Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Today, we turn to John Locke.

    --==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

  • On the face of it, Locke is a powerful ally of the libertarian.

    --==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 長路獨行 XQ 校對: 扎扎LU

  • First, he believes, as libertarians today maintain,

    哈佛大學 Michael Sandel主講

  • that there are certain fundamental individual rights that are so important

    《公正:該如何做是好?》

  • that no government, even a representative government,

    "這裡是我的地盤"

  • even a democratically elected government, can override them.

    今天我們來學習John Locke的理論

  • Not only that, he believes that those fundamental rights include

    乍看起來 Locke是自由意志論的忠實擁護者

  • a natural right to life, liberty, and property,

    首先 他相信 正如當今的自由論者所堅持的

  • and furthermore he argues that the right to property

    有一些基本的人權是很重要的

  • is not just the creation of government or of law.

    因此所有政府 無論是代議政府

  • The right to property is a natural right in the sense

    還是民主選舉政府 都不能凌駕於這些權利之上

  • that it is prepolitical.

    不僅如此 他認為這些基本權利還包括

  • It is a right that attaches to individuals as human beings,

    生命權 自由權以及財產權 三大自然權利

  • even before government comes on the scene,

    而且他還認為財產權

  • even before parliaments and legislatures

    並非政府或法律的產物

  • enact laws to define rights and to enforce them.

    而是自然權利

  • Locke says in order to think about what it means to have a natural right,

    是前政治性的

  • we have to imagine the way things are

    它是附屬於人類個體的權利 它的出現

  • before government, before law, and that's what Locke means

    甚至早於政府的出現

  • by the state of nature.

    甚至在議會以及立法機關開始

  • He says the state of nature is a state of liberty.

    制定法律來定義並執行權利之前

  • Human beings are free and equal beings.

    Locke說 為了弄明白擁有自然權利意味著什麼

  • There is no natural hierarchy.

    我們需要想像一下在政府 法律出現之前

  • It's not the case that some people are born to be kings

    事情是怎樣的 這也是Locke關於

  • and others are born to be serfs.

    自然狀態的定義

  • We are free and equal in the state of nature and yet,

    他認為自然狀態就是一種自由狀態

  • he makes the point that there is a difference between

    人類都是自由平等的

  • a state of liberty and a state of license.

    不存在自然的等級制度

  • And the reason is that even in the state of nature,

    沒有人生來就是國王

  • there is a kind of law.

    也沒有人天生是農奴

  • It's not the kind of law that legislatures enact.

    在自然狀態中 我們是自由平等的

  • It's a law of nature. And this law of nature constrains

    他強調說自由狀態與許可狀態

  • what we can do even though we are free,

    之間是存在差異的

  • even though we are in the state of nature.

    因為 即使在自然狀態下

  • Well what are the constraints?

    也有法律的存在

  • The only constraint given by the law of nature

    這種法律不是立法者制定的那種法律

  • is that the rights we have, the natural rights we have

    而是自然法則 它對我們的行為進行約束

  • we can't give up nor can we take them

    即使我們是自由的

  • from somebody else.

    即使我們處於自然狀態

  • Under the law of nature, I'm not free to take somebody else's

    那麼約束是什麼呢?

  • life or liberty or property, nor am I free to take

    自然法則的約束

  • my own life or liberty or property.

    是源於我們所有的自然權利

  • Even though I am free, I'm not free to violate the law of nature.

    我們不能放棄這一權利 也不能

  • I'm not free to take my own life or to sell my self into slavery

    剝奪他人的這一權利

  • or to give to somebody else arbitrary absolute power over me.

    在自然法則之下 我不能隨意剝奪他人的

  • So where does this constraint, you may think it's a fairly

    生命 自由或者財產 我也不能隨意

  • minimal constraint, but where does it come from?

    剝奪自己的生命 自由或財產

  • Well, Locke tells us where it comes from

    即使我是自由的 我也不能違反自然規律

  • and he gives two answers. Here is the first answer.

    我不能隨意結束自己的生命 或把自己賣給他人做奴隸

  • "For men, being all the workmanship of one omnipotent,

    或給他人任意的絕對權利來操控我

  • and infinitely wise maker," namely God,

    這種約束 你可能覺得是非常

  • "they are His property, whose workmanship they are,

    微不足道的 但它從何而來呢?

  • made to last during His, not one another's, pleasure."

    Locke給出了

  • So one answer to the question is why can't I give up

    兩個答案 這是第一個

  • my natural rights to life, liberty, and property is well,

    "人類 由一位全能而又無比明智的智者

  • they're not, strictly speaking, yours.

    創造出來的" 這位智者就是上帝

  • After all, you are the creature of God. God has a bigger property right in us,

    "人來是上帝的財產

  • a prior property right.

    是他創造出來延續個人快樂 而非讓人類彼此取悅的"

  • Now, you might say that's an unsatisfying,

    所以我不能放棄

  • unconvincing answer, at least for those

    生命 自由 財產這些自然權利

  • who don't believe in God.

    因為嚴格說來 這些權利不是你的

  • What did Locke have to say to them? Well, here is where Locke appeals

    畢竟 你是上帝的創造物 上帝對我們擁有更大的財產權

  • to the idea of reason and this is the idea,

    優先的財產權

  • that if we properly reflect on what it means to be free,

    你們可能會覺得這個答案不能令人滿意

  • we will be led to the conclusion that freedom can't just be a matter

    難以令人信服 至少對

  • of doing whatever we want.

    不信上帝的人來說是這樣

  • I think this is what Locke means when he says, "The state of nature

    那麼Locke如何對這些人解釋呢? Locke是這樣闡述

  • has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone: and reason,

    這一觀點的

  • which is that law, teaches mankind who will but consult it

    如果我們仔細思考一下自由意味著什麼

  • that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another

    我們就會明白 自由並不是

  • in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

    隨心所欲

  • This leads to a puzzling paradoxical feature of Locke's

    我想Locke的以下這段話也足以表明態度 "自然狀態

  • account of rights.

    用自然法則來約束每個人: 理性

  • It's the idea that our natural rights are unalienable.

    也就是法律 教導人類

  • What does "unalienable" mean? It's not for us to alienate them

    所有人都是平等獨立的 沒有人能傷害或破壞

  • or to give them up, to give them away, to trade them away, to sell them.

    他人的生命 健康 自由或財產"

  • Consider an airline ticket. Airline tickets are nontransferable.

    這使Locke對權利的說明

  • Or tickets to the Patriots or to the Red Sox.

    看似自相矛盾

  • Nontransferable tickets are unalienable.

    那就是我們的自然權利是不可剝奪的

  • I own them in the limited sense that I can use them for myself,

    "不可剝奪"是什麼意思? 就是說 我們不能讓與

  • but I can't trade them away. So in one sense, an unalienable right,

    放棄 轉讓 買賣這些自然權利

  • a nontransferable right makes something I own less fully mine.

    比如機票 機票是不可轉讓的

  • But in another sense of unalienable rights,

    又或者是愛國者或紅襪隊的比賽門票

  • especially where we're thinking about life, liberty, and property,

    不可轉讓的門票是不可剝奪的

  • or a right to be unalienable makes it more deeply,

    狹義上 我擁有他們 我可以使用他們

  • more profoundly mine, and that's Locke's sense

    但我卻不能轉讓買賣他們 所以某種意義上 不可剝奪權

  • of unalienable.

    不可轉讓權使我並不能完全擁有一樣東西

  • We see it in the American Declaration of Independence.

    但在另一意義上 不可剝奪權

  • Thomas Jefferson drew on this idea of Locke.

    尤其當我們考慮到生命 自由和財產時

  • Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and as Jefferson amended Locke,

    一項不可剝奪的權利意味著這項權利完全地

  • to the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights.

    絕對地屬於我 這就是Locke關於

  • Rights that are so essentially mine

    不可剝奪的理解

  • that even I can't trade them away or give them up.

    在美國獨立宣言中也可以看到這一點

  • So these are the rights we have in the state of nature

    Thomas Jefferson引用了Locke的這一觀點

  • before there is any government.

    不可剝奪的生命權 自由權 Jefferson修正了Locke的觀點

  • In the case of life and liberty, I can't take my own life.

    加上了追求幸福的權利 不可剝奪的權利

  • I can't sell myself into slavery any more than I can take

    這些權利本質上屬於我

  • somebody else's life or take someone else

    所以我不能買賣或者放棄他們

  • as a slave by force.

    這些就是在政府出現之前 自然狀態中

  • But how does that work in the case of property?

    我們擁有的權利

  • Because it's essential to Locke's case that private property can arise

    生命和自由 我不能結束自己的生命

  • even before there is any government.

    我不能自易為奴 正如我不能

  • How can there be a right to private property

    奪取他人生命或用暴力

  • even before there is any government?

    易他人為奴

  • Locke's famous answer comes in Section 27.

    但對於財產權又是如何解釋呢?

  • "Every man has a property in his own person.

    因為在Locke的思想中 至關重要的一點就是私人財產

  • This nobody has any right to but himself."

    在政府出現之前就有了

  • "The labor of his body and the work of his hands,

    怎麼會在政府出現之前就有

  • we may say, are properly his."

    私人財產權呢?

  • So he moves, as the libertarians later would move,

    Locke著名的回答見於第27部分

  • from the idea that we own ourselves, that we have property in our persons

    "每個人都有自己的個人財產

  • to the closely connected idea that we own our own labor.

    任何人都無權動用 唯有他自己"

  • And from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labor with

    "自身的勞動力以及勤勞的雙手

  • that is un-owned becomes our property.

    可以說 都是他的"

  • "Whatever he removes out of the state that nature has provided,

    隨之發展 正如自由意志者從

  • and left it in, he has mixed his labor with,

    我們擁有自己 即我們擁有自己個人的財產這一觀點

  • and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby

    發展出與此緊密相關的另一觀點 即我們擁有個人勞動力

  • makes it his property."

    並又從這一點引出更深遠的結論 那就是我們將自己的勞動力

  • Why? Because the labor is the unquestionable property

    和不屬於我們的東西相結合 就形成了財產

  • of the laborer and therefore, no one but the laborer

    "不管他從自然中索取

  • can have a right to what is joined to or mixed with his labor.

    或是給予 他都付出了自己的勞動

  • And then he adds this important provision,

    使之成為自己所屬

  • "at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."

    因此這就是他的財產"

  • But we not only acquire our property in the fruits of the earth,

    為什麼? 因為勞動是勞動者無可置疑的財產

  • in the deer that we hunt, in the fish that we catch

    因此 只有勞動者

  • but also if we till and plow and enclose the land and grow potatoes,

    有權將自己的勞動加入或和其他東西相結合

  • we own not only the potatoes but the land, the earth.

    然後他加了這樣一條很重要的規定

  • "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates

    "至少還與其他人仍有足夠好的共性存在"

  • and can use the product of, so much is his property.

    但我們收穫的不僅是從泥土中長出的水果

  • He by his labor encloses it from the commons.

    獵到的鹿 捕到的魚

  • So the idea that rights are unalienable seems to distance

    而且 我們翻地 犁地 圈地來種植土豆

  • Locke from the libertarian.

    我們有的不僅是土豆 還擁有那塊土地

  • Libertarian wants to say we have an absolute property right

    "一個人耕種 培育了多少土地

  • in ourselves and therefore, we can do with ourselves

    並且可以擁有這塊土地上生長出的果實 這些都是他的財產

  • whatever we want.

    他通過自己的勞動將其同其他土地區分開來

  • Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view.

    所以似乎權利是不可剝奪的這一思想將Locke

  • In fact, he says if you take natural rights seriously,

    和自由論者區分開來

  • you'll be led to the idea that there are certain constraints

    自由論者想說 我們有絕對的財產權

  • on what we can do with our natural rights,

    因此 我們可以做

  • constraints given either by God or by reason reflecting

    任何想做的事

  • on what it means really to be free, and really to be free

    Locke並不完全贊同這一觀點

  • means recognizing that our rights are unalienable.

    實際上 他認為如果將自然權利看得太重

  • So here is the difference between Locke and the libertarians.

    就會讓人們覺得行使自然權利時

  • But when it comes to Locke's account of private property,

    會受到一定的約束

  • he begins to look again like a pretty good ally

    這種約束可能來自上帝 或者來自

  • because his argument for private property begins

    對什麼是真正的自由的反思 真正的自由意味著

  • with the idea that we are the proprietors of our own person

    承認我們的權利是不可剝奪的

  • and therefore, of our labor, and therefore,

    所以這就是Locke和自由意志論者的不同之處

  • of the fruits of our labor, including not only

    但一涉及到他對私有財產的說明

  • the things we gather and hunt in the state of nature

    他就又變得像是自由意志論的忠實擁護者

  • but also we acquire our property right in the land that we enclose

    因為他對私有財產的論據始於這一思想

  • and cultivate and improve.

    我們對自己的人身

  • There are some examples that can bring out the moral intuition

    勞動 還有勞動果實

  • that our labor can take something that is unowned and make it ours,

    擁有所有權 不僅包括

  • though sometimes, there are disputes about this.

    在自然狀態下採集 打獵到所得

  • There is a debate among rich countries and developing countries

    還包括我們對圈起 培育 耕作的

  • about trade-related intellectual property rights.

    土地的所有權

  • It came to a head recently over drug patent laws.

    勞動使原本不屬於我們的東西變為己有

  • Western countries, and especially the United States say,

    儘管有時這點存在爭議

  • "We have a big pharmaceutical industry

    但是有一些實例的確會牽扯道德問題

  • that develops new drugs.

    貿易有關的知識產權問題

  • We want all countries in the world to agree

    在發達國家與發展中國家之間仍有分歧

  • to respect the patents."

    近期 因藥品專利法問題情勢又趨緊張

  • Then, there came along the AIDS crisis in South Africa,

    西方國家 尤其是美國認為

  • and the American AIDS drugs were hugely expensive,

    "我們發達的製藥工業

  • far more than could be afforded by most Africans.

    生產新藥

  • So the South African government said,

    我們希望所有的國家都能同意

  • "We are going to begin to buy a generic version of the AIDS

    遵守專利權法"

  • antiretroviral drug at a tiny fraction of the cost

    之後 南非爆發了艾滋危機

  • because we can find an Indian manufacturing company

    美國的艾滋藥物太貴

  • that figures out how the thing is made and produces it,

    非洲人根本就買不起

  • and for a tiny fraction of the cost, we can save lives

    因此南非政府說

  • if we don't respect that patent."

    "我們要低價購買非專利的艾滋

  • And then the American government said,

    抗逆轉錄病毒藥物

  • "No, here is a company that invested research

    因為我們找到一家印度製藥公司

  • and created this drug.

    瞭解這種藥的成分 可以生產

  • You can't just start mass producing these drugs without paying

    價錢又低 如果不遵守專利權法

  • a licensing fee."

    就可以救更多人"

  • And so there was a dispute and the pharmaceutical company

    美國政府這樣回答

  • sued the South African government to try to prevent their buying

    "不 有一個公司在投資研究

  • the cheap generic, as they saw it, pirated version of an AIDS drug.

    生產這種藥

  • And eventually, the pharmaceutical industry gave in and said,

    沒有付授權使用費 你就不能大規模地

  • "All right, you can do that."

    生產這種藥"

  • But this dispute about what the rules of property should be,

    因此產生了糾紛 製藥公司

  • of intellectual property of drug patenting, in a way,

    將南非政府告上法庭 試圖阻止他們買

  • is the last frontier of the state of nature because among nations

    這種便宜的無專利權 盜版的艾滋藥品

  • where there is no uniform law of patent rights and property rights,

    最終 製藥公司做出讓步並說

  • it's up for grabs until, by some act of consent,

    "好吧 你們可以買"

  • some international agreement, people enter into some settled rules.

    但這場關於財產權的規則是什麼

  • What about Locke's account of private property

    藥物專利權的規則是什麼的糾紛 在某種程度上

  • and how it can arise before government and before law

    是自然狀態的最後一塊領域 因為在國與國之間

  • comes on the scene? Is it successful?

    沒有統一的專利法和產權法

  • How many think it's pretty persuasive?

    只是公開投標 直到一致同意後出台

  • Raise your hand.

    一些國際協定 人們才開始有確定的規則

  • How many don't find it persuasive?

    Locke關於財產權的說明如何

  • All right, let's hear from some critics.

    財產權怎樣才能在政府和法律

  • What is wrong with Locke's account of how private property can arise

    出現之前出現呢? 它成功了嗎?

  • without consent? Yes?

    有多少人認為它很令人信服?

  • Yes, I think it justifies European cultural norms as far as

    請舉手

  • when you look at how Native Americans may not have cultivated American land,

    有多少人覺得它沒有說服力?

  • but by their arrival in the Americas, that contributed

    好吧 讓我們來聽聽反對者怎麼說

  • to the development of America, which wouldn't have otherwise

    Locke對於私人財產可以不經許可而產生的描述

  • necessarily happened then or by that specific group.

    有何不妥呢? 你來?

  • So you think that this is a defense, this defense of private property in land...

    好 我覺得它將歐洲文化的行為標準正當化了

  • Yes, because it complicates original acquisition

    舉例來說 可能美洲土著人並沒有耕種美洲的土地

  • if you only cite the arrival of foreigners that cultivated the land.

    但他們的到來 使美洲

  • - I see. And what's your name? - Rochelle.

    得以發展 可那並不是

  • - Rochelle? - Yes.

    在特定時間或是特定人群發生的必然事件

  • Rochelle says this account of how property arises

    所以你認為這是一種辯護 對土地私有財產的辯護...

  • would fit what was going on in North America during the time

    對 因為如果你只是引入耕種土地的外來者的話

  • of the European settlement.

    會使原始取得變得複雜

  • Do you think, Rochelle, that it's a way of defending

    - 我明白了 你叫什麼名字? - Rochelle

  • the appropriation of the land?

    - Rochelle? - 對

  • Indeed, because I mean, he is also justifying

    Rochelle說這種對於財產產生的描述

  • the glorious revolutions.

    符合歐洲殖民時期

  • I don't think it's inconceivable that he is also justifying

    北美洲發生的情況

  • colonization as well.

    Rochelle 你是否認為這是在為

  • Well, that's an interesting historical suggestion

    土地佔有辯護?

  • and I think there is a lot to be said for it.

    的確 因為我是指 他也是在正當化

  • What do you think of the validity of his argument though?

    光榮革命

  • Because if you are right that this would justify the taking

    說他也正當化了殖民化

  • of land in North America from Native Americans

    也不足為奇

  • who didn't enclose it, if it's a good argument,

    嗯 那是很有趣的歷史見解

  • then Locke's given us a justification for that.

    我也覺得這有很多可取之處

  • If it's a bad argument, then Locke's given us a mere

    那麼他的論點的合法性你怎麼認為?

  • rationalization that isn't morally defensible.

    因為如果你是對的 那將正當化

  • - I'm leaning to the second one... - You're leaning toward the second one.

    從沒有圈地美洲土著人那裡

  • But that's my opinion as well.

    奪取土地的行為 如果那是一個正論點

  • All right, well, then, let's hear if there is

    那麼Locke給了我們一個正當的理由

  • a defender of Locke's account of private property,

    如果那是一個反論點 那麼Locke僅僅給了我們

  • and it would be interesting if they could address Rochelle's worry

    一個道德上不可辯解的強辯

  • that this is just a way of defending the appropriation

    - 我傾向第二個說法... - 你傾向第二個說法

  • of land by the American colonists from the Native Americans

    但那也是我的看法

  • who didn't enclose it.

    好 那麼 讓我們看看有沒有Locke

  • Is there someone who will defend Locke on that point?

    關於私人財產描述的辯護者

  • Are you going to defend Locke?

    如果他們能夠解決Rochelle的憂慮

  • Like, you're accusing him of justifying the European

    也就是說這是一種為美洲殖民者從未圈地的

  • basically massacre the Native Americans.

    美洲土著人那裡奪取土地的行為的辯護

  • But who says he is defending it?

    那將會很有趣

  • Maybe the European colonization isn't right.

    有沒有人能在這一點上為Locke辯護?