Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Last time we began trying to... we began by trying to navigate

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組 僅供翻譯交流使用, 禁止用於商業用途

  • our way through Kant's moral theory.

    --==聖城家園SCG字幕組 協調: 飛天宇 MAXの依依 時間軸:Money1026 翻譯: 煦煦 XQ 曹卡卡 校對: 甜蜜的嚮往

  • Now, fully to make sense of Kant moral theory in the groundwork


  • requires that we be able to answer three questions.


  • How can duty and autonomy go together?

    上一次我們... 對康德的道德論

  • What's the great dignity in answering to duty?


  • It would seem that these two ideas are opposed duty and autonomy.

    現在 為了從根本上理解康德的道德論

  • What's Kant's answer to that?


  • Need someone here to speak up on Kant's behalf.


  • Does he have an answer?


  • Yes, go ahead, stand up.

    從表面看來 義務和自律無法共存

  • Kant believes you the only act autonomously when you are pursuing

    對於這一點 康德的回答是什麼呢?

  • something only the name of duty and not because of your own circumstances


  • such as... like you're only doing something good and moral


  • if you're doing it because of duty and not because something

    好的 你說吧 站起來

  • of your own personal gain.


  • Now why is that acting... what's your name?

    來做一件事時 這種行為才是自主的

  • My name is Matt.

    例如... 當你做有益的 符合道德觀的事

  • Matt, why is that acting on a freedom? I hear what you're saying about duty?


  • Because you choose to accept those moral laws in yourself


  • and not brought on from outside upon onto you.

    為什麼這種行為... 你叫什麼名字?

  • Okay, good. Because acting out of duty


  • - Yeah. - is following a moral law

    Matt 為什麼這種行為是自主決定的? 我聽你說是因為義務?

  • That you impose on yourself.


  • that you impose on yourself. That's what makes duty

    而非外界對你施壓 使你逼迫接受

  • - compatible with freedom. - Yeah.

    好的 很好 因為這種出於義務的行為

  • Okay, that's good Matt. That is Kant's answer. That's great.

    - 是的 - 是你遵從自已選擇的

  • Thank you. So, Kant's answer is it is not in so far as I am subject


  • to the law that I have dignity but rather in so far as with regard

    是你施加給自己的 這個論據證明義務與自由

  • to that very same law, I'm the author and I am subordinated

    - 可以並存 - 是的

  • to that law on that ground that I took it as much as at I took it upon myself.

    好的 很好 Matt 這就是康德的回答 很好

  • I willed that law. So that's why for Kant acting according

    謝謝 所以 康德的回答是 我們並非只有受限於法律時

  • to duty and acting freely in the sense of autonomously are one and the same.

    才能享有尊嚴 而是針對同一項法律

  • But that raises the question, how many moral laws are there?

    我說了算 我遵守這項法律

  • Because if dignity consists and be governed by a law that I give myself,


  • what's to guarantee that my conscience will be

    我們願意遵循法律 因此康德表明出於義務的行為

  • the same as your conscience? Who has Kant's answer to that? Yes?


  • Because a moral law trend is not contingent upon seductive conditions.

    但這又提出了一個問題 有多少道德律存在呢?

  • It would transcend all particular differences between people

    因為如果尊嚴是由一種 我們給予自身的法律組成的

  • and so would be a universal law and in this respect there'd only be


  • one moral law because it would be supreme.

    誰知道康德的回答是什麼? 你說?

  • Right. That's exactly right. What's your name?


  • Kelly.


  • Kelly. So Kelly, Kant believes that if we choose freely

    因此它是一項通用法律 從這方面來說

  • out of our own consciences, the moral law we're guarantee

    只會存在一項道德律 因為它是至高無上的

  • - to come up with one and the same moral law. - Yes.

    對 非常對 你叫什麼名字?

  • And that's because when I choose it's not me, Michael Sandel choosing.


  • It's not you, Kelly choosing for yourself.

    Kelly 那麼Kelly 康德認為如果我們用自已的是非觀

  • What is it exactly? Who is doing the choosing?

    來自主選擇 道德律 我們一定會

  • Who's the subject? Who is the agent? Who is doing the choosing?

    - 選擇同一項道德律 - 是的

  • - Reason? - Well reason... - Pure reason.

    那是因為我們選擇的時候 不是我 Michael Sandel在選擇

  • Pure reason and what you mean by pure reason is what exactly?

    也不是你 Kelly在選擇

  • Well pure reason is like we were saying before not subject to any

    那到底是什麼呢? 誰在做抉擇呢?

  • external conditions that may be imposed on that side.

    這一主體是誰? 誰是媒介? 誰在做決定?

  • Good that's' great. So, the reason that does the willing,

    - 理性? - 理性... - 純粹的理性

  • the reason that governs my will when I will the moral law

    純粹的理性 你具體是指什麼?

  • is the same reason that operates when you choose the moral law

    嗯 純粹的理性就是我們在不受任何外部條件

  • for yourself and that's why it's possible to act autonomously


  • to choose for myself, for each of us to choose for ourselves

    很好 很好 那麼 讓一種意願得以實現的理性

  • as autonomous beings and for all of us to wind up willing the same moral law,


  • the categorical imperative.


  • But then there is one big and very difficult question left even


  • if you accept everything that Matt and Kelly had said so far.


  • How is a categorical imperative possible?


  • How is morality possible? To answer that question,


  • Kant said we need to make a distinction.


  • We need to make a distinction between two standpoints,


  • two standpoints from which we can make sense of our experience.


  • Let me try to explain what he means by these two standpoints.

    道德有存在的可能嗎? 想要回答這個問題

  • As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world.


  • There my actions are determined by the laws of nature


  • and by the regularities of cause and effect.

    從這兩種觀點中 我們可以理解自身經歷

  • But as a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world here


  • being independent of the laws of nature I am capable of autonomy,

    作為人生經歷的客體 我們屬於感知世界

  • capable of acting according to a law I give myself.


  • Now Kant says that, "Only from this second standpoint can I regard myself


  • as free for to be independent of determination by causes

    但作為人生經歷的主體 我們存在於智思世界中

  • in the sensible world is to be free."

    我們可以獨立於自然定律之外 主宰自已

  • If I were holy and empirical being as the utilitarian assume,


  • if I were a being holy and only subject to the deliverances of my senses,


  • the pain and pleasure and hunger and thirst and appetite,

    在感知世界中 決策不受定律支配的自由

  • if that's all there were to humanity, we wouldn't be capable of freedom,


  • Kant reasons because in that case every exercise of will would be

    如果像功利論者所說的 我是一個聖尊 一個經驗主義者

  • conditioned by the desire for some object.

    如果我是一個聖尊 而且只受自身感覺支配

  • In that case all choice would be heteronomous choice governed

    像是疼痛 快樂 飢渴 食慾

  • by the pursued of some external end. "When we think of ourselves as free,"

    如果人性只有這些 我們將無法獲得自由

  • Kant writes, "we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members

    康德說 因為在那種情況下 任何一種意願的執行

  • and recognize the autonomy of the will." That's the idea of the two standpoints.


  • So how are categorical imperatives possible? Only because the idea

    那樣的話 所有選擇都會成為他律性選擇

  • of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world?


  • Now Kant admits we aren't only rational beings.


  • We don't only inhabit the intelligible world, the realm of freedom.


  • If we did... if we did, then all of our actions

    那麼定言命令怎麼可能存在呢? 只是由於自由觀

  • would invariably accord with the autonomy of the will.


  • But precisely because we inhabit simultaneously the two standpoints,


  • the two realms, the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity


  • precisely because we inhabit both realms there is always potentially a gap

    如果我們只存在於這個世界... 那麼我們所有的行為

  • between what we do and what we ought to do between is and ought.


  • Another way of putting this point and this is the point with which


  • Kant concludes the groundwork, morality is not empirical.

    存在兩個王國之中 即自由王國和必然王國

  • Whatever you see in the world, whatever you discover through science

    正是因為我們同時存在於兩種王國 所以在我們所做之事和應做之事之間

  • can't decide moral questions.


  • Morality stands at a certain distance from the world,

    還有一種解釋這一觀點的方法 康德利用這一觀點

  • from the empirical world.

    來總結他的依據 那就是 道德並非經驗主義

  • And that's why no science could deliver moral truth.

    在這個世上無論你看到了什麼 無論你通過科學發現了什麼

  • Now I want to test Kant's moral theory with the hardest possible case,


  • a case that he raises, the case of the murderer at the door.


  • Kant says that lying is wrong. We all know that.


  • We've discussed why. Lying is at odds with the categorical imperative.


  • A French Philosopher, Benjamin Constant wrote an article responding


  • to the groundwork where he said, "This absolute probation online is wrong. It can't be right."

    這個例子由他自已提出來 是一個關於在門口的殺手的例子

  • What if a murderer came to your door looking for your friend

    康德說撒謊是不對的 這點我們都知道

  • who was hiding in your house?

    原因我們已經討論過 撒謊是不符合定言命令的

  • And the murderer asked you point blank, "Is your friend in your house?"


  • Constant says, "It would be crazy to say that the moral thing to do

    的文章裡寫道這種絕對化的檢驗是錯的 不可能對

  • in that case is to tell the truth."

    如果一個殺手敲你的門 想找你的朋友

  • Constant says the murderer certainly doesn't deserve the truth

    而你的朋友藏在你家裡 你會怎麼辦?

  • and Kant wrote to reply.


  • And Kant stuck by his principle that lying even to the murderer


  • at the door is wrong.


  • And the reason it's wrong, he said is once you start taking


  • consequences into account to carve out exceptions to the categorical imperative,


  • you've given up the whole moral framework.

    但康德堅持他自已的原則 說哪怕對門口的殺手說謊

  • You've become a consequentialist or maybe a rule utilitarian.


  • But most of you and most to our Kant's readers think there's something odd

    他說不對的理由是 一旦你開始考慮後果

  • and impossible about this answer.


  • I would like to try to defend Kant on this point


  • and then I want to see whether you think that my defense is plausible,

    你就變成了一個後果論者 或者一個規則功利主義者

  • and I would want to defend him within the spirit of his own account of morality.

    但是你們大多數人 大多數康德理論的讀者都認為

  • Imagine that someone comes to your door.


  • You were asked that question by this murder.


  • You are hiding your friend.


  • Is there a way that you could avoid telling a lie


  • without selling out your friend?


  • Does anyone have an idea of how you might be able to do that?


  • Yes? Stand up.


  • I was just going to say if I were to let my friend in my house


  • to hide in the first place, I'd probably make a plan with them


  • so I'd be like, "Hey I'll tell the murderer you're here,


  • but escape," and that's one of the options mentioned.

    你說? 站起來

  • But I'm not sure that's a Kantian option. You're still lying though.

    我會說 如果一開始我就讓我朋友躲在我家裡

  • No because he's in the house but he won't be.


  • Oh I see. All right, good enough. One more try.


  • If you just say you don't know where he is because he might not


  • be locked in the closet.

    但我認為這不屬於康德提倡的做法 你仍然在撒謊

  • He might have left the closet. You have no clue where he could be.

    不 因為他現在在屋子裡 可之後就不在了

  • So you would say, I don't know which wouldn't actually be a lie

    噢 我知道了 好的 很好 聽一下其他人的意見

  • because you weren't at that very moment looking in the closet.

    如果你只是說你不知道他在哪兒 是因為

  • - Exactly. -So it would be strictly speaking true.


  • Yes.

    他可能已經從衣櫃裡出來了 你根本不知道他在哪

  • - And yet possibly deceiving, misleading. -But still true.

    所以你可以說 我不知道 這其實並不算撒謊

  • - What's your name? -John.


  • John. All right, John has... now John may be on to something.

    - 是的 - 所以嚴格上說你說的是真話

  • John you're really offering us the option of a clever evasion


  • that is strictly speaking true.

    - 但是可能是欺騙性的 誤導性的 - 但仍然是事實

  • This raises the question whether there is a moral difference between

    - 你叫什麼名字? - John

  • an outright lie and a misleading truth.

    John 好的 John... John的想法很貼近了

  • From Kant's point of view there actually is a world of difference between a lie

    John 你的確想到了一種方法 可以在講真話的同時

  • and a misleading truth.


  • Why is that even though both might have the same consequences?

    這提出了一個問題 就是徹頭徹尾的謊言

  • But then remember Kant doesn't base morality on consequences.