哈佛大学公开课
哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记.doc
哈佛大学公开课《公正》课堂笔记.doc公正是一个关键的理论和实际问题。
参加正义的追求，是大多数文化的一个中心问题。
公正是哲学、政治和法律学的重要主题。
在哲学中，公正是价值和道德基础的探究，而在政治科学中，则是权利和权力的探究。
公正是自治的标志。
自治有时显然是重要的，因为人们会认为，只有自主选择，才能使人们成为自己的主人。
课程注重分析公正所涉及的几个关键问题：1.分配公正（distributive justice）——财产、权利、机会分配的公正性。
2.修补公正（corrective justice）——如何修正不公正的分配，如何弥补由不公正引起的损失和伤害。
3.诉讼公正（judicial justice）——法律程序和司法制度的公正性。
我们如何理解正义？正义是一个广泛的概念。
在不同的情境下，正义有不同的含义。
正义包含以下几个要素：2.平等（equality）：平等可以有很多不同的含义，但是，基本上平等要求对待某个人或群体时不进行歧视，而且对待所有人时包括适当的地位和敬意。
3.尊重（respect）：尊重指的是对所有人的自由和权利的尊重，尊重他们的意志或决定。
在本意义上，正义与自由、尊重等价。
分配公正分配公正是指资源分配是公正、合理、合法和合法的问题，这个问题是至关重要的，因为这牵涉到人们的生活、权利和机会。
效用学派认为公正需要基于效用，也就是人类的福利最大化。
原则：最大化幸福，最小化不幸福。
资源主义认为资源应当按照人们所做的贡献进行分配。
自由主义者认为，重要的是人们能够获得自己选择的东西、自己的财产和自己的立场，重要的是不受不正当干涉和不当限制。
马克思主义强调，分配应基于不同的需求，而不是贡献，应该根据各个人的基本需要以均等的方式进行分配。
修补公正人们无法忽略的是，虽然我们都希望进行公正的资源分配，但有时它仍会失败。
此时，我们则需要进行一些修补，来纠正不正当的分配。
此时就涉及到了“修补公正”。
有两种基本的思路：1.撤销（restitution)：撤销原来有利的状态，消除不公正的结果。
哈佛大学公开课《happiness》01-intro
―The most common source of mistakes in management decisions is the emphasis on finding the right answer rather than the right question.‖
“The one real object of education is to leave a man in the condition of continually asking questions.”
• Lacked rigorous methodology
Meet the Grandparents
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Karen Horney (1885-1952)
Aaron Antonovsky (1923-1994)
Meet 1504
Meet the Parents
The Road to Positive Psychology
• Humanistic Psychology (50’s)
• The Third Force
– Reaction to behaviorism (First Force) – Reaction to psychoanalysis (Second Force)
It is not English 10a or Math 55 It is about rigorous fun
“I would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”
哈佛大学公开课听课笔记公正
哈佛大学公开课听课笔记：公正哈佛大学（harvard university），简称哈佛，坐落于美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市，是一所享誉世界的私立研究型大学…… 哈佛大学公开课听课笔记具体内容请看下文。
哈佛大学公开课听课笔记：公正课程：哈佛大学公开课——公正：该如何做是好主讲：michael sandel (迈克尔•桑德尔)时间：201X年8月14日晚8点半-10点笔记：迈克尔：第一个事例，你驾驶了一辆失控的电车即将撞到轨道尽头，而尽头的一侧有5名施工人员;如果电车转到侧面，则是一名施工人员。
如果只有这两种选择，怎么办?牺牲1人拯救5人?问题是：何为正确的选择?学生：绝大多数支持牺牲1人保全5人学生1(支持转向牺牲1人)：当可以只牺牲1人时，牺牲5人是不正确的。
学生2(同上)：这类似与911事件，那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人，被称之为英雄。
因为他们选择牺牲自己，而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多的人。
学生3(支持电车不转向)：这是为种族灭亡以及极权主义正名，这是同样的思维模式，为了让一个种族生存下来而牺牲另一个种族。
迈克尔：修改一下条件，如果此刻你不是司机，而是一位旁观者，站在桥上目睹一辆失控的电车即将向尽头驶来，尽头是5名施工人员，面对这即将发生悲剧，你爱莫能助。
这个时候，你发现，在你旁边，靠着桥站着一位超级大胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在轨道上挡住了电车，他必死无疑，但是可以拯救那5个人，现在，有多少人愿意将这个大胖子推下去?学生：无人举手同意。
迈克尔：一个显而易见的问题出现了，“牺牲一人来保全五人”的原则出现的问题，前一种情况中绝大多数人支持这个原则，但是在第二种情况中，却没有人支持。
如何来解释这两种情况下绝大多数人所作的这个选择?学生1(细眉细眼的亚洲裔boy)：我觉得第二种情况在于牵扯到主动推人。
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目
哈佛公开课公平与正义涉及的书目《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》是一门探讨社会正义、道德决策和公平的知名课程。
通过这门课程，人们可以更深入地了解公平与正义这一重要主题，并进行理性的思考和讨论。
以下是对这门课程涉及的书目进行全面评估，并撰写一篇有价值的文章。
一、约翰·罗尔斯的《正义论》在哈佛公开课中，约翰·罗尔斯的思想在探讨公平与正义方面占据重要地位。
《正义论》一书深入探讨了社会正义的概念和原则，提出了“差别原则”和“最大化原则”等理论，为我们理解公平与正义提供了宝贵的思想资源。
二、迈克尔·桑德尔的《正义：我们为什么如此纷争》迈克尔·桑德尔是哈佛大学的知名哲学教授，他的书《正义：我们为什么如此纷争》也是《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》中的重要参考书目。
书中作者以丰富的案例和深刻的思考，解析了正义的本质和我们为何在正义问题上存在纷争的原因，对于加深我们对公平与正义的理解具有重要的启发作用。
三、阿马蒂亚·森的《公平与自由》阿马蒂亚·森是诺贝尔经济学奖得主，他的著作《公平与自由》也是哈佛公开课中必不可少的参考书目。
在这本书中，作者对公平与自由的关系进行了深入的思考和论述，从个体自由和社会公平的角度对正义进行了系统的阐释，为我们提供了全新的思考视角。
《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》涉及的书目涵盖了哲学、政治学和经济学等多个学科领域的经典著作，为探讨公平与正义提供了丰富的理论资源。
通过对这些书目进行深入研读和思考，我们可以更好地理解和把握公平与正义这一重要主题。
总结回顾：通过对《哈佛公开课：公平与正义》涉及的书目进行全面评估，我们深入了解了约翰·罗尔斯、迈克尔·桑德尔和阿马蒂亚·森等学者对公平与正义的深刻思考和论述。
这些经典著作为我们理解和探讨公平与正义提供了丰富的理论资源，并为我们拓展了思维的广度和深度。
在今后的学习和思考中，我们可以结合这些书目的理论，形成自己对公平与正义的个人观点和理解，不断丰富和完善自己的价值观念。
哈佛大学公开课《公正：该如何做是好》：第一课：英文字幕
Funding for this program is provided by...Additional funding provided by...This is a course about justice and we begin with a you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the trackat miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all 's assume you know that for so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the endof that track, there is one worker working on the steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the 's our first question:what's the right thing to doWhat would you doLet's take a many would turnthe trolley caronto the side trackRaise your many wouldn'tHow many would go straight aheadKeep your hands up those of youwho would go straight handful of people would,the vast majority would 's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to 's begin with those in the majoritywho would turn to goonto the side would you do itWhat would be your reasonWho's willing to volunteer a reasonGo ahead. Stand it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person 's a good 's a good elseDoes everybody agreewith that reason Go I was thinking it's the same reasonon / with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big the principle therewas the same on /.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn YesLet's hear nowfrom those in the minority,those who wouldn't turn. , I think that'sthe same type of mentalitythat justifies genocideand order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the what would you doin this caseYou would, toavoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill themPresumably, would. Who elseThat's a brave 's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of youin the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driverof the trolley car,you're an 're standing on a bridgeoverlooking a trolley car down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat you couldgive him a would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley would diebut he would spare the , how many would pushthe fat man over the bridgeRaise your many wouldn'tMost people wouldn''s the obvious became of the principle"better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one"What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first caseI need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both do you explainthe difference between the two second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have beeninvolved in the situation at so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did heThat's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the ahead, you can come backif you want. All 's a hard question. You did did very 's a hard else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases , I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certainchoice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley I think it's a slightlydifferent right, who has a replyThat's good. Who has a wayWho wants to replyIs that a way out of thisI don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person,which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious either way,you're making a you want to replyI'm not really surethat that's the just still seemskind of act of actually pushingsomeone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him 're pushing himwith your own 're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into know, it doesn't really sound rightsaying it , no. It's good. It's 's your name me ask you this question, standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like you turnFor some reason,that still just seems more I mean, maybe if you accidentallylike leaned into the steering wheelor something like ... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the I could agree with 's all right. Fair still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the the second one,you're an onlooker as right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat right. Let's forget for the momentabout this 's 's imagine a different time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to 've been in a terribletrolley car of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spendall daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould many would save the fiveNow as the doctor,how many would save the oneVery few people,just a handful of reason, I life versus fiveNow consider another doctor time, you're a transplant surgeonand you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a you have no organ are about to see them then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a he's – you like that –and he's taking a nap,you could go in very quietly,yank out the five organs,that person would die,but you could save the many would do itAnyone How manyPut your hands upif you would do in the balconyI would Be careful,don't lean over too many wouldn'tAll right. What do you saySpeak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. WhyI'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other 's a pretty good 's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical 's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've let's considerwhat those moral principles look first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must 's an exampleof consequentialist moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral peoplehesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasonshaving to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they were thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights,regardless of the 're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast betweenconsequentialist and categoricalmoral most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke,Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,and 'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary,political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical will debate equality and inequality,affirmative action, free speech versushate speech, same sex marriage,military conscription,a range of practical questions. WhyNot just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the may sound appealing enough,but here I have to issue a the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks,risks that are both personaland political,risksthat every studentof political philosophy has risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already 's an difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already works by taking what we knowfrom familiar unquestioned settingsand making it 's how those examples worked,the hypotheticals with which we began,with their mix of playfulnessand 's also how thesephilosophical books estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same knowledge is like lost innocence,however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor makes this enterprise difficultbut also rivetingis that moral and political philosophyis a story and you don't knowwhere the story will what you do knowis that the story is about are the personal what of the political risksOne way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise youthat by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositionsof public policy,you will hone your political judgment,you will become a moreeffective participant in public this would be a partialand misleading philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that have to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out tells Socrates"Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if onepursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says,"abandon the accomplishmentsof active life,take for your modelsnot those people whospendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihoodand reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates"Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a had a point because philosophydistances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled are the risks,personal and in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for alleither the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve themAnd so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her ownprinciples and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of 's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following 's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every skepticism, just throwing up your handsand giving up on moral reflectionis no Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might you very , in a situation thatdesperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to do what you have to doYou got to dowhat you got to do, pretty you've been going dayswithout any food, you know,someone just hasto take the has to make the sacrificeand people can , that's 's your name, what do you say to MarcusLast time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were began with our judgmentsin particular tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles,revising eachin the light of the we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought we called thisconsequentialist moral we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the , many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrongeven if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one we contrasted consequentialistmoral principles with categorical and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral that's the philosophyof Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple a lot of morallyintuitive appeal,Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize did he mean byutilityHe meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain,happiness over 's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and human beingslike pleasure and dislike so we should base morality,whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens,we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of 's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and was a th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law 's what happened in the 'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the newspaper account of the timedescribed the sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, ship flounderedin the South Atlantic, miles from the were four in the crew,Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker, years was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of , it was not to facts of the casewere not in wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went four crew membersescaped to a only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh the first three days,they ate the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate next daythey caught a with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few then for eight days,theyhad food. No yourselfin a situation like that,what would you doHere's what they now the cabin boy, Parker,is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawateragainst the advice of the othersand he had become illand he appeared to be on the th day,Dudley, the captain,suggested that they should allhave a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the didn't like the lottery don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral in any case,no lots were next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin then they were describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism."On the th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand turned state's and Stevens went to didn't dispute the claimed they hadacted out of necessity;that was their argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could prosecutor wasn't swayedby that said murder is murder,and so the case went to imagine you are the just to simplify the discussion,put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissibleAnd how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrongA pretty sizeable let's see what people's reasons areand let me begin with thosewho are in the 's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and would you morallyexonerate themWhat are your reasons think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthereis a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensibleand what makes someonelegally other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact,exonerate you from any . Good. Other voices for the justificationsfor what they did. just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to dowhat you have to , you've got to dowhat you've got to you've been going days without any food, you know,someone just has to take the sacrifice,someone has to make the sacrificeand people can furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productivemembers of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizationsand this and thatand this and mean they benefited everybodyin the end. , I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't but. -WhatMaybe they were if they went homeand they turned out to be assassinsWhat if they'd gone homeand turned out to be assassins Well…You'd want to knowwho they 's true too. That's 's fair. I would want to knowwho they right. That's 's your name. All 've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the we need to hearfrom the people thinkwhat they did was wrong. WhyYes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be if that's an appealing argumentthat you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincingdo think that they wereacting what do you-I want to knowwhat you defend 'm sorry, you vote to convict, rightYeah, I don't think thatthey acted in a morallyappropriate why notWhat do you say,here's Marcus,he justdefended said –you heard what he you've got to dowhat you've got to doin a case like that. do you say to MarcusThat there'sno situation that would allowhuman beings to take the ideaof fate orthe other people's livesin their own hands,that we don't havethat kind of . what's your name. Okay. Who elseWhat do you say Stand 'm wondering if Dudley and Stevenhad asked for Richard Parker'sconsent in you know, dying,if that would exonerate themfrom an act of murderand if so,is that still morally justifiableThat's right. wait, hang 's your name sayssuppose they had that,what would thatscenario look likeSo in the story Dudley is there,pen knife in hand,but instead of the prayeror before the prayer,he says "Parker, would you mind""We're desperately hungry",as Marcus empathizes with,"we're desperately 're not going to last long anyhow."-Yeah. You can be a martyr."Would you be a martyrHow about it Parker"Then what do you thinkWould it be morally justified thenSuppose Parkerin his semi-stupor says "Okay."I don't think it would bemorally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be don't think thateven with consentit would be morally justifiedAre there people who thinkwho want to take upKathleen's consent ideaand who think thatthat would make itmorally justifiedRaise your handif it would, if you think it 's very would consentmake a moral differenceWhy would it , I just thinkthat if he was makinghis own original ideaand it was his ideato start with,then that would bethe only situationin which I would see itbeing appropriate in any waybecause that wayyou couldn't make the argumentthat he was pressured,you know it's three-to-oneor whatever the ratio . -And I think that if he wasmaking a decisionto give his lifeand he took on the agencyto sacrifice himselfwhich some peoplemight see as admirableand other people might disagreewith that if he came upwith the idea,that's the only kindof consent we could haveconfidence in morallythen it would be , it would be kind ofcoerced consentunder the circumstances,you thereanyone who thinksthat even the consent of Parkerwould not justify their killing himWho thinks that us why. Stand think that Parkerwould be killed with the hopethat the other crew memberswould be rescued so there's nodefinite reason thathe should be killedbecause you don't knowwhen they're going to get rescuedso if you kill him,it's killing him in vain,do you keep killing a crew memberuntil you're rescuedand then you're left with no onebecause someone's goingto die eventuallyWell, the moral logicof the situation seems to be that,that they would keep onpicking off the weakest maybe,one by one,until they were in this case, luckily,they were rescued when three at leastwere still , if Parker did give his consent,would it be all right,do you think or notNo, it still wouldn't be tell us whyit wouldn't be all of all, cannibalism,I believe, is morally incorrectso you shouldn't beeating human cannibalism is morallyobjectionable as such so then,even on the scenario ofwaiting until someone died,still it would be , to me personally,I feel like it all dependson one's personal moralsand like we can't sit here and just,like this is just my opinion,of course other peopleare going to disagree, but –Well we'll see,let's see what their disagreements areand then we'll seeif they have reasons that canpersuade you or 's try that. All , is there someonewho can explain,those of you who aretempted by consent,can you explain whyconsent makes sucha moral differenceWhat about the lottery ideaDoes that count as consentRemember at the beginning,Dudley proposed a lottery,suppose that they had agreedto a lottery,then how many would then sayit was all rightSuppose there were a lottery,cabin boy lost,and the rest of the story unfolded,then how many people would sayit was morally permissibleSo the numbers are risingif we had a 's hear from one of youfor whom the lotterywould make a moral would itI think the essential element,in my mind,that makes it a crimeis the idea that they decidedat some point that their liveswere more important than his,andthat, I mean, that's kind ofthe basis for really any It's like my needs,my desires are more importantthan yours and minetake if they had done a lotterywhere everyone consentedthat someone should dieand it's sort of like they're allsacrificing themselvesto save the it would be all rightA little grotesque but–.-But morally permissible what's your name Matt, for you,what bothers you isnot the cannibalismbut the lack of due guess you could say And can someone who agreeswith Matt say a little bit moreabout why a lottery would make it,in your view, morally way I understood itoriginally was thatthat was the whole issueis that the cabin boywas never consultedabout whether or notsomething was goingto happen to him,even with the original lotterywhether or nothe would bea part of that,it was just decidedthat he was the onethat was going to , that's what happenedin the actual if there were a lotteryand they'd all agreed to the procedure,you think that would be okayRight, because then everyoneknows that there's going to be a death,whereas the cabin boy didn't know thatthis discussion was even happening,there was no forewarningfor him to know that"Hey, I may be the one that's dying."All , suppose everyone agreesto the lottery, they have the lottery,the cabin boy loses,and he changes his 've already decided,it's like a verbal can't go back on that,you've decided,the decision was you know that you're dyingfor the reason of others to someone else had died,you know that you wouldconsume them so –Right. But then you could say,"I know, but I lost".I just think thatthat's the whole moral issueis that there was no consultingof the cabin boyand that's what makes itthe most horribleis that he had no ideawhat was even going had he knownwhat was going on,it would be a bit right. I want to hear –so there are some who thinkit's morally permissiblebut only about %,led by there are some who saythe real problem hereis the lack of consent,whether the lack of consentto a lottery, to a fair procedure or,Kathleen's idea,lack of。
哈佛大学公开课：幸福课与积极心理心文字稿（全23集）
哈佛大学公开课：幸福课与积极心理心文字稿（全23集）第二集：为什么要学习积极心理学培养自信，适应力的培养，没有人能给你幸福，你有责任让自己幸福。
不要专注于自己的缺点，找出自己的长处并注视这些优点，以此来培养自信，相信自己。
第三集：幸福是一种随机现象吗？发现并栽培潜能，找到人生有意义的事。
培养能力，培养我们处理消极因素的能力，无论是人际关系上的消极和痛苦经历，应对困难和艰辛的能力，及培养积极性。
幸福在于我们如何看待世界。
理性和感性上的认知，我们必须顺从于人性，接受他的缺陷和优点，而不是完善他，击败他。
渴望改变世界，有理想和热情，务实的理想主义者。
冥想改变思维，感染积极情绪，面对痛苦更坚强。
运动也有这样的效果。
你要为自己负责，没有人会帮你，当考虑现实。
相信改变是可能的。
第四课：积极的环境能改变人我们的低估影响改变的能力。
幸福感与财富无关与外在环境无关，任何的改变会使幸福感达到高峰，但很快会恢复到基础水平。
幸福由心境决定，第五课：环境的力量快乐是可以传递的。
努力为自己争取快乐，有助我们获得幸福。
帮助他人就是帮助自己，最自私的所为就是善举，为帮助自己而帮助别人。
自己快乐才能传播快乐。
信念的重要，决定我们的表现。
第六课：乐观主义为自己创造一个积极的环境，找你所爱的东西，人或物创造一个温暖快乐的环境，一些带有激励色彩的电影、书籍、名人名言，它们能帮助你创造积极环境。
只要你想得到，只要你相信，你就能够做到，相信就会成功。
精神创造现实，但是勤奋、坚持、失败也是成功、幸福、完美人生的必要组成部分。
精神的强大力量，有自信的人，创造自己的人生。
时间和经历可以培养适应力，适应挫折与失败并重新站立，成功取决于你坚信自己能取得成功的程度。
你相信你能行，你就能成功，因为相信所以更加努力，从失败走向成功。
不害怕失败，学会失败，从失败中学习。
乐观主义者对短期目标不现实，但对长期目标就很现实期望很高。
而悲观主义者会很现实，他们的期望很低。
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。
哈佛大学公开课 合同法 字幕
哈佛大学公开课合同法字幕甲方：_______________________乙方：_______________________签订日期：_______________________签订地点：_______________________第一条合同目的及背景1.1 合同目的本合同由甲方与乙方共同签署，旨在明确双方在_______________________方面的权利与义务，确保双方在合同履行期间的合作顺利进行。
① 本合同是为规范双方在_______________________中的合作与责任分配。
③ 本合同生效后，甲乙双方应遵守合同条款，承担各自的责任与义务。
④ 任何一方违反合同条款，另一方可依法追究其责任。
1.2 背景说明甲乙双方在_______________________领域具备相互合作的潜力，经多次协商，双方达成一致，决定通过本合同规定合作条款。
① 甲方在_______________________方面拥有一定的技术或资源优势。
③ 双方希望通过本次合作，在法律框架下实现利益共享与风险共担。
④ 合作的主要目标是通过整合双方资源，促进双方共同发展。
1.3 合同效力本合同自双方签字盖章之日起生效，除非双方另有约定，否则合同条款应自本合同生效之日起生效，并在履行过程中具有法律效力。
① 双方签署本合同并盖章后，视为对合同条款的完全接受。
② 合同的修改与解除必须由双方书面同意，且需符合法律规定。
③ 本合同一经签署，双方均应严格履行合同约定，除非特殊情况经双方同意。
第二条权利与义务2.1 甲方的权利与义务甲方应按合同约定，提供必要的支持与资源，并保障乙方在合作过程中的合法权益。
① 甲方应及时提供相关的技术支持和指导，确保项目进展顺利。
② 甲方负责确保所提供的信息真实、准确，不得隐瞒或虚假陈述。
③ 甲方应在合同规定的时间内完成相关工作，并向乙方反馈进展情况。
④ 甲方有权对乙方的工作进行监督，确保乙方履行合同的质量和进度要求。
- 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)。
第一讲《杀人的道德侧面》这是一门讨论公正的课程,我们以一则故事作为引子:假设你是一名电车司机,你的电车以60英里/小时的速度在轨道上飞驰, 突然发现在轨道的尽头有五名工人正在施工. 你无法让电车停下来,因为刹车坏了. 你此时极度绝望,因为你深知如果电车撞向那五名工人,他们全都会死。
假设你对此确信无疑,你极为无助,直到你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨,而在侧轨的尽头只有一名工人在那施工。
而你的方向盘还没坏，只要你想，就可以把电车转到侧轨上去。
牺牲一人挽救五人性命。
This is a course about justice, and we begin with a story. Suppose you’re the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track, at 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track. You try to stop but you can’t, but your brakes don’t work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. Let’s assume you know that for sure, and so you feel helpless, until you notice that there is off to the right, a side track and at the end of that track, there is one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track. Killing the one but sparing the five.下面是我们的第一个问题: 何为正确的选择?Here’s our first question: what’s the right thing to do?换了你会怎么做?我们来做个调查。
What would you do? Let’s take a poll.有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去，请举手How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track? Raise your hands.有多少人会让电车继续往前开How many would go straight ahead?选择往前开的，请不要把手放下Keep your hands up, those of you who would go straight ahead.只有少数人选择往前开，绝大多数都选择转弯A handful of people would, the vast majority would turn.我们先来听听大家的说法，探究一下为何，你们会认为这是正确的选择。
Let’s hear first, now we need to begin to investigate the reasons, why you think it’s the right thing to do.先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始Let’s begin with those in the majority who would turn to go onto the side track.为何会这样选择?理由是什么? 有没有自告奋勇的Why would you do it? What would be your reason? Who’s willing to volunteer a reason? 你来站起来告诉大家Go ahead. Stand up.我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时，牺牲五人不是正确之举。
当可以只牺牲一人时,牺牲五人不是正确之举Because it can’t be right to kill five people,when you can only kill one person instead. It wouldn’t be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.这理由不错,不错。
还有其他人吗？That’s a good reason. Who else?人人都赞同这个理由？Does everybody agree with that reason?你来Go ahead.我认为这和9•11的时候是一种情况，那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人，被视为英雄。
因为他们选择了牺牲自己，而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人Well I was thinking it’s the same reason on 9/11, with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes. Because they chose to kill the people on the plane,and not kill more people in big buildings.这么看来这条原则和9•11的是一样的，虽然是悲剧，但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择，这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗？So the principle there was the same on 9/11. It’s a tragic circumstance, but better to kill one so that five can live, is that the reason most of you had, those of you who would turn? Yes?现在我们来听听少数派的意见，那些选择不转弯的Let’s hear now from those in the minority, those who wouldn’t turn.你来Yes.我认为这与为种族灭绝以及极权主义正名，是同一种思维模式。
为了一个种族能生存下来，以灭绝另一个种族为代价Well, I think that’s the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism. In order to save one type of race, you wipe out the other.那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做？为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝，你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗？So what would you do in this case? You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide; you would crash into the five and kill them?大概会吧Presumably, yes.-真的会吗- You would?-对- Yeah.很有勇气的回答谢谢That’s a brave answer. Thank you.我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子：看看你们大多数的人会不会继续坚持刚才的原则，即”牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择”Let’s consider another trolley car case and see whether those of you in the majority want to adhere to the principle “better that one should die so that five should live.”这次你不再是电车司机了，只是一名旁观者，你站在一座桥上，俯瞰着电车轨道。
电车沿着轨道从远处驶来，轨道的尽头有五名工人。
电车刹车坏了，这五名工人即将被撞死，但你不是电车司机，你真的爱莫能助。
直到你发现，在你旁边靠着桥站着的是个超级大胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车。
他必死无疑，但可以救那五人的性命。
This time you’re not the driver of the trolley car, you’re an onlooker. You’re standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. And down the track comes a trolley car, at the end of the track are five workers, the brakes don’t work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.And now, you’re not the driver, you really feel helpless, until you notice standing next to you, leaning over the bridge is a very fat man. And you could give him a shove. He would fall over the bridge onto the track right in the way of the trolley car. He would die but he would spare the five.现在有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge?请举手，又有多少人不会？Raise your hand. How many wouldn’t?大多数人不会这么做，一个显而易见的问题出现了Most people wouldn’t. Here’s the obvious question.我们”牺牲一人保全五人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题呢？What became of the principle “better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?”第一种情况时大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了？What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed in the first case?两种情况中都属多数派的人，你们是怎么想的？I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢？How do you explain the difference between the two?你来Yes.我认为第二种情况牵涉到主动选择推人，而被推的这个人本来跟这事件一点关系都没有。