哈佛大学公开课

第一讲《杀人的道德侧面》

这是一门讨论公正的课程,我们以一则故事作为引子:假设你是一名电车司机,你的电车以60英里/小时的速度在轨道上飞驰, 突然发现在轨道的尽头有五名工人正在施工. 你无法让电车停下来,因为刹车坏了. 你此时极度绝望,因为你深知如果电车撞向那五名工人,他们全都会死。假设你对此确信无疑,你极为无助,直到你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨,而在侧轨的尽头只有一名工人在那施工。而你的方向盘还没坏，只要你想，就可以把电车转到侧轨上去。牺牲一人挽救五人性命。

This is a course about justice, and we begin with a story. Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track, at 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track. You try to stop but you can’t, but your brakes don’t work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. Let’s assume you know that for sure, and so you feel helpless, until you notice that there is off to the right, a side track and at the end of that track, there is one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track. Killing the one but sparing the five.

下面是我们的第一个问题: 何为正确的选择?

Here’s our first question: what’s the right thing to do?

换了你会怎么做?我们来做个调查。

What would you do? Let’s take a poll.

有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去，请举手

How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track? Raise your hands.

有多少人会让电车继续往前开

How many would go straight ahead?

选择往前开的，请不要把手放下

Keep your hands up, those of you who would go straight ahead.

只有少数人选择往前开，绝大多数都选择转弯

A handful of people would, the vast majority would turn.

我们先来听听大家的说法，探究一下为何，你们会认为这是正确的选择。

Let’s hear first, now we need to begin to investigate the reasons, why you think it’s the right thing to do.

先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始

Let’s begin with those in the majority who would turn to go onto the side track.

为何会这样选择?理由是什么? 有没有自告奋勇的

Why would you do it? What would be your reason? Who’s willing to volunteer a reason? 你来站起来告诉大家

Go ahead. Stand up.

我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时，牺牲五人不是正确之举。当可以只牺牲一人时,牺牲五人不是正确之举

Because it can’t be right to kill five people,when you can only kill one person instead. It wouldn’t be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.

这理由不错,不错。还有其他人吗？

That’s a good reason. Who else?

人人都赞同这个理由？

Does everybody agree with that reason?

你来

Go ahead.

我认为这和9?11的时候是一种情况，那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人，被视为英雄。因为他们选择了牺牲自己，而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人

Well I was thinking it’s the same reason on 9/11, with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes. Because they chose to kill the people on the plane,and not kill more people in big buildings.

这么看来这条原则和9?11的是一样的，虽然是悲剧，但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择，这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗？

So the principle there was the same on 9/11. It’s a tragic circumstance, but better to kill one so that five can live, is that the reason most of you had, those of you who would turn? Yes?

现在我们来听听少数派的意见，那些选择不转弯的

Let’s hear now from those in the minority, those who wouldn’t turn.

你来

Yes.

我认为这与为种族灭绝以及极权主义正名，是同一种思维模式。为了一个种族能生存下来，以灭绝另一个种族为代价

Well, I think that’s the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism. In order to save one type of race, you wipe out the other.

那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做？为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝，你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗？

So what would you do in this case? You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide; you would crash into the five and kill them?

大概会吧

Presumably, yes.

-真的会吗

- You would?

-对

- Yeah.

很有勇气的回答谢谢

That’s a brave answer. Thank you.

我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子：

看看你们大多数的人会不会继续坚持刚才的原则，即”牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择”Let’s consider another trolley car case and see whether those of you in the majority want to adhere to the principle “better that one should die so that five should live.”

这次你不再是电车司机了，只是一名旁观者，你站在一座桥上，俯瞰着电车轨道。电车沿着轨道从远处驶来，轨道的尽头有五名工人。电车刹车坏了，这五名工人即将被撞死，但你不是电车司机，你真的爱莫能助。直到你发现，在你旁边靠着桥站着的是个超级大胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车。他必死无疑，但可以救那五人的性命。

This time you’re not the driver of the trolley car, you’re an onlooker. You’re standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. And down the track comes a trolley car, at the end of the track are five workers, the brakes don’t work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.

And now, you’re not the driver, you really feel helpless, until you notice standing next to you, leaning over the bridge is a very fat man. And you could give him a shove. He would fall over the bridge onto the track right in the way of the trolley car. He would die but he would spare the five.

现在有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥

Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge?

请举手，又有多少人不会？

Raise your hand. How many wouldn’t?

大多数人不会这么做，一个显而易见的问题出现了

Most people wouldn’t. Here’s the obvious question.

我们”牺牲一人保全五人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题呢？

What became of the principle “better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?”

第一种情况时大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了？

What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed in the first case?

两种情况中都属多数派的人，你们是怎么想的？

I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.

应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢？

How do you explain the difference between the two?

你来

Yes.

我认为第二种情况牵涉到主动选择推人，而被推的这个人本来跟这事件一点关系都没有。所以，从这个人自身利益的角度来说，他是被迫卷入这场无妄之灾的。而第一种情况不同，第一种情况里的三方，电车司机及那两组工人之前就牵涉进这事件本身了。但在侧轨上施工的那名工人，他并不比那个胖子，更愿意牺牲自我不是吗？

The second one, I guess, involves an active choice of pushing a person down which I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all. And so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is, I guess, more than what you have in the first case where the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers, are already, I guess, in the situation. But the guy working, the one on the track off to the side, he didn’t choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did, did he?

对，但谁让他就在那侧轨上，而且…那胖子还在桥上呢

That’s true, but he was on the tracks and… This guy was on the bridge.

如果你愿意，可以继续说下去

Go ahead, you can come back if you want.

好吧，这是一个难以抉择的问题

All right. It’s a hard question.

你回答得很不错，真的难以抉择

You did well. You did very well. It’s a hard question.

还有谁能来为两种情况中大多数人的不同选择做出合理解释

Who else can find a way of reconciling? The reaction of the majority in these two cases?

你来

Yes.

我认为，在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个，你只能在这两者中选择。不管你做出的是哪一个选择，总得有人被电车撞死，而他们的死并非你的直接行为导致。电车已失控，而你必须在那一瞬间做出选择。而反之，把胖子推下去则是你自己的直接谋杀行为。你的行为是可控的，而电车则是不可控的，所以我认为这两种情况略有不同。

Well, I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five, It’s a choice between those two and you have to make a certain choice, and people are going to die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is a runaway thing and you’re making a split second choice. Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part. You have control over that whereas you may not have control over the trolley car. So I think it’s a slightly different situation.

很好，有没谁来回应的，有人吗？有人要补充吗刚才那个解释合理吗

All right, who has a reply? That’s good. Who has a way? Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this?

我认为这不是一个很好的理由，因为不论哪种情况，你都得选择让谁死，或者你是选择转弯撞死一名工人，这种转弯就是种有意识的行为，或者你是选择把胖子推下去，这同样是一种主动的有意识的行为。所以不管怎样，你都是在作出选择。

I don’t think that’s a very good reason, because you choose to- either way you have to choose who dies, because you either choose to turn and kill the person, which is an act of conscious thought to turn, or you choose to push the fat man over, which is also an active, conscious action. So either way, you’re making a choice.

你有话要说吗

Do you want to reply?

我不太确定情况就是这样的，只是觉得似乎有点不同。真的动手把人推到轨道上让他死的这种行为就等于是你亲手杀了他。你用你自己的手推他，是你在推他，这不同于操控方向盘进而导致了他人死亡…

I’m not really sure that that’s the case. It just still seems kind of different. The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him, you are actually killing him yourself. You’re pushing him with your own hands. You’re pushing him and that’s different than steering something that is going to cause death into another…

现在听起来好像不太对头了

You know, it doesn’t really sound right saying it now.

不，你回答得不错，叫什么名字

No, no. It’s good. It’s good. What’s your name?

安德鲁

Andrew.

我来问你一个问题，安德鲁

Andrew. Let me ask you this question, Andrew.

您问

Yes.

假设我站在桥上，胖子就在我旁边，我不用去推他，假设他踩在一扇活板门上方，而活板门可以通过转动方向盘来开启，你会转动方向盘吗

Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man, I didn’t have to push him, suppose he was standing over a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that. Would you turn?

出于某种原因我觉得这样似乎错上加错

For some reason, that still just seems more wrong.

是吗

Right?

如果是你不小心靠着方向盘，导致活门开启或是发生之类的情况。但是…或者是列车飞驰而来时正好可以触发活门开关，那我就赞同。

I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that. But… Or say that the car is hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap. Then I could agree with that.

-没关系，好了

That’s all right. Fair enough.

反正就是不对

It still seems wrong in a way

而在第一种情况，这样做就是对的，是吧？换个说法就是，在第一种情况中你是直接涉及其中的。而第二种情况中，你只是旁观者

That it doesn’t seem wrong in the first case to turn, you say. And in another way, I mean, in the first situation you’re involved directly with the situation. In the second one, you’re an onlooker as well.

-好了，所以你有权选择是否把胖子推下去，从而牵涉其中，好了

All right. – So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man. –All right.

先不管这个情况，你们很不错

Let’s forget for the moment about this case. That’s good.

我们来想象一个不同的情况

Let’s imagine a different case.

这次你是一名急诊室的医生，有天送来了六个病人，他们遭受了一次严重的电车事故，其中五人伤势不算严重，另外一人受重伤，你需要花上一整天时间来医治这一名受重伤的病人，但那另外五个病人就会死。你也可以选择医治这五人，但那样的话那名受重伤的病人就会死This time you’re a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you. They’ve been in a terrible trolley car wreck. Five of them sustain moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim, but in that time, the five would die. Or you could look after the five, restore them to health but during that time, the one severely injured person would die.

有多少人会选择救那五人

How many would save the five?

作为医生又有多少人选择救那一人？

Now as the doctor, how many would save the one?

只有极少数人

Very few people, just a handful of people.

我猜理由还是一样，牺牲一个保全五个

Same reason, I assume. One life versus five?

现在来考虑一下另外一种情况

Now consider another doctor case.

这次你是一名器官移植医生，你有五名病人，每名病人都急需器官移植才能存活分别需要心脏移植，肺移植，肾移植，肝移植，以及胰腺移植。没有器官捐赠者，你只能眼睁睁看他们死去。然后你突然想起在隔壁病房有个来做体检的健康人。

This time, you’re a transplant surgeon and you have five patients, each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and the fifth a pancreas. And you have no organ donors. You are about to see them die. And then it occurs to you that in the next room there’s a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.

而且他…你们喜欢这剧情吧…而且他正在打盹。你可以悄悄地进去，取出那五个器官，这人会死，但你能救那另外五人。有多少人会这么做？

And he’s…you like that… and he’s taking a nap, you could go in very quietly, yank out the five organs, that person would die, but you could save the five. How many would do it?

有吗

Anyone?

选择这么做的请举手，楼座上的呢

How many? Put your hands up if you would do it. Anyone in the balcony?

我会

I would.

你会吗，小心别太靠着那栏杆

You would? Be careful, don’t lean over too much.

有多少人不会

How many wouldn’t?

很好，你来

All right. What do you say?

楼座上那位

Speak up in the balcony,

就是支持取出那些器官的，为什么这么做？

you who would yank out the organs. Why?

其实我想知道可否稍微变通一下，就是选择五人中最先死的那人，利用他的器官来救其他四人？

I’d actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.

这想法很赞，想法不错

That’s a pretty good idea.That’s a great idea

只不过你避开了我们今天要谈论的哲学问题，让我们暂时先不忙讨论这些故事以及争论，来关注一下这些争论是怎样展开的。某些道德原则，已经随着我们讨论的展开逐渐开始浮现出来了，我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的

Except for the fact That you just wrecked the philosophical point. Let’s step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold. Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge

from the discussions we’ve had. And let’s consider what those moral principles look like. 在讨论中出现的第一条道德原则，正确的选择，道德的选择，取决于你的行为所导致的后果。最终结论: 牺牲一人保全五人，是更好的选择，这是后果主义道德推理的一则例子。

The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion, said the right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action. At the end of the day, better that five should live even if one must die. That’s an example of consequentialist moral reasoning.

后果主义道德推理，认为是否道德取决于行为的后果，取决于你的行为对外界所造成的影响。但随着谈论的深入，我们发现在其他情况中人们不再对后果主义道德推理那么确定了Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further, we considered those other cases and people weren’t so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning.

当人们开始犹豫是否要推胖子下桥，或者是否切取无辜病人的器官时，他们更倾向于去评判行为本身的动机，而不是该行为的后果。人们动摇了，他们认为杀掉一个无辜的人，是绝对错误的，哪怕是为了拯救五条生命。至少在每个故事的第二种情况中，是这样认为的。这表明有第二种绝对主义方式的道德推理。

When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient, people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences be what they may. People were reluctant.

People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong, to kill a person, an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives.

At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered. So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.

绝对主义道德推理认为，是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则，取决于绝对明确的义务与权利而不管后果如何。我们将用以后的几天到几周时间来探讨后果主义与绝对主义道德原则的差别。

Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We’re going to explore in the days and weeks to come the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.

后果主义道德推理中最具影响的，就是功利主义由18世纪英国政治哲学家，杰里米?边沁提出。而绝对主义道德推理中最为著名的则是18世纪德国哲学家康德

The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham,18th century English political philosopher

The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

我们将着眼于这两种迥异的道德推理模式评价它们，还会考虑其他模式

So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning, assess them, and also consider others.

如果你有留意教学大纲，就能发现教学大纲里列出了不少人的著作，包括亚里士多德，约翰?洛克，伊曼努尔?康德，约翰?斯图尔特?穆勒及其他哲学家的著作。在教学大纲中还能看到我们不仅要读这些著作，还会探讨当代政治及法律争议所引发的诸多哲学问题。我们将讨论平等与不平等，平权行动，自由言论与攻击性言论，同性婚姻，兵役制等一系列现实问题

If you look at the syllabus, you’ll notice that we read a number of great and famous books, books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others. You’ll notice too from the syllabus that we don’t only read these books; we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions. We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same-sex marriage, military conscription, a range of practical questions.

为什么呢？不仅是为了将这些深奥抽象的著作形象化还为了让我们通过哲学辨明，日常生活包括政治生活中什么才是最关键的。所以我们要读这些著作，讨论这些议题。并了解两者是怎样互相补充互相阐释的。

Why? Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books but to make clear, to bring out what’s at stake in our everyday lives, including our political lives, for philosophy. And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues, and we’ll see how each informs and illuminates the other.

也许听起来蛮动人，不过我要事先提个醒那就是，通过用这样的方式阅读这些著作来训练自我认知必然会带来一些风险，包括个人风险和政治风险，每位学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险

This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this, to read these books in this way as an exercise in self-knowledge, to read them in this way carries certain risks, risks that are both personal and political, risks that every student of political philosophy has known.

这风险源自于以下事实，即哲学就是让我们面对自己熟知的事物，然后引导并动摇我们原有的认知

These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.

这真是讽刺

There’s an irony.

这门课程的难度，就在于传授的都是你们已有的知识，它将我们所熟知的，毋庸置疑的事物变得陌生

The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange.

正如我们刚举的例子，那些严肃而又不乏趣味的假设性问题，这些哲学类著作亦然That’s how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. It’s also how these philosophical books work.

哲学让我们对熟知事物感到陌生，不是通过提供新的信息，而是通过引导并激发我们用全新方式看问题，但这正是风险所在.一旦所熟知的事物变得陌生,它将再也无法回复到从前,自我认知就像逝去的童真，不管你有多不安，你已经无法不去想或是充耳不闻了。Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing, but, and here’s the risk, once the familiar turns strange, it’s never quite the same again.

Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it, it can never be un-thought or un-known.

这一过程会充满挑战又引人入胜，因为道德与政治哲学就好比一个故事，你不知道故事将会如何发展，你只知道这个故事与你息息相关

What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting is that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don’t know where the story will lead. But what you do know is that the story is about you.

以上为我提到的个人风险

Those are the personal risks.

那么政治风险是什么呢？介绍这门课程时，可以这样许诺: 通过阅读这些著作讨论这些议题，你将成为更优秀更有责任感的公民，你将重新审视公共政策的假定前提，你将拥有更加敏锐的政治判断力，你将更有效地参与公共事务，但这一许诺也可能片面而具误导性。因为绝大多数情况下，政治哲学并不是那样的。你们必须承认政治哲学可能使你们成为更糟的公民，而不是更优秀的，至少在让你成为更优秀公民前先让你更糟

Now what of the political risks? One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you that by reading these books and debating these issues, you will become a better, more responsible citizen; you will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs.

But this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy, for the most part. Hasn’t worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one,

因为哲学使人疏离现实，甚至可能弱化行动力追溯到苏格拉底时代，就有这样一段对话：在《高尔吉亚篇》中苏格拉底的一位朋友，卡里克利斯试图说服苏格拉底放弃哲学思考，他告诉苏格拉底: 如果一个人在年轻时代有节制地享受哲学的乐趣那自然大有裨益，但倘若过分沉溺其中，那他必将走向毁灭。听我劝吧，卡里克利斯说，收起你的辩论。学个谋生的一技之长，别学那些满嘴谬论的人。要学那些生活富足，声名显赫及福泽深厚的人

and that’s because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating, activity. And you see this, going back to Socrates, there’s a dialogue, the Gorgias, in which one of Socrates’ friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing.

Callicles tells Socrates “Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin.”“Take my advice,”Callicles says, “abandons argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life, take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings.”言外之意则是，放弃哲学，现实一点去读商学院吧

So Callicles is really saying to Socrates “Quit philosophizing, get real, go to business school.”

卡里克利斯说得确有道理，因为哲学的确将我们与习俗，既定假设以及原有信条相疏离And Callicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, and from settled beliefs.

以上就是我说的个人以及政治风险，面对这些风险，有一种典型的回避方式，这种方式就是怀疑论。大致的意思是刚才争论过的案例或者原则没有一劳永逸的解决方法

Those are the risks, personal and political. And in the face of these risks, there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism, it’s the idea…It goes something like this. We didn’t resolve once and for all either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began.

如果亚里士多德，洛克，康德以及穆勒花了这么多年都没能解决这些问题，那今天我们齐聚桑德斯剧院，仅凭一学期的课程学习就能解决了吗？也许这本就是智者见智，仁者见仁的问题。多说无益，也无从论证。这就是怀疑论的回避方式。对此我给予如下回应。诚然，这些问题争论已久，但正因为这些问题反复出现，也许表明虽然在某种意义上它们无法解决，但另一种意义上却又无可避免，它们之所以无可避免，无法回避，是因为在日常生活中，我们一次次地在回答这些问题。因此怀疑论让你们举起双手，放弃道德反思，这绝非可行之策。And if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven’t solved these questions after all of these years, who are we to think that we, here in Sanders Theatre, over the course of a semester, can resolve them? And so, maybe it’s just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and there’s nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. That’s the evasion, the evasion of skepticism, to which I would offer the following reply. It’s true; these questions have been debated for a very long time but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted may suggest that though they’re impossible in one sense, they’re unavoidable in another.

And the reason they’re unavoidable, the reason they’re inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions every day. So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution.

康德曾很贴切地描述了怀疑论的不足，他写道：怀疑论是人类理性暂时休憩的场所，是理性自省，以伺将来做出正确抉择的地方，但绝非理性的永久定居地。康德认为：简单地默许于怀疑论，永远无法平息内心渴望理性思考之不安

Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote “Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement.”

“Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,”Kant wrote,”can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason.”

以上我是想向大家说明，这些故事和争论展示的风险与诱惑，挑战与机遇。简而言之，这门课程旨在唤醒你们永不停息的理性思考，探索路在何方。

I’ve tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities. I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead.

谢谢

Thank you very much.