哈佛大学的一堂道德教育课
新世纪美国高校道德教育的“专业性”课程研究——以美国斯坦福大学和哈佛大学为例
以具 体剖 析其 道德 教 育 专 业 人 才 的 培养 过 程 ， 旨 在为 我 国道 德 教 育 专 业 性 人 才 培 养 提 供 启 示 与
借鉴 。
一
、
美 国 高 校 道 德 教 育 专 业 性 课 程 的 内涵
美 国 的高 等 教 育 主 要 由专 业 教 育 和 通 识 教
育专 门人 才 培 养 和 公 民整 体 道 德 素 质 提 高 方 面 均发 挥 至关 重要 的作 用 ， 为今 后 在 全 社 会 范 围 内
开展 有效 的 道德 教育 、 提 升公 民 的整 体 德 性修 养 提供 了基 本 保 障 。道 德 教 育 的 专 业 性 课 程 是 指 高 校面 向从 事 道 德 教 育 研 究 方 向开 展 学 习 和 科 研 活动 的硕 士研 究 生 及博 士研 究 生 所 开设 的 ， 以 专 业知识 传 授 、 专 业 技 能 养 成 和专 业 研 究 方 法 学
［ 收 稿 日期 ］２ ０ １ ３ —１ ２ —２ ０ ［ 基 金 项 目］教 育 部人 文社 会 科 学 研 究 项 目思 政 专 项 （ １ ３ Ｊ ＤＳ Ｚ ２ Ｏ ５ ９ ） ； 吉林 省 哲 学 社 会科 学 规划 项 目（ ２ ０ １ １ Ｂ ０ ７ ９ ） 。 ［ 作 者 简 介 ］蒋 菲 （ １ ９ ７ ９ 一） ， 女， 辽 宁 沈 阳人 ， 东 北 师 范 大 学 思 想 政 治 教 育 研 究 中心 讲 师 ， 博士研究生。
［ 摘
要 ］美 国高 校道 德 教 育 的 专 业 性 课 程 教 育 目标 明确 ， 教育方法多样化 ； 在教育 内容选择上 实现 了
深 度 与广 度 、 理 论 性 与 前 沿 性 的 高度 统 一 ； 在 道 德 教 育 专 门人 才培 养 的 过 程 中 尊 重 人 的道 德 认 知 发 展 规 律 ， 重 视 研 究 方法 的 学 习 和 实 践 ， 值 得我们学习和借鉴 。 ［ 关 键 词 ］美 国 ； 高校 ； 道德教育 ； 专 业性 课 程
哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：第一课：英文字幕
Funding for this program is provided by...Additional funding provided by...This is a course about justice and we begin with a you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the trackat miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all 's assume you know that for so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the endof that track, there is one worker working on the steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the 's our first question:what's the right thing to do?What would you do?Let's take a many would turnthe trolley caronto the side track?Raise your many wouldn't?How many would go straight ahead?Keep your hands up those of youwho would go straight handful of people would,the vast majority would 's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to 's begin with those in the majoritywho would turn to goonto the side would you do it?What would be your reason?Who's willing to volunteer a reason?Go ahead. Stand it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person 's a good 's a good else?Does everybody agreewith that reason? Go I was thinking it's the same reasonon / with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big the principle therewas the same on /.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn? Yes?Let's hear nowfrom those in the minority,those who wouldn't turn. , I think that'sthe same type of mentalitythat justifies genocideand order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the what wouldyou doin this case?You would, to avoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill them?Presumably, would?. Who else?That's a brave 's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of youin the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driverof the trolley car,you're an 're standing on a bridgeoverlooking a trolley car down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat you couldgive him a would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley would diebut he would spare the , how many would pushthe fat man over the bridge?Raise your many wouldn't?Most people wouldn''s the obvious became of the principle"better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one?"What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first case?I need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both do you explainthe difference between the two? second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have beeninvolved in the situation at so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did he?That's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the ahead, you can come backif you want. All 's a hard question. You did did very 's a hard else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases? , I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choicebetween those twoand you have to makea certain choice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley I think it's a slightlydifferent right, who has a reply?That's good. Who has a way?Who wants to reply?Is that a way out of this?I don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person,which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious either way,you're making a you want to reply?I'm not really surethat that's the just still seemskind of act of actually pushingsomeone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him 're pushing himwith your own 're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into know, it doesn't really sound rightsaying it , no. It's good. It's 's your name? me ask you this question, standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like you turn?For some reason,that still just seems more ?I mean, maybe if you accidentallylike leaned into the steering wheelor something like ... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the I could agree with 's all right. Fair still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the the second one,you're an onlooker as right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat right. Let's forget for the momentabout this 's 's imagine a different time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to 've been in a terribletrolley car of themsustainmoderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spend all daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould many would save the five?Now as the doctor,how many would save the one?Very few people,just a handful of reason, I life versus five?Now consider another doctor time, you're a transplant surgeonand you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a you have no organ are about to see them then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a he's –you like that –and he's taking a nap,you could go in very quietly,yank out the five organs,that person would die,but you could save the many would do it?Anyone? How many?Put your hands upif you would do in the balcony?I would? Be careful,don't lean over too many wouldn't?All right. What do you say?Speak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. Why?I'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other 's a pretty good 's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical 's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've let's considerwhat those moral principles look first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must 's an exampleof consequentialist moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you then we went a little further,we considered those othercasesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral people hesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasonshaving to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they were thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights,regardless of the 're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast betweenconsequentialist and categoricalmoral most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke,Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,and 'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary,political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical will debate equality and inequality,affirmative action, free speech versushate speech, same sex marriage,military conscription,a range of practical questions. Why?Not just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the may sound appealing enough,but here I have to issue a the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in thiswaycarries certain risks,risks that are both personaland political,risks that every studentof political philosophy has risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already 's an difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already works by taking what we knowfrom familiar unquestioned settingsand making it 's how those examples worked,the hypotheticals with which we began,with their mix of playfulnessand 's also how thesephilosophical books estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same knowledge is like lost innocence,however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor makes this enterprise difficultbut also rivetingis that moral and political philosophyis a story and you don't knowwhere the story will what you do knowis that the story is about are the personal what of the political risks?One way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise youthat by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositionsof public policy,you will hone your political judgment,you will become a moreeffective participant in public this would be a partialand misleading philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that have to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out tells Socrates"Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if onepursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says,"abandon theaccomplishmentsof active life,take for your modelsnot those people who spendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihoodand reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates"Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a had a point because philosophydistances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled are the risks,personal and in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for alleither the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve them?And so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her ownprinciples and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of 's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following 's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every skepticism, just throwing up your handsand giving up on moral reflectionis no Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness ofreasonand to see where it might you very , in a situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to do what you have to do?You got to dowhat you got to do, pretty you've been going dayswithout any food, you know,someone just hasto take the has to make the sacrificeand people can , that's 's your name?, what do you say to Marcus?Last time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were began with our judgmentsin particular tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles,revising eachin the light of the we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought we called thisconsequentialist moral we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the , many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrongeven if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one we contrasted consequentialistmoral principles with categorical and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral that's the philosophyof Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple a lot of morallyintuitive appeal,Bentham's ideais the following,theright thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize did he mean by utility?He meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain,happiness over 's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and human beingslike pleasure and dislike so we should base morality,whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens,we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of 's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and was a th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law 's what happened in the 'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the newspaper account of the timedescribed the sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, ship flounderedin the South Atlantic, miles from the were four in the crew,Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker, years was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of , it was not to facts of the casewere not in wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went four crew membersescaped to a only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh the first three days,they ate the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate next daythey caught a with the othercan of turnips,theturtle enabled themto subsist for the next few then for eight days,they had food. No yourselfin a situation like that,what would you do?Here's what they now the cabin boy, Parker,is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawateragainst the advice of the othersand he had become illand he appeared to be on the th day,Dudley, the captain,suggested that they should allhave a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the didn't like the lottery don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral in any case,no lots were next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin then they were describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism."On the th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand turned state's and Stevens went to didn't dispute the claimed they hadacted out of necessity;that was their argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could prosecutor wasn't swayedby that said murder is murder,and so the case went to imagine you are the just to simplify the discussion,put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissible?And how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrong?A pretty sizeable let's see what people's reasons areand let me begin with thosewho are in the 's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and would you morallyexoneratethem?What are your reasons? think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthere is a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensibleand what makes someonelegally other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact,exonerate you from any . Good. Other voices for the justificationsfor what they did. just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to dowhat you have to , you've got to dowhat you've got to you've been going days without any food, you know,someone just has to take the sacrifice,someone has to make the sacrificeand people can furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productivemembers of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizationsand this and thatand this and mean they benefited everybodyin the end. , I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't but. -What?Maybe they were if they went homeand they turned out to be assassins?What if they'd gone homeand turned out to b e assassins? Well…You'd want to knowwho they 's true too. That's 's fair. I would want to knowwho they right. That's 's your name?. All 've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the we need to hearfrom the people thinkwhat they did was wrong. Why?Yes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be if that's an appealing argumentthat you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincingdo think that they wereacting what do you-I want to knowwhat you defend 'm sorry, you vote to convict, right?Yeah, I don't thinkthatthey acted in a morallyappropriate why not?What do you say,here's Marcus,he just defended said –you heard what he you've got to dowhat you've got to doin a case like that. do you say to Marcus?That there'sno situation that would allowhuman beings to take the ideaof fate orthe other people's livesin their own hands,that we don't havethat kind of . what's your name?. Okay. Who else?What do you say? Stand 'm wonderingif Dudley and Stevenhad asked for Richard Parker'sconsent in you know, dying,if that would exonerate themfrom an act of murderand if so,is that still morally justifiable?That's right. wait, hang 's your name? sayssuppose they had that,what would thatscenario look like?So in the story Dudley is there,pen knife in hand,but instead of the prayeror before the prayer,he says "Parker, would you mind?""We're desperately hungry",as Marcus empathizes with,"we're desperately 're not going to last long anyhow."-Yeah. You can be a martyr."Would you be a martyr?How about it Parker?"Then what do you think?Would it be morally justified then?Suppose Parkerin his semi-stupor says "Okay."I don't think it would bemorally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be? don't think thateven with consentit would be morally justified?Are there people who thinkwho want to take upKathleen's consent ideaand who think thatthat would make itmorally justified?Raise your handif it would, if you think it 's very would consentmake a moral difference?Why would it? , I just thinkthat if he was makinghis own original ideaand it was his ideato start with,then that would bethe only situationin which I would see itbeing appropriate in any waybecause that wayyou couldn't make the argumentthat he was pressured,you know it's three-to-oneor whatever the ratio . -And I think that if he wasmaking a decisionto give his lifeand he took on the agencyto sacrifice himselfwhich some peoplemight see as admirableand other people might disagreewith that if he came upwith the idea,that's the only kindofconsent we could haveconfidence in morallythen it would be , it would be kind ofcoerced consentunder the circumstances,you there anyone who thinksthat even the consent of Parkerwould not justify their killing him?Who thinks that? us why. Stand think that Parkerwould be killed with the hopethat the other crew memberswould be rescued so there's nodefinite reason thathe should be killedbecause you don't knowwhen they're going to get rescuedso if you kill him,it's killing him in vain,do you keep killing a crew memberuntil you're rescuedand then you're left with no onebecause someone's goingto die eventually?Well, the moral logicof the situation seems to be that,that they would keep onpicking off the weakest maybe,one by one,until they were in this case, luckily,they were rescued when three at leastwere still , if Parker did give his consent,would it be all right,do you think or not?No, it still wouldn't be tell us whyit wouldn't be all of all, cannibalism,I believe, is morally incorrectso you shouldn't beeating human cannibalism is morallyobjectionable as such so then,even on the scenario ofwaiting until someone died,still it would be , to me personally,I feel like it all dependson one's personal moralsand like we can't sit here and just,like this is just my opinion,of course other peopleare going to disagree, but –Well we'll see,let's see what their disagreements areand then we'll seeif they have reasons that canpersuade you or 's try that. All , is there someonewho can explain,those of you who aretempted by consent,can you explain whyconsent makes sucha moral difference?What about the lottery idea?Does that count as consent?Remember at the beginning,Dudley proposed a lottery,suppose that they had agreedto a lottery,then how many would then sayit was all right?Suppose there were a lottery,cabin boy lost,and the rest of the story unfolded,then how many people would sayit was morally permissible?So the numbers are risingif we had a 's hear from one of youfor whom the lotterywould make a moral would it?I think theessential element,in my mind,that makes it a crimeis the idea that they decidedat some point that their liveswere more important than his,and that, I mean, that's kind ofthe basis for really any ? It's like my needs,my desires are more importantthan yours and minetake if they had done a lotterywhere everyone consentedthat someone should dieand it's sort of like they're allsacrificing themselvesto save the it would be all right?A little grotesque but–.-But morally permissible? what's your name? Matt, for you,what bothers you isnot the cannibalismbut the lack of due guess you could say ? And can someone who agreeswith Matt say a little bit moreabout why a lottery would make it,in your view, morally way I understood itoriginally was thatthat was the whole issueis that the cabin boywas never consultedabout whether or notsomething was goingto happen to him,even with the original lotterywhether or nothe would bea part of that,it was just decidedthat he was the onethat was going to , that's what happenedin the actual if there were a lotteryand they'd all agreed to the procedure,you think that would be okay?Right, because then everyoneknows that there's going to be a death,whereas the cabin boy didn't know thatthis discussion was even happening,there was no forewarningfor him to know that"Hey, I may be the one that's dying."All , suppose everyone agreesto the lottery, they have the lottery,the cabin boy loses,and he changes his 've already decided,it's like a verbal can't go back on that,you've decided,the decision was you know that you're dyingfor the reason of others to someone else had died,you know that you wouldconsume them so –Right. But then you could say,"I know, but I lost".I just think thatthat's the whole moral issueis that there was no consultingof the cabin boyand that's what makes itthe most horribleis that he had no ideawhat was even going had he knownwhat was going on,it would be a bit right. I want to hear –so there are some who thinkit's morally permissiblebut only about %,led by there are some。
哈佛公开课正义观后感
哈佛公开课正义观后感引言最近，我有幸观看了一场哈佛公开课，主题为正义（Justice）。
这是由哈佛大学教授迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel）主讲的一堂课，通过深入探讨正义的概念、各种理论和现实生活中的案例，引发了我对正义问题的思考。
本文将从课堂内容的理解和个人观点两方面进行阐述。
课堂内容的理解在正义的讲解中，桑德尔教授介绍了三种主要的正义理论：功利主义、权利主义和公民美德主义。
功利主义强调追求最大多数人的幸福和福利，权利主义注重个体权利和自由，而公民美德主义则强调公民的道德责任和社会义务。
通过学习这些不同的理论，我对正义的多样性和复杂性有了更深入的理解。
此外，在课堂上，桑德尔教授还以一些实际案例来帮助我们探讨正义。
例如，他提到了分配公平的问题，比如器官移植和纳税制度。
通过这些案例，我认识到正义是一个伦理学问题，需要综合和平衡各种不同因素，包括效益、公平和道德等。
个人观点在观看哈佛公开课后，我对正义的理解发生了一些变化。
首先，我认识到正义不是简单的黑白对立，而是存在于灰色地带的。
人们在追求正义时常常会面临权衡和妥协的情况，有时甚至会做出一些让人费解的决策。
这表明正义是一个动态的概念。
此外，我对权利和义务的关系有了更加清晰的认识。
权利和义务是相互依存的，不能只强调自己的权利而忽视自己的义务。
作为一个社会的一员，我们有责任为社会做贡献，不仅仅是追求个人的权利和自由。
最后，我认识到正义是社会稳定和和谐的基石。
当社会的贫富差距悬殊，法律不公，人们的尊严受到侵犯时，社会就会出现紧张和冲突。
只有建立公正的制度和社会环境，才能实现真正的正义。
结论通过观看哈佛公开课《正义》，我对正义的理解得到了极大的拓展。
正义不仅仅是道德的问题，也是一个社会问题，涉及到利益、公平和道德等多个方面。
只有在公正和平等的基础上，社会才能实现长久稳定的发展。
对我个人而言，这堂课让我反思了自己对正义的态度和行为，我将进一步关注社会公益事业，积极为社会做出贡献。
正义桑德斯课程
Justice（正义）是哈佛最受学生喜爱的课程之一。
近日·哈佛大学把迈克·桑代尔教授开设的这门课程二首次通过在线的方式．向全世界开放。
迈克教授一开课，哈佛大学古色古香的桑德斯剧场就座无虚席。
哈佛的哲学课为什么这么受追捧？请听：假设你是一辆有轨电车的司机，你的电车正以每小时六十公里的速度在铁轨上行驶。
你发现，在铁轨的末端有五个工人在工作，你尽力想停下电车，但这时刹车失灵，你的电车突然停不了。
你感到万分绝望，因为你知道如果电车撞向这五个工人，他们必死无疑。
正当你无助的时候，突然发现就在右边还有另一条轨道，那条铁轨的尽头只有一个工人正在工作。
你的方向盘并没有失灵，只要你愿意你可以让电车转到那条铁轨上，从而只选择撞死这个工人，另五个工人会因此获救。
那么现在请大家回答第一个问题：我们该怎么做才对？从大家的反应来看，现场只有少数人选择了一直开下去，而大多数人会选择转向。
让我先听听看你们认为选择正确的理由。
学生a（女）：当你可以选择只撞死一个人的时候，你却撞死了五个人，这是不对的．学生b（男）：我觉得这个和“9·11’时候的一件事类似，当时我们把将飞机撞向宾夕法尼亚空地的人们视为英雄。
因为他们选择了只牺牲飞机上的人，拯救了大楼里更多人的生命。
所以你认为你选择转向的原因和“9·11”事件时人们的选择是一样的：既然悲剧一定要发生，那么牺牲一个人总比撞死五个要好得多。
那么现在，让我们再考虑另一个关于电车的例子，看看是不是多数的人依然会坚持自己判断的准则。
这次，你不是电车司机了，你是一个站在一旁桥上的旁观者，同样的电车开过，铁轨的尽头有五个工人，刹车失灵了，电车马上就要撞到那五个人。
因为你不是司机，所以对此无能为力。
突然你发现你身旁有一个非常胖的人靠在桥上。
如果你推他一下，他就会掉下去并且挡住电车的去路。
虽然他会死掉，但是那五个人会因此得救。
这回，你们有多少人会选择推一把桥上的胖子？请举手。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18
哈佛大学公开课《公正：怎么做才正确》1-18这是关于道德与政治哲学的一个入门系列课程，主要是围绕哈佛大学迈克尔·桑德尔教授法学系列课程《公正：该如何是好？》展开评议。
本课程旨在引导观众一起评判性思考关于公正、平等、民主与公民权利的一些基本问题，以拓展他们对于政治与道德哲学的认知理解，探究固有观念是与非。
学生们同时还将接触过去一些伟大哲学家——亚里士多德、康德、密尔、洛克。
然后，应用课程去分析复杂多变的现代问题：赞助性措施、同性婚姻、爱国主义、忠诚度与人权等。
桑德尔在教学中通过一些假设或真实案例的描述，置学生于伦理两难困境中，然后要他们做出决定：“该如何做是好？”他鼓励学生站出来为自己的观点辩护，这通常激发生动而幽默的课堂辩论。
桑德尔然后围绕伦理问题展开，更深层次地触及不同道德选择背后的假设。
这种教学法通常会揭示道德推论的矛盾本质。
第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》、第2讲：《食人惨案》如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，你会怎么选？正确的做法是什么？教授Michael Sandel在他的讲座里提出这个假设的情景，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。
但是Sandel提出了三宗类似的道德难题-每一个都设计巧妙，以至于抉择的难度增加。
当学生站起来为自己的艰难抉择辩护时，Sandel提出了他的观点。
我们的道德推理背后的假设往往是矛盾的，而什么是正确什么是错的问题，并不总是黑白分明的。
Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。
他们在海上迷失了19天之后，船长决定杀死机舱男孩，他是4个人中最弱小的，这样他们就可以靠他的血液和躯体维持生命。
案件引发了学生们对提倡幸福最大化的功利论的辩论，功利论的口号是“绝大多数人的最大利益”。
第3讲：《给生命一个价格标签》、第4讲：《如何衡量快乐》Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）在18世纪后期提出的的功利主义理论-最大幸福理论-今天常被称为“成本效益分析”。
哈弗大学公开课公平与正义观后感
哈佛大学公共课“关于公平与正义”的观后感最近观看了哈佛大学哲学教授Michael Sandel公开课的视频，迈克尔·桑德尔教授幽默的教学风格和严密的逻辑思维不仅给我留下了深刻的印象，也让我从中获得了很大的收获。
他以《关于公平和正义的入门课》为基础，不仅对道德和政治哲学进行了一系列的介绍，并且让人们带着批判的观点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。
一、独特的教学方法（一）采用苏格拉底的方式进行拷问迈克尔·桑德尔教授教学不是仅仅一个讲座，他把问题交给学生，邀请他们在课堂上积极地思考、参与并为了他们自己的观点辩论。
他以这种“苏格拉底的方式”不断地诘问、应答、反驳和再追问的方式将讨论的内容在课堂上呈现出来，使学生通过对具体个案的辨析和争论，来培养批评思考以及推理论说的能力。
他不会灌输给你什么，只是希望学生在其引导下对某些想当然的结论或常识有多维度的思考。
这种“苏格拉底的方式”教学方式很适合他的道德和政治哲学这个教学科目。
因为道德和政治哲学这门课本身就有很多有争议的理论和问题，并不是每个人都会同意一种观点。
所以很多学生会勇敢地举起手来，提出问题，发表他们自己的观点，为他们自己的观点辩护。
看来，批判性地表达不同的观点，也是学习的一部分。
然而，我们中国的灌输式教育缺乏对学生主体性的充分关注，不利于人和社会的和谐发展。
所以我认为，我们急需“苏格拉底的方式”教学，通过学生的积极参与，促进了学生的主动地学习。
（二）举生活中的例子促进思考桑德尔教授不是刻板的讲解理论的知识，而是采用日常的例子来拷问学生，将复杂的问题变得简单、易于理解，有时甚至变得很有趣。
他用一些或普通或极端的例子引导学生对日常道德问题进行思索，帮助他们在面临日常道德抉择的时候能够更好地运用批判性思维。
在他的引导和诘问下，学生全身心地投入到对道德的思索中，又常常会陷于两难的道德窘境中。
《哈佛家训为人篇》课件
总结词
善良宽容是一种优秀的品质，它能够让人们更加友善地相处，增强社会的温暖和 正能量。
详细描述
善良宽容的人总是乐于助人，关心他人的需要，为他人着想。他们不会因为小事 而斤斤计较，而是以宽容的心态去理解和包容别人的过失。这种品质能够让人们 感受到人性的美好，增强社会的和谐氛围。
谦虚谨慎
总结词
谦虚谨慎是一种理性的态度，它能够帮助人们不断进步，避免犯错。
总结词
尊重他人是建立良好人际关系的重要前提，它体现了一个人的修养和素质。
详细描述
尊重他人不仅仅是对他人的认可和肯定，更是对他人人格和权益的尊重。我们应该学会倾听他人的意见和想法， 理解他人的感受和需求，避免对他人进行无端的批评和指责。尊重他人能够促进人与人之间的和谐共处，增强社 会的凝聚力。
善良宽容
哈佛家训的历史悠久，其教育 理念和传统一直影响着世界各 地的人们。
哈佛家训的教育理念
哈佛家训强调个性、独立思考和自主学习，注重培养学生的创新思维和批判性思维 能力。
该校认为，教育不仅仅是传授知识，更重要的是培养学生的品格、素养和领导能力 。
哈佛家训的教育理念强调多元化、包容性和全球视野，鼓励学生跨文化交流和合作 。
VS
详细描述
独立自主的人不会依赖他人，他们能够独 立思考、自主决策、自我管理。他们有明 确的人生目标和计划，能够积极面对生活 中的挑战和困难。同时，他们也懂得寻求 他人的帮助和支持，从而更好地实现自己 的目标。这种态度能够让人们更好地掌控 自己的命运，创造更加美好的未来。RTING
功。
幸福与快乐
总结词
追求内心的幸福与快乐，不要过分追求物质 享受
详细描述
幸福和快乐是人生的终极追求。真正的幸福 和快乐来自于内心的满足，而不是物质的丰 富。我们应该关注自己的内心世界，培养积 极的心态和健康的生活习惯，以实现内心的 幸福与快乐。
哈佛大学公开课
第一讲《杀人的道德侧面》这是一门讨论公正的课程,我们以一则故事作为引子:假设你是一名电车司机,你的电车以60英里/小时的速度在轨道上飞驰, 突然发现在轨道的尽头有五名工人正在施工. 你无法让电车停下来,因为刹车坏了. 你此时极度绝望,因为你深知如果电车撞向那五名工人,他们全都会死。
假设你对此确信无疑,你极为无助,直到你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨,而在侧轨的尽头只有一名工人在那施工。
而你的方向盘还没坏，只要你想，就可以把电车转到侧轨上去。
牺牲一人挽救五人性命。
This is a course about justice, and we begin with a story. Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track, at 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track. You try to stop but you can’t, but your brakes don’t work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. Let’s assume you know that for sure, and so you feel helpless, until you notice that there is off to the right, a side track and at the end of that track, there is one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track. Killing the one but sparing the five.下面是我们的第一个问题: 何为正确的选择?Here’s our first question: what’s the right thing to do?换了你会怎么做?我们来做个调查。
哈佛公正课——第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》
哈佛公正课——第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》第1讲《杀人的道德侧面》提要：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。
教授：我们以一个故事开始。
假设你是一个电车司机,你的电车在轨道上以每小时60英里的速度飞驰前行,在轨道的尽头,你发现五个工人在轨道上工作。
你尝试刹车，但力不从心，刹车失灵了。
你感到绝望，因为你知道：如果你冲向这五个工人，他们必死无疑。
假设你清楚地知道这一点。
所以你感到很无助，直到你看到，在轨道的右侧上，有一条侧轨，并在该轨道的尽头，只有一个工人在那条轨道上工作。
你的方向盘还能用，所以你可以把车转向，如果你愿意，转到岔道，撞死这名工人，但挽救了那边五个人。
以下是我们的第一个问题：究竟怎么做才是正确的选择？你会怎么办？让我们来调查一下。
多少人会把电车转到旁边的轨道？举手示意。
多少人不会？多少人会一直往前开？那些会一直往前开的人请举着你们的手。
少数人会一直往前开绝大多数人会转向旁边轨道。
让我们先听听，现在我们开始来探讨你们认为“这是正确的事”的原因。
让我们从那些大多数愿意转向旁边轨道的人开始。
为什么你会这么做呢？原因是什么呢？有谁愿意给我一个理由吗？来吧。
请站起来。
学生：因为在你能仅仅杀死一个人而非五个人的时候，杀死五个人是不正确的。
教授：如果你可以只杀死一个人却选择杀死五个人，这是不正确的。
这是一个很好的理由。
这是一个很好的理由。
还有谁要补充？大家是否同意这个解释？你来。
学生：嗯，我想在911事件中人们将那些驾驶着飞机飞往宾夕法尼亚州的飞行员看作英雄也是同样的道理，因为他们选择了牺牲飞机上的人，而不是选择大型建筑物而杀死更多的人。
哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感
哈佛公开课公平与正义观后感哈佛大学的公开课《公平与正义》观看后让我感慨颇多。
集中体现在三个方面：1、让我对政治与哲学这门课有了全新的认识。
2、桑尔德教授的教学魅力。
3、经典案例引发的思考。
正如课中所讲学习的本质不在于你记住了哪些知识，而在于它触发了你的思考。
上学时我们都学过政治哲学，它相对其他科目有些枯燥，面对这些形而上的知识学习的方式大多是死记硬背，结果是不甚理解，延伸几年的结果就是全忘了。
而视频中的政治哲学课却是有趣又引人深思，学生踊跃发言，可能学生没记住具体的知识但他们对身边的事物有了自己的思考方式。
桑尔德教授的教学魅力极大。
他不仅学识渊博，逻辑思维能力很强而且风趣幽默，平和亲切，对事物有着自己独到深刻的见解。
他的课包容性非常强，在聆听学生的答案时，他从不评价对与错，每个站起来的学生都尽力阐述自己的观点，他经常会让一个学生来回应另一个学生的看法，让理越辩越明。
所以他的课座无虚席，连二楼都站满了旁听的学生。
桑尔德教授课中举的经典案例引发人的深思，公平与正义的抉择让人陷入两难。
假如你是电车司机，刹车失灵，当面临直行撞死五人还是驶入岔路口撞死一人，你会如何选择?哈佛的学生大多数选择了驶入岔路口，想必这和我们大多数人的选择是一样的，即使原本应走的路线就应该是直行。
这有点类似于中国的古语，两害相权取其轻。
可从道德的角度来说，生命是等价的，难道就因为数量的关系，一个人的生命就该让位给五个人的生命?生活中我们还常说，少数服从多数，那少数人的意愿，少数人的利益该去如何保障，毕竟人都是只活一辈子。
突然想到武侠小说里常出现的情节，武林盟主以大局为重杀了某个武林人物，这个武林人物的一个后代逃生了，日后刻苦练武，报仇雪恨，再次掀起武林风波。
呵呵，想的有点远了。
每个手中有权做抉择的人，都要慎重。
有时思来想去的结果是自己也说服不了自己，怪不得有句话说，人类一思考上帝就发笑。
像一个凡人那样活着，像一个诗人那样体验，像一个哲人那样思考。
- 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)。
哈佛大学的一堂道德教育课
每年新生入学，哈佛大学都会对他们进行一次特殊的道德教育课。
课程伊始，授课教授给学生们设问了这样一个问题：一火车在铁轨上行驶着，刹车突然失灵，方向盘有用，火车前方有五个人，距离五人的3米处有一火车分轨，分轨前面也有一人在工作，他们都全然不知自己所面临的危险。
倘若火车司机是你，在排除其他可能发生的情况下，你会选择撞向那五个人，还是选择转动方向盘，驶向分轨撞向那一个人？
同学们不假思索，几乎是全部选择撞向那一个人。
现在没有分轨，而你是那五个人当中的一个，在你前面有一个胖子。
在排除其他可能发生的情况下，你如果狠力将他往前推，你们其余四人将可免于车祸，选择将胖子往前推的同学请举手。
这时，同学们迟疑了会，绝大多数学生选择放弃将胖子往前推，理由是很残忍。
但也有少部分学生举起了手，理由是为了让更多的人活。
这时教授反问一句，如果你挺身冲向前面也可以让更多的人活，你愿意吗？
同学们陷入了深思。
接着，教授又提出类似的设问：如果你是一所医院的医生，天已晚，就你一人值班。
那时，突然来了六个因车祸受伤的病人，一个重伤，五个相对而言轻一些。
排除其他可能的情况下，你如果先救那一人，其余五人必死；如果救那五人，另一人肯定活不了。
请问你选择救谁？
又几乎是全部学生选择救那五人，至少那都是生命。
现在排除其他可能的情况下，如果其余五人还有挽救的机会，可一人少肺，一人少肝，一人少胆，一人少囊，一人少胰腺。
恰好另外一个受重伤的人身上器官全部健全。
请问，你愿意从他身上取出器官然后去救那五人吗？
这时的学生又低头沉思了，但还是几个人表示愿意。
在他们举手的时候，教授反问，为什么不是牺牲你自己去救他们呢？课后，教授将表示愿意将胖子往前推和愿意取出那一人身上器官的学生们留了下来，让他们在一张白纸上写下自己心中最崇拜的三位人物。
同学们大都写了（比尔盖茨）、（沃伦巴菲特）和爱因斯坦等。
教授问他们，如果拥有这么多钱的比尔.盖茨只是在自家大院里孤芳自赏，你还会崇拜他吗？学生们答案一致否定：假设（沃
伦巴菲特）因为自己的身价而一点都看不起穷苦人们，你们还愿意欣赏他吗？学生们答案一致否定：倘若爱因斯坦到处吹嘘自己的成果，你们还会认可他吗？学生们的答案仍是一致否定。
教授立即提问：“同学们，请你们仔细想想，你们崇拜的最终理由是什么？
学生们似乎豁然开朗，是他们的为人修养，是他们的慈善仁爱，是他们内心遵循的道德善良情操。
哈佛大学的这堂教育课就是要让他们的学生们知道，做任何事不能只追求成拜结果，在注重结果的前提下，心中还应具备道德原则。
即使结果再诱人，违背良心，违背爱的准则的事情，绝对不做。
这才是一位哈佛大学生所应具备的最基本也是最关键的素养。