哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
《公正与正义》公开课观后感
《公正与正义》公开课观后感学号：2011262138 商务1121班为了丰富我们的思想素养，我们的敬爱的胡老师给我们看了由哈佛大学哲学教授迈克尔*桑德尔（Michael Sandel）主讲的美国哈佛大学《公正与正义》公开课程的讲学视频的前六讲。
不得不说，看完之后，受益匪浅，感慨良多。
该讲座以哈佛教授迈克尔*桑德尔对道德和政治哲学的系列入门介绍。
邀请大家带着批判的观点来思考正义，公平，民主和公民权等基础问题。
看完了《公正与正义》前六讲，我似乎感觉到了其中所描述的是在一个秩序良好的理想的社会中探讨正义、阐述规则，正义的标准到底如何确定，我想这应该是一个很值得探讨的问题。
桑德尔教授对假设的理想社会的正义原则的理性设计，展示了其精密而理性的逻辑思维。
采用较为思辨的语言不见经传地阐述实质性的理论问题，而不是像分析哲学那样较多地集中于语言与形式方面。
在《公平与正义》中，桑德尔教授所假设出来的一切，都将重重的考验着我们每一次站在道德与法律、公平与正义上所做出的选择。
在这里，仅写下一点哲学赋予我的人生智慧，这也算是在对该讲学中某一个方面的感悟吧。
哲学的任务不是为了人对客观实际增加正面的知识，而是为了提高人的心智。
在学习中，我们面对事物，学会了用联系、发展、全面的观点看问题，避免了那些孤立的、静止的、片面的幼稚错误；我们认识到了世界的发展有其自身的规律，如果顺应规律将得到事半功倍的效果；我们明白量变质变的原理，懂得如果不防微杜渐，一点点小错误的积累都会导致严重的后果；我们明白矛盾的重点论，知道了面对纷繁复杂问题的时候，抓住其主要方面，其他都能迎刃而解。
学哲学可以养成清楚的思维，怀疑的精神，容忍的态度，开阔的眼界，我们要有这种眼界，不但可以做事，而且更能善于做事。
任何一个知识领域，只要你愿意深入，展现在你眼前的将是一种不一样的画面，而知识的真谛也往往蕴于其中。
另外，哲学以它巨大的智慧力量丰富着我们的内心，壮大了我们的力量，在哲学的引领下，我们明白了人生的目的，在我们的有生之年，学会智慧的面对这个世界。
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
最大化效用作为一个原则 不仅适用于个人
but also for communities
and for legislators.
而且还适用于社区及立法者.
"What, after all, is a community"
Bentham asks.
“毕竟,什么是社区” Bentham问道.
costs for people who develop
smoking-related diseases.
从而受到负面影响.
On the other hand,
there were positive effects
另一方面,这也有积极效应
and those were added up
on the other side of the ledger.
从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的.
What exactly should we maximize
我们究竟该如何最大化
Bentham tells us happiness,
or more precisely, utility -
Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用-
maximizing utility as a principle
pay pensions for as long -
养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-
and also, savings in
housing costs for the elderly.
还有,老年人住房费用.
And when all of the costs
and benefits were added up,
哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记
哈佛大学桑德尔教授“公平与正义”公开课笔记第一课：谋杀的道德侧面——食人案件案例1：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5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5名工人，他们全都会死。
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1名工人在那里施工。
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，牺牲一人挽救五个人的性命。
第一个问题：何为正确的选择？换成你会怎么做？绝大多数人都选择转弯：牺牲一个人，保存五个是最好的选择。
不转弯的人的理由：类似于种族灭绝的思维方式。
案例2：这次你不再是电车司机，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而来，轨道尽头有5名工人，电车刹车坏了，这5名工人即将被撞死。
但你不是电车司机，你爱莫能助。
直到你发现在你旁边，靠着桥站着的是个超级胖子，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，但可以挽救那5个人的性命。
现在，又有多少人会选择把胖子推下桥？（大多人不会这么做）一个显而易见的问题出现了，我们“牺牲一人保全五人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题？第一种情况中大多数人赞同这条原则怎么了？两种情况都属于多数派的人，你们是怎么想的？应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢？学生1发言：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件事一点关系都没有，所以，从个人自身利益的角度来说，他是被迫卷入这种灾难的。
而第一种情况不同，第一种情况里的三方、电车司机以及两组工人，之前就牵涉进这件事本身了。
（在侧轨的那个人并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自己。
）学生2发言：在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个人，你只能在两者中选择，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，并非是你的直接行为导致的，电车已经失控，而你必须在一瞬间做出选择。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18
哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18这是关于道德与政治哲学的一个入门系列课程，主要是围绕哈佛大学迈克尔·桑德尔教授法学系列课程《公正：该如何是好？》展开评议。
本课程旨在引导观众一起评判性思考关于公正、平等、民主与公民权利的一些基本问题，以拓展他们对于政治与道德哲学的认知理解，探究固有观念是与非。
学生们同时还将接触过去一些伟大哲学家——亚里士多德、康德、密尔、洛克。
然后，应用课程去分析复杂多变的现代问题：赞助性措施、同性婚姻、爱国主义、忠诚度与人权等。
桑德尔在教学中通过一些假设或真实案例的描述，置学生于伦理两难困境中，然后要他们做出决定：“该如何做是好？”他鼓励学生站出来为自己的观点辩护，这通常激发生动而幽默的课堂辩论。
桑德尔然后围绕伦理问题展开，更深层次地触及不同道德选择背后的假设。
这种教学法通常会揭示道德推论的矛盾本质。
第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》、第2讲：《食人惨案》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，你会怎么选？正确的做法是什么？教授Michael Sandel在他的讲座里提出这个假设的情景，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。
但是Sandel提出了三宗类似的道德难题-每一个都设计巧妙，以至于抉择的难度增加。
当学生站起来为自己的艰难抉择辩护时，Sandel提出了他的观点。
我们的道德推理背后的假设往往是矛盾的，而什么是正确什么是错的问题，并不总是黑白分明的。
Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。
他们在海上迷失了19天之后，船长决定杀死机舱男孩，他是4个人中最弱小的，这样他们就可以靠他的血液和躯体维持生命。
案件引发了学生们对提倡幸福最大化的功利论的辩论，功利论的口号是“绝大多数人的最大利益”。
第3讲：《给生命一个价格标签》、第4讲：《如何衡量快乐》Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）在18世纪后期提出的的功利主义理论-最大幸福理论-今天常被称为“成本效益分析”。
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》是一门探讨社会正义、道德决策和公平的知名课程。
通过这门课程，人们可以更深入地了解公平与正义这一重要主题，并进行理性的思考和讨论。
以下是对这门课程涉及的书目进行全面评估，并撰写一篇有价值的文章。
一、约翰·罗尔斯的《正义论》在哈佛公开课中，约翰·罗尔斯的思想在探讨公平与正义方面占据重要地位。
《正义论》一书深入探讨了社会正义的概念和原则，提出了“差别原则”和“最大化原则”等理论，为我们理解公平与正义提供了宝贵的思想资源。
二、迈克尔·桑德尔的《正义：我们为什么如此纷争》迈克尔·桑德尔是哈佛大学的知名哲学教授，他的书《正义：我们为什么如此纷争》也是《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》中的重要参考书目。
书中作者以丰富的案例和深刻的思考，解析了正义的本质和我们为何在正义问题上存在纷争的原因，对于加深我们对公平与正义的理解具有重要的启发作用。
三、阿马蒂亚·森的《公平与自由》阿马蒂亚·森是诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他的著作《公平与自由》也是哈佛公开课中必不可少的参考书目。
在这本书中，作者对公平与自由的关系进行了深入的思考和论述，从个体自由和社会公平的角度对正义进行了系统的阐释，为我们提供了全新的思考视角。
《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》涉及的书目涵盖了哲学、政治学和经济学等多个学科领域的经典著作，为探讨公平与正义提供了丰富的理论资源。
通过对这些书目进行深入研读和思考，我们可以更好地理解和把握公平与正义这一重要主题。
总结回顾：通过对《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》涉及的书目进行全面评估，我们深入了解了约翰·罗尔斯、迈克尔·桑德尔和阿马蒂亚·森等学者对公平与正义的深刻思考和论述。
这些经典著作为我们理解和探讨公平与正义提供了丰富的理论资源，并为我们拓展了思维的广度和深度。
在今后的学习和思考中，我们可以结合这些书目的理论，形成自己对公平与正义的个人观点和理解，不断丰富和完善自己的价值观念。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：第一课：英文字幕
Funding for this program is provided by...Additional funding provided by...This is a course about justice and we begin with a you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the trackat miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all 's assume you know that for so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the endof that track, there is one worker working on the steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the 's our first question:what's the right thing to doWhat would you doLet's take a many would turnthe trolley caronto the side trackRaise your many wouldn'tHow many would go straight aheadKeep your hands up those of youwho would go straight handful of people would,the vast majority would 's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to 's begin with those in the majoritywho would turn to goonto the side would you do itWhat would be your reasonWho's willing to volunteer a reasonGo ahead. Stand it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person 's a good 's a good elseDoes everybody agreewith that reason Go I was thinking it's the same reasonon / with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big the principle therewas the same on /.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn YesLet's hear nowfrom those in the minority,those who wouldn't turn. , I think that'sthe same type of mentalitythat justifies genocideand order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the what would you doin this caseYou would, toavoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill themPresumably, would. Who elseThat's a brave 's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of youin the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driverof the trolley car,you're an 're standing on a bridgeoverlooking a trolley car down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat you couldgive him a would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley would diebut he would spare the , how many would pushthe fat man over the bridgeRaise your many wouldn'tMost people wouldn''s the obvious became of the principle"better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one"What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first caseI need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both do you explainthe difference between the two second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have beeninvolved in the situation at so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did heThat's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the ahead, you can come backif you want. All 's a hard question. You did did very 's a hard else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases , I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certainchoice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley I think it's a slightlydifferent right, who has a replyThat's good. Who has a wayWho wants to replyIs that a way out of thisI don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person,which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious either way,you're making a you want to replyI'm not really surethat that's the just still seemskind of act of actually pushingsomeone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him 're pushing himwith your own 're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into know, it doesn't really sound rightsaying it , no. It's good. It's 's your name me ask you this question, standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like you turnFor some reason,that still just seems more I mean, maybe if you accidentallylike leaned into the steering wheelor something like ... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the I could agree with 's all right. Fair still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the the second one,you're an onlooker as right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat right. Let's forget for the momentabout this 's 's imagine a different time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to 've been in a terribletrolley car of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spendall daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould many would save the fiveNow as the doctor,how many would save the oneVery few people,just a handful of reason, I life versus fiveNow consider another doctor time, you're a transplant surgeonand you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a you have no organ are about to see them then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a 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 many would do itAnyone How manyPut your hands upif you would do in the balconyI would Be careful,don't lean over too many wouldn'tAll right. What do you saySpeak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. WhyI'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other 's a pretty good 's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical 's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've let's considerwhat those moral principles look first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must 's an exampleof consequentialist moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral peoplehesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasonshaving to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they were thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights,regardless of the 're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast betweenconsequentialist and categoricalmoral most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke,Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,and 'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary,political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical will debate equality and inequality,affirmative action, free speech versushate speech, same sex marriage,military conscription,a range of practical questions. WhyNot just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the may sound appealing enough,but here I have to issue a the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks,risks that are both personaland political,risksthat every studentof political philosophy has risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already 's an difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already works by taking what we knowfrom familiar unquestioned settingsand making it 's how those examples worked,the hypotheticals with which we began,with their mix of playfulnessand 's also how thesephilosophical books estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same knowledge is like lost innocence,however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor makes this enterprise difficultbut also rivetingis that moral and political philosophyis a story and you don't knowwhere the story will what you do knowis that the story is about are the personal what of the political risksOne way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise youthat by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositionsof public policy,you will hone your political judgment,you will become a moreeffective participant in public this would be a partialand misleading philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that have to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out tells Socrates"Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if onepursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says,"abandon the accomplishmentsof active life,take for your modelsnot those people whospendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihoodand reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates"Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a had a point because philosophydistances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled are the risks,personal and in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for alleither the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve themAnd so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her ownprinciples and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of 's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following 's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every skepticism, just throwing up your handsand giving up on moral reflectionis no Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might you very , in a situation thatdesperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to do what you have to doYou got to dowhat you got to do, pretty you've been going dayswithout any food, you know,someone just hasto take the has to make the sacrificeand people can , that's 's your name, what do you say to MarcusLast time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were began with our judgmentsin particular tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles,revising eachin the light of the we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought we called thisconsequentialist moral we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the , many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrongeven if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one we contrasted consequentialistmoral principles with categorical and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral that's the philosophyof Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple a lot of morallyintuitive appeal,Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize did he mean byutilityHe meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain,happiness over 's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and human beingslike pleasure and dislike so we should base morality,whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens,we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of 's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and was a th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law 's what happened in the 'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the newspaper account of the timedescribed the sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, ship flounderedin the South Atlantic, miles from the were four in the crew,Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker, years was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of , it was not to facts of the casewere not in wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went four crew membersescaped to a only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh the first three days,they ate the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate next daythey caught a with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few then for eight days,theyhad food. No yourselfin a situation like that,what would you doHere's what they now the cabin boy, Parker,is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawateragainst the advice of the othersand he had become illand he appeared to be on the th day,Dudley, the captain,suggested that they should allhave a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the didn't like the lottery don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral in any case,no lots were next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin then they were describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism."On the th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand turned state's and Stevens went to didn't dispute the claimed they hadacted out of necessity;that was their argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could prosecutor wasn't swayedby that said murder is murder,and so the case went to imagine you are the just to simplify the discussion,put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissibleAnd how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrongA pretty sizeable let's see what people's reasons areand let me begin with thosewho are in the 's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and would you morallyexonerate themWhat are your reasons think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthereis a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensibleand what makes someonelegally other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact,exonerate you from any . Good. Other voices for the justificationsfor what they did. just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to dowhat you have to , you've got to dowhat you've got to you've been going days without any food, you know,someone just has to take the sacrifice,someone has to make the sacrificeand people can furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productivemembers of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizationsand this and thatand this and mean they benefited everybodyin the end. , I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't but. -WhatMaybe they were if they went homeand they turned out to be assassinsWhat if they'd gone homeand turned out to be assassins Well…You'd want to knowwho they 's true too. That's 's fair. I would want to knowwho they right. That's 's your name. All 've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the we need to hearfrom the people thinkwhat they did was wrong. WhyYes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be if that's an appealing argumentthat you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincingdo think that they wereacting what do you-I want to knowwhat you defend 'm sorry, you vote to convict, rightYeah, I don't think thatthey acted in a morallyappropriate why notWhat do you say,here's Marcus,he justdefended said –you heard what he you've got to dowhat you've got to doin a case like that. do you say to MarcusThat there'sno situation that would allowhuman beings to take the ideaof fate orthe other people's livesin their own hands,that we don't havethat kind of . what's your name. Okay. Who elseWhat do you say Stand 'm wondering if Dudley and Stevenhad asked for Richard Parker'sconsent in you know, dying,if that would exonerate themfrom an act of murderand if so,is that still morally justifiableThat's right. wait, hang 's your name sayssuppose they had that,what would thatscenario look likeSo in the story Dudley is there,pen knife in hand,but instead of the prayeror before the prayer,he says "Parker, would you mind""We're desperately hungry",as Marcus empathizes with,"we're desperately 're not going to last long anyhow."-Yeah. You can be a martyr."Would you be a martyrHow about it Parker"Then what do you thinkWould it be morally justified thenSuppose Parkerin his semi-stupor says "Okay."I don't think it would bemorally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be don't think thateven with consentit would be morally justifiedAre there people who thinkwho want to take upKathleen's consent ideaand who think thatthat would make itmorally justifiedRaise your handif it would, if you think it 's very would consentmake a moral differenceWhy would it , I just thinkthat if he was makinghis own original ideaand it was his ideato start with,then that would bethe only situationin which I would see itbeing appropriate in any waybecause that wayyou couldn't make the argumentthat he was pressured,you know it's three-to-oneor whatever the ratio . -And I think that if he wasmaking a decisionto give his lifeand he took on the agencyto sacrifice himselfwhich some peoplemight see as admirableand other people might disagreewith that if he came upwith the idea,that's the only kindof consent we could haveconfidence in morallythen it would be , it would be kind ofcoerced consentunder the circumstances,you thereanyone who thinksthat even the consent of Parkerwould not justify their killing himWho thinks that us why. Stand think that Parkerwould be killed with the hopethat the other crew memberswould be rescued so there's nodefinite reason thathe should be killedbecause you don't knowwhen they're going to get rescuedso if you kill him,it's killing him in vain,do you keep killing a crew memberuntil you're rescuedand then you're left with no onebecause someone's goingto die eventuallyWell, the moral logicof the situation seems to be that,that they would keep onpicking off the weakest maybe,one by one,until they were in this case, luckily,they were rescued when three at leastwere still , if Parker did give his consent,would it be all right,do you think or notNo, it still wouldn't be tell us whyit wouldn't be all of all, cannibalism,I believe, is morally incorrectso you shouldn't beeating human cannibalism is morallyobjectionable as such so then,even on the scenario ofwaiting until someone died,still it would be , to me personally,I feel like it all dependson one's personal moralsand like we can't sit here and just,like this is just my opinion,of course other peopleare going to disagree, but –Well we'll see,let's see what their disagreements areand then we'll seeif they have reasons that canpersuade you or 's try that. All , is there someonewho can explain,those of you who aretempted by consent,can you explain whyconsent makes sucha moral differenceWhat about the lottery ideaDoes that count as consentRemember at the beginning,Dudley proposed a lottery,suppose that they had agreedto a lottery,then how many would then sayit was all rightSuppose there were a lottery,cabin boy lost,and the rest of the story unfolded,then how many people would sayit was morally permissibleSo the numbers are risingif we had a 's hear from one of youfor whom the lotterywould make a moral would itI think the essential element,in my mind,that makes it a crimeis the idea that they decidedat some point that their liveswere more important than his,andthat, I mean, that's kind ofthe basis for really any It's like my needs,my desires are more importantthan yours and minetake if they had done a lotterywhere everyone consentedthat someone should dieand it's sort of like they're allsacrificing themselvesto save the it would be all rightA little grotesque but–.-But morally permissible what's your name Matt, for you,what bothers you isnot the cannibalismbut the lack of due guess you could say And can someone who agreeswith Matt say a little bit moreabout why a lottery would make it,in your view, morally way I understood itoriginally was thatthat was the whole issueis that the cabin boywas never consultedabout whether or notsomething was goingto happen to him,even with the original lotterywhether or nothe would bea part of that,it was just decidedthat he was the onethat was going to , that's what happenedin the actual if there were a lotteryand they'd all agreed to the procedure,you think that would be okayRight, because then everyoneknows that there's going to be a death,whereas the cabin boy didn't know thatthis discussion was even happening,there was no forewarningfor him to know that"Hey, I may be the one that's dying."All , suppose everyone agreesto the lottery, they have the lottery,the cabin boy loses,and he changes his 've already decided,it's like a verbal can't go back on that,you've decided,the decision was you know that you're dyingfor the reason of others to someone else had died,you know that you wouldconsume them so –Right. But then you could say,"I know, but I lost".I just think thatthat's the whole moral issueis that there was no consultingof the cabin boyand that's what makes itthe most horribleis that he had no ideawhat was even going had he knownwhat was going on,it would be a bit right. I want to hear –so there are some who thinkit's morally permissiblebut only about %,led by there are some who saythe real problem hereis the lack of consent,whether the lack of consentto a lottery, to a fair procedure or,Kathleen's idea,lack of。
哈佛公开课《公平与正义》观后感
观哈佛公开课《公平与正义》有感——怎样成为一名有魅力的教师看完了哈佛著名教授桑德尔的公开课《公平与正义》，感触颇多，尤其被桑德尔教授的教学风格及渊博的知识吸引，桑德尔教授的身上哟许多值得学习的地方，在这里就怎样成为一名有魅力的教师有，在这里就怎样成为一名有魅力的教师有，我我觉得应该首先做到以下几点。
一、独特的教学方式桑德尔教授以“苏格拉底的方式”教学。
苏格拉底像一个“助产婆”，帮助别人产生知识。
“助产术”集中表现在他经常采用的“诘问式”的形式中，以提问的方式揭露对方提出的各种命题、学说中的矛盾，以动摇对方论证的基础，指明对方的无知；在诘问中，苏格拉底自己并不给予正面的、积极的回答，而是让学生自己思考。
苏格拉底曾经说过，没有经过思考的生活是不值得过的生活。
同样，没有经过审视的人生也是没有价值的。
桑德尔教授在教学过程中也是通过不断地诘问、桑德尔教授在教学过程中也是通过不断地诘问、应答、应答、反驳和再追问，使学生通过对具体个案的辨析和争论，使学生通过对具体个案的辨析和争论，来培养批评思考以及推来培养批评思考以及推理论说的能力。
比如，课程刚开始，桑德尔问：“若你是医生，在急诊室有一个病危的病人，和5个病情相对较轻的病人。
你若花一天救那一个人，另5个便会死去；若去救那5个，病危的那个便会病亡。
你如何选择？”大部分同学选择救5人，牺牲少数，使更多人获利。
只有少部分人认为这样做，对病危的病人不公平。
“狡猾”的桑德尔继续提问：“若你有一个相对健康的病人，还有5个分别急需不同移植器官的病危的病人。
你会杀了健康的一个，用他的器官救另外5个吗？”这样的提问方式在课堂上数不胜数。
这样的提问方式在课堂上数不胜数。
最终目的就是引导学生不最终目的就是引导学生不断思考，开拓思维，领悟其中的哲理。
断思考，开拓思维，领悟其中的哲理。
而在中国的大学教授的课堂及讲座基本上都是自己讲，下面的听众往往是百无聊赖。
众往往是百无聊赖。
我觉得作为一名光荣的最光辉的教师，我觉得作为一名光荣的最光辉的教师，在学习方面，在学习方面，不仅是传授现成的知识，更重要的是引导学生学会思考，更重要的是引导学生学会思考，脑海中形成一个系统的脑海中形成一个系统的思维。
哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记
网易公开课《公正》课堂笔记1. 《杀人的道德侧面》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。
如果在最后,可以有五个人活下来。
那么哪怕牺牲一个人的生命也是值得的。
这个例子体现了结果主义的道德推理.事情的正确以及道德与否，取决于你的行为所产生的后果.结果主义的道德准则中最著名的例子是功利主义功利主义不考虑一个人行为的动机与手段，仅考虑一个行为的结果对最大快乐值的影响。
能增加最大快乐值的即是善；反之即为恶。
即使是为了救回5条人命。
杀害一个无辜者.人们在考虑是不是要这么做的时候，会考虑到这个行为的本身，无论结果如何人们觉得这是错的，而且大错特错。
这就引出了第二种道德推理，绝对主义的道德推理。
绝对主义的道德推理认为：道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的责任和权利,而无论所造成的结果是怎么样的.2.《同类相残案》人们是否也有某些基本权利？如果不是来自较大群体的福祉，或者效用或幸福？那么这些权利从何而生？为什么同意以一定的程序，公平的程序，就可以用该程序的运作来为最终带来的结果辩护？得到同意的基本思想：得到同意产生的道德影响是什么？为什么一个得到许可的行为会产生道德上是否允许的不同，使未经许可杀死一个生命是错误的，而本人同意了，在道德上就是允许的？3.《给生命一个价格标签》边沁版本的功利主义其主要思想就是：道德的最高原则,无论个人或政治道德,就是将公共福利,或集体的幸福最大化,或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐;简而言之就是,功利最大化.从这个理论的整体出发,从做正确的事的观点出发,政策和法律的公正的基础就是将效用最大化两个反对功利主义的不同意见：一是功利主义是否充分尊重了个体权利或少数群体的权利；另一个则是聚集起来的所有效益或价值，是否能将聚集起来的所有价值转换成金钱?Thorndike从他的研究中得到的结论.任何愿望或满足感都存在一个量来度量它们，因此是可度量的.狗或猫或鸡的生活都是由欲望组成,渴望,欲望,以及他们的满足.人类的生活,也是如此,虽然人类的欲望和欲求更加复杂.4.《如何衡量快乐》功利主义哲学家密尔认为，所有人类的体验都可以量化，但某些快乐是更值得拥有，更有价值的。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Funding for this programis provided by:本节目的赞助来自......Additi onal funding provided by:另外的赞助来自……Last time,we argued about上次,我们谈到the case ofThe Quee n v. Dudley & Stephe ns,女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件，the lifeboat case,the case of cann ibalism at sea.那个救生艇上，海上吃人的案件.And with the argume ntsabout the lifeboat in mind,带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论the argume nts for and aga instwhat Dudley and Stephe ns did in mind,带着支持和反对Dudley和Stephens所做的吃人行为的讨论let's turn back to the philosophy,the utilitaria n philosophy of Jeremy Ben tham.让我们回头来看看Bentham的功利主义哲学.Ben tham was born in En gla nd in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford. Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 1915岁时，他去了法学院.19岁就取得了律师资格but he n ever practiced law.但他没有从事于律师行业.In stead, he devoted his life to jurisprude nee and moral philosophy.相反，他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学•Last time, we bega n to con siderBen tham's version of utilitaria ni sm.上一次,我们开始考虑Bentham版本的功利主义The mai n idea is simply statedand it's this:简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest prin ciple of morality,whether pers onal or political morality, 道德的最高原则，无论个人或政治道德，is to maximize the gen eral welfare,or the collective happ in ess,就是将公共福利，或集体的幸福最大化，or the overall bala neeof pleasure over pain;或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐；in a phrase, maximize utility.简而言之就是，功利最大化.Ben tham arrives at this prin cipleby the followi ng line of reas oning: Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：We're all gover nedby pain and pleasure,我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制，they are our sovereig n masters,and so any moral system他们是我们的主宰，所以任何道德体系has to take acco unt of them.都要考虑到这点•How best to take acco unt?By maximizi ng.如何能最好地考虑这一点？通过最大化.And this leads to the prin ciple of thegreatest good for the greatest nu mber从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Ben tham tells us happ in ess,or more precisely, utility - Bentham告诉我们幸福，或者更准确地说，实用-maximizi ng utility as a prin ciplenot only for in dividuals最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人but also for com mun itiesand for legislators.而且还适用于社区及立法者•"What, after all, is a commu nity?"Ben tham asks."毕竟，什么是社区？” Bentham问道.It's the sum of the in dividualswho comprise it.它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和•And that's why in decidi ngthe best policy,这就是为什么在决定最好的政策，in decidi ng what the law should be,in decidi ng what's just,在决定法律应该是什么样，在决定什么是公正时citize ns and legislatorsshould ask themselves the questi on公民和立法者应该问自己的问题if we add up all of the ben efitsof this policy如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益and subtract all of the costs,the right thing to do减去所有的成本，正确的做法is the one that maximizes the bala nee of happ in ess over sufferi ng.就是将幸福与痛苦之间的平衡最大化地倾向幸福That's what it meansto maximize utility.这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to seewhether you agree or disagree with it,现在，我想看看你们是否同意它，and it ofte n goes,this utilitaria n logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑，un der the n ame ofcost-be nefit an alysis,名为成本效益分析，which is used by compa niesand by gover nments all the time.也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的And what it in volvesis placi ng a value,它的内涵是用一个价值usually a dollar value,to sta nd for utility on the costs 通常是由美元，来代表不同提案的效用and the ben efitsof various proposals.这效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recen tly, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal最近,在捷克共和国，有一个提案to in crease the excise tax on smok ing.Philip Morris, the tobacco compa ny,对吸烟增加货物税Philip Morris烟草公司，does huge bus in essin the Czech Republic.该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.They commissi oned a study,a cost-be nefit an alysis他们委托了一个研究，of smok ing in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-be nefit关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.an alysis found was the gover nmentgains by havi ng Czech citize ns smoke.他们的分析发现，捷克政府将会因公民吸烟而收益Now, how do they gain?现在,他们如何收益？It's true that there aren egative effects to the public finance确实，捷克政府的公共财政体系of the Czech gover nmentbecause there are in creased health care会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增加的医疗保健开支costs for people who developsmok in g-related diseases.从而受到负面影响.On the other hand,there were positive effects另一方面,这也有积极效应and those were added upon the other side of the ledger .并且这些积极效益累加到了账簿的另一面The positive effects in cluded,for the most part,积极效益包括，在大多数情况下，various tax revenues that thegover nment derives from the sale政府通过卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入of cigarette products,but it also in eluded但也包括health care savi ngs to thegover nment whe n people die early,政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄，例如pension sav ings -- you don't have topay pensions for as long -养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-and also, sav ings inhous ing costs for the elderly.还有，老年人住房费用•And whe n all of the costsand ben efits were added up,当把所有的成本和效益都分别加起来，the Philip Morris study foundthat there is a net public finance gain Philip Morris公司的研究发现，捷克共和国会有一个in the Czech Republicof $147,000,000,$147,000,000的公共财政净增益，and give n the savi ngs in hous ing,in health care, and pension costs,并鉴于节省了住房费用，医疗保健费用，养老金费用，the gover nment enjoys savi ngsof over $1,200 for each pers onwho dies prematurely due to smok ing.每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.Cost-be nefit an alysis.成本效益分析.Now, those among youwho are defe nders of utilitaria nism现在，你们中间，那些功利主义的捍卫者may think that this is an un fair test.可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloriedin the pressPhilip Morris公司在新闻界遭到了嘲笑and they issued an apologyfor this heartless calculatio n.他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's miss ing hereis somethi ng that the utilitaria n你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏can easily in corporate,n amely the value to the pers on它没有正确评估人的价值and to the families of those who diefrom lung cancer .以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.What about the value of life?如何评估生命价值?Some cost-be nefit an alyses in corporatea measure for the value of life.一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估.One of the most famousof these in volved the Ford Pinto case.其中最有名的要数Ford Pin to案件.Did any of you read about that?你们有没有阅读过这个案件？This was back in the 1970s.那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you rememberwhat the Ford Pinto was,你还记得Ford Pinto是，a kind of car?Anybody?什么样的车么？谁能记得？It was a small car ,subcompact car , very popular ,那是一种小型车，超小型车，很受欢迎,but it had one problem,which is the fuel tank但它也有问题，车后座的油箱was at the back of the carand in rear collisi ons,少数情况下，碰撞会导致the fuel tank explodedand some people were killed油箱爆炸并且有些人会因此死去and some severely injured.还有人因此严重受伤.Victims of these injuriestook Ford to court to sue.这些受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case,it turned out that Ford而在诉讼案件，人们发现福特原来had long since known about thevuln erable fuel tank早已知道油箱的脆弱and had done a cost-be nefit an alysisto determ ine whether it would be并且已做了成本效益分析，以确定是否worth it to put ina special shield that would值得来放入一个特殊的盾牌protect the fuel tankand preve nt it from explod ing.用来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-be nefit an alysis.他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per partto in crease the safety of the Pin to,增加Ford Pinto安全的每部件费用，they calculated at $11.00 per part.他们算出，要每部件$ 11.00.And here's -- this was the cost-be nefitan alysis that emerged in the trial.这里-这就是当时审判中出示的成本效益分析Eleve n dollars per partat 12.5 millio n cars and trucks每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车came to a total cost of$137 milli on to improve the safety.得到一个总成本，需要13700万美元来改善安全性.But the n they calculated the ben efitsof spe nding all this money不过，他们随后计算了一下花这笔钱来改善安全性的收益率on a safer carand they coun ted 180 deaths（如果不花这笔钱来改善安全，）假设会导致180人死亡and they assig ned a dollar value,$200,000 per death,他们对此用美元价值来代替，每个死去的人赔偿$ 200,000180 injuries, $67,000,and the n the costs to repair ,180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67,000,然后是维修受损车的费用the replaceme nt costfor 2,000 vehicles,2 000辆车,it would be destroyed withoutthe safety device $700 per vehicle.由于没有安装安全设施，每辆车将会需要$700来维修.So the ben efits turned out to beon ly $49.5 millio n结论是总效益只有$49.5 million（相对于修复安全隐患总成本需要$137 millio n）and so they did n'tin stall the device.因此他们没有安装那个安全设备.Needless to say,whe n this memo of the毫无疑问，福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录Ford Motor Compa ny's cost-be nefitan alysis came out in the trial,在审判中出现时，it appalled the jurors,who awarded a huge settleme nt.震惊了陪审团，也因此裁定了福特公司巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a coun terexample to theutilitaria n idea of calculat ing?这是一个功利主义计算的反例么？Because Ford in cluded a measureof the value of life.因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defe ndcost-be nefit an alysis好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例from this appare nt coun terexample?来捍卫成本效益分析？Who has a defe nse?谁来辩护？Or do you think thiscompletely destroys the whole或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了utilitaria n calculus?Yes?功利主义计算？你来Well, I think that once aga in,they've made the same mistake嗯,我想再次指出，他们犯了同样的错误the previous case did,that they assig ned a dollar value和以前的情况一样，他们对人的生命赋予to huma n life,and once aga in,一个美元为单位的价值，同样的，they failed to take acco untthi ngs like sufferi ng他们没有考虑到家属的痛苦和损失and emoti on al losses by the families.诸如此类的因素•I mean, families lost earningsbut they also lost a loved one我的意思是，家庭损失了收入来源，但他们也失去了爱人and that is more valuedthan $200,000.这些的价值远远超过$200,000的.Right and -- wait, wait, wait,that's good. What's your n ame?好的-等等,等等,等等，很好•你叫什么名字？Julie Roteau .Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie,is too low a figure因此,Julie,如果$200,000 是个太低的金额，because it does n't in elude theloss of a loved one因为它不包括失去爱人and the loss of those years of life,what would be -以及那些在没有亲人的岁月里的损失，你认为what do you thinkwould be a more accurate nu mber?更准确的金额是多少？I don't believe I could give a nu mberI think that this sort of an alysis我不认为，我可以对此给出一个金额•我认为这类分析should n't be applied to issuesof huma n life.不适用于人类生命相关的问题•I think it can't be used mon etarily.我认为不能用金钱来衡量.So they did n't just puttoo low a number , Julie says.因此,Julie认为他们不只是金额定的太低.They were wrong to tryto put any nu mber at all.他们压根就不应该用金额来衡量.All right, let's hear some one who -You have to adjust for in flati on.好吧，让我们听听还有谁-You have to adjust for in flati on.（这个金额）要根据通货膨胀进行调整All right, fair eno ugh.好吧,很公平.So what would the nu mber be now?那么现在这个金额将是？This was 35 years ago.这发生在35年前.Two millio n dollars.两百万美兀.Two milli on dollars?You would put two milli on?200万美元？你认为是200万?And what's your n ame?你的名字是？VoytekVoytekVoytek says we have toallow for in flati on. Voytek说，我们必须允许通货膨胀We should be more gen erous.我们应该更慷慨些.Then would you be satisfiedthat this is the right way of然后，你认为这就是考虑这个问题的thinking about the questi on?正确的方式么？I guess, unfortun ately, it is for -我想，不幸的是，现在-there n eeds to be a nu mber put somewhere, like, I'm not sure我们需要有一个金额，我不确定what that nu mber would be,but I do agree that合适的金额是多少，但我同意there could possiblybe a nu mber put on the huma n life.对人类生命定一个金额是可行的•All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie. 好的，Voytek说，他不同意Julie.Julie says we can't put a nu mberon huma n life朱莉认为,我们不能在成本效益分析中for the purpose of acost-be nefit an alysis.对人的生命定一个金额.Voytek says we have to becausewe have to make decisi ons somehow.Voytek认为，我们必须这样做因为我们无论如何需要作出某种决定What do other peoplethi nk about this?其他人觉得呢？Is there anyone preparedto defe nd cost-be nefit an alysis这里有人打算为能足够准确的成本效益分析辩护么？here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.好?请继续.I thi nk that if Fordand other car compa nies我认为，如果福特和其他汽车公司did n't use cost-be nefit an alysis,they'd eve ntually go out of bus in ess没有使用成本效益分析，他们会最终歇业because they would n't be able to beprofitable and milli ons of people因为他们将无法盈利,（从而导致）数百万的人would n't be able to use their carsto get to jobs,将无法使用这些汽车去上班，to put food on the table,to feed their childre n.（没钱）购买餐桌上的食物,（没钱）来喂养孩子.So I thi nk that if cost-be nefitan alysis isn't employed,因此,我认为，如果不利用成本效益分析，the greater good is sacrificed,in this case.在这种情况下,（我们将会）牺牲更大的利益.All right, let me add.What's your n ame?好吧，让我来补充.你叫什么名字？Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recen tly a study doneabout cell phone use by a driverRaul,最近有一项研究表明，关于开车时驾驶者使用手机whe n people are drivi ng a car ,and there was a debate有一场辩论，关于这种行为whether that should be bann ed.是否应被禁止.Yeah.是啊。