Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis

不必說 這份備忘錄中

from this apparent counterexample?

福特公司的成本收益分析在法庭上出現時

Who has a defense?

引起了陪審員多大的震驚 他們懸賞尋找解決辦法

Or do you think this completely destroys the whole

這算是功利計算法的一個反例嗎?

utilitarian calculus? Yes?

因為福特公司考慮了生命價值的衡量

Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake

現在 誰想在這個明顯的反例中

the previous case did, that they assigned a dollar value

為成本收益分析辯護?

to human life, and once again,

誰來辯護?

they failed to take account things like suffering

或者你們認為這完全摧毀了整個

and emotional losses by the families.

功利計算法? 是嗎?

I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one

我認為他們又一次犯了上個案例

and that is more valued than $200,000.

所犯過的錯誤 他們是為生命價值

Right and... wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name?

貼上價格標籤 但同樣的

Julie Roteau.

他們沒有將家人的痛苦和

So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure

精神損失之類的算入其中

because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one

我是說 家人不止經濟受損 他們還失去了摯愛的親人

and the loss of those years of life, what would be...

這可遠遠不止20萬美元

what do you think would be a more accurate number?

那麼... 等一下 等一下 很好 你叫什麼?

I don't believe I could give a number. I think that this sort of analysis

我叫Julie Roteau

shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.

那麼 Julie 如果由於沒包含失去至親

I think it can't be used monetarily.

以及失去多年生活的損失

So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.

20萬美元遠遠不夠 多少才是...

They were wrong to try to put any number at all.

你認為更合適的數字是多少?

All right, let's hear someone who...

我肯定無法給出一個數字 我認為這種分析

You have to adjust for inflation.

不應該應用於人類生命的議題上

You have to adjust for inflation.

它不能單純以金錢來計算

All right, fair enough.

所以不是他們估算的數字太小 Julie認為

So what would the number be now?

是根本不應該以金錢來計算

This was 35 years ago.

那麼 讓我們來聽聽...

Two million dollars.

你必須剔除通貨膨脹因素

Two million dollars? You would put two million?

你必須剔除通貨膨脹因素

And what's your name?

夠公平

Voytek.

那麼擱到現在 應該是多少了?

Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.

那可是35年前

We should be more generous.

200萬美元

Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of

200萬美元? 你認為是200萬美元?

thinking about the question?

你叫什麼?

I guess, unfortunately, it is for...

我叫Voytek

there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, I'm not sure

Voytek認為我們得剔除通貨膨脹因素

what that number would be, but I do agree that

我們應該再大方點

there could possibly be a number put on the human life.

如果說是解決這個問題的

All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie.

正確方法 你滿意嗎?

Julie says we can't put a number on human life

我想 這很不幸 但是因為...

for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.

總是需要有數字來衡量 比如 我不確定

Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.

應該是多少 不過我非常同意

What do other people think about this?

人類生命價值可能可以用數字來計算

Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis

那麼 Voytek說 他不同意Julie說的

here as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.

Julie認為我們不能為了達到成本收益分析的目的

I think that if Ford and other car companies

用一個數字來計算生命的價值

didn't use cost-benefit analysis, they'd eventually go out of business

Voytek認為我們不得不這樣 因為不管怎樣 都要做出決定

because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people

其他人怎麼看?

wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,

有人要為成本效益分析辯護 認為在此案中

to put food on the table, to feed their children.

它是最合適的嗎? 那位? 請講

So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,

我認為如果福特公司以及其他汽車公司

the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.

沒有使用成本收益分析法 他們最終會走向破產

All right, let me add. What's your name?

因為他們無法獲得利潤 幾百萬人將

Raul.

無法開車去工作

Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone used by a driver

無法賺錢養家 無法撫養孩子

when people are driving a car, and there was a debate

所以我認為如果不採用成本收益分析法

whether that should be banned.

在這種情況下 會犧牲更大的利益

Yeah.

讓我來補充 你叫什麼?

And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result

我叫Raul

of accidents each year using cell phones.

Raul 最近有一個調查 是有關開車時司機

And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the

使用的手機 人們開始討論

Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that

這種行為是否應該禁止

if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use

是的

and you put some value on the life, it comes out about the same

數字顯示 每年有2千人 因為開車時使用手機

because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people

引起車禍而喪生

to take advantage of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals

而哈佛的風險分析中心所做的

and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.

這項成本收益分析發現

Doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake to try to put

計算使用手機的好處

monetary figures on questions of human life?

和給生命貼上價格標籤 結果是一樣的

Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to

因為使用手機使人們能夠有效利用時間 而不是浪費時間

derive maximum utility out of a service,

能夠在開車時談成生意 或者和朋友聊天

like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,

這些能夠帶來巨大的經濟利益

that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur.

這不正暗示了用金錢來衡量生命

You're an outright utilitarian.

是錯誤的嗎?

Yes. Okay.

我認為如果大多數人想

- All right then, one last question, Raul. - Okay.

從某一行為中得到最大效益

And I put this to Voytek, what dollar figure should

比如使用手機及其帶來的便利

be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?

那麼為了讓他們滿意 犧牲是必須的

Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,

你是個徹頭徹尾的功利主義者

I mean, right now. I think that...

是的 好的

You want to take it under advisement?

- 那麼 最後一個問題 Raul - 是

Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.

我也問過Voytek這個問題 要決定是否禁止使用手機

- But what, roughly speaking, would it be? You got 2,300 deaths. - Okay.

要給生命開出多大的籌碼呢?

You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want

我不想隨便就給出一個數字

- to prevent those deaths by banning the use of cell phones in cars. - Okay.

我是說 馬上 我認為...

So what would your hunch be? How much? A million?

你需要深思熟慮一下?

- Two million? Two million was Voytek's figure. - Yeah.

是的 我會好好考慮一下的

- Is that about right? - Maybe a million.

- 不過 大體說一下 會是多少? 假設有2300人死亡 - 好的

- A million? - Yeah.

你需要給生命開出一個價位 以此來決定是否要

- You know, that's good. Thank you. - Okay.

- 通過禁止在開車時使用手機 來避免車禍的發生 - 好的

So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days

那麼你直覺是多少? 多少? 一百萬?

from cost-benefit analysis, especially those that involve placing a

- 兩百萬? 兩百萬是Voytek給出的價位 - 是的

dollar value on everything to be added up.

- 對嗎? - 或許應該是一百萬

Well, now I want to turn to your objections,

- 一百萬? - 是的

to your objections not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically,

- 很好 謝謝 - 好的

because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today,

那麼 這些就是最近由成本收益分析

but to the theory as a whole, to the idea that the right thing to do,

而引起的爭論 尤其是涉及到給每個增加的

the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility.

元素明碼標價

How many disagree with the utilitarian approach to law

那麼 現在我想聽聽你們的反對觀點

and to the common good?

反對意見不必拘泥於成本收益分析

How many agree with it?

因為這只是功利邏輯當今的一種實現形式

So more agree than disagree.

你還可以談整個理論 談如何做是對的

So let's hear from the critics. Yes?

政策和法律的公正基礎就是效用最大化

My main issue with it is that I feel like you can't say

有多少人反對用功利主義分析法律

that just because someone's in the minority, what they want

以及公益?

and need is less valuable than someone who is in the majority.

有多少人贊同?

So I guess I have an issue with the idea that the greatest good

贊同的多於反對的

for the greatest number is okay because there are still...

讓我們聽聽反對者怎麼說 那位?