Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • Last time, we argued about

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途

  • 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?

  • what about people who are in the lesser number?

    我的主要觀點是 你不能說因為

  • Like, it's not fair to them.

    某人屬於少數派 他們的需求

  • They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.

    就不如多數派的需求有價值

  • All right. That's an interesting objection.

    所以我對絕大多數人的最大利益這個準則有異議

  • You're worried about the effect on the minority.

    是因為還有...

  • Yes.

    那些屬於少數派的人怎麼辦呢?

  • What's your name, by the way?

    這對他們不公平

  • Anna.

    他們想表達 卻沒有話語權

  • Who has an answer to Anna's worry about the effect on the minority?

    很好 很有趣的反對意見

  • What do you say to Anna?

    你擔心的是對少數人的影響

  • Um, she said that the minority is valued less.

    是的

  • I don't think that's the case because individually,

    你的名字是?

  • the minority's value is just the same as the individual of the majority.

    我叫Anna

  • It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority.

    Anna關於少數人的擔憂 誰有解決辦法?

  • And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision

    你要怎麼對她說?

  • and I'm sorry for the minority but sometimes,

    呃 她說少數人的價值也少

  • it's for the general, for the greater good.

    我認為不是這樣 因為從個人來分析

  • For the greater good. Anna, what do you say?

    少數派同多數派中個人的價值是一樣的

  • What's your name?

    只不過多數派人數多而已

  • Yang-Da.

    在某一時刻 你不得不做出決定

  • What do you say to Yang-Da?

    對少數派我感到抱歉 但有些時候

  • Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences

    是為了大眾 為了更大的利益

  • and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed.

    為了更大的利益 Anna 你怎麼說?

  • Can you give an example of the kind of thing

    你叫什麼?

  • you're worried about when you say you're worried about utilitarianism

    我叫Yang-Da

  • violating the concern or respect due the minority?

    對Yang-Da的看法 你作何感想?

  • - OK. - And give an example.

    Yang-Da認為 你只需將所有人的偏好累加求和

  • Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about,

    這樣 少數派的偏好也就包含其中了

  • like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten

    你能否舉個例子

  • still had as much of a right to live as the other people

    你說你擔心功利主義侵害少數派偏好或者利益

  • and just because he was the minority in that case,

    能否說明一下?

  • the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living,

    - 好的 - 舉個例子

  • that doesn't mean that the others automatically

    好的 就舉個我們討論過的例子吧

  • have a right to eat him just because it would give a

    比如說失事船隻的例子 我認為那個被吃掉的男孩

  • greater amount of people a chance to live.

    擁有和其他人同等的生存權利

  • So there may be certain rights that the minority members have,

    只不過在本案中他成了少數派

  • that the individual has that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility?

    因此生存的機率就降低了

  • Yes.

    但這並不意味著 吃掉他

  • Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.

    可以讓更多人活下去

  • Back in Ancient Rome, they threw Christians to the lions

    所以這就是其他人天經地義的權利

  • in the Colosseum for sport.

    看來 也許少數派所擁有的某些個人權利

  • If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go,

    是不應該為了效用而成為犧牲品的?

  • yes, the Christian thrown to the lions suffers enormous excruciating pain.

    是的

  • But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans!

    是嗎 Anna? 這對你來說可能是一個考驗

  • Yang-Da.

    在古羅馬 為了娛樂而把基督教徒

  • Well, in that time, I don't... if... in modern day of time,

    扔進鬥獸場和獅子抗爭

  • to value the... to give a number to the happiness

    如果按照功利主義的算法

  • given to the people watching, I don't think any, like,

    被扔進去餵獅子的基督教徒固然極度痛苦

  • policymaker would say the pain of one person, of the suffering

    但羅馬人累加起來的快樂遠遠超過了這點痛苦!

  • of one person is much, much... is, I mean, in comparison

    Yang-Da 你說呢?

  • to the happiness gained, it's...

    嗯 在古代 我不認為... 如果... 在現代

  • No, but you have to admit that if there were enough Romans

    要計算... 比如說快樂

  • delirious enough with happiness, it would outweigh even the

    比如說觀賞比賽的人們的快樂 我想 嗯

  • most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.

    政策制定者不會去計算某個人的痛苦

  • So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism.

    是多少... 然後來跟

  • One has to do with whether utilitarianism adequately respects

    所獲得的快樂相比較 這...

  • individual rights or minority rights, and the other has to do with

    當然不會 但毫無疑問 如果羅馬人的數量足夠多

  • the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values.

    他們所得到的極度快樂就可以超過

  • Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms?

    被扔進去餵獅子的那幾個基督徒的極度痛苦

  • There was, in the 1930s, a psychologist who tried

    看來 對功利主義的批判分成了兩派

  • to address this second question.

    一派的觀點是 功利主義沒有充分尊重

  • He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes,

    個人權利或少數派的權利 另一派的觀點是

  • that it is possible to translate all goods, all values,

    個人的效用或偏好或價值無法加總

  • all human concerns into a single uniform measure,

    一切價值都可以加總起來並用貨幣衡量嗎?

  • and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief,

    在20世紀30年代 有一位心理學家

  • this was in the 1930s, and he asked them,

    曾經試圖解決這個問題

  • he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them,

    他試圖證明功利主義所做的假設

  • "How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?"

    即所有產品 所有價值

  • and he kept track.

    人類所關切的一切都可以用一個統一的單位度量

  • For example, how much would you have to be paid

    於是他對領取救濟的年輕人進行了調查研究

  • to have one upper front tooth pulled out?

    那是在20世紀30年代 他問他們

  • Or how much would you have to be paid to have one little toe cut off?

    他給了他們一份痛苦體驗的清單 然後問他們

  • Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long?

    "給多少錢你才願意承受下列體驗?"

  • Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?

    他還做了跟蹤調查

  • Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?

    比如 給多少錢你才願意

  • - Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list? - Kansas!

    拔掉一顆上門牙?

  • Kansas?

    給多少錢你才願意割掉一個小腳趾?

  • You're right, it was Kansas.

    或者才願意吃一條6英吋長的活蚯蚓?

  • For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them...

    或者才願意到堪薩斯的農場去度過餘生?

  • they have to be paid $300,000.

    或者才願意徒手去掐死一隻流浪貓?

  • What do you think was the next most expensive?

    - 你們猜當時最昂貴的是哪一項? - 堪薩斯!

  • Not the cat.

    是堪薩斯?

  • Not the tooth.

    你猜對了 就是堪薩斯

  • Not the toe.

    去堪薩斯必須給...

  • The worm!

    給他們30萬美金

  • People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm.

    第二貴的是哪一項?

  • What do you think was the least expensive item?

    不是掐死貓

  • Not the cat.

    不是拔牙

  • The tooth.

    不是割腳趾

  • During the Depression, people were willing to have their

    是吃蚯蚓!

  • tooth pulled for only $4,500.

    你得給他們10萬美金他們才願意吃蚯蚓

  • What?

    你們覺得當時最便宜的是哪一項?

  • Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.

    不是掐死貓

  • Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount

    是拔牙

  • and is therefore measurable.

    大蕭條期間 給4500美金人們就

  • The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken consists of appetites,

    願意拔掉上門牙

  • cravings, desires, and their gratifications.

    什麼?

  • So does the life of human beings, though the appetites

    下面就是桑代克從他的研究中得出的結論

  • and desires are more complicated.

    一切存在的需求或滿足均以某種量的形式存在

  • But what about Thorndike's study?

    所以一切皆可度量

  • Does it support Bentham's idea that all goods,

    狗或貓或雞的生活是由種種食慾

  • all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value?

    渴望 慾望 以及相應的滿足組成的

  • Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list

    人類的生活無非也是如此 只不過其食慾

  • suggest the opposite conclusion that maybe,

    和慾望更加複雜罷了

  • whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm,

    但桑代克的研究究竟如何呢?

  • maybe the things we value and cherish can't be captured

    它是支持了邊沁的觀點 即一切利益

  • according to a single uniform measure of value?

    一切價值均可用一個統一的度量單位加以衡量?

  • And if they can't, what are the consequences

    還是說 名單上那些稀奇古怪的痛苦

  • for the utilitarian theory of morality?

    恰恰否定了邊沁的觀點

  • That's a question we'll continue with next time.

    也許生命 堪薩斯農場度過餘生 吃蚯蚓

  • All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,

    還有人類所珍視的東西並不能

  • which is the highest experience or pleasure?

    用一個統一的度量單位加以衡量?

  • How many say Shakespeare?

    如果不能衡量的話 那麼功利主義的

  • How many say Fear Factor?

    道德理論該何去何從呢?

  • No, you can't be serious. Really?

    這個問題 我們下次討論

  • Last time, we began to consider some objections to

    公正 下節精彩繼續

  • Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.

    現在我們再來做一次課堂調查

  • People raised two objections in the discussion we had.

    哪一種體驗最快樂或樂趣值最大?

  • The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism,

    贊同莎士比亞作品的舉手?

  • by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,

    贊同"誰敢來挑戰"(真人秀)的舉手?

  • fails adequately to respect individual rights.

    你不算 你不是認真的 對吧?

  • Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.

    上堂課我們討論了一些批判

  • Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th

    傑裡米·邊沁的功利主義的觀點

  • and you had reason to believe that the suspect had crucial information

    我們在討論中提出了兩派批判意見

  • about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people

    第一派認為 功利主義

  • and you couldn't extract the information.

    只關注了絕大多數人的最大利益

  • Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information

    但沒有充分尊重個人權利

  • or do you say no, there is a categorical moral duty

    今天 我們將討論酷刑與恐怖主義

  • of respect for individual rights?

    假定一個恐怖主義嫌犯在9月10日被逮捕了

  • In a way, we're back to the questions we started with

    你有理由相信這個嫌犯掌握了一些重要的情報

  • about Charlie Carson organ transplant.

    它牽涉到一場可能會奪走3000人生命的恐怖襲擊

  • So that's the first issue.

    而你無法得到這些情報

  • And you remember, we considered some examples

    為了獲取這些情報 對嫌犯施以酷刑公正嗎

  • of cost-benefit analysis, but a lot of people were unhappy

    還是應該反對酷刑 無條件堅守道德底線

  • with cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing

    來尊重個人的權利?

  • a dollar value on human life.

    在某種程度上 我們又回到了剛剛討論過的

  • And so that led us to the second objection.

    關於Charlie Carson的器官移植問題

  • It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values into

    這是第一個問題

  • a single uniform measure of value.

    大家還記得 我們曾討論過一些

  • It asks, in other words, whether all values are commensurable.

    成本收益分析的例子 但許多人

  • Let me give you one other example of an experience.

    對於成本收益分析並不滿意 因為這種方法

  • This actually is a true story.

    以貨幣來度量人的生命

  • It comes from personal experience that raises a question

    這就把我們引向了第二派批判觀點

  • at least about whether all values can be translated without loss

    即是否一切價值都能用一個統一的單位度量

  • into utilitarian terms.

    這點值得質疑

  • Some years ago, when I was a graduate student,

    換句話說 是否一切價值都是可度量的

  • I was at Oxford in England and they had men's and women's colleges.

    我再給大家講一個親身體驗的例子

  • They weren't yet mixed and the women's colleges

    這是一個真實的故事

  • had rules against overnight male guests.

    這是我的一段親身經歷 從中至少可以提出一個問題

  • By the 1970s, these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated,

    即是否一切價值都可以準確無誤地用

  • or so I was told.

    功利來衡量

  • By the late 1970s, when I was there,

    多年以前 我在讀研究生

  • pressure grew to relax these rules and it became the subject of debate

    我在英格蘭的牛津大學就讀 那裡當時有男子學院與女子學院

  • among the faculty at St. Anne's College,

    當時男女不能混居 而且女子學院

  • which was one of these all-women's colleges.

    明文禁止留宿男士

  • The older women on the faculty were traditionalists.

    到了1970s 這些規矩不那麼有強制性 常常有人違規

  • They were opposed to change unconventional moral grounds.

    至少就我所知是如此

  • But times have changed and they were embarrassed

    到了20世紀70年代末 我在那兒的時候

  • to give the true grounds for their objection and so they translated

    放寬這些規矩的呼聲與日俱增

  • their arguments into utilitarian terms.

    聖安妮學院也開始討論這個問題

  • "If men stay overnight", they argued,

    這是一所全女子學院

  • "the costs to the college will increase."

    年長的女教員是傳統派

  • "How?" you might wonder.

    她們反對改變傳統的道德基礎

  • "Well, they'll want to take baths

    但時代已經變了 她們提不出

  • and that'll use up hot water," they said.

    真正的反對理由 因此她們運用功利主義

  • Furthermore, they argued,

    的理論來說明她們的觀點

  • "We'll have to replace the mattresses more often."

    她們這樣辯論 "如果留宿男士"

  • The reformers met these arguments by adopting the following compromise.

    "學院的開支就會增加"

  • Each woman could have a maximum of three overnight male guests each week.

    "怎麼增加?" 你也許會問

  • They didn't say whether it had to be the same one or three different

    "嗯 他們要洗澡

  • provided, and this was the compromise,

    他們會把熱水用完" 她們說

  • provided the guest paid 50 pence to defray the cost to the college.

    而且 她們認為

  • The next day, the national headline in the national newspaper read,

    "我們將不得不更頻繁地換床墊"

  • "St. Anne's Girls, 50 Pence A Night."

    改革派吸納了這些觀點 並提出了以下折衷方案

  • Another illustration of the difficulty of translating all values,

    每位女子每週最多可以留宿男士三次

  • in this case, a certain idea of virtue, into utilitarian terms.

    她們並沒有說明必須是同一男士還是三個不同的男士

  • So, that's all to illustrate the second objection to utilitarianism,

    這個折衷方案

  • at least the part of that objection, that questions whether utilitarianism

    還規定男士須支付50便士以彌補學校的成本開支

  • is right to assume that we can assume the uniformity of value,

    第二天 英國的各大報紙上就出現了頭條新聞

  • the commensurability of all values and translate all moral considerations

    "聖安妮的女子 50便士一夜"

  • into dollars or money.

    這又一次表明了很難對一切價值進行衡量

  • But there is a second aspect to this worry about

    在這個例子中 則是用功利來衡量貞操

  • aggregating values and preferences.

    這些都是對第二種批判功利主義的觀點的說明

  • Why should we weigh all preferences that people have without assessing

    至少進行了部分的說明 從而否定了功利主義的以下觀點

  • whether they're good preferences or bad preferences?

    一切價值都可用統一的度量單位加以衡量

  • Shouldn't we distinguish between higher pleasures and lower pleasures?

    一切價值都可以測量比較 一切道德觀念

  • Now, part of the appeal of not making any qualitative distinctions

    都可以用貨幣衡量

  • about the worth of people's preferences,

    不過 對價值與偏好皆可加總的觀點

  • part of the appeal is that it is nonjudgmental and egalitarian.

    還存在第二方面的擔憂

  • The Benthamite utilitarian says everybody's preferences count

    為什麼我們在加總各種偏好時 沒有考慮

  • and they count regardless of what people want,

    這些偏好是好的還是壞的呢?

  • regardless of what makes different people happy.

    難道我們不應該對高級樂趣與低級樂趣加以區分嗎?

  • For Bentham, all that matters, you'll remember,

    對人們的偏好不作任何

  • are the intensity and the duration of a pleasure or pain.

    定性區分的部分原因在於

  • The so-called "higher pleasures or nobler virtues"

    這樣做可以不帶任何偏見 並且完全平等

  • are simply those, according to Bentham,

    邊沁的功利主義觀認為 每個的人的偏好都一樣

  • that produce stronger, longer pleasure.

    不管人們的想要得到的東西是什麼

  • Yet a famous phrase to express this idea,

    也不管使不同人感到幸福的東西是什麼

  • the quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.

    大家要記住 對邊沁來說 最重要的東西無非就是

  • What was pushpin?

    快樂或痛苦的強度和持續時間

  • It was some kind of a child's game, like tiddlywinks.

    所謂"更高雅的樂趣或更崇高的美德"

  • "Pushpin is as good as poetry", Bentham says.

    在邊沁看來 無非就是一種

  • And lying behind this idea, I think, is the claim, the intuition,

    能產生強度更大持續時間更多的快樂的東西

  • that it's a presumption to judge whose pleasures

    可以用一句名言來表達這種觀點

  • are intrinsically higher or worthier or better.

    只要樂趣在量上相等 那麼圖釘遊戲與詩歌並無區別

  • And there is something attractive in this refusal to judge.

    什麼是圖釘遊戲?

  • After all, some people like Mozart, others Madonna.

    是小孩子玩的一種遊戲 一種無聊的活動

  • Some people like ballet, others bowling.

    "無聊遊戲與詩歌並無區別" 邊沁如是說

  • Who's to say, a Benthamite might argue,

    我想 這種觀點體現了如下理念

  • who is to say which of these pleasures, whose pleasures are higher,

    從本質上區分誰的快樂

  • worthier, nobler than others?

    更高雅更有價值或更好是不合理的

  • But is that right, this refusal to make qualitative distinctions?

    這種不作區分的做法頗有吸引力

  • Can we altogether dispense with the idea that

    畢竟有的人喜歡莫扎特 而有的人則喜歡麥當娜

  • certain things we take pleasure in are better or worthier than others?

    有的人喜歡芭蕾 而有的人則喜歡保齡球

  • Think back to the case of the Romans in the Colosseum.

    邊沁主義者也許會說

  • One thing that troubled people about that practice is that it seemed

    誰敢說這些快樂哪一個比哪一個更高等

  • to violate the rights of the Christian.

    更有價值 更高貴呢?

  • Another way of objection to what's going on there

    但是 這種不作定性區分的做法是正確的嗎?

  • is that the pleasure that the Romans take in this bloody spectacle,

    難道我們就可以忽視下面這種觀點嗎

  • should that pleasure, which is abased, kind of corrupt, degrading pleasure,

    即讓我們快樂的東西比其他人的要更好 更有價值?

  • should that even be valorized or weighed in deciding

    回想一下鬥獸場上羅馬人的那個例子

  • what the general welfare is?

    對於羅馬人行為的反對意見 一方面在於

  • So here are the objections to Bentham's utilitarianism

    侵害了基督徒的權利

  • and now, we turn to someone who tried to respond to those objections,

    另一方面在於 羅馬人的快樂

  • a latter-day utilitarian, John Stuart Mill.

    是從殘忍血腥的場面中獲得的

  • So what we need to examine now is whether John Stuart Mill

    這種快樂就是低俗的 墮落的 可恥的嗎

  • had a convincing reply to these objections to utilitarianism.

    這種快樂也應該包括在

  • John Stuart Mill was born in 1806.

    社會的總體福利當中嗎?

  • His father, James Mill, was a disciple of Bentham's,

    以上就是對邊沁的功利主義的批判

  • and James Mill set about giving his son, John Stuart Mill,

    而有一位人士則試圖對這些批判進行回應

  • a model education.

    他就是近代的功利主義者 約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒

  • He was a child protégé, John Stuart Mill.

    那我們就需要來研究一下 約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒

  • He knew Greek at the age of three, Latin at eight,

    是否對這些關於功利主義的批判給出令人信服的回應

  • and age 10, he wrote "A History of Roman Law."

    約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒生於1806年

  • At age 20, he had a nervous breakdown.

    他的父親詹姆斯·穆勒是邊沁的信徒

  • This left him in a depression for five years, but at age 25,

    詹姆斯·穆勒為自己的兒子 約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒

  • what helped lift him out of this depression

    樹立了一個榜樣

  • is that he met Harriet Taylor.

    He was a child protege, John Stuart Mill. 約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒是一位神童

  • She and Mill got married, they lived happily ever after,

    3歲就懂希臘語 8歲就會拉丁語

  • and it was under her influence that John Stuart Mill

    10歲寫了"羅馬法的歷史"

  • tried to humanize utilitarianism.

    20歲那年他神經失常了

  • What Mill tried to do was to see whether the

    這讓他患了5年的憂鬱癥 但25歲那年

  • utilitarian calculus could be enlarged and modified to

    他遇見了哈里特·泰勒

  • accommodate humanitarian concerns, like the concern to

    這幫他擺脫了抑鬱癥

  • respect individual rights, and also to address the distinction

    他們結了婚 一直都過得很幸福

  • between higher and lower pleasures.

    正是在泰勒的影響下

  • In 1859, Mill wrote a famous book on liberty,

    穆勒試圖將功利主義人性化

  • the main point of which was the importance

    穆勒試圖將功利主義的

  • of defending individual rights and minority rights,

    算法進行擴充和修訂

  • and in 1861, toward the end of his life,

    從而把人道主義關懷 如對個人權利的尊重

  • he wrote the book we read as part of this course, "Utilitarianism."

    也納入其中 並且對高級樂趣與低級樂趣

  • He makes it clear that utility is the only standard of morality,

    也進行了區分

  • in his view, so he's not challenging Bentham's premise.

    1859年 穆勒寫了一本關於自由的名著

  • He's affirming it.

    其主要內容是闡述了

  • He says very explicitly, "The sole evidence it is possible

    捍衛個人權利與少數派權利的重要性

  • to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it."

    1861年他已是暮年

  • So he stays with the idea that our de facto actual empirical desires

    寫了"功利主義"一書 這也是本課程的閱讀材料之一

  • are the only basis for moral judgment.

    他在書中闡明了 效用是衡量道德的唯一尺度

  • But then, page eight, also in chapter two,

    在他看來 他並不是在挑戰邊沁的理論

  • he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish

    而是在證實邊沁的理論

  • higher from lower pleasures.

    他非常明確地寫道 "唯一可以證明

  • Now, for those of you who have read Mill already,

    某物是為人所需的 就是人們確實想要它"

  • how, according to him, is it possible to draw that distinction?

    可見他認為 人類所實際體驗的慾望

  • How can a utilitarian distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures

    是道德判斷的唯一依據

  • from lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones? Yes?

    但隨後 在第二章第8頁

  • If you've tried both of them and you prefer the higher one,

    他又認為 功利主義者能夠區別

  • naturally, always.

    高級樂趣與低級樂趣

  • That's great. That's right.

    下面 請讀過穆勒著作的同學們回答一下

  • - What's your name? - John.

    按照穆勒的觀點 如何來做這種區別?

  • So as John points out, Mill says here's the test.

    功利主義者是如何定性地把高級樂趣跟

  • Since we can't step outside actual desires,

    低級的 卑鄙的 可恥的樂趣區別開來的? 你來?

  • actual preferences that would violate utilitarian premises,

    只要你把兩種樂趣都嘗試一下 你就會寧可選擇高級樂趣

  • the only test of whether a pleasure is higher or lower

    這通常是順理成章的

  • is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it.

    很好 對的

  • And here, in chapter two, we see the passage where

    - 你叫什麼? - John

  • Mill makes the point that John just described.

    所以如John所說 穆勒這裡有個測試

  • "Of two pleasures, if there be one to which

    既然我們無法違反功利主義假說

  • all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference,

    置身實際慾望 實際偏好之外

  • irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it...

    判斷樂趣的高低的唯一測試就是

  • in other words, no outside, no independent standard... then,

    一個兩者都體驗過的人會如何偏好

  • that is the more desirable pleasure."

    這裡 第二章裡 我們看到

  • What do people think about that argument?

    穆勒指出 如John剛剛描述的

  • Does it succeed?

    "若有人體驗過或大致體驗過

  • How many think that it does succeed of arguing

    這兩種樂趣 那麼他在沒有道德約束

  • within utilitarian terms for a distinction between

    換句話說 沒有外界干擾 完全自主選擇的情況下...

  • higher and lower pleasures?

    表現出了偏好... 那麼

  • How many think it doesn't succeed?

    這就是更令人嚮往的樂趣"

  • I want to hear your reasons.

    你們怎麼看?

  • But before we give the reasons

    它成功了嗎?

  • let's do an experiment of Mill's claim.

    有多少人認為它成功

  • In order to do this experiment, we're going to look at

    為功利衡量法區分了

  • three short excerpts of popular entertainment.

    高級樂趣和低級樂趣?

  • The first one is a Hamlet soliloquy.

    有多少人認為它沒有成功?

  • It'll be followed by two other experiences.

    我想聽聽大家的理由

  • See what you think.

    在我們給出理由之前

  • What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason,

    按穆勒的想法做個試驗

  • how infinite in faculties, in form and moving

    做這個試驗 我們要來看看

  • how express and admirable, in action how like an angel,

    三個有名的娛樂短片

  • in apprehension how like a god!

    第一個是哈姆雷特獨白

  • The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals...

    還有兩個其它的短片

  • and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

    你們自己判斷

  • Man delights not me.

    人 是多麼偉大的傑作 理性高貴

  • Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality.

    能力無窮 行動疾速

  • Ahh! They're biting me!

    令人讚嘆 動若天使

  • Each show, six contestants from around the country

    思若上帝!

  • battle each other in three extreme stunts.

    世界之美 萬物之靈...

  • These stunts are designed to challenge the contestants

    但對我來說 這泥土塑成的生命算得上什麼?

  • both physically and mentally.

    人類無法吸引我

  • Six contestants, three stunts, one winner.

    想像這樣的世界 讓你最深層的恐懼變成現實

  • Yes! Whooo!

    啊! 它們在咬我!

  • Fear Factor.

    每次節目有來自各國的6個參賽者

  • Hi-diddily-ho, pedal-to-the-metal-o-Philes.

    在三個極限特技中競爭

  • Flanders, since when do you like anything cool?

    這些測試挑戰參賽者們的

  • Well, I don't care for the speed but I can't get enough

    精神和肉體

  • of that safety gear. Helmets, roll bars, caution flags...

    6名參賽者 分3組挑戰 只有1個贏家

  • I like the fresh air...

    成功了! 哇!

  • and looking at the poor people in the infield.

    "誰敢來挑戰"

  • Damn, Cletus, why'd you have to park by my parents?

    辛普森一家

  • Now, Honey, they's my parents too.

    嗨 你好啊 快狠踩油門啊

  • I don't even have to ask which one you liked most.

    Flanders 你什麼時候開始喜歡酷酷的東西了?

  • The Simpsons, how many liked The Simpsons most?

    我不在乎速度 但我弄不齊

  • How many Shakespeare?

    安全裝置 頭盔 保護桿 警告牌...

  • What about Fear Factor?

    我喜歡新鮮空氣...

  • How many preferred Fear Factor?

    還喜歡看內場可憐的傢伙們

  • Really?

    該死 Cletus 你為什麼要把車停在我爸媽的旁邊?

  • People overwhelmingly like The Simpsons better than Shakespeare.

    親愛的 他們現在也是我的爸媽了

  • All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,

    我甚至都不需要問你們最喜歡哪一個

  • which is the highest experience or pleasure.

    辛普森一家 有多少人最喜歡這個?

  • How many say Shakespeare?

    多少最喜歡莎士比亞的?

  • How many say Fear Factor?

    "誰敢來挑戰"呢?

  • No, you can't be serious. Really? What?

    有多少人更喜歡"誰敢來挑戰"?

  • All right, go ahead. You can say it.

    沒人喜歡?

  • I found that one the most entertaining.

    絕大多數人喜歡辛普森一家多過莎士比亞

  • I know, but which do you think was the worthiest,

    好的 現在 我們做另一部分的投票

  • the noblest experience?

    哪一種體驗最快樂或樂趣值最大

  • I know you found it the most entertaining.

    贊同莎士比亞作品的舉手?

  • If something is good just because it is pleasurable,

    贊同"誰敢來挑戰"的舉手?

  • what does it matter whether you have sort of an

    不 你不是認真的 真的? 怎麼?

  • abstract idea of whether it is good by someone else's sense or not?

    好的 說吧 你說

  • All right, so you come down in the straight Benthamite side.

    我發現那是最有趣的

  • Who is to judge and why should we judge,

    我知道 但你認為哪個最有價值

  • apart from just registering and aggregating de facto preference?

    最高尚的體驗?

  • All right, that's fair enough. And what's your name?

    我知道 你覺得它最有趣

  • Nate, okay, fair enough.

    如果僅因為它有趣而有價值

  • All right, so how many think The Simpsons is actually,

    那麼判斷它在別人看來是否有價值

  • apart from liking it, is actually the higher experience?

    對自己而言 又有什麼關係呢?

  • Higher than Shakespeare?

    好吧 你是徹頭徹尾的邊沁信徒

  • All right, let's see the vote for Shakespeare again.

    不因為別人和集體的偏好決定

  • How many think Shakespeare is higher?

    誰來評判 為什麼要評判?

  • All right. So why is it... ideally,

    好的 好極了 你叫什麼?

  • I'd like to hear from someone, is there someone who thinks

    Nate 好 夠公平

  • Shakespeare is highest but who preferred watching The Simpsons?

    那麼除了因為喜歡辛普森一家

  • Yes?

    有多少人認為它真的是高級樂趣?

  • Like, I guess just sitting and watching The Simpsons,

    高過莎士比亞?

  • it's entertaining because they make jokes and they make us laugh.

    好的 我們再來看看莎士比亞的投票

  • But like, someone has to tell us that Shakespeare was this great writer.

    認為莎士比亞較高的有多少人?

  • We had to be taught how to read him, how to understand him.

    為什麼是它... 首先

  • We had to be taught how to kind of take in Rembrandt,

    我想要聽聽一個認為莎士比亞是高級樂趣

  • how to analyze a painting.

    卻更喜歡看辛普森一家的人來說說?

  • But let me... what's your name?

    你?

  • Anisha.

    比如吧 坐著看辛普森一家

  • Anisha, when you say someone told you that Shakespeare is better...

    是非常有意思的 因為他們的笑話令人捧腹大笑

  • Right.

    但是 有人告訴我 莎士比亞是十分偉大的劇作家

  • Are you accepting it on blind faith?

    我們必須閱讀他的作品 理解他的思想

  • You voted that Shakespeare is higher

    我們必須接受Rembrandt的畫

  • only because the culture tells you that

    賞析他的作品

  • or teachers tell you that or do you actually agree with that yourself?

    讓我... 你叫什麼?

  • Well, in the sense that Shakespeare no,

    我叫Anisha

  • but earlier you made an example of Rembrandt.

    Anisha 當有人告訴你 莎士比亞更高級...

  • I feel like I would enjoy reading a comic book

  • more than I would enjoy kind of analyzing Rembrandt

    你盲目接受?

  • - because someone told me it was great, you know. - Right.

    你投票給莎士比亞

  • So some of this seems to be, you're suggesting,

    只是因為文化

  • a kind of a cultural convention and pressure.

    或老師告訴你的 還是你自己實際上也認同?

  • - We're told what books, what works of art are great. - Right.

    在某種意義上說 不是莎士比亞

  • Who else?

    但之前你舉了Rembrandt的例子

  • Yes?

    我想比起因為別人告訴我Rembrandt的作品很棒

  • Although I enjoyed watching The Simpsons more

    而去賞析他的作品

  • in this particular moment, in justice, if I were to spend

    - 我會更喜歡看漫畫 - 好

  • the rest of my life considering the three different video clips shown,

    所以 看來 你是想說似乎

  • I would not want to spend that remainder of my life

    有某種文化習俗和壓力

  • considering the latter two clips.

    - 讓我們瞭解哪些書籍 哪些作品是偉大的 - 是的

  • I think I would derive more pleasure from being able to branch out in my

    還有誰要說?

  • own mind sort of considering more deep pleasures, more deep thoughts.

    你說?

  • And tell me your name.

    儘管某些時候 我更喜歡看

  • Joe.

    辛普森一家 但公平點說 如果要我

  • Joe, so if you had to spend the rest of your life on a farm

    下半輩子都剪輯這三種不同的短片

  • in Kansas with only Shakespeare or the collected episodes

    我不想把餘生都花費在

  • of The Simpsons, you would prefer Shakespeare?

    後兩部短片上

  • What do you conclude from that about John Stuart Mill's test that the test

    我想 我會通過深思這種更深層的快樂 更深刻的思想

  • of a higher pleasure is whether people who have experienced both prefer it?

    擴散自己的思維 得到更多的樂趣

  • Can I cite another example briefly?

    你叫什麼名字

  • Yeah.

    我叫Joe

  • In neurobiology last year, we were told of a rat

    喬 那如果你只能靠著莎士比亞或者一整套辛普森一家

  • who was tested a particular center in the brain where the rat was able

    在堪薩斯的一個農場裡度過餘生

  • to stimulate his brain and caused itself intense pleasure repeatedly.

    你會更傾向莎士比亞?

  • The rat did not eat or drink until it died.

    穆勒的測試說 兩者都體驗過的人傾向所在

  • So the rat was clearly experiencing intense pleasure.

    就是高級樂趣 你從中得出什麼結論?

  • Now, if you ask me right now if I would rather experience

    我能舉個小例子麼?

  • intense pleasure or have a full lifetime of higher pleasure,

    可以

  • I would consider intense pleasure to be low pleasure.

    在去年的神經生物學課上 我們學到

  • I would right now enjoy intense pleasure but

    老鼠大腦的某個特殊區域

  • yes, I would.

    能刺激它們的大腦 不斷產生強烈快感

  • I certainly would.

    老鼠會不吃不喝直至死亡

  • But over a lifetime, I think I would think almost

    顯然老鼠體會到了強烈的快感

  • a complete majority here would agree that they would rather

    現在 如果你問我 是更願意感受這短暫的強烈快感

  • be a human with higher pleasure than be that rat with intense pleasure

    還是有一生的時間感受高級樂趣

  • for a momentary period of time.

    我會認為強烈快感是低級樂趣

  • Now, in answer to your question, I think this proves that

    我現在想享受強烈的快感 但是

  • or I won't say "proves."

    是的 我想

  • I think the conclusion is that Mill's theory that when a majority

    我肯定想啊

  • of people are asked what they would rather do,

    但終其一生考慮 我想在座的

  • they will answer that they would rather engage in a higher pleasure.

    絕大多數人都同意 他們會

  • So you think that this support Mill's you think Mill is onto something here?

    選擇高級樂趣 而不是老鼠那種短暫

  • I do.

    而強烈的快感

  • All right, Is there anyone who disagrees with Joe and who thinks

    回答你的問題 我認為它證明了

  • that our experiment disproves Mill's test,

    或者不說是"證明"

  • shows that that's not an adequate way, that you can't distinguish

    我的結論是 穆勒理論是

  • higher pleasures within the utilitarian framework?

    當大多數人被問及他們更傾向哪個時

  • Yes?

    得到回答是高級樂趣

  • If whatever is good is truly just whatever people prefer,

    所以你認為這個試驗證明了穆勒的理論 這個理論解釋了課堂上的投票?

  • it's truly relative and there's no objective definition,

    是的

  • then there will be some society where people prefer Simpsons more.

    好的 有沒有人不同意Joe的觀點

  • Anyone can appreciate The Simpsons but I think it does take education

    認為我們的實驗沒能是穆勒測試的反例

  • to appreciate Shakespeare as much.

    試驗是在表明功利主義的框架下 這不是一個

  • All right, you're saying it takes education

    區分出高級樂趣的有效方法?

  • to appreciate higher true things.

    你?

  • Mill's point is that the higher pleasures do require

    如果利益就是人們的偏好

  • cultivation and appreciation and education.

    這就是個相對概念 不存在客觀定義

  • He doesn't dispute that.

    那麼就一定有偏好辛普森一家的團體存在

  • But once having been cultivated and educated, people will see,

    任何人都能看懂辛普森一家 但是想要同樣地理解莎士比亞

  • not only see the difference between higher and lower pleasures,

    就需要經過教育

  • but will actually prefer the higher to the lower.

    很好 你提到了要接受教育

  • You find this famous passage from John Stuart Mill.

    才能欣賞更高層次的事物

  • "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;

    穆勒的觀點正是高層次樂趣確實需要

  • better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

    通過培養 欣賞和教育才能體會

  • And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion,

    他不否認這點

  • it is because they only know their side of the question."

    但是一旦經過培養教育 人們將

  • So here, you have an attempt to distinguish

    不單單發現高低等樂趣的區別

  • higher from lower pleasures.

    也將由衷地偏好高級樂趣

  • So going to an art museum or being a couch potato

    看下約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒著名的文段

  • and swilling beer, watching television at home.

    "做不滿意的人優於做滿意的豬;

  • Sometimes, Mill agrees, we might succumb to the temptation

    做不滿意的蘇格拉底強於做滿意的傻瓜

  • to do the latter, to be couch potatoes.

    如果笨蛋或者豬意見不同了

  • But even when we do that out of indolence and sloth,

    只是因為他們明白了他們那個世界的問題"

  • we know that the pleasure we get gazing at Rembrandts in the museum

    現在 嘗試著區分

  • is actually higher because we've experienced both,

    高低等樂趣

  • and it is a higher pleasure gazing at Rembrandts

    去美術館或是在家 窩在沙發上

  • because it engages our higher human faculties.

    喝著啤酒 看電視

  • What about Mill's attempt to reply to the objection about individual rights?

    有時 穆勒承認 我們會被後者所誘惑

  • In a way, he uses the same kind of argument,

    當個電視迷

  • and this comes out in chapter five.

    即使我們不是因為懶惰這麼做

  • He says, "I dispute the pretensions of any theory which sets up

    我們也知道 在美術館觀賞Rembrandts作品 得到的樂趣更高級

  • an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility."

    因為我們兩者都體驗過

  • But still, he considers justice grounded on utility to be what he calls

    觀賞Rembrandts就是高級樂趣

  • "the chief part and incomparably, the most sacred

    因為它能開發我們更高級的才能

  • and binding part of all morality."

    對於個人權益的漠視 穆勒是如何回應的?

  • So justice is higher, individual rights are privileged,

    在某種程度上 他用了同樣的方法

  • but not for reasons that depart from utilitarian assumptions.

    出現在第五章裡

  • Justice is a name, for certain moral requirements,

    他說 "我質疑所有不基於效用上

  • which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale

    而建立虛構的評判標準的主張"

  • of social utility and are, therefore, of more paramount

    他仍認為基於效用的評判可以稱得上

  • obligation than any others.

    "是所有道德中最主要的 無可比擬的

  • So justice, it is sacred.

    神聖而不可分割的部分"

  • It's prior. It's privileged.

    所以公正和個人權益居較高地位

  • It isn't something that can easily be traded off against lesser things.

    但這沒有違背了功利主義學說

  • But the reason is ultimately, Mill claims, a utilitarian reason

    公正是某些道德要求的代名詞

  • once you consider the long-run interests of humankind,

    大家普遍認為 它在社會福利事業中地位較高

  • of all of us as progressive beings.

    因此它比其他義務

  • If we do justice and if we respect rights,

    更重要

  • society as a whole will be better off in the long run.

    所以公正是神聖的

  • Well, is that convincing or is Mill actually, without admitting it,

    它更重要 享有特權

  • stepping outside utilitarian considerations in arguing for

    它是無法與低級事物輕易交換的

  • qualitatively higher pleasures and for sacred

    但穆勒認為 一旦考慮到我們人類

  • or especially important individual rights?

    這一不斷進步的種群的長遠利益

  • We haven't fully answered that question because to answer that question,

    最終原因都會是功利主義

  • in the case of rights and justice,

    如果我們做到公正 尊重權利

  • will require that we explore other ways,

    長遠來看 整個社會會更富裕

  • non-utilitarian ways of accounting for the basis

    那麼 這些是否在支持 或者雖然穆勒未承認 但事實上

  • of rights and then asking whether they succeed.

    是在論述量化高級樂趣

  • As for Jeremy Bentham, who launched utilitarianism

    或者犧牲非常重要的個人權利是

  • as a doctrine in moral and legal philosophy,

    脫離了功利主義學說?

  • Bentham died in 1832 at the age of 85.

    我們還沒有完全回答這個問題 因為要就權利和公正

  • But if you go to London, you can visit him today literally.

    來回答這個問題

  • He provided in his will that his body be preserved,

    需要探索其他方法

  • embalmed, and displayed in the University of London,

    以權利為基礎的非功利主義方法

  • where he still presides in a glass case with a wax head,

    然後再檢驗是否正確

  • dressed in his actual clothing.

    至於傑裡米·邊沁 倫理學和法理學領域裡的

  • You see, before he died, Bentham addressed himself

    功利主義學說的開創者

  • to a question consistent with his philosophy.

    邊沁於1832年去世 享年85歲

  • Of what use could a dead man be to the living?

    但是如果你到了倫敦 仍舊可以拜訪他

  • One use, he said, would be to make one's corpse

    遵照遺囑 他的身體得以完好保存

  • available to the study of anatomy.

    在一個玻璃棺裡 人頭為蠟制

  • In the case of great philosophers, however, better yet to preserve

    穿著當時他自己的衣服

  • one's physical presence in order to inspire future generations of thinkers.

    在倫敦大學展示

  • You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed?

    聽著 在死前 邊沁一直在想

  • Here is what he looks like.

    與他的哲學很相符的問題

  • There he is.

    一個死人對世界有什麼用?

  • Now, if you look closely, you will notice that the embalming

    他說 一種是將屍體獻給

  • of his actual head was not a success,

    解剖學的研究中

  • so they substituted a waxed head and at the bottom, for verisimilitude,

    但是 對偉大的哲學家來說 更好的做法是

  • you can actually see his actual head on a plate.

    保存他的容貌來激勵後輩的思想者們

  • You see it? Right there.

    想看看填充版的邊沁長什麼樣嗎?

  • So, what's the moral of the story?

    就是這樣

  • The moral of the story... and by the way,

    就是他

  • they bring him out during meetings of the board

    如果你仔細看 會注意到

  • at University College London and the minutes record him

    他的頭部防腐工作並不成功

  • as present but not voting.

    所以他們用了蠟制的頭代替 為了逼真

  • Here is a philosopher in life and in death

    在底部 你們能看到他的真頭 在盤子上

  • who adhered to the principles of his philosophy.

    看見了嗎? 就在那裡

  • We'll continue with rights next time.

    這個事件能得出什麼道理?

  • 它告訴我們... 順便說下

Last time, we argued about

--==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途

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