哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》全12集标题：哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》全12集115网盘下载，英文对白中文字幕。
◎片名 Justice What's The Right Thing To Do◎译名公平与正义◎年代 2009◎影片类型纪录片/讲座◎片长 60Mins ×12◎国家美国◎对白语言英语◎字幕中文简/繁/英◎编码 x264 + AAC◎视频码率 520 kbps◎音频码率 48 kbps◎视频尺寸 640 x 352◎文件大小 225MB×12（每集2讲）◎片源 720P◎简介该讲座以哈佛教授Michael Sandel的《关于公平和正义的入门课》为基础，是对道德和政治哲学的系列入门介绍。
这套讲座共有12集，邀请观众们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。
在哈佛大学，每星期都有一千多名学生去听教授兼作家的Michael Sandel开设的这门课程，渴望藉此扩充对政治和道德哲学的理解，并从中检验长期秉持的信仰。
学生们学到了过去的伟大哲学家们的哲学理论-亚里士多德，康德，穆勒，洛克--再把学到的东西运用来思考复杂且动荡不定的现代社会的种种问题，包括反歧视行动，同性婚姻，爱国主义，忠诚和人@权。
演讲者：Michael Sandel (哈佛大学哲学教授)第一集下载地址：/file/f5d9c24195第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》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。
第2讲：《同类自残案》Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家JeremyBentham（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。
哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 06-Mind Your Motive The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机道德的
Justice 06 Mind Your Motive / The Supreme Principle of Morality 考虑你的动机/道德的最高准则When we ended last time, we were discussing Locke's idea of government by consent and the question arose, "What are the limits on government that even the agreement of the majority can't override?" That was the question we ended with.We saw in the case of property rights that on Locke's view a democratically elected government has the right to tax people.It has to be taxation with consent because it does involve the taking of people's property for the common good but it doesn't require the consent of each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected.What it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society, to take on the political obligation but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.So much for taxation.But what you may ask, about the right to life?Can the government conscript people and send them into battle?And what about the idea that we own ourselves?Isn't the idea of self-possession violated if the government can, through coercive legislation and enforcement powers, say "You must go risk your life to fight in Iraq." What would Locke say?Does the government have the right to do that?Yes. In fact he says in 139, he says, "What matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary, that's what matters." And he gives a wonderful example.He says "A sergeant, even a sergeant, let alone a general, a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to a face of a cannon where he is almost sure to die, that the sergeant can do.The general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post or for not obeying even a desperate order.But with all their power over life and death, what these officers can't do is take a penny of that soldier's money because that has nothing to do with the rightful authority, that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt." So consent winds up being very powerful in Locke, not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order, but consent to join the government and to be bound by the majority in the first place.That's the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully that even the limited government created by the fact that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, even that limited government is only limited in the sense that it has to govern by generally applicable laws, the rule of law, it can't be arbitrary.That's Locke.Well this raises a question about consent.Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the obligation to obey?Today we begin to investigate the question of consent by looking at a concrete case, the case of military conscription.Now some people say if we have a fundamental right that arises from the idea that we own ourselves, it's a violation of that right for government to conscript citizens to go fight in wars.Others disagree.Others say that's a legitimate power of government, of democratically elected governments, anyhow, and that we have an obligation to obey.Let's take the case of the United States fighting a war in Iraq.News accounts tells us that the military is having great difficulty meeting its recruitment targets.Consider three policies that the U.S. government might undertake to deal with the fact that it's not achieving its recruiting targets.Solution number one: increase the pay and benefits to attract a sufficient number of soldiers.Option number two: shift to a system of military conscription, have a lottery, and whose ever numbers are drawn, go to fight in Iraq.System number three: outsource, hire what traditionally have been called mercenaries, people around the world who are qualified, able to do the work, able to fight well, and who are willing to do it for the existing wage.So let's take a quick poll here.How many favor increasing the pay?A huge majority.How many favor going to conscription?Maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription.What about the outsourcing solution?Okay, so there may be two, three dozen.During the Civil War, the Union used a combination of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military to fight in the Civil War.It was a system that began with conscription but if you were drafted and didn't want to serve, you could hire a substitute to take your place and many people did.You could pay whatever the market required in order to find a substitute, people ran ads in newspapers, in the classified ads offering 93 for a substitute who would go fight the Civil War in their place.In fact, it's reported that Andrew Carnegie was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place for an amount that was a little less than the amount he spent in the year on fancy cigars.Now I want to get your views about this Civil War system, call it the hybrid system, conscription but with a buyout provision.How many think it was a just system?How many would defend the Civil War system?Anybody?Anybody else?How many think it was unjust?Most of you don't like the Civil War system, you think it's unjust.Let's hear an objection.Why don't you like it?What's wrong with it? Yes.Well by paying $300 to be exempt one time around, you're really putting a price on valuing human life and we established earlier, that's really hard to do so they're trying to accomplish something that really isn't feasible.Good. So paying someone $300 or $500 or $1,000 - You're basically saying that's what their life is worth to you.That's what their life is worth, it's putting a dollar v alue on life.That's good. What's your name?-Liz.Liz.Well, who has an answer for Liz.You defended the Civil War system, what do you say?If you don't like the price then you have the freedom to not be sold or hired so it's completely up to you.I don't think it's necessarily putting a specific price on you and if it's done by himself, I don't think there's anything that's really morally wrong with that.So the person who takes the $500, let's say, he's putting his own price on his life or on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom to choose to do that.Exactly.What's your name?- Jason.Jason. Thank you.Now we need to hear from another critic of the civil war system. Yes.It's a kind or coercion almost, people who have lower incomes, for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft, $300 is an irrelevant in terms of his income but someone of a lower income, they're essentially being coerced to draft, to be drafted, it's probably they're not able to find a replacement.Tell me your name.Sam.Sam. All right so you say, Sam, that when a poor laborer accepts $300 to fight in the Civil War, he is in effect being coerced by that money given his economic circumstances whereas Carnegie can go off, pay the money, and not serve.Alright. I want to hear someone who has a reply to Sam's argument, that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive.Who has an answer to Sam?Go ahead.I'd actually agree with him in saying that - You agree with Sam.I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs individual of his ability to reason.Okay, and what's your name?Raul.All right. So Raul and Sam agree that what looks like a free exchange, free choice, voluntary act actually involves coercion.It's profound coercion of the worst kind because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society.Good. Alright. So Raul and Sam have made a powerful point.Who would like to reply?Who has an answer for Sam and Raul?Go ahead.I don't think that these drafting systems are really terribly different from all volunteer army sort of recruiting strategies.The whole idea of having benefits and pay for joining the army is sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join.It is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country where you can use like patriotism to try and coerce people to feel like it's the right thing to do to volunteer and go over to Iraq.And tell me your name.Emily.Alright, Emily says, and Raul you're going to have to reply to this so get ready.Emily says fair enough, there is a coercive element to the Civil War system when a laborer takes the place of Andrew Carnegie for $500.Emily concedes that but she says if that troubles you about the Civ il War system shouldn't that also trouble you about the volunteer army today?Before you answer, how did you vote in the first poll?Did you defend the volunteer army?I didn't vote.You didn't vote.By the way, you didn't vote but did you sell your vote to the person sitting next to you?No. Alright.So what would you say to that argument.I think that the circumstances are different in that there was conscription in the Civil War.There is no draft today and I think that volunteers for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism that is of an individual choice than those who were forced into the military in the Civil War.Somehow less coerced?Less coerced.Even though there is still inequality in American Society?Even though, as Emily points out, the makeup of the American military is not reflective of the population as a whole?Let's just do an experiment here.How many here have either served in the military or have a family member who has served in the military in this generation, not parents?Family members. In this generation.And how many have neither served nor have any brothers or sisters who have served?Does that bear out your point Emily?Yes.Alright. Now we need to hear from - most of you defended the idea of the all volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly, people considered the Civil War system unjust.Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the Civil War system, it took place against a background of inequality and therefore the choices people made to buy their way in to military service were not truly free but at least partly coerced.Then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge.Alright, everyone here who voted in favor of the all volunteer army should be able - should have to explain what's the difference in principle.Doesn't the all volunteer army simply universalize the feature that almost everyone found objectionable in the Civil War buyout provision?Did I state the challenge fairly Emily?Yes.Okay. So we need to hear from a defender of the all volunteer military who can address Emily's challenge.Who can do that?Go ahead.The difference between the Civil War system and the all volunteer army system is that in the Civil War, you're being hired not by the government, but by an individual and as a result, different people who get hired by different individuals get paid different amounts.In the case of the all volunteer army, everyone who gets hired is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount.It's precisely the universalization of essentially paying your way to the army that makes the all volunteer army just.Emily?I guess I'd frame the principle slightly differently.On the all volunteer army, it's possible for somebody to just step aside and not really think about the war at all.It's possible to say, "I don't need the money, I don't need to have an opinion about this, I don't need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country.With the coercive system, or sorry, with an explicit draft then there's the threat at least that every individual will have to make some sort of decision regarding military conscription and perhaps in that way, it's more equitable.It's true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case but in one, he can completely step aside from it, and the other there's some level of responsibility.While you're there, Emily, so what system do you favor, conscription?I would be hard pressed to say but I think so because it makes the whole country feel a sense of responsibility for the conflict instead of having a war that's maybe ideologically supported by a few but only if there's no real responsibility.Good. Who wants to reply?Go ahead.So I was going to say that the fundamental difference between the all volunteer army and then the army in the Civil War is that in the all volunteer army, if you want to volunteer that comes first and then the pay comes after whereas in the Civil War system, the people who are accepting the pay aren't necessarily doing it because they want to, they're just doing it for the money first.What motivation beyond the pay do you think is operating in the case of the all volunteer army?Like patriotism for the country.Patriotism. Well what about - And a desire to defend the country.There is some motivation in pay but the fact that it's first and foremost an all volunteer army will motivate first I think, personally.Do you think it's better?And tell me your name.Jackie.Jackie do you think it's better if people serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money?Yes, definitely because the people who - that was one of the main problems in the Civil War is that the people that you're getting to go in it to go to war aren't necessarily people who want to fight and so they won't be as good soldiers as they will be had they been there because they wanted to be.Alright, what about Jackie's having raised the question of patriotism, that patriotism is a better or a higher motivation than money for military service.Who would like to address that question?Go ahead.Patriotism absolutely is not necessary in order to be a good soldier because mercenaries can do just as good of a job as anyone who waves the American flag around and wants to defend what the government believes that we should do.Did you favor the outsourcing solution?Yes sir.Alright, so let Jackie respond.What's your name?Philip.What about that Jackie?So much for patriotism.If you've got someone whose heart is in it more than another person, they're going to do a better job.When it comes down to the wire and there's like a situation in which someone has to put their life on the line, someone who's doing it because they love this country will be more willing to go into danger than someone who's just getting paid, they don't care, they've got the technical skills but they don't care what happens because they really have - they have nothing like nothing invested in this country.There's another aspect though once we get on to the issue of patriotism.If you believe patriotism, as Jackie does, should be the foremost consideration and not money, does that argue for or against the paid army we have now?We call it the volunteer army though if you think about it, that's a kind of misnomer.A volunteer army as we use the term, is a paid army.So what about the suggestion that patriotism should be the primary motivation for military service not money?Does that argue in favor of the paid military that we have or does it argue for conscription?And just to sharpen that point building on Phil's case for outsourcing, if you think that the all volunteer army, the paid army, is best because it lets the market allocate positions according to people's preferences and willingness to serve for a certain wage, doesn't the logic that takes you from a system of conscription to the hybrid Civil War system to the all volunteer army, doesn't the idea of expanding freedom of choice in the market, doesn't that lead you all the way if you followed that principle consistently to a mercenary army?And then if you say no, Jackie says no, patriotism should count for something, doesn't that argue for going back to conscription if by patriotism, you mean a sense of civic obligation?Let's see if we can step back from the discussion that we've had and see what we've learned about consent as it applies to market exchange.We've really heard two arguments, two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service.One was the argument raised by Sam and Raul, the argument about coercion, the objection that letting the market allocate military service may be unfair and may not even be free if there's severe inequality in the society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities that that's their best choice and Sam and Raul say there's an element of coercion in that, that's one argument.Then there is a second objection to using the market to allocate military service, that's the idea that military service shouldn't be treated as just another job for pay because it's bound up with patriotism and civic obligation.This is a different argument from the argument about unfairness and inequality and coercion, it's an argument that suggests that maybe where civic obligations are concerned, we shouldn't allocate duties and rights by the market.Now we've identified two broad objections.What do we need to know to assess those objections?To assess the first, the argument from coercion, inequality, and unfairness, Sam, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor, question number one.Question number two: to assess the civic obligation patriotism.Argument: we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship?Is military service one of them or not?What obligates us as citizens?What is the source of political obligation?Is it consent or are there some civic obligations we have, even without consent, for living and sharing in a certain kind of society?We haven't answered either of those questions but our debate today about the Civil War system and the all volunteer army has at least raised them and those are questions we're going to return to in the coming weeks.Today I'd like to turn our attention and get your views about an argument over the role of markets in the realm of human reproduction and procreation.Now with infertility clinics, people advertise for egg donors and from time to time, in the Harvard Crimson ads appear for egg donors.Have you seen them?There was one that ran a few years ago that wasn't looking for just any egg donor, it was an ad that offered a large financial incentive for an egg donor from a woman who was intelligent, athletic, at least 5'10", and with at least 1400 or above on her SATs.How much do you think the person looking for this egg donor was willing to pay for an egg from a woman of that description?What would you guess?A thousand dollars?Fifteen thousand? Ten?I'll show you the ad.Fifty thousand dollars for an egg but only a premium egg.What do you think about that?Well there are also sometimes ads in the Harvard Crimson and the other college newspapers for sperm donors.So the market in reproductive capacities is an equal opportunity market.Well not exactly equal opportunity, they're not offering $50,000 for sperm but there is a company, a large commercial sperm bank that markets sperm, it's called California Cryobank, it's a for-profit company, it imposes exacting standards on the sperm it recruits, and it has offices in Cambridge, between Harvard and MIT, and in Palo Alto near Stanford.Cryobank's marketing materials play up the prestigious source of its sperm.Here is, from the website of Cryobank, the information.Here they talk about the compensation although compensation should not be the only reason for becoming a sperm donor, we are aware of the considerable time and expense involved in being a donor.So do you know what they offer?Donors will be reimbursed $75 per specimen, up to $900 a month if you donate three times a week, and then they add "We periodically offer incentives such as movie tickets or gift certificates for the extra time and effort expended by participating donors." It's not easy to be a sperm donor.They accept fewer than five percent of the donors who apply.Their admission criteria are more demanding than Harvard's.The head of the sperm bank said the ideal sperm donor is 6 feet tall, with a college degree, brown eyes, blond hair, and dimples for the simple reason that these are the traits that the market has shown that customers want.Quoting the head of the sperm bank, "If our customers wanted high school dropouts, we would give them high school dropouts." So here are two instances, the market in eggs for donation and the market in sperm, that raisea question, a question about whether eggs and sperm should or should not be bought and sold for money.As you ponder that, I want you to consider another case involving market and in fact a contract in the human reproductive capacity and this is the case of commercial surrogate motherhood, and it's a case that wound up in court some years ago.It's the story of Baby M.It began with William and Elizabeth Stern, a professional couple wanting a baby but they couldn't have one on their own, at least not without medical risk to Mrs. Stern.They went to an infertility clinic where they met Mary Beth Whitehead, a29-year-old mother of two, the wife of a sanitation worker.She had replied to an ad that The Standard had placed seeking the service of a surrogate mother.They made a deal.They signed a contract in which William Stern agreed to pay Mary Beth Whitehead a $10,000 fee plus all expenses in exchange for which Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artificially inseminated with William Stern's sperm, to bear the child, and then to give the baby to the Sterns.Well, you probably know how the story unfolded.Mary Beth gave birth and changed her mind, she decided she wanted to keep the baby.The case wound up in court in New Jersey.So let's take, put aside any legal questions, and focus on this issue as a moral question.How many believe that the right thing to do in the Baby M case, would have been to uphold the contract, to enforce the contract?And how many think the right thing to do would have been not to enforce that contract?The majority say enforce so let's now hear the reasons that people had, either for enforcing or refusing to enforce this contract.First I want to hear from someone in the majority.Why do you uphold the contract?Why do you enforce it?Who can offer a reason?Yes. Stand up.It's a binding contract, all the parties involved knew the terms of the contract before any action was taken, it's a voluntary agreement, the mother knew what she was getting into, all four intelligent adults, regardless of formal education, whatever.So it makes sense that if you know that you're getting into beforehand and you make a promise, you should uphold that promise in the end.Okay, a deal is a deal in other words.Exactly.- And what's your name?Patrick.Is Patrick's reason the reason that most of you in the majority favored upholding the contract?Yes. Alright, let's hear now someone who would not enforce the contract.What do you say to Patrick?Why not? Yes.Well, I mean, I agree, I think contracts should be upheld when all the parties know all the information but in this case, I don't think there's a way a mother, before the child exists, could actually know how she's going to feel about that child so I don't think the mother actually had all the information.She didn't know the person that was going to be born and didn't know how much she would love that person so that's my argument.So you would not, and what's your name?Evan Wilson.Evan says he would not uphold the contract because when it was entered into the surrogate mother couldn't be expected to know in advance how she would feel so she didn't really have the relevant information when she made that contract.Who else?Who else would not uphold the contract? Yes.I also think that a contract should generally be upheld but I think that the child has an inalienable right to its actual mother and I think that if that mother wants it then that child should have the right to that mother.You mean the biological mother not the adoptive mother?Right.And why is that?First of all, tell me your name.Anna.Anna. Why is that Anna?Because I think that that bond is created by nature is stronger than any bond that is created by a contract.Good. Thank you.Who else? Yes.I disagree. I don't think that a child has an inalienable right to her biological mother.I think that adoption and surrogacy are both legitimate tradeoffs and I agree with the point made that it's a voluntary agreement, the individua l who made it, it's a voluntary agreement and you can't apply coercion to this argument.You can't apply the objection from coercion to this argument?Correct.What's your name?- Kathleen.Kathleen, what do you say to Evan that though there may not have been - Evan claimed that the consent was tainted not by coercion but by lack of adequate information.She couldn't have known the relevant information namely how she would feel about the child.What do you say to that?I don't think the emotional content of her feelings plays into this.I think in a case of law, in the justice of this scenario, her change of feelings are not relevant.If I give up my child for adoption and then I decide later on that I really want that child back, too bad, it's a tradeoff, it's a tradeoff that the mother has made.So a deal is a deal, you agree with Patrick?I agree with Patrick, a deal's a deal.A deal is a deal.Yes.- Good. Yes.I would say that though I'm not really sure if I agree with the idea that the child has a right to their mother.I think the mother definitely has a right to her child and I also think that there's some areas where market forces shouldn't necessarily penetrate.I think that the whole surrogate mother area smacks a little bit of dealing in human beings seems dehumanizing.It doesn't really seem right so that's my main reason.And what is - could you tell us your name.I'm Andrew.Andrew, what is dehumanizing about buying and selling the right to a child, for money, what is dehumanizing about it?Well because you're buying someone's biological right.I mean you can't - in the law as it stated, you can't sell your own child were you to have a child, I'd believe that the law prohibits you selling it to another person or - So this like baby selling?Right. To a certain extent.Though there's a contract with another person, you've made agreements and what not, there is an undeniable emotional bond that takes place between the mother and the child and it's wrong to simply ignore this because you've written out something contractually.。
哈佛大学公开课-公正justice 09-Arguing Affirmative Action What's the Purpose 讨论反歧视行动目的是什
Justice 09 Arguing Affirmative Action / What's the Purpose? 讨论反歧视行动/目的是什么？Last time, we were discussing the distinction, that Rawls draws between two different types of claims.Claims of moral desert on the one hand, and of entitlement to legitimate expectations on the other.Rawls argued that it's a mistake to think that distributive justice is a matter of moral desert.A matter of rewarding people according to their virtue.Today we're going to explore that question of moral desert and its relation to distributive justice.Not in connection with incoming wealth, but in its connection with opportunities.With hiring decisions and admission standards.And so we turn to the case, of affirmative action.You read about the case of Cheryl Hopwood.She applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School.Cheryl Hopwood had worked her way through high school, she didn't come from an affluent family, she put herself through community college, and California State University at Sacramento.She achieved a 3.8 grade point average there, later moved to Texas, became a resident, took the law school admissions test, did pretty well on that, and she applied to the University of Texas Law School.She was turned down.She was turned down at a time when the University of Texas, was using an affirmative action admissions policy.A policy that took into account, race and ethnic background.The University of Texas said, "40 percent of the population of Texas is made up of African Americans and Mexican Americans.It's important that we, as a law school, have a diverse student body.And so we are going to take into account, not only grades and test scores, but also the demographic makeup of our class including, its race and ethnic profile." The result, and this is what Hopwood complained about, the result of that policy, is that some applicants to the University of Texas Law School, with a lower academic index, which includes grades and test scores, than hers, were admitted.And she was turned down.She said, she argued, "I'm just being turned down because I'm white.If I weren't, if I were a member of a minority group, with my grades and test scores I would had been admitted." And the statistics, the admissions statistics that came out in the trial, confirmed that African American and Mexican American applicants that year, who had, her grades and test scores, were admitted.It went to Federal Court.Now, put aside the law, let's consider it from the standpoint of justice and morality.Is it fair, or it unfair?Does Cheryl Hopwood have a case?A legitimate complaint?Were her rights violated, by the admissions policy of the law school?How many say, how many would rule for the law school, and say that it was just to consider race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions?How many would rule for Cheryl Hopwood and say "her rights were violated?" So here we have a pretty even split.Alright, now I want to hear from a defender of Cheryl Hopwood. Yes?You're basing something that's an arbitrary factor, you know, Cheryl couldn't control the fact that she was white, or not in a minority.And therefore, you know, it's not as if it was like a test score that she worked hard to try and show that she could, you know, put that out there, you know, that she had no control over her race.Good. And what're your name?- Bree.Okay. Bree, stay right there.Now let's find someone who has an answer for Bree.Yes? - There are discrepancies in the educational system.And the majority of the time, I know this in New York City, the schools that minorities go to, are not as well-funded, are not as well-supplied, as white schools.And so there is going to be a discrepancy, naturally, between minorities and between whites.If they go to better schools.And they will not do as well on exams because they hav en't had as much help.Because of the worst school systems.Let me just interrupt you to, tell me your name?Aneesha.- Aneesha. Aneesha, you're pointing out that minority kids may have gone in some cases to schools that didn't give them the same educational opportunity as kids from affluent families.- Yes.And so the test scores they got, may actually not represent their true potential.Because they didn't receive the same kind of help that they might have received had they gone to a school with better funding.Good, alright. Aneesha has raised the point that colleges still should choose for the greatest academic scholarly promise but in reading the test scores and grades, they should take into account the different meaning those tests and grades have, in the light of educational disadvantage in the background.So that's one argument in defense of affirmative action, Aneesha's argument.Correcting for the effects of unequal preparation.Educational disadvantage.Now, there are other arguments.Suppose, just to identify whether there is a competing principle here.Suppose there are two candidates, who did equally well on the tests and grades.Both of whom went to first rate schools.Two candidates, among those candidates, would it be unfair for the college or university, for Harvard, to say, "we still want diversity along racial and ethnicdimensions, even where we are not correcting for the effects on test scores of educational disadvantage." What about in that case, Bree?If it's that's one thing that puts, you know someone over the edge, then it's, I guess that would be, you know, justifiable.If everything else about the individual first, though, everything to consider about that person's you know, talents, and where they come from, and who they are without these arbitrary factors, is the same.Without these 'arbitrary factors', you call them.But before you were suggesting, Bree, that race and ethnicity are arbitrary factors outside the control of the applicants.- True, I would agree with that.And your general principle is that admissions shouldn't reward arbitrary factors, over which people have no control.- Right.Alright. Who else, who else would like to, thank you both.Who else would like to get into this, what do you say?Well, first of all, I'm for affirmative action temporarily, but, for two reasons.First of all, you have to look at the university's purpose.It is to educate their students.And I feel that different races, people coming from different races have different backgrounds and they contribute differently to the education.And second of all, when you say that they have equal backgrounds, that's not true when you look at the broader picture, and you look at slavery and this is kind of a reparation.I think affirmative action is a temporary solution to alleviate history, and the wrongs done to African Americans in particular.And what's your name?David.- David. You say that affirmative action is justified at least for now as a way of compensating for past injustice.The legacy of slavery and segregation.- Right.Who wants to take on that argument?We need now a critic of affirmative action.Yes, go ahead.I think that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens today.I think that discriminating based on race should always be wrong.Whether you're discriminating against one group or another.Just because our ancestors did something, doesn't mean that that should have any effect on what happens with us today.Alright, good. I'm sorry, your name is?- Kate.Kate. Alright, who has an answer for Kate?Yes.- I just wanted to comment and say that, - Tell us your name.My name is Mansur. Because of slavery, because of past injustices today, we have a higher proportion of African Americans who are in poverty, who face less opportunities than white people.So because of slavery 200 years ago, and because of Jim Crow, and because of segregation, today we have injustice based on race.Kate?- I think that there are differences, obviously, but the way to fix those differences is not by some artificial fixing of the result.You need to fix the problem.So we need to address differences in education, and differences in upbringing with programs like Head Start, and giving more funding to lower income schools rather than just trying to fix the result, so it makes it look like it's equal when it's really it isn't.Yes.Well, with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just want to say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years.It's called 'nepotism' and 'quid pro quo'.So there's nothing wrong with correcting the injustice and discrimination that's been done to black people for 400 years.Good. Tell us your name.- Hannah.Hannah. Alright who has an answer for Hannah?And just to add to Hannah's point, because we need now someone to respond, Hannah, you could have also mentioned legacy admissions.Exactly.I was going to say, if you disagree with affirmative action, you should disagree with legacy admission because it's obvious from looking around here that there are more white legacies than black legacies in the history of Harvard University.And explain what legacy admissions are.Well, legacy admissions is giving an advantage to someone who has an arbitrary privilege of their parent having attended the university to which they're applying.Alright, so a reply for Hannah.Yes, in the balcony, go ahead.First of all, if affirmative action is making up for past injustice, how do you explain minorities that were not historically discriminated against in the United States who get these advantages?In addition, you could argue that affirmative action perpetuates divisions between the races rather than achieve the ultimate goal of race being an irrelevant factor in our society.And what, tell us your name.Danielle.- Hannah.I disagree with that because I think that by promoting diversity in an institution like this, you further educate all of the students, especially the white students who grew up in predominately white areas.It's certainly a form of education to be exposed to people from different backgrounds.And you put white students at an inherent disadvantage when you surround them only with their own kind.Why should race necessarily be equated with diversity?There are so many other forms, why should we assume that race makes people different?Again, that's perpetuating the idea of racial division within our universities and our society.- Hannah?With regard to African American people being given a special advantage, it's obvious that they bring something special to the table, because they have a unique perspective just as someone from a different religion orsocio-economic background would, as well.As you say, there are many different types of diversity.There's no reason that racial diversity should be eliminated from that criteria.Yes, go ahead.Racial discrimination is illegal in this country, and I believe that it was African American leaders themselves, when Martin Luther King said he wanted to be judged not on the color of skin, but by the content of his character, his merit, his achievements.And I just think that, to decide solely based on someone's race is just inherently unfair.I mean, if you want to correct based on disadvantaged backgrounds, that's fine, but there are also disadvantaged white people as well.It shouldn't matter if you're white or black.- Tell us your name.Ted. - Ted, - Yes.- Think of Hopwood.It's unfair to count race or, I assume you would also say, ethnicity or religion?Yes. - Do you think she has a right to be considered according to her grades and test scores alone?No. There is more to it than that.Universities need to promote diversity.So you agree with the goal of promoting diversity?There's ways to promote diversity besides discriminating against people solely based on a factor they cannot control.Alright, so what makes it wrong, is that she can't control her race.She can't control the fact that she's white.That's the heart of the unfairness to her.Bree made a similar point.That basing admissions on factors that people can't control, is fundamentally unfair.What do you say?There's a lot of things you can't control, and if you don't for it based on merit, like just based on your test scores, a lot of what you can achieve has to do with family background, that you were raised in.If both of your parents were scholarly, then you have more of chance of actually of being more scholarly yourself and getting those grades.And you can't control what kind of family you were born into.Alright good, that's a great rejoinder, what's your name?Da.- Da.Ted, are you against advantages that come from the family you were born into?What about legacy admissions?I do believe that in terms of a legacy admission you shouldn't have a special preference, I mean there is a legacy admission you could argue is another part, versus you could day it's important to have a small percentage of people that have a several generation family attendance at a place like Harvard.However that should not be an advantage factor like race, it should just be another part promoting diversity.Should it count at all?I think that, - Alumni status, should it count at all, Ted?Yes. It should count.Alright, I want to step back for a moment from these arguments.Thank you all for these contributions.We're going to come back to you.If you've listened carefully I think you will have noticed three different arguments emerge from this discussion.In defense of considering race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions.One argument has to do with correcting for the effects, for the effects of educational disadvantage.That was Aneesha's argument.This is what we might call the corrective argument.Correcting for differences in educational background, the kind of school people went to.The opportunities they had and so on.That's one argument.What's worth noticing though, is that argument is consistent in principle with the idea that only academic promise and scholarly potential should count in admissions.We just need to go beyond test scores and grades alone, to get a true estimate of academic promise and scholarly ability.That's the first argument.Then we heard a second argument that said affirmative action is justified even where there may not be the need to correct for educational disadvantage in a particular applicant's case.It's justified as a way of compensating for past wrongs, for historic injustices.So that's a compensatory argument.Compensating for past wrongs.Then we heard, a third, a different argument, for affirmative action, from Hannah and others, that argued in the name of diversity.Now, the diversity argument is different from the compensatory argument, because it makes a certain appeal to the social purpose or the social mission of the college or university.There are really two aspects to the diversity argument.One says it's important to have a diverse student body for the sake of the educational experience for everyone.Hannah made that point.And the other talks about the wider society.This was the argument made by the University of Texas in the Hopwood case.We need to train lawyers and judges and leaders, public officials who will contribute to the strength, the civic strength of the state of Texas, and the country as a whole.So there are two different aspects to the diversity argument.But both are arguments in the name of the social purpose, or the social mission or the common good, served by the institution.Well, what about the force of these arguments?We've also heard objections to these arguments.The most powerful objection to the compensatory argument is, is it fair to ask Cheryl Hopwood today, to make the sacrifice, to pay the compensation for aninjustice that was admittedly committed and egregious, in the past, but in which she was not implicated.Is that fair?So that's an important objection to the compensatory argument.And in order to meet that objection, we would have to investigate whether there is such a thing as group rights or collective responsibility that reaches over time.So having identified that issue, let's set it aside to turn to the diversity argument.The diversity argument doesn't have to worry about that question.About collective responsibility for past wrongs.Because it says, for reasons Hannah and others pointed out, that the common good is served, is advanced if there is a racially and ethnically diverse student body.Everyone benefits.This indeed was the argument that Harvard made when it filed a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court in the 1978 case, the affirmative action case, the Bakke case.In the Harvard brief, the Harvard rationale, was cited by Justice Powell, who was the swing vote in the case upholding affirmative action, he cited that as providing the rationale that he thought was constitutionally acceptable.Harvard's argument in its brief, was this: "We care about diversity.Scholarly excellence alone, has never been the criterion of admission, the sole criterion of admission to Harvard College.Fifteen years ago diversity meant students from California and New York, and Massachusetts.City dwellers, and farm boys.Violinists, painters and football players.Biologists, historians and classicists.The only difference now, Harvard argued, is that we're adding racial and ethnic status to this long list of diversity considerations.When reviewing the large number of candidates able to do well in our classes," Harvard wrote, "Race may count as a plus, just as coming from Iowa may count or being a good middle linebacker or pianist.A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer.Similarly, a black student can usually bring something a white student cannot offer.The quality of the educational experience of all students depends in part on these differences in the background and outlook that students bring with them." That was Harvard's argument.Now what about the diversity argument?Is it persuasive?If it's to be persuasive, it has to meet one very powerful objection.That we've heard voiced here.By Ted, by Bree.Unless you're a utilitarian, you believe that individual rights can't be violated.And so the question is, is there an individual right that is violated?Is Cheryl Hopwood's right violated?If she is used, so to speak, denied admission, for the sake of the common good and the social mission that the University of Texas Law School has defined for itself, does she have a right?Don't we deserve to be considered according to our excellences, our achievements, our accomplishments, our hard work?Isn't that the right at stake?Now we've already heard an answer to that argument.No, she doesn't have the right.Nobody deserves to be admitted.Notice how this gets us back to the issue of desert versus entitlement.They're arguing there is no individual right that Hopwood has.She doesn't deserve to be admitted according to any particular set of criteria that she believes to be important.Including criteria that have only to do with her efforts and achievements.Why not?I think implicit, in this argument, is something like Rawls' rejection of moral desert as the basis of distributive justice.Yes, once Harvard defines its mission and designs its admission policy in the light of its mission, people are entitled, who fit those criteria, they are entitled to be admitted.But according to this argument, no one deserves that Harvard college define its mission and design its admission criteria in the first place, in a way that prizes the qualities they happen to have in abundance.Whether those qualities are test scores or grades or the ability to play the piano, or to be a good middle linebacker, or to come from Iowa, or to come from a certain minority group.So you see how this debate about affirmative action, especially the diversity argument, takes us back to the question of rights, which in turn takes us back to the question of whether moral desert is or is not the basis for distributive justice.Think about that over the weekend and we'll continue this discussion next time.Suppose we're distributing flutes.Who should get the best ones?What's Aristotle's answer?Anyone?His answer is, the best flutes should go to the best flute players, because that's what flutes are for.When we ended last time, we were considering arguments for and against affirmative action.Counting race as a factor in admissions.And, in the course of the discussion, three arguments emerged, three arguments for affirmative action.One of them was the idea that race and ethnic background should count as a way of correcting for the true meaning of test scores and grades.Getting a more accurate measure of the academic potential those scores, those numbers represent.Second, was what we called "the compensatory argument".The idea of righting past wrongs, past injustice.And the third was the diversity argument.And when Cheryl Hopwood in the 1990s challenged the University of Texas Law School's affirmative action program, in the federal courts, the University of Texas made another version of the diversity argument.Saying that the broader social purpose, the social mission of the University of Texas Law School, is to produce leaders, in the legal community, in the political community, among judges, lawyers, legislators, and therefore it's important that we produce leaders, who reflect the background, and the experience, and the ethnic and the racial composition of the state of Texas.It's important for serving our wider social mission.That was the University of Texas Law School's argument.And then we considered an objection to the diversity argument which after all is an argument in the name of the social mission, the common good.We saw that Rawls does not simply believe that arguments of the common good or the general welfare should prevail if individual rights must be violated in the course of promoting the common good.You remember that was the question, the challenge, to the diversity rationale that we were considering when we finished last time.And we began to discuss the question "Well, what right might be at stake"?Maybe the right to be considered according to factors within one's control.Maybe this is the argument that Cheryl Hopwood implicitly was making.She can't help the fact that she is white.Why should her chance at getting into law school depend on a factor she can't control?And then Hannah who is advancing an argument last time said Harvard has the right to define its mission any way it wants to, it's a private institution.And it's only once Harvard defines its mission that we can identify the qualities that count.So no rights are being violated.Now, what about that argument?What I would like to do is to hear objections to that reply.And then, see whether others have an answer.Yes?And tell us your name.Da.- Da, right you spoke up last time.How do you answer that argument?Well, I think there was two things in there.One of them was that a private institution could define its mission however it wants.But that doesn't make however it defines it, right, like I could define my personal mission as I want to collect all the money in the world.But does that make it even a good mission?So you can't like, you can't say that just because a college is a private institution it can just define it as whatever it wants, you still have to thing about, what are the way it's defining it, it's right.And the case of affirmative action a lot of people have said that since there's a lot of other factors involved, why not race?Like if we already know that, - Let's I want to stick with your first point, Da.- Okay.Here's Da's objection.Can a college or university define its social purpose any way it wants to and define admissions criteria accordingly?What about the University of Texas Law School not today, but in the 1950s?Then, there was another Supreme Court case, against the admissions policy of the University of Texas Law School because it was segregated.It only admitted whites.And when the case went to court back in the '50s, the University of Texas Law School also invoked its mission."Our mission as a law school, is to educate lawyers for the Texas bar, the Texas law firms.And no Texas law firm hires African Americans.So to fulfill our mission, we only admit whites." Or consider Harvard, in the 1930s when it had anti-Jewish quotas.President Lowell, the president of Harvard in the 1930s said, that he had nothing personally against Jews, but he invoked the mission, the social purpose of Harvard he said, "which is not only to train intellectuals, part of the mission at Harvard," he said, "is to train stockbrokers for Wall Street, presidents and senators and there are very few Jews who go into those professions." Now, here's the challenge.Is there a principle distinction between the invocation of the social purpose of the college or university today, in the diversity rationale and the invocation of the social purpose or mission of the university by Texas in the 1950s or Harvard in the 1930s?Is there a difference in principle?What's the reply?Hannah?- Well, I think that the principle that's different here, is, basically the distinction between inclusion versus exclusion.I think that it's morally wrong of the university to say "We're going to exclude you on the basis of your religion or your race." That's denial on the basis of arbitrary factors.What Harvard is trying to do today with its diversity initiatives, is to include groups that were excluded in the past.Good, let's see if, stay there, let's see if someone would like to reply.Go ahead. - Actually this is kind of in support of Hannah, rather than a reply but, - That's alright.I was going to say another principle difference can be based on malice being the motivation for the historical segregation act, so it's saying that we're not going to let blacks or Jews in because they're worse as people or as a group.Good, so the element of malice isn't present.And what's your name?- Stevie.Stevie says that in the historic segregation as racist, anti-Semitic quotas or prohibitions.There was built into them, a certain kind of malice, a certain kind of judgment that African Americans or Jews were somehow less worthy than everybody else.Whereas present day affirmative action programs don't involve or imply any such judgment.What it amounts to saying is, so long as the policy, just uses people in a way as valuable to the social purpose of the institution, it's okay provided it doesn't judge them, maliciously, as Stevie might add, as intrinsically less worthy.。
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
Funding for this program is provided by……Additional funding provided by……Last time,we argued aboutthe case ofThe Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,the lifeboat case,the case of cannibalism at sea.And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,let's turn back to the philosophy,the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.Bentham was born in England in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 19 but he never practiced law.Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral st time, we began to considerBentham's version of utilitarianism.The main idea is simply stated and it's this:The highest principle of morality,whether personal or political morality,is to maximize the general welfare,or the collective happiness,or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;in a phrase, maximize utility.Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning:We're all governed by pain and pleasure,they are our sovereign masters,and so any moral system has to take account of them.How best to take account?By maximizing.And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.What exactly should we maximize?Bentham tells us happiness,or more precisely, utility -maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also forcommunities and for legislators."What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.And that's why in deciding the best policy,in deciding what the law should be,in deciding what's just,citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question if we add up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs,the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.That's what it means to maximize utility.Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it,and it often goes,this utilitarian logic,under the name of cost-benefit analysis,which is used by companies and by governments all the time.And what it involves is placing a value,usually a dollar value,to stand for utility on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.Recently, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.Philip Morris, the tobacco company,does huge businessin the Czech Republic.They commissioned a study,a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-benefit analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.Now, how do they gain?It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking-related diseases.On the other hand,there were positiveeffects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.The positive effects included,for the most part,various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products,but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early,pension savings -- you don't have to pay pensions for as long -and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,and given the savings in housing,in health care, and pension costs,the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking.Cost-benefit analysis.Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test.Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate,namely the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.What about the value of life?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life.One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.Did any of you read about that?This was back in the 1970s.Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was,a kind of car?Anybody?It was a small car,subcompact car, very popular,but it had oneproblem,which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions,the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured.Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.And in the court case,it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.They did a cost-benefit analysis.The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,they calculated at $11.00 per part.And here's -- this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value,$200,000 per death,180 injuries, $67,000,and then the costs to repair,the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didn't install the device.Needless to say,when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial,it appalled the jurors,who awarded a huge settlement.Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?Because Ford included a measure of the value oflife.Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counterexample?Who has a defense?Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus?Yes?Well, I think that once again,they've made the same mistake the previous case did,that they assigned a dollar value to human life,and once again,they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families.I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one and that is more valued than $200,000.Right and -- wait, wait, wait,that's good. What's your name?Julie Roteau .Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie,is too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life, what would be -what do you think would be a more accurate number?I don't believe I could give a number.I think that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.I think it can't be used monetarily.So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.They were wrong to try to put any number at all.All right, let's hear someone who -You have to adjust for inflation.You have to adjust for inflation.All right, fair enough.So what would the number be now?This was 35 years ago.Two million dollars.Two million dollars?You would put two million?And what's your name?VoytekVoytek Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.We should be more generous.Then would you be satisfied that this isthe right way of thinking about the question?I guess, unfortunately, it is for -there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, I'm not sure what that number would be,but I do agree that there could possibly be a number put on the human life.All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie.Julie says we can't put a number on human life for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.What do other people think about this?Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.I think that if Ford and other car companies didn't use cost-benefit analysis,they'd eventually go out of business because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,to put food on the table,to feed their children.So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,the greater good is sacrificed,in this case.All right, let me add.What's your name?Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car,and there was a debate whether that should be banned.Yeah.And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that if you look at the benefits of the cell phoneuse and you put some value on the life,it comes out about the same because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time,not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.Doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to derive maximum utility out of a service,like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur.You're an outright utilitarian.Yes. Okay.All right then, one last question, Raul.Okay.And I put this to Voytek,what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,I mean, right now.I think that -You want to take it under advisement?Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.But what, roughly speaking, would it be?You got 2,300 deaths. - Okay.You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want。
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——广西民族大学叶良海第一课：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。
哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕_第一课
制作人：心舟 QQ:1129441083第一讲《杀人的道德侧面》这是一门讨论公正的课程This is a course about justice我们以一则故事作为引子and we begin with a story.假设你是一名电车司机\Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car你的电车以60英里小时的速度\and your trolley car is hurtling down the track 在轨道上飞驰\at 60 miles an hour.突然发现在轨道的尽头\And at the end of the track you notice有五名工人正在施工\five workers working on the track.你无法让电车停下来\You try to stop but you can't因为刹车坏了\your brakes don't work.你此时极度绝望\You feel desperate因为你深知\because you know如果电车撞向那五名工人\that if you crash into these five workers他们全都会死\they will all die.假设你对此确信无疑\Let's assume you know that for sure.你极为无助\And so you feel helpless直到你发现在轨道的右侧until you notice that there is off to the right有一条侧轨\ a side track而在侧轨的尽头\and at the end of that track只有一名工人在那施工\there is one worker working on the track.而你的方向盘还没坏\Your steering wheel works只要你想\so you can turn the trolley car就可以把电车转到侧轨上去\if you want to onto the side track牺牲一人挽救五人性命\killing the one but sparing the five.下面是我们的第一个问题:\Here's our first question:何为正确的选择\what's the right thing to do?换了你会怎么做\What would you do?我们来做个调查\Let's take a poll.有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去\How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track?请举手\Raise your hands.有多少人会让电车继续往前开\How many wouldn't? 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\A handful of people would绝大多数都选择转弯\the vast majority would turn.我们先来听听大家的说法\Let's hear first探究一下为何\now we need to begin to investigate the reasons你们会认为这是正确的选择\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 whowould turn to go onto the side track.为何会这样选择\Why would you do it?理由是什么\What would be your reason?有没有自告奋勇的\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\Because it can't be right to kill five people牺牲五人不是正确之举\when you can only kill one person instead.当可以只牺牲一人时牺牲五人不是正确之举\It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.这理由不错\That's a good reason.不错\That's a good reason.还有其他人吗\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\Well I was thinking it's the same reason on9 11 那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人被视为英雄\with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes因为他们选择了牺牲自己\because they chose to kill the people on the plane而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人\and not kill more people in big buildings.这么看来这条原则和9·11的是一样的\So the principle there was the same on 9 11. 虽然是悲剧\It's a tragic circumstance但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择\but better to kill one so that five can live 这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗\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\Let's hear now from those in the minority那些选择不转弯的\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\Well I think that's the same type of mentality that justifies genocide是同一种思维模式\and totalitarianism.为了一个种族能生存下来\In order to save one type of race以灭绝另一个种族为代价\you wipe out the other.那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做\So what would you do in this case?为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝\You would to avoid the horrors of genocide你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗\you would crash into the five and kill them? 大概会吧\Presumably yes.-真的会吗 -对\- You would? - Yeah.好吧还有谁\Okay. Who else?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\Let's consider another trolley car case看看你们\and see whether大多数的人\those of you in the majority会不会继续坚持刚才的原则\want to adhere to the principle即"牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择"\"better that one should die so that five should live."这次你不再是电车司机了\This time you're not the driver of the trolley car只是一名旁观者\you're an onlooker.你站在一座桥上俯瞰着电车轨道\You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track.电车沿着轨道从远处驶来\And down the track comes a trolley car轨道的尽头有五名工人\at the end of the track are five workers电车刹车坏了\the brakes don't work这五名工人即将被撞死\the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.但你不是电车司机你真的爱莫能助\And now you're not the driver you really feel helpless直到你发现在你旁边\until you notice standing next to you靠着桥站着的\leaning over the bridge是个超级大胖子\is a very fat man.你可以选择推他一把\And you could give him a shove.他就会摔下桥\He would fall over the bridge onto the track正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车\right in the way of the trolley car.他必死无疑但可以救那五人的性命\He would die but he would spare the five. 现在\Now有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥\how many would push the fat man over the bridge?请举手\Raise your hand.有多少人不会\How many wouldn't?大多数人不会这么做\Most people wouldn't.一个显而易见的问题出现了\Here's the obvious question.我们"牺牲一人保全五人"的这条原则\What became of the principle到底出了什么问题呢\"better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?" 第一种情况时\What became of the principle大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了\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\The second one I guess牵涉到主动选择推人\involves an active choice of pushing a person down而被推的这个人\which I guess that person himself本来跟这事件一点关系都没有\would otherwise not have been involved in thesituation at all.所以从这个人自身利益的角度来说\And so to choose on his behalf I guess他是被迫卷入这场无妄之灾的\to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is而第一种情况不同\I guess more than what you have in the first case第一种情况里的三方电车司机及那两组工人\where the three parties the driver and the two sets of workers之前就牵涉进这事件本身了\are already I guess in the situation.但在侧轨上施工的那名工人\But the guy working the one on the track off to the side 他并不比那个胖子更愿意牺牲自我不是吗\he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did he?对但谁让他就在那侧轨上而且...\That's true but he was on the tracks and... 那胖子还在桥上呢\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\You did well. You did very well.真的难以抉择\It's a hard question.还有谁能来为两种情况中\Who else can find a way of reconciling大多数人的不同选择作出合理解释\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\Well I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five你只能在这两者中选择\it's a choice between those two不管你做出的是哪一个选择\and you have to make a certain choice总得有人被电车撞死\and people are going to die because of the trolley car而他们的死并非你的直接行为导致\not necessarily because of your direct actions.电车已失控而你必须在那一瞬间做出选择\The trolley car is a runaway thing and you're making a split second choice.而反之把胖子推下去则是你自己的直接谋杀行为\Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part.你的行为是可控的\You have control over that而电车则是不可控的\whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.所以我认为这两种情况略有不同\So I think it's a slightly different situation. 很好有没谁来回应的有人吗\All right who has a reply? That's good. Who has a way?有人要补充吗刚才那个解释合理吗\Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this? 我认为这不是一个很好的理由\I don't think that's a very good reason因为不论哪种情况你都得选择让谁死\because you choose to- either way you have to choose who dies或者你是选择转弯撞死一名工人\because you either choose to turn and kill theperson这种转弯就是种有意识的行为\which is an act of conscious thought to turn或者你是选择把胖子推下去\or you choose to push the fat man over这同样是一种主动的有意识的行为\which is also an active conscious action.所以不管怎样你都是在作出选择\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\I'm not really sure that that's the case.只是觉得似乎有点不同\It just still seems kind of different.真的动手把人推到轨道上让他死的这种行为\the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him就等于是你亲手杀了他\you are actually killing him yourself.你用你自己的手推他\You're pushing him with your own hands.是你在推他这不同于\You're pushing him and that's different操控方向盘进而导致了他人死亡...\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\Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man我不用去推他\I didn't have to push him假设他踩在一扇活板门上方\suppose he was standing over a trap door而活板门可以通过转动方向盘来开启\that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that.你会转动方向盘吗\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\I mean maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel或是发生之类的情况\or something like that.但是...或者是列车飞驰而来时\But... Or say that the car is hurtling正好可以触发活门开关\towards a switch that will drop the trap.-那我就赞同 -没关系好了\- Then I could agree with that. - 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\that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.换个说法就是在第一种情况中\And in another way I mean in the first situation你是直接涉及其中的\you're involved directly with the situation.而第二种情况中你只是旁观者\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\- All right. - So you have the choice of becoming involved or not-从而牵涉其中 -好了\- by pushing the fat man. - All right.先不管这个情况\Let's forget for the moment about this case.你们很不错\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\This time you're a doctor in an emergency room有天送来了六个病人\and six patients come to you.他们遭受了一次严重的电车事故\They've been in a terrible trolley car wreck.其中五人伤势不算严重\Five of them sustain moderate injuries另外一人受重伤你可以花上一整天时间\one is severely injured you could spend all day来医治这一名受重伤的病人\caring for the one severely injured victim但那另外五个病人就会死\but in that time the five would die.你也可以选择医治这五人\Or you could look after the five restore them to health 但那样的话那名受重伤的病人就会死\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\Same reason I assume.牺牲一个保全五个\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\This time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients每名病人都急需器官移植才能存活\each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive.分别需要心脏移植肺移植肾移植\One needs a heart one a lung one a kidney肝移植以及胰腺移植\one a liver and the fifth a pancreas.没有器官捐赠者\And you have no organ donors.你只能眼睁睁看他们死去\You are about to see them die.然后你突然想起\And then it occurs to you在隔壁病房\that in the next room有个来做体检的健康人\there's a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.而且他...\And he's...你们喜欢这剧情吧\you like that...而且他正在打盹\... and he's taking a nap你可以悄悄地进去取出那五个器官\you could go in very quietly yank out the five organs这人会死但你能救那另外五人\that person would die but you could save the five. 有多少人会这么做\How many would do it?有吗\Anyone?选择这么做的请举手\How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.楼座上的呢\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\I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility就是选择五人中最先死的那人\of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first利用他的器官来救其他四人\and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.这想法很赞\That's a pretty good idea.想法不错\That's a great idea只不过\except for the fact你避开了我们今天要谈论的哲学问题\that you just wrecked the philosophical point. 让我们暂时先不忙讨论这些故事以及争论\Let's step back from these stories and these arguments来关注一下这些争论是怎样展开的\to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.某些道德原则已经随着我们讨论的展开\Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge逐渐开始浮现出来了\from the discussions we've had.我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的\And let's consider what those moral principles look like.在讨论中出现的第一条道德原则\The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion正确的选择道德的选择\said the right thing to do the moral thing to do取决于你的行为所导致的后果\depends on the consequences that will result from your action.最终结论: 牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择\At the end of the day better that five should live even if one must die.这是后果主义道德推理的一则例子\That's an example of consequentiality moral reasoning.后果主义道德推理\Consequentiality moral reasoning认为是否道德取决于行为的后果\locates morality in the consequences of an act取决于你的行为对外界所造成的影响\in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.但随着谈论的深入我们发现在其他情况中\But then we went a little further we considered those other cases人们不再对后果主义道德推理那么确定了\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\When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge或者是否切取无辜病人的器官时\or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient 他们更倾向于去评判行为本身的动机\people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself而不是该行为的后果\consequences be what they may.人们动摇了\People were reluctant.他们认为杀掉一个无辜的人\People thought it was just wrong categorically wrong 是绝对错误的\to kill a person an innocent person哪怕是为了拯救五条生命\even for the sake of saving five lives.至少在每个故事的第二种情况中是这样认为的\At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.这表明有第二种绝对主义方式的道德推理\So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.绝对主义道德推理认为\Categorical moral reasoning是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则\locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements取决于绝对明确的义务与权利\certain categorical duties and rights而不管后果如何\regardless of the consequences.我们将用以后的几天到几周时间来探讨\We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come后果主义与绝对主义道德原则的差别\the contrast between consequentiality and categorical moral principles.后果主义道德推理中最具影响的就是功利主义\The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism由18世纪英国政治哲学家杰里米·边沁提出\a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham18th century English political philosopher而绝对主义道德推理中最为著名的\The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning则是18世纪德国哲学家康德\is the18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. 我们将着眼于这两种迥异的道德推理模式\So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning评价它们还会考虑其他模式\assess them and also consider others.如果你有留意教学大纲就能发现\If you look at the syllabus you'll notice教学大纲里列出了不少人的著作\that we read a number of great and famous books包括亚里士多德约翰·洛克伊曼努尔·康德\books by Aristotle John Locke Immanuel Kant约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒及其他哲学家的著作\John Stewart Mill and others.在教学大纲中还能看到\You'll notice too from the syllabus我们不仅要读这些著作\that we don't only read these books;还会探讨当代政治及法律争议\we also take up contemporary political and legal controversies所引发的诸多哲学问题\that raise philosophical questions.我们将讨论平等与不平等\We will debate equality and inequality平权行动自由言论与攻击性言论同性婚姻\affirmative action free speech versus hate speech same-sex marriage兵役制等一系列现实问题\military conscription a range of practical questions. 为什么呢\Why?不仅是为了将这些深奥抽象的著作形象化\Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books还为了让我们通过哲学辨明\but to make clear to bring out what's at stake日常生活包括政治生活中什么才是最关键的\in our everyday lives including our political lives for philosophy.所以我们要读这些著作讨论这些议题\And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues并了解两者是怎样互相补充互相阐释的\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\This may sound appealing enough but here I have to issue a warning.那就是通过用这样的方式阅读这些著作\And the warning is thisto read these books in this way来训练自我认知\as an exercise in self knowledge必然会带来一些风险\to read them in this way carries certain risks包括个人风险和政治风险\risks that are both personal and political每位学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险\risks that every student of political philosophy has known.这风险源自于以下事实\These risks spring from the fact即哲学就是让我们面对自己熟知的事物\that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us 然后引导并动摇我们原有的认知\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\The difficulty of this course consists in the fact传授的都是你们已有的知识\that it teaches what you already know.它将我们所熟知的毋庸置疑的事物\It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings变得陌生\and making it strange.正如我们刚举的例子\That's how those examples worked那些严肃而又不乏趣味的假设性问题\the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.这些哲学类著作亦然\It's also how these philosophical books work.哲学让我们对熟知事物感到陌生\Philosophy estranges us from the familiar不是通过提供新的信息\not by supplying new information而是通过引导并激发我们用全新方式看问题\but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing但这正是风险所在\but and here's the risk一旦所熟知的事物变得陌生\once the familiar turns strange它将再也无法回复到从前\it's never quite the same again.自我认知就像逝去的童真 \Self knowledge is like lost innocence不管你有多不安\however unsettling you find it;你已经无法不去想或是充耳不闻了\it can never be un-thought or un-known.这一过程会充满挑战又引人入胜\What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting因为道德与政治哲学就好比一个故事\is that moral and political philosophy is a story你不知道故事将会如何发展\and you don't know where the story will lead.你只知道这个故事与你息息相关\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\Now what of the political risks?介绍这门课程时可以这样许诺:\One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you通过阅读这些著作讨论这些议题\that by reading these books and debating these issues你将成为更优秀更有责任感的公民\you will become a better more responsible citizen;你将重新审视公共政策的假定前提\you will examine the presuppositions of public policy你将拥有更加敏锐的政治判断力\you will hone your political judgment你将更有效地参与公共事务\you will become a more effective participant in public affairs.但这一许诺也可能片面而具误导性\But this would be a partial and misleading promise.因为绝大多数情况下政治哲学\Political philosophy for the most part并不是那样的\hasn't worked that way.你们必须承认政治哲学\You have to allow for the possibility可能使你们成为更糟的公民\that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen 而不是更优秀的\rather than a better one至少在让你成为更优秀公民前先让你更糟\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\and that's because philosophy is a distancing even debilitating activity.追溯到苏格拉底时代就有这样一段对话\And you see this going back to Socrates there's a dialogue在《高尔吉亚篇》中苏格拉底的一位朋友\the Gorgias in which one of Socrates' friends《高尔吉亚篇》柏拉图著古希腊哲学家卡里克利斯试图说服苏格拉底放弃哲学思考\Callicles tries to talk him out of philosophizing.他告诉苏格拉底:\Callicles tells Socrates如果一个人在年轻时代\"Philosophy is a pretty toy有节制地享受哲学的乐趣那自然大有裨益\if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life.但倘若过分沉溺其中那他必将走向毁灭\But if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin."听我劝吧卡里克利斯说收起你的辩论\"Take my advice" Callicles says "abandon argument.学个谋生的一技之长\Learn the accomplishments of active life别学那些满嘴谬论的人\take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles要学那些生活富足声名显赫及福泽深厚的人\but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings."言外之意则是\So Callicles is really saying to Socrates放弃哲学现实一点去读商学院吧\"Quit philosophizing get real go to business school."卡里克利斯说得确有道理\And Callicles did have a point.因为哲学的确将我们与习俗\He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions既定假设以及原有信条相疏离\from established assumptions and from settled beliefs.以上就是我说的个人以及政治风险\Those are the risks personal and political. 面对这些风险有一种典型的回避方式\And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion.这种方式就是怀疑论大致的意思是\The name of the evasion is skepticism it's the idea...It goes something like this.刚才争论过的案例或者原则\We didn't resolve once and for all没有一劳永逸的解决方法\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\and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill 花了这么多年都没能解决这些问题\haven't solved these questions after all of these years那今天我们齐聚桑德斯剧院\who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre 仅凭一学期的课程学习就能解决了吗\over the course of a semester can resolve them?也许这本就是智者见智仁者见仁的问题\And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles多说无益也无从论证\and there's nothing more to be said about it no way of reasoning.这就是怀疑论的回避方式\That's the evasion the evasion of skepticism对此我给予如下回应\to which I would offer the following reply.诚然这些问题争论已久\It's true these questions have been debated for a very long time但正因为这些问题反复出现\but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted也许表明虽然在某种意义上它们无法解决\may suggest that though they're impossible in one sense但另一种意义上却又无可避免\they're unavoidable in another.它们之所以无可避免无法回避\And the reason they're unavoidable the reason they're inescapable是因为在日常生活中我们一次次地在回答这些问题\is that we live some answer to these questions every day.因此怀疑论让你们举起双手放弃道德反思\So skepticism just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection这绝非可行之策\is no solution.康德曾很贴切地描述了怀疑论的不足\Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism他写道怀疑论是人类理性暂时休憩的场所\when he wrote "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason}参见康德的《纯粹理性批判》是理性自省以伺将来做出正确抉择的地方\where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings但绝非理性的永久定居地\but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement." 康德认为简单地默许于怀疑论\"Simply to acquiesce in skepticism" Kant wrote 永远无法平息内心渴望理性思考之不安\"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\I've tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments展示的风险与诱惑挑战与机遇\some sense of the risks and temptations of the perils and the possibilities.简而言之这门课程旨在\I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course唤醒你们永不停息的理性思考探索路在何方\is to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might lead.谢谢\Thank you very much.在那样的绝境之下\Like in a situation that desperate为了生存你不得不那样做\you have to do what you have to do to survive.。
哈佛公开课 公平
Harvard University - Justice Michael Sandel哈佛大学公开课----公平迈克尔·桑代尔教授主讲Y our trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.你的电车正以每小时60英里行驶。
Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think is the right thing to do.我们还要研究你这样做的原因.Who is willing to volunteer a reason?谁愿意说说你的想法？Better to save five lives even if it means to sacrifice one.牺牲一个，救活更多人。
What became of the principle that almost everyone endorse in the first case?第一种情况几乎每个人都赞同，原因何在？Is there a way out of this?是否有更好的办法？Let‘s just forget a moment about this case.让我们暂时搁下这个故事。
Don‘t lean over.不要摔下来哦。
Let‘ step back from these stories, these arguments.让我们回过头来看这些故事和争论。
Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from discussion we had.我们的谈论已经涉及到了一些道德的原则.Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act in the state of the rule that we resolve from the thing you do.结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果,它取决于我们最后的结果。
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕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?。
- 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)。
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,
and what their cost-benefit
关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.
analysis found was the government
gains by having Czec citizens 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
这效用是基于成本和效益得出的
Recently, in the Czech Republic,
there was a proposal
最近,在捷克共和国,有一个提案
to increase the excise tax on smoking.
Philip Morris, the tobacco company,
And what it involves
is placing a value,
它的内涵是用一个价值
usually a dollar value,
to stand for utility on the costs
通常是由美元,来代表不同提案的效用
and the benefits
of various proposals.
the arguments for and against
what Dudley and Stephens 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 utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.
$147,000,000的公共财政净增益,
and given the savings in housing,
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 government enjoys savings
of over $1,200 for each person
让我们回头来看看Bentham的功利主义哲学.
Bentham was born in England 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.
他们是我们的主宰,所以任何道德体系
has to take account of them.
都要考虑到这点.
How best to take account
By maximizing.
如何能最好地考虑这一点通过最大化.
And this leads to the principle of the
greatest good for the greatest number.
并且这些积极效益累加到了账簿的另一面
The positive effects included,
for the most part,
积极效益包括,在大多数情况下,
various tax revenues that the
government derives from the sale
政府通过卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入,
of 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 balance
of happiness over suffering.
Funding for this program
is provided by:
本节目的赞助来自... ...
Additional funding provided by:
另外的赞助来自... ...
Last time,
we argued about
上次,我们谈到
the case of
The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,
It's the sum of the individuals
who comprise it.
它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和.
And that's why in deciding
the best policy,
这就是为什么在决定最好的政策,
in deciding what the law should be,
who dies prematurely due to smoking.
每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.
Cost-benefit analysis.
成本效益分析.
Now, those among you
who are defenders of utilitarianism
现在,你们中间,那些功利主义的捍卫者
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 means
to maximize utility.
这就是效用最大化.
Now, today, I want to see
whether you agree or disagree with it,
现在,我想看看你们是否同意它,
and it often goes,
对吸烟增加货物税.Philip Morris烟草公司,
does huge business
in the Czech Republic.
该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.
They commissioned a study,
a cost-benefit analysis
他们委托了一个研究,
of smoking in the Czech Republic,
of cigarette products,
but it also included
但也包括
health care savings to the
government when 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 savings -- you don't have to
this utilitarian logic,
往往有云：功利主义的逻辑,
under the name of
cost-benefit analysis,
名为成本效益分析,
which is used by companies
and by governments all the time.
也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的 .
现在,他们如何收益
It's true that there are
negative effects to the public finance
确实,捷克政府的公共财政体系
of the Czech government
because there are increased 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,
就是将公共福利,或集体的幸福最大化,
or the overall balance
of 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.
Bentham arrives at this principle
他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.
You may say that what's missing here
is something that the utilitarian