哈弗大学公开课
哈佛大学公开课《happiness》01-intro
―The most common source of mistakes in management decisions is the emphasis on finding the right answer rather than the right question.‖
“The one real object of education is to leave a man in the condition of continually asking questions.”
• Lacked rigorous methodology
Meet the Grandparents
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Karen Horney (1885-1952)
Aaron Antonovsky (1923-1994)
Meet 1504
Meet the Parents
The Road to Positive Psychology
• Humanistic Psychology (50’s)
• The Third Force
– Reaction to behaviorism (First Force) – Reaction to psychoanalysis (Second Force)
It is not English 10a or Math 55 It is about rigorous fun
“I would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”
哈佛大学积极心理学公开课观后感
哈佛大学积极心理学公开课观后感
积极的心态是一种强大的精神力量，他能激发人对美好事物的追求。
同样，消极的心态也会使人失去进取和希望。
当今社会竞争日益激烈，不少青年人只看到自己的不足而忘记了努力的方向，没有树立远大的目标。
那么如何培养乐观的心态呢？我认为可从以下几点入手。
第一，用正确的思想引导行动，这个问题需要每天反复地练习才能做得更好；第二，坚持运动锻炼身体，增加抵抗疾病的免疫力；第三，保证充足睡眠时间，避免过度疲劳影响工作效率；最后就是多与朋友交流沟通，释放压抑情绪。
总之，良好的心态来源于平常的积累，它将伴随你走完漫长的人生道路！
心理学家指出：在我们生活中，许多人都缺乏信念感、安全感及归属感等基本的心理需求，因此容易产生焦虑、紧张、恐惧等负面情绪。
但其实很多时候并非外界环境造成的，而是由内部原因造成的。
比如说性格上的缺陷或者某些经历给予我们的伤害，甚至是童年阴影带来的创伤。
这些往往让我们难以摆脱困扰，变得越来越悲观。
所以，拥有健康的心理状况，首先应该改善自己的性格特征，提高自己的修养水准，然后再适当调整自己的处世风格，逐渐建立起稳定的价值系统，形成相互支撑的人际关系网络，构筑起牢固的心灵防线。
哈佛大学有一门课程叫“幸福课”，讲师认为，快乐的秘诀在于
懂得知足。
她还举例说明，如果你觉得别人送你礼物是件愉悦的事，你便会笑纳，即使礼物并无任何意义。
另外，不管什么东西，哪怕是一颗小石子，只要你喜欢，你都愿意接受。
这位老师告诉我们，幸福
是一种选择，而且是一种主动权。
只要你掌握住了自己的命运，就算遇到再大的挫折，也依旧可以微笑着面对。
幸福课--哈佛公开课第一课中文字幕
第一课各位，早上好。
很高兴能回到这里。
高兴见到你们。
我教授这门课是因为在我读本科阶段时非常希望能学习这样一门课程。
可能这门课并不是你希望的那样也可能并不适合你。
但希望几堂课后，你能有个大概印象让你决定这门课程是否适合你。
我1992年来到哈佛求学，一开始主修计算机科学。
大二期间，突然顿悟了。
我意识到我身处让人神往大学校园周围都是出色的同学，优秀的导师。
我成绩优异。
擅长体育运动。
那时壁垒打的不错。
社交也游刃有余。
一切都很顺利除了一点我不快乐。
而且我不明白为什么。
也就是在那时我决定要找出原因变得快乐。
于是我将研究方向从计算机科学转向了哲学及心理学。
目标只有一个:怎么让自己开心起来。
渐渐的，我的确变得更快乐了主要是因为我接触了一个新的领域，那时并未正式命名。
但本质上属于积极心理学范畴。
研究积极心理学把其理念应用到生活中让我无比快乐。
而且这种快乐继续着。
于是我决定将其与更多的人分享。
选择教授这门学科。
这就是积极心理学，1504号心理学课程。
我们将一起探索这一全新相对新兴令人倾倒的领域。
希望同时还能探索我们自己。
我第一次开设这门课程是在2002年。
是以讨论会的形式，只有8名学生。
两名退出了只剩我和其他六个人。
一年后学生稍微多了点。
有300多人参加。
到了第三年，也就是上一次开课。
有850名参加是当时哈佛大学人数最多的课程。
这引起了媒体的注意。
因为他们想知道为什么。
他们对这一奇特现象非常好奇竟然有比经济学导论更热门的课程。
怎么可能呢？于是我被请去参加各类媒体采访，报纸，广播，电视。
在这些采访中，我发现了一种有趣的模式。
我前去参加采访。
进行采访。
结束后，制片人或主持人会送我出来。
说些诸如Tal多谢你抽空参加采访。
不过你跟我想象的不太一样的话。
我漫不经心的问。
我无所谓，不过总得回应“有何不同？”他们会说“这个嘛，我们会以为你很外向”。
下一次采访结束时仍是如此“多谢接受采访”。
不过Tal，你跟我想象得不太一样。
又一次，我漫不经心地问有何不同。
哈佛大学公开课听课笔记公正
哈佛大学公开课听课笔记：公正哈佛大学（harvard university），简称哈佛，坐落于美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市，是一所享誉世界的私立研究型大学…… 哈佛大学公开课听课笔记具体内容请看下文。
哈佛大学公开课听课笔记：公正课程：哈佛大学公开课——公正：该如何做是好主讲：michael sandel (迈克尔•桑德尔)时间：201X年8月14日晚8点半-10点笔记：迈克尔：第一个事例，你驾驶了一辆失控的电车即将撞到轨道尽头，而尽头的一侧有5名施工人员;如果电车转到侧面，则是一名施工人员。
如果只有这两种选择，怎么办?牺牲1人拯救5人?问题是：何为正确的选择?学生：绝大多数支持牺牲1人保全5人学生1(支持转向牺牲1人)：当可以只牺牲1人时，牺牲5人是不正确的。
学生2(同上)：这类似与911事件，那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人，被称之为英雄。
因为他们选择牺牲自己，而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多的人。
学生3(支持电车不转向)：这是为种族灭亡以及极权主义正名，这是同样的思维模式，为了让一个种族生存下来而牺牲另一个种族。
迈克尔：修改一下条件，如果此刻你不是司机，而是一位旁观者，站在桥上目睹一辆失控的电车即将向尽头驶来，尽头是5名施工人员，面对这即将发生悲剧，你爱莫能助。
这个时候，你发现，在你旁边，靠着桥站着一位超级大胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在轨道上挡住了电车，他必死无疑，但是可以拯救那5个人，现在，有多少人愿意将这个大胖子推下去?学生：无人举手同意。
迈克尔：一个显而易见的问题出现了，“牺牲一人来保全五人”的原则出现的问题，前一种情况中绝大多数人支持这个原则，但是在第二种情况中，却没有人支持。
如何来解释这两种情况下绝大多数人所作的这个选择?学生1(细眉细眼的亚洲裔boy)：我觉得第二种情况在于牵扯到主动推人。
哈佛大学公开课《幸福课》笔记(1-23讲)
哈佛大学公开课《幸福课》笔记(1-23讲)第一讲什么是积极心理学哈佛1504号心理学课程：积极心理学(positive psychology)在象牙塔及大众间构建桥梁。
伏尔泰：常识并不平常。
积极心理学的背景：是人本主义心理学的产物和衍生。
心理学的三大派系：第一势力是行为主义，认为人是一个行为集合。
第二势力是精神分析学，通过潜意识分析，决定如何改善生活。
第三势力是人本主义心理学，该理论认为不能只靠行为观察来改善人生，人是有精神、有灵魂的。
人本主义缺乏学术严谨性，但引入了很多精彩的理念，比如对幸福感的研究，乐观主义，善良，道德，美德，爱，两性关系，巅峰体验，自我实现，移情等。
如何解读信息比关注信息更重要。
成功与非常成功的区别：后者更自信(自我实现)，且有好奇心(懂得找出问题，而不是找出答案)。
快乐是由我们的精神状态决定的，而不是取决于社会地位和银行存款。
感恩的重要性，体育锻炼的重要性，花时间经营爱情，休息，以及简化。
做减法比做加法让灵魂成长得更快。
罗丹心中的大卫。
凿去多余的东西，凿掉束缚，摆脱限制与阻碍。
视频演示：喜剧演员宋飞的栋笃笑（stand-up comedy）孩子们总是在说wait up，stay up，而成年人总是在说calm down，put it down，sit down1：10 帅哥助教sean出镜，他将教你们如何变身幽默达人。
第二讲为什么要学习积极心理学问题缔造现实：你的关注点影响你的认知。
心理学这一学科对于消极方面的研究，远比对于积极方面的研究成功，它向我们展示了人类的短处，他的缺点，他的过失，但很少谈到他的潜能，他的长处，他的实际愿望或精神高度，好象心理学自愿固步自封，让自己仅限于研究黑暗低劣的一半。
21：1《积极心理学手册》序言说：积极心理学的目标是促成一种变化。
让心理学从只关注补救生活中最糟糕的事，到同时建立生活中最美好的事。
通过专注于研究有效的东西培养积极心态。
成功孩子的特质：适应力、意义感、自信、乐观。
听一堂哈佛最火公开课
争取 时 机找 到藏 身 之处 。他 们仅有 的
选择 是 ，杀 了他 们 ， 或者 放 他 们 走 。 勒 特 雷 尔 的 一 名 战 友 认 为 要 杀 掉
易 事。 不过 ，请注 意 我们 在 推理 出两 者 区别 时所 遇 到的压 力— — 如果 我们 推理 不 出来 ，那么 就 要重 新 考虑 在每
种 情 形 中对 何 谓正 当之 举做 出的判
断 。我 们 有 时 候 将 道 德 推 理 看 作 说 服
他 人 的 途 径 ， 然 而 ，它 同 时 也 是 一 种
听一 堂哈佛 最火公 开课
个 身材 魁 梧 的 家伙 。你可 以将 他推 下
假
轨 道 ，挡住 疾 驰 而来 的 电车 。他 可 能
会被撞死 ，但是五个工人 却将获救 。 将 魁 梧 大汉 推 到轨 道 上是 否 为正 当 之 举 呢 ？大 多 数 人 会 说 ：“ 当然 不
是 ！这 简 直 是 罪 行 。 ”
推荐本 文的重点并不在 于哈 佛的名号 ， 管它正是该课程在 全球 点击观 看超过 １０ 尽 ０ ｏ万人次的 最重要 原 因。 我 们希 望来 自哈佛 课 堂 自由思辨 的 气息能带 来一种 契机 ：人们得 以逐 渐意识到 ，政 治哲学 并不是 大学里一 门
生硬 无 用的课程 ，它 充满 乐趣 ，且随 处可用 ；对社会体 制 中公 正 、平 等、 民主 、公 民权 利议题 的思 考和讨论 也 不应只 出现在报 纸的社论版 面和社会精英 的沙龙 中，它应 ３成 为一种生命 的基 本需求 ，一种 智识的 习惯 。 － ＇
怎样做 才是 “ 对” 的？或 者 ，是否 该有 “ 对” 的概 念？ 而 “ 对” 的本质 和价值 究竟是 什 么？什 么才是 民
哈佛公开课《幸福课》(课堂PPT)
• Peak experience as ‘positive trauma’
.
13
Post Peak Experience Order (PPEO)
“Peak experiences often have consequences... They can do the same there as psychotherapy, if one keeps his goals right, and if one knows just what he is about, and if one is conscious of what he is going toward. We can certainly talk, on the one hand, of the breaking up of symptoms, like the breaking up of cliches, of anxieties, or the like; or on the other hand, we can talk about the development of spontaneity, and of courage, and of Olympian or Godlike humor and suchness, sensory awareness, body awareness, and the like.”
and reply to everything with a dismal voice, and your
melancholy lingers... Smooth the brow, brighten the eye,
contract the dorsal rather than the ventral aspect of the
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。
- 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)。
Hi, good morning. It’s wonderful to be back here. 各位，早上好。
很高兴能回到这里。
Wonderful to see you here.高兴见到你们。
I am teaching this class because I wish a class like this had been taught when I was sitting in your seat as an undergraduate here.我教授这门课是因为在我读本科阶段时非常希望能学习这样一门课程。
This does not mean it is a class you wish to be taught nor does it mean that it is the right class for you.可能这门课并不是你希望的那样也可能并不适合你。
But I hope to doing the next couple of lectures is giving you an idea what this class is about so that you can decide whether or not it is for you.但希望几堂课后，你能有个大概印象让你决定这门课程是否适合你。
I came here in 1992 and studied the computer science and concentrator.我1992年来到哈佛求学，一开始主修计算机科学。
And when I had I mini epiphany half way through my sophomore year.大二期间，突然顿悟了。
I realized that I was in a wonderful place with wonderful students around me, wonderful teachers.我意识到我身处让人神往大学校园周围都是出色的同学，优秀的导师。
I was doing well academically. I was doing well in athletics. I was playing squash at that time. I was doing well socially.我成绩优异。
擅长体育运动。
那时壁垒打的不错。
社交也游刃有余。
Everything was going well except for the fact that I was unhappy. And I didn’t understand why.一切都很顺利除了一点我不快乐。
而且我不明白为什么。
It was then in a matter of moments that I decided that I had to find out why and become happier.也就是在那时我决定要找出原因变得快乐。
And that was when I switched my concentration from computer science to philosophy and psychology.于是我将研究方向从计算机科学转向了哲学及心理学。
With a single question: How can I become happier.目标只有一个:怎么让自己开心起来。
Overtime I did become happier what contributed most to my happiness was when I encountered a new emerging field that time didn’t have the name that it has today.渐渐的，我的确变得更快乐了主要是因为我接触了一个新的领域，那时并未正式命名。
But essentially research that falls under or within the field of positive psychology.但本质上属于积极心理学范畴。
Positive psychology, studying it and applying the ideas to my life has made me significantly happier .研究积极心理学把其理念应用到生活中让我无比快乐。
It continues to make me happier.而且这种快乐继续着。
And it was when I realized the impact that it had on me that I decided to share it with others.于是我决定将其与更多的人分享。
That’s when I decided that I wanted to be a teacher and teach in this field.选择教授这门学科。
So this is positive psychology, psychology 1504.这就是积极心理学，1504号心理学课程。
And we’ll be exploring this new, relatively new and fascinating field.我们将一起探索这一全新相对新兴令人倾倒的领域。
And hopefully, we will be exploring more than the field ourselves.希望同时还能探索我们自己。
When I first taught this class that was back in 2002.我第一次开设这门课程是在2002年。
I taught it at a seminar and had eight students. Two dropped out that left me with six. The year after, the class became slightly larger. I had over three hundred students.是以讨论会的形式，只有8名学生。
两名退出了只剩我和其他六个人。
一年后学生稍微多了点。
有300多人参加。
And then third year when I taught it which was the last time.到了第三年，也就是上一次开课。
I had 850 students in the class, making it at that point the largest course at Harvard .有850名参加是当时哈佛大学人数最多的课程。
And that’s when the media became interested. Because they wanted to understand why.这引起了媒体的注意。
因为他们想知道为什么。
They wanted to understand this phenomenon that here you have a class that’s larger than Introduction to Economics. How could that be？他们对这一奇特现象非常好奇竟然有比经济学导论更热门的课程。
怎么可能呢？So I was invited by the media for interviews whether it was newspapers, radio, television. 于是我被请去参加各类媒体采访，报纸，广播，电视。
And I started to notice a pattern during those interviews. 在这些采访中，我发现了一种有趣的模式。
So I would walk into the interview. We would have the interview.我前去参加采访。
进行采访。
And afterwards, the producer or the interviewer would walk me out. And say something to the effects of well, thank you Tal for the interview.结束后，制片人或主持人会送我出来。
说些诸如Tal多谢你抽空参加采访。
But you know I expected you to be different. 不过你跟我想象的不太一样的话。
And I would ask, as nonchalant as I could of course. 我漫不经心的问。
I didn’t really care but had to ask anyway “How different”. 我无所谓，不过总得回应“有何不同？”And they would say: Well, you know, we expected you to be more outgoing”. 他们会说“这个嘛，我们会以为你很外向”。
Next interview, the end of the interview, same thing: Thank you for doing the interview”. 下一次采访结束时仍是如此“多谢接受采访”。
“But you know Tal, I expected you to be different”. 不过Tal，你跟我想象得不太一样。
And once again, nonchalant of course so how different. 又一次，我漫不经心地问有何不同。
And she would say: “Well you know, we expected you to be less, less introversit”. “这个嘛，我们没想到你会这么内向”。
Next interview, same thing “How different?”下一次采访，仍是如此“有何不同？”。
“Well, you know, more extroverted, more outgoing.”“这个嘛，更开朗，更外向”。
Next interview, “Well, you know, less shy”. 下一次采访，“这个嘛，太害羞了”。
Coz I get very nervous in interviews. 因为采访中我容易紧张。