our way through Kant's moral theory.

--==聖城家園SCG字幕組bbs.cnscg.com==-- 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

公正：該如何做是好?

requires that we be able to answer three questions.

謊言的教訓

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?

進行了有益的探討

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?

我們必須回答三個問題

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

義務和自律如何統一?

Does he have an answer?

什麼是履行義務的偉大尊嚴?

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

這裡需要有人代表康德來講幾句

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

他給出回答了嗎?

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.

康德認為當一個人是出於義務而不是由於出於對自身的考慮

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?

只是出於一種義務

Because you choose to accept those moral laws in yourself

並非為了個人利益

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

我叫Matt

- 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.

因為你自已選擇了接受這些道德律

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

道德律的表現

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,

但前提是我們主動接受這一規則

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?

和自主決定的行為本質上是統一的

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

那麼如何能保證我們的是非觀是一致的呢?

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?

因為道德律不受主觀條件所左右

Kelly.

它超越了所有人與人之間的具體區別

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.

我叫Kelly

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

左右的情況下所持有的想法

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,

也就是在我們履行道德律時支配我們意願的理性

the categorical imperative.

也同樣是在我們為自已選擇道德律時起作用的理性

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

因此我們每一個人才有可能自主選擇

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

每個人作為個體為自己做選擇

How is a categorical imperative possible?

這樣我們最終都會遵循同一個道德律

How is morality possible? To answer that question,

這就是定言命令

Kant said we need to make a distinction.

但是即使你接受Matt和Kelly所說的一切觀點

We need to make a distinction between two standpoints,

仍然存在一個重要而難以回答的問題

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

定言命令有存在的可能嗎?

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.

康德說我們需要作一個區分

There my actions are determined by the laws of nature

我們需要區別兩種觀點

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

我來解釋一下他所說的這兩種觀點的內涵

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.

在這一世界中我們的行為由自然定律

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

以及因果關係所決定

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,

我們可以根據自已認定的法律主宰我們的行為

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

康德說只有基於第二個觀點我們才能認為

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,

才是真正的自由

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.

都將會受到對某一事物慾望的支配

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?

為涉及某種外在目的的對象所支配當我們認為自已是自由人的時候

Now Kant admits we aren't only rational beings.

康德寫道我們將自已看成智思世界中的一員

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

並且認可意志自律這就是兩種觀點

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.

使我們成為智思世界中的一員嗎?

But precisely because we inhabit simultaneously the two standpoints,

康德承認我們不只是理性的個體

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

我們不只存在於智思世界這個自由王國裡

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.

就一定會符合意志自律的規則

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

但正是因為我們腦中同時存在兩種觀念

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.

總有一個潛在的差距是和應該是之間的差距

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,

都無法用來判定道德問題

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

道德是屹立於世界以外的

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

在經驗世界之外

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

因此科學無法闡釋道德真理

A French Philosopher, Benjamin Constant wrote an article responding

現在我想用一個最不可能發生的例子來檢驗康德的道德論

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?"

一位名叫本傑明·康斯坦特的法國哲學家在一篇針對這一論點

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.

這個殺手直截了當地問你，你的朋友在你房裡嗎？

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

康斯坦特說如果有人說在這個例子中說出真相才是道德的

at the door is wrong.

那他簡直是瘋了

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

康斯坦特說這個殺手很顯然不配知道真相

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

而康德也寫信回復了

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.

也是不對的

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.

你這種做法已給定言命令開創了先例

I would like to try to defend Kant on this point

你已經脫離了整個道德架構

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.

這個答案有些怪異並且不大可能

You were asked that question by this murder.

這點上我想嘗試為康德辯護

You are hiding your friend.

之後再聽聽看你們認為我的辯護是否有理

Is there a way that you could avoid telling a lie

我想以他的道德論給他辯護

without selling out your friend?

想像一下有人敲你的門

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

然後這個殺手問你那個問題

Yes? Stand up.

你當時想要將你朋友藏起來

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

有沒有一種方法可以讓你不必說謊

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

但也不會出賣你朋友?

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

有人想到辦法沒有?

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.

我可能會和我朋友制定一項計劃

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

然後我會說嘿，我會告訴殺手你在這裡

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

但是你逃走了，這是常見的一種選擇

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.

他可能並沒有被鎖在衣櫃裡

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.

因為那一刻你並沒有檢查衣櫃

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

是的

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.

聰明地逃避問題

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.

和誤導性的事實之間有無道德上的區別

He bases it on formal adherence to the moral law.

依康德看來 謊言和誤導性的事實

Now, sometimes in ordinary life we make exceptions for the general rule against

之間是有許多區別的

lying with the white lie. What is a white lie?

為什麼就算兩者都會導致同樣的結果 二者還是有區別的?

It's a lie to make... you're well to avoid hurting someone's feelings for example.

但請記住康德沒有將道德建立於結果基礎之上

It's a lie that we think of as justified by the consequences.

他將道德建立在嚴格遵循道德准律的基礎上

Now Kant could not endorse a white lie but perhaps he could endorse

平時我們儘管不說謊言 可也偶爾破個例

a misleading truth.

說一些善意的謊言 什麼是善意的謊言?

Supposed someone gives you a tie, as a gift, and you open the box

這種謊言可以... 比如說可以幫你避免傷害別人的感情

and it's just awful. What do you say? Thank you?

從後果的角度來說 我們認為撒這種謊是情有可原的

You could say thank you.

康德可能不支持善意的謊言 但有可能支持

But they're waiting to see what you think of it or they ask you

誤導性的事實

what do you think of it?

假設有人將一個領帶送給你作為禮物 你打開禮物盒

You could tell a white lie and say it's beautiful.

發現領帶很差勁 你怎麼說? 謝謝?

But that wouldn't be permissible from Kant's point of view.

你可以說謝謝

Could you say not a white lie but a misleading truth,

但是那個人想知道你覺得禮物怎麼樣 或者他會問你

you open the box and you say, "I've never seen a tie like that before.

你覺得怎麼樣?

Thank you." You shouldn't have.

你可以說一個善意的謊言 說它很漂亮

That's good.

但從康德的角度來說 這是不容許的

Can you think of a contemporary political leader who engaged... you can?

你可以避免說善意的謊言 而講一個誤導性的事實嗎

Who are you thinking of?

你打開盒子 說道我以前從來沒見過這樣的領帶

You remember the whole carefully worded denials in the

謝謝，你可別

Monica Lewinsky affair of Bill Clinton.

說得好

Now, those denials actually became the subject of very explicit debate

你們能想到一個當代的政治領袖做例子嗎... 可以?

in argument during the impeachment hearings.

你們想到的是誰?

Take a look at the following excerpts from Bill Clinton.

你們記得比爾·克林頓利用巧辯否認

Is there something do you think morally at stake in the distinction between a lie

與Monica Lewinsky的關係吧

and a misleading carefully couched truth?

他否認的言辭實際上成為了彈劾聽證會上

I want to say one thing to the American people.

公開爭論的對象

I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again.

我們看一下比爾·克林頓講話的片段

I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky.

你們認為在區分謊言和措辭謹慎的 有誤導性的事實上

I never told anybody to lie not a single time, never. These allegations are false.

存在道德關鍵點嗎?

Did he lie to the American people when he said I never had sex with that woman?

我想對美國人民說一件事

You know, he doesn't believe he did and because of the...

你們聽我說 我再重複一遍

Well he didn't explain it.

我和那位Lewinsky小姐沒有發生過性關係

He did explain that, explain congressman.

我從沒讓任何人撒謊 一次都沒有 從來沒有 這些指控是錯誤的

What he said was to the American people that he did not have sexual relations

當他說他從沒和那個女人發生性關係時 他對美國人民撒謊了嗎?

and I understand you're not going to like this congressman

他不認為他做了 因為...

because you will see it as a hair-splitting evasive answer.

他並沒有給出解釋

But in his own mind his definition was not...

他解釋過了 議員 他解釋了

- Okay, I understand that argument. - Okay.

他對美國人民所說的是 他沒有發生過性關係

All right, so there you have the exchange.

我知道你們可能不喜歡這個國會議員

Now at the time, you may have thought this was just a

因為你們會認為這個回答只是滿口托辭的含糊回答

legalistic hair-splitting exchange between a Republican who wanted to

但在他看來 他的定義不是...

impeach Clinton and a lawyer who is trying to defend him.

- 好的 我明白你的意思了 - 好的

But now in the light of Kant, do you think there is something

好了 你們已經看了這段對話了

morally at stake in the distinction between a lie and an evasion,

你們現在可能覺得這只是一次

a true but misleading statement? I'd like to hear from defenders of Kant.

吹毛求疵的條文主義的爭辯 一方是想要彈劾克林頓的共和黨

People who think there is a distinction. Are you ready to defend Kant?

另一方是想要為他辯護的律師