哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕 第三节

制作人：心舟 QQ：1129441083 欢迎交流

公正课\N迈克尔·桑德尔教授主讲第三讲《给生命标价》

上节课我们讨论了\Last time, we argued about

女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案\the case of Queen versus Dudley and Stevens,

即救生艇的案例\the lifeboat case,

海上食人惨案\the case of cannibalism at sea.

带着对救生艇上发生事件的讨论\And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,

即对达德利和斯蒂芬斯行为赞同与否的讨论\the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,

让我们再回归\let's turn back to the philosophy,

杰里米·边沁的功利主义哲学\the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.

边沁 1748年生于英格兰\Bentham was born in England in 1748.

12岁进入牛津大学\At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.

15岁入读法学院\At 15, he went to law school.

19岁取得律师资格\He was admitted to the Bar at age 19

但从没当过律师\but he never practiced law.

而是将毕生精力献给了法学和道德哲学\Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.

上节课我们开始\Last time, we began to

思考边沁的功利主义\consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.

他的主要观点简单明确就是\The main idea is simply stated and it's this:

道德的最高准则\The highest principle of morality,

无论是个人道德还是政治道德\whether personal or political morality,

都是最大化公共福利或曰集体幸福感\is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,

或者说权衡苦乐将幸福最大化\or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;

一句话功利最大化\in a phrase, maximize utility.

边沁是这样论证这一原则的\Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: 我们都受到痛苦和快乐的支配\We're all governed by pain and pleasure,

苦乐是我们至高无上的主宰\they are our sovereign masters,

因此任何道德体系都应考虑到它们\and so any moral system has to take account of them.

最好怎样考虑呢通过最大化\How best to take account? By maximizing.

从而引出"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一原则\And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.

我们到底该最大化什么呢\What exactly should we maximize?

边沁说应最大化幸福\Bentham tells us happiness,

或更精确来说最大化功利\or more precisely, utility

功利最大化原则不只针对个人\maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals

也适用于共同体及立法者\but also for communities and for legislators.

边沁问到底什么是共同体\"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.

共同体是其成员的集合\It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.

所以在制定最优政策时\And that's why in deciding the best policy,

制定法律时决定何谓公正时\in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,

公民和立法者应扪心自问这个问题\citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question 当用政策带来的总效益\if we add up all of the benefits of this policy

减去总成本\and subtract all of the costs,

正确的选择应该是\the right thing to do is the one

减去苦难后幸福最大化的那一个\that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.

这就是所谓功利最大化\That's what it means to maximize utility.

今天我想听听\Now, today, I want to see

你们是否赞同这点\whether you agree or disagree with it,

功利主义的逻辑\and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,

通常被称作成本效益分析\under the name of cost-benefit analysis,

一再被企业和政府运用\which is used by companies and by governments all the time.

其做法包括作出估价\And what it involves is placing a value,

通常是估计出金额来代表功利\usually a dollar value, to stand for utility

即分别列出成本和各项收益的金额\on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.

最近捷克共和国\Recently, in the Czech Republic,

有一个增加香烟消费税的提案\there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.

烟草公司菲利普·莫里斯公司\Philip Morris, the tobacco company,

在捷克共和国的生意做得很大\does huge business in the Czech Republic.

他们资助了一项研究\They commissioned a study,

进行在捷克吸烟的成本效益分析\a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic,

分析结果显示\and what their cost-benefit analysis found was

让捷克人民吸烟能让政府获利\the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.

那政府如何获利呢\Now, how do they gain?

它确实会对捷克政府的\It's true that there are negative effects

公共财政产生负效应\to the public finance of the Czech government

因为吸烟造成的疾病\because there are increased health care costs

会增加医疗支出\for people who develop smoking-related diseases.

但另一方面也有正效应\On the other hand, there were positive effects

它们被记在账目的另一侧\and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.

正效应主要来自\The positive effects included, for the most part,

销售香烟为政府带来的\various tax revenues that the government derives

各项税收\from the sale of cigarette products,

但还包括\but it also included

人们早逝为政府节省的医疗支出\health care savings to the government when people die early,

免去的养老金\pension savings...

政府不需要继续支付养老金\you don't have to pay pensions for as long

还省去了老年人的住房开支\and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.

当把总成本和各项收益分别加总\And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,

菲利普·莫里斯公司的研究表明\the Philip Morris study found that

捷克共和国公共财政将获得\there is a net public finance gain

一亿四千七百万的净收益\in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,

算上住房医疗养老金方面节省的开支\and given the savings in housing,in health care, and pension costs,

政府从每个因吸烟早逝的人身上\the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person

赚得超过1200美元\who dies prematurely due to smoking.

成本效益分析\Cost-benefit analysis.

在座功利主义的支持者们\Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism

可能觉得这个研究不公\may think that this is an unfair test.

菲利普·莫里斯公司遭到媒体谴责\Philip Morris was pilloried in the press

他们为这项冷血的计算公开道歉\and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.

你也许会说\You may say

这里无疑忽略了\that what's missing here is something

功利主义者认为应当包含的部分\that the utilitarian can easily incorporate,

即那些死于肺癌的患者本身\namely the value to the person

加上其家属的价值\and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.

怎么能忽略生命的价值呢\What about the value of life?

有些成本效益分析\Some cost-benefit analyses

确实计算了生命的价值\incorporate a measure for the value of life.

其中最著名的是福特平托的案例\One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. 有人读过吗\Did any of you read about that?

当时是二十世纪七十年代\This was back in the 1970s.

还有人知道福特平托是什么车吗\Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? 它是一种小型次紧凑型车风靡一时\It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,

但它有一个缺陷\but it had one problem,

油箱装在车的尾部\which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car

发生追尾时油箱就会爆炸\and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded

造成了严重伤亡\and some people were killed and some severely injured.

受害者一纸诉状将福特告上了法庭\Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.

案件审理中发现\And in the court case, it turned out

福特早就知道油箱的缺陷\that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank

还进行了成本效益分析\and had done a cost-benefit analysis

来决定是否值得装上一面特殊的隔板\to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield

以保护油箱防止油箱爆炸\that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.

该分析指出\They did a cost-benefit analysis.

能增加平托安全性的隔板\The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,

每块成本是11美元\they calculated at $11.00 per part.

这就是审判时发现的成本效益分析\And here's... this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.

给1250万辆轿车和卡车配上11美元的隔板\Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks

提高安全性共需花费一亿三千七百万美元\came to a total cost of$137 million to improve the safety. 但接着又算出\But then they calculated

花这些钱提高安全性能带来的收益\the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car

预计可减少180例死亡\and they counted 180 deaths

因车祸死亡预计每条人命20万美元\and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death,

可减少180例伤残每例67000美元\180 injuries, $67,000,

加上车辆维修费用\and then the costs to repair,

无此安全装置车会完全损毁\the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,

所以需算上2000辆汽车的重置成本每辆700美元\it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.

收益最后只有4950万\So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million

因此他们没有安装该装置\and so they didn't install the device.

不用说\Needless to say,

当福特汽车公司的这份成本效益分析备忘录\when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis

在审理时被公之于众\came out in the trial,

陪审团大为震怒判定巨额赔偿\it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.

这算是功利主义计算思路的反例吗\Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating? 因为福特计算了生命的价值\Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.

现在就这个明显的反例\Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis

有谁想为成本效益分析辩护\from this apparent counter example?

有谁辩护\Who has a defense?

还是你们认为它完全推翻了\Or do you think this completely destroys

功利主义的演算\the whole utilitarian calculus?

请说\Yes?

我觉得他们犯了与前面案例\Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake

相同的错误\the previous case did,

量化了生命的价值\that they assigned a dollar value to human life,

但同样的\and once again,

他们没有考虑受害者家人承受的\they failed to take account things like suffering

痛苦和精神损失\and emotional losses by the families.

他们不但家庭收入受损还丧失了亲人\I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one 那损失远不止20万美元\and that is more valued than $200,000.

没错等等说得好你叫什么名字\Right and... wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name? 朱莉·罗托\Julie Roteau .

朱莉要是20万美金不够\So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure

因为没有算丧失亲人\because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one

和生命的损失\and the loss of those years of life,

那你认为什么数目更合适\what would be what do you think would be a more accurate number?

我无法给出数目\I don't believe I could give a number.

我觉得这种分析\I think that this sort of analysis

不应该用在人的生命这个问题上\shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.

人命不能用金钱衡量\I think it can't be used monetarily.

所以朱莉认为他们不是定价太低\So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.

他们压根就不该定价\They were wrong to try to put any number at all.

那好让我们听听别人...\All right, let's hear someone who...

你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.

你必须考虑通胀\You have to adjust for inflation.

行啊有道理\All right, fair enough.

那如今应该是多少\So what would the number be now?

那是35年前\This was 35 years ago.

两百万美元\Two million dollars.

两百万美元你会定价两百万吗\Two million dollars? You would put two million?

你叫什么名字\And what's your name?

佛伊泰克\Voytek

佛伊泰克说我们必须考虑通胀\Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.

应该更慷慨些\We should be more generous.

这样你就满意了吗\Then would you be satisfied that

这样思考这个问题就可以了吗\this is the right way of thinking about the question?

我觉得不幸的是...\I guess, unfortunately, it is for...

有时确实需要标价\there needs to be a number put somewhere,

不过我不确定具体数字\like, I'm not sure what that number would be,

但我确实认同\but I do agree that

人的生命也许可以被标价\there could possibly be a number put on the human life.

很好所以佛伊泰克不同意朱莉的看法\All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie. 朱莉认为我们不该为了成本效益分析\Julie says we can't put a number on human life

给人的生命标价\for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.

佛伊泰克认为我们别无选择\Voytek says we have to

因为不管怎样我们必须做出决定\because we have to make decisions somehow.

别的人怎么看\What do other people think about this?

有没人来赞同成本效益分析的\Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here

认为它精确合宜吗你说\as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.

我觉得要是福特和其他汽车公司\I think that if Ford and other car companies

不使用成本效益分析的话\didn't use cost-benefit analysis,

他们最后就会倒闭\they'd eventually go out of business

因为他们无法盈利\because they wouldn't be able to be profitable

这样就会有数百万人无法开车上班\and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,

没法赚钱养不起小孩\to put food on the table, to feed their children.

所以我认为此种情况下如果不用成本效益分析\So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,

会牺牲更多人的利益\the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.

很好我加一句你叫什么名字\All right, let me add. What's your name?

劳尔\Raul.

劳尔最近有一项\Raul, there was recently a study done

关于司机开车时使用手机的研究\about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, 关于是否应该禁止此行为有一场争论\and there was a debate whether that should be banned.

数据显示每年有2000人左右\And the figure was that some 2,000 people

因开车时使用手机而死于车祸\die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.

而目前哈佛风险分析中心\And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done

作出的成本效益分析表明\by the center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that

如果考虑使用手机带来的效益\if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use

并与生命的价值做比较\and you put some value on the life,

就会得出同样的结论\it comes out about the same

因为这样做经济效益巨大\because of the enormous economic benefit of

可以使人们更有效地利用时间\enabling people to take advantage of their time,

不浪费时间边开车边谈生意\not waste time, be able to make deals

边和朋友聊天等\and talk to friends and so on while they're driving.

这不就表明\Doesn't that suggest that

用金钱衡量人的生命是个错误吗\it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?

我觉得如果绝大多数人想要\Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to

从某项服务中获得最大功利\derive maximum utility out of a service,

比如使用手机享受手机所带来的便利\like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide,

那么为了满足需求这种牺牲就是必要的\that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur. 你是个彻底的功利主义者嘛\You're an outright utilitarian.

是的可以这么说\Yes. Okay.

好那么最后一个问题劳尔\All right then, one last question, Raul.

我也问过佛伊泰克\And I put this to Voytek,

在决定是否禁止使用手机这件事时\what dollar figure should be put on human life

人命应该如何定价\to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?

我不想武断地算出一个数字\Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,

我是指马上就算出我觉得...\I mean, right now. I think that...

你想要深思熟虑之后再决定\You want to take it under advisement?

对我会深思熟虑\Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.

但大概有多少\But what, roughly speaking, would it be?

会死2300人\You got 2,300 deaths.

你必须用金钱来衡量\You got to assign a dollar value to know

是否需要禁止司机使用手机\whether you want to prevent those deaths by

来避免此类事件发生\banning the use of cell phones in cars.

那你感觉是多少钱一百万\So what would your hunch be? How much? A million?

两百万佛伊泰克觉得是两百万\Two million? Two million was Voytek's figure.

-这么多可以吗 -也许一百万吧\- Is that about right? - Maybe a million.

-一百万 -对\- A million? - Yeah.

很好谢谢\You know, that's good. Thank you.

以上即为近来对成本效益分析\So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days

引发的一些争论\from cost-benefit analysis,

尤其是其中那些\especially those that involve

认为可以用金钱衡量一切的观点\placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.

现在我想听听反对意见\Well, now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections

不一定仅仅针对成本效益分析\not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically,

因为那只是功利主义逻辑现今的实践之一\because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today,

而是针对整个功利主义理论\but to the theory as a whole,

针对那些认为正确之举\to the idea that the right thing to do,

就是以功利最大化作为政策法律基础的观点\the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility. 有多少人不同意\How many disagree

功利主义在法律及公共利益方面的做法\with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good? 有多少人同意\How many agree with it?

看来多数表示同意\So more agree than disagree.

我们来听听批判声吧请说\So let's hear from the critics. Yes?

我对此的异议是\My main issue with it is

我觉得不能因为一些人占少数\that I feel like you can't say that just because someone's in the minority,

就断定他们的需要和欲望不如多数人的重要\what they want and need is less valuable than someone who's in the majority

所以我反对\So I guess I have an issue with the idea

"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一观点\that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay

因为还有...\because there are still...

占少数的人怎么办呢\what about people who are in the lesser number?

这对他们不公平\Like, it's not fair to them.

他们对此没有发言权\They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.

很好这是个有趣的异议\All right. That's an interesting objection.

你担心其对少数人的影响\You're worried about the effect on the minority.

是的\Yes.

顺便问一句你叫什么名字\What's your name, by the way?

安娜\Anna.

谁能回答\Who has an answer to

安娜对于少数人影响的担心\Anna's worry about the effect on the minority?

你怎么回答安娜\What do you say to Anna?

她说少数人的价值被低估了\Um, she said that the minority is valued less.

我认为事实并非如此因为\I don't think that's the case because

少数人当中每个个体的价值\individually, the minority's value is just

和多数人的个体价值是一样的\the same as the individual of the majority.

只不过多数在数量上胜过少数\It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority.

有时你必须做出选择\And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision

我对少数表示遗憾\and I'm sorry for the minority

但有时这是牺牲小我成全大我\but sometimes, it's for the general, for the greater good.

成全大我安娜你怎么看\For the greater good. Anna, what do you say?

你叫什么名字\What's your name?

杨达\Yang-Da.

你怎么反驳杨达\What do you say to Yang-Da?

杨达说必须总体考虑人们的选择\Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences

而其中少数人的选择其实也被衡量过了\and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed. 你能举个你所担心的类似例子吗\Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about 即你所说的担心\when you say you're worried about

功利主义缺少对少数的关心和尊重\utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?

举个例子\give an example.

我就举一个我们讨论过的案例\Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about,

比如海上食人惨案中我认为被吃的男孩\like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten 仍然与其他人享有相等的生存权\still had as much of a right to live as the other people

仅仅因为他是少数\and just because he was the minority in that case,

他存活的机率可能最小\the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living,

并不意味着其他人就自然而然有权利吃他\that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him

就为了让多数人有存活的机会\just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live.

所以可能少数人\So there may be certain rights

或个体的某些权利\that the minority members have that the individual has

不该为了功利最大化而被牺牲\that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility?

是的\Yes.

是吗安娜下面这个例子我来考考扬达\Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.

在古罗马\Back in Ancient Rome,

基督徒被扔去斗兽场与狮子搏斗\they threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. 如果以功利主义方式演算\If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go,

没错丢给狮子的基督徒\yes, the Christian thrown to the lions

确实经历了撕心裂肺的剧痛\suffers enormous excruciating pain.

但看看罗马人共同的心醉神迷啊\But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans!

杨达\Yang-Da.

在那个时代我不... 要是如今\Well, in that time, I don't...if in modern day of time,

衡量观众获得的快乐\to give a number to the happiness given to the people watching,

我觉得没有任何政策制定者会认为\I don't think any policymaker would say

一个人的痛苦煎熬会比\the pain of one person, of the suffering of one person is much, much... 众人因之获得的快感更...\is, I mean, in comparison to the happiness gained, it's

不但你必须承认\No, but you have to admit that

要是有足够多的罗马人对这种快感足够狂热\if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness,

那就会胜过\it would outweigh even the

少数几个被丢给狮子的基督徒承受的极端剧痛\most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.

因此我们确实对功利主义有两点异议\So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism.

一点是关于功利主义\One has to do with whether utilitarianism

是否充分尊重个体和少数的权利\adequately respects individual rights or minority rights,

另一点是关于\and the other has to do with

加总功利或偏好或价值的看法\the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values. 所有的价值都有可能用金钱衡量吗\Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms?

二十世纪三十年代\There was, in the 1930s,

有位心理学家试图解决第二个问题\a psychologist who tried to address this second question.

他试图证明功利主义者的假设\He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes,

所有的利益价值人类的心声\that it is possible to translate all goods, all values,

都可能被统一衡量\into a single uniform measure,

并通过对年轻的救济金领取者的调查来证明此点\and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief,

当时是二十世纪三十年代\this was in the 1930s, and he asked them,

他给了他们一张不愉快经历的清单问他们\he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them,

给你多少钱你就愿意忍受以下经历\"How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?"

并作了记录\and he kept track.

比如给你多少钱\For example, how much would you have to be paid

你才愿意拔掉自己的一颗门牙\to have one upper front tooth pulled out?

抑或给你多少钱\Or how much would you have to be paid

你才愿意砍掉一根小脚趾\to have one little toe cut off?

抑或吃一条六英寸长的蚯蚓\Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long?

抑或后半生居住在堪萨斯农场\Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?

{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}堪萨斯位于美国西部平原\N1930年代遭受重大自然灾害

抑或亲手掐死一只流浪猫\Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?

你们觉得清单里的哪一项最贵\Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list? 堪萨斯\Kansas?

没错是堪萨斯\You're right, it was Kansas.

他们认为余生都住堪萨斯农场\For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them

至少得给他们30万美元\they have to be paid $300,000.

你们觉得第二贵的是什么\What do you think was the next most expensive?

不是猫\Not the cat.

也不是门牙\Not the tooth.

也不是脚趾\Not the toe.

是蚯蚓\The worm!

他们说给10万美元才肯吃蚯蚓\People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm.

你们觉得最便宜的是哪项\What do you think was the least expensive item?

不是猫\Not the cat.

是门牙\The tooth.

大萧条时期\During the Depression,

人们愿意为了区区4500美元拔掉自己的牙\people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4,500.

什么\What?

桑代克得出的结论是\Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.

任何需求或满足都能有个价钱\Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount 因此能用金钱衡量\and is therefore measurable.

狗猫小鸡的生命\The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken

都充斥着各类嗜好渴望欲望以及满足感\consists of appetites, cravings, desires, and their gratifications.

人亦如此\So does the life of human beings,

只是人的嗜好和欲望更加复杂罢了\though the appetites and desires are more complicated.

但桑代克的研究说明了什么呢\But what about Thorndike's study?

它是不是支持了边沁的观点\Does it support Bentham's idea

认为所有利益所有价值都可以\that all goods, all values can be captured

用统一的方式衡量\according to a single uniform measure of value?

抑或清单上那些荒谬的项目\Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list

恰恰揭示了相反的结论\suggest the opposite conclusion

也许\that maybe,

不论是生命堪萨斯还是蚯蚓\whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm,

还是我们重视珍爱的东西\maybe the things we value and cherish

都是不能用统一方式衡量的?\can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value? 如果不能\And if they can't,

那么功利主义道德理论意义何在\what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality? 我们下次将会继续探讨这一问题\That's a question we'll continue with next time.

{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}公正课下讲预告

好现在我们再投个票\All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,

哪个是最高级的体验或快乐\which is the highest experience or pleasure.

{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}第四讲《如何衡量快乐》

多少人认为是莎士比亚\How many say Shakespeare?

多少人认为是《挑战恐惧极限》\How many say Fear Factor?

你开玩笑的吧是吧\No, you can't be serious. Really?

上节课我们开始思考一些\Last time, we began to consider some objections to

对杰里米·边沁功利主义的反对观点\Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.

讨论中提出了两点异议\People raised two objections in the discussion we had.

第一点异议是说功利主义\The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism,

只关注"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"\by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,

没有充分地尊重个人权利\fails adequately to respect individual rights.

今天我们要讨论严刑拷打和恐怖主义\Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.

假设一名恐怖主义嫌犯在9丒11慜堦揤旐曔\N{\fn曽惓综艺简

懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th

你桳棟桼憡怣\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you had reason to believe

这柤寵斊彾埇椆\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}that the suspect had crucial information

彨导抳3000恖嬾难揑嫲晐袭击揑廳梫忣报\N{\fn曽惓综艺简

懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people

你撬晄开懠揑岥\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}and you couldn't extract the information.

为椆漒摓忣报帶对懠严孻崏懪惀斲崌棟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简

懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information

梷埥你晄赞摨\N{\fn曽惓综艺简懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}or do you say no,

你认为桳懜廳槩恖权棙揑绝对摴 责擟\N{\fn曽惓综艺简

懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights?

朸种掱搙忋変们枖夞摓椆嵟弶揑问题\N{\fn曽惓综艺简

懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}In a way, we're back to the

questions we started with

懄擵慜揑电车榓婍姱堏怉问题\N{\fn曽惓综艺简

懱}{\fs14}{\b0}{\c&HFFFFFF&}{\3c&H2F2F2F&}{\4c&H000000&}about trolley car and t he organ transplant.

以上是第一点争议\So that's the first issue.

我们还思考了些成本效益分析的例子\And you remember, we considered some examples of cost-benefit analysis,

但许多人并不赞同\but a lot of people were unhappy with

成本效益分析用金钱来衡量人的生命\cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing dollar value on human life.

这也就是第二点异议\And so that led us to the second objection.

它质疑的是是否可以将所有的价值\It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values 都用统一的标准衡量\into a single uniform measure of value.

换句话说是否所有价值都可以计价\It asks, in other words, whether all values are commensurable. 再举一个我亲身经历过的例子\Let me give you one other example of an experience.

这是一个真实的故事\This actually is a true story.

是亲身见闻所引起的疑问\It comes from personal experience that raises a question at least

是否所有的价值都可以完好无损地\about whether all values can be translated without loss

转换为功利主义的形式\into utilitarian terms.

很多年前\Some years ago,

我在英国牛津读研究生时\when I was a graduate student, I was at Oxford in England

他们有男校和女校当时还没有合并\and they had men's and women's colleges. They weren't yet mixed and

而女校有禁止男客过夜的规定\the women's colleges had rules against overnight male guests.

到了七十年代这种规定已经名存实亡了\By the 1970s, these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated,

至少我听说是这样\or so I was told.

七十年代后期我在那里读书时\By the late 1970s, when I was there,

放宽规定的呼声日益高涨\pressure grew to relax these rules and

并引起了其中一所女校\it became the subject of debate

圣安妮大学的教职员\among the faculty at St. Anne's College,

激烈的争论\which was one of these all-women's colleges.

年长的女教职员属于传统主义者\The older women on the faculty were traditionalists.

她们反对改变非传统的道德基准\They were opposed to change unconventional moral grounds.

但时代不同了\But times have changed

她们羞于讲出反对的真实理由\and they were embarrassed to give the true grounds for their objection

就转换为功利主义形式表达反对\and so they translated their arguments into utilitarian terms.

她们反对道留男士过夜会增加学校的开销\"If men stay overnight", they argued, "The costs to the college will increase."

怎么增加你可能会想\"How?" You might wonder.

他们要洗澡就会用掉很多热水她们说\"Well, they'll want to take baths and that'll use up hot water," They said.

她们还反对道\Furthermore, they argued,

我们还得更频繁地更换床垫\"We'll have to replace the mattresses more often."

改革者综合她们的意见作了以下妥协\The reformers met these arguments by adopting the following compromise.

每位女生每周最多可留男士过夜三次\Each woman could have a maximum of three overnight male guests each week.

他们也没说是同一个还是三个不同的人\They didn't say whether it had to be the same one or three different

前提是这也是妥协之处\provided, and this was the compromise,

过夜男士每次要付50便士来补贴学校\provided the guest paid 50 pence to defray the cost to the college.

第二天全国发行的报纸头版头条写着\The next day, the national headline in the national newspaper reads,

圣安妮女生五十便士一夜\"St. Anne's Girls, 50 Pence A Night."

这个例子再次说明\Another illustration of the difficulty of

很难把所有的价值此处特指某种德行\translating all values, in this case, a certain idea of virtue,

转换为功利主义形式\into utilitarian terms.

至此这就是对功利主义的第二点异议\So, that's all to illustrate the second objection to utilitarianism,

至少一方面的担心是\at least the part of that objection,

功利主义这样假设是否正确\that questions whether utilitarianism is right to assume that

即假设价值同质所有价值可比\we can assume the uniformity of value, the commensurability of all values

以及所有道德问题都能用金钱衡量\and translate all moral considerations into dollars or money. 另一方面的担心是\But there is a second aspect to this worry about

对价值和选择的简单相加\aggregating values and preferences.

为何该同等看待所有偏好\Why should we weigh all preferences that people have

而不区分其好坏呢\without assessing whether they're good preferences or bad preferences? 难道不该区分高级快乐和低级快乐吗\Shouldn't we distinguish between higher pleasures and lower pleasures?

不对人们选择的价值进行定性区分\Now, part of the appeal of not making any qualitative

distinctions

其魅力就在于\about the worth of people's preferences,

它是无偏见的平等主义的\part of the appeal is that it is nonjudgmental and egalitarian.

边沁功利主义者认为每个人的偏好都有意义\The Benthamite utilitarian says everybody's preferences count

不论人们所欲何为\and they count regardless of what people want,

不论其喜好各有不同\regardless of what makes different people happy.

对边沁来说要记住真正重要的\For Bentham, all that matters, you'll remember,

是快乐或痛苦的强度和持续时间\are the intensity and the duration of a pleasure or pain.

所谓"更高级快乐或更高贵美德"\The so-called "Higher pleasures or nobler virtues"

在边沁看来不过是更持久更强烈的快乐\are simply those, according to Bentham, that produce stronger, longer pleasure.

他有一句名言表达此观点\He had a famous phrase to express this idea,

只要快乐的总量相等针戏与诗一样好\"The quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry."

什么是针戏\What was pushpin?

是当时一种儿童游戏类似挑圆片游戏\It was some kind of a child's game, like tiddlywinks.

针戏与诗一样好边沁说\"Pushpin is as good as poetry", Bentham says.

我认为这一观点暗含了一种主张\And lying behind this idea, I think, is the claim, the intuition, 认为从本质上判定谁的快乐\that it's a presumption to judge whose pleasures

更高级更有价值或更好是非常无礼的\are intrinsically higher or worthier or better.

这种拒绝比较快乐的观点确有迷人之处\And there is something attractive in this refusal to judge. 毕竟有人喜欢莫扎特有人喜欢麦当娜\After all, some people like Mozart,others Madonna.

有人喜欢芭蕾有人喜欢保龄球\Some people like ballet, others bowling.

边沁主义者也许会问\Who's to say, a Benthamite might argue,

谁能说这些快乐中谁的更高级\who is to say which of these pleasures, whose pleasures are higher, 更有价值或者更高贵呢\worthier, nobler than others?

但是不进行定性区分是对的吗\But is that right, this refusal to make qualitative distinctions? 我们能摒弃这个观点吗\Can we altogether dispense with the idea that

即我们某些喜好比其它更好或更有价值\certain things we take pleasure in are better or worthier than others?

回顾斗兽场里罗马人的案例\Think back to the case of the Romans in the Colosseum.

人们认为那种做法不妥之处在于\One thing that troubled people about that practice is

它似乎侵犯了基督徒的权利\that it seemed to violate the rights of the Christian.

对此的另一种质疑是\Another way of objection to what's going on there

罗马人从这一血腥场面中获得的快乐\is that the pleasure that the Romans take in this bloody spectacle,

这种卑劣的有几分堕落的可耻的快乐\should that pleasure, which is abased, kind of corrupt, degrading pleasure,

在确定公共福利时还应该被算在内吗\should that even be valorized or weighed in deciding what the general welfare is?

以上就是对边沁功利主义的异议\So here are the objections to Bentham's utilitarianism

现在再来看看另一位\and now, we turn to someone

他试图回应这些异议\who tried to respond to those objections,

近代功利主义者约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒\a latter-day utilitarian, John Stuart Mill.

我们现在的任务是思考穆勒\So what we need to examine now is whether John Stuart Mill

是否令人信服地回应了对功利主义的质疑\had a convincing reply to these objections to utilitarianism.

约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒生于1806年\John Stuart Mill was born in 1806.

他的父亲詹姆斯·穆勒是边沁的追随者\His father, James Mill, was a disciple of Bentham's,

詹姆斯·穆勒决心以边沁为榜样\and James Mill set about giving his son, John Stuart Mill,

教育自己的儿子穆勒\a model education.

约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒是一个神童\He was a child protege, John Stuart Mill.

三岁就懂希腊文八岁时懂拉丁文\He knew Greek at the age of three, Latin at eight,

十岁的时候写了《罗马律史》\and age 10, he wrote "A History of Roman Law."

二十岁时他精神崩溃了\At age 20, he had a nervous breakdown.

之后的五年一直陷于抑郁\This left him in a depression for five years,

但二十五岁时\but at age 25,

他遇到了海利特·泰勒从此摆脱抑郁\what helped lift him out of this depression is that he met Harriet Taylor.

他们结了婚从此过上了幸福的生活\She and Mill got married, they lived happily ever after,

正是在她的影响下\and it was under her influence

约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒试图把功利主义人性化\that John Stuart Mill tried to humanize utilitarianism. 穆勒想要做到的\What Mill tried to do was to see

是将功利主义演算放宽和修正\whether the utilitarian calculus could be enlarged and modified 以容纳人道主义关切\to accommodate humanitarian concerns,

比如对个体权利的尊重\like the concern to respect individual rights,

以及对高级和低级快乐的区别对待\and also to address the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

1859年穆勒写了本关于自由的名著\In 1859, Mill wrote a famous book on liberty,

书里的主要观点是\the main point of which was

争取个体和少数群体权利的重要性\the importance of defending individual rights and minority rights,

1861年在晚年时期\and in 1861, toward the end of his life,

他写了《功利主义》这也属于本课的阅读资料\he wrote the book we read as part of this course, "Utilitarianism."

明确指出功利是道德的唯一标准\He makes it clear that utility is the only standard of morality, 在他看来\in his view,

他并没有质疑边沁的前提而是肯定此观点\so he's not challenging Bentham's premise. He's affirming it.

他非常明确地说\He says very explicitly,

任何事为人向往的唯一证据是\"The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable

人们真的向往它\is that people actually do desire it."

所以他始终认为\So he stays with the idea

我们的实际欲望是道德判断的唯一基础\that our de facto actual empirical desires are the only basis for moral judgment.

但在第八页即第二章中\But then, page eight, also in chapter two,

他提出功利主义者可以区分\he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish

高级和低级快乐\higher from lower pleasures.

现在已经读过穆勒名著的同学\Now, for those of you who have read Mill already,

来说说他是怎样对此进行区分的\how, according to him, is it possible to draw that distinction? 功利主义者何以将性质上更高级的快乐\How can a utilitarian distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures

与较低级基本无价值的区分开呢请说\from lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones? Yes?

只要你体验过这两种快乐\If you've tried both of them

自然会一直偏好更高级的那种\and you prefer the higher one, naturally, always.

很好没错\That's great. That's right.

-你叫什么名字 -约翰\- What's your name? - John.

正如约翰指出的\So as John points out,

穆勒是这样来确定的\Mill says here's the test.

既然我们不能跨出实际欲望和偏好的范畴\Since we can't step outside actual desires, actual preferences

因为那样就会违背功利主义的前提\that would violate utilitarian premises,

那么唯一能区分快乐级别高低的方法\the only test of whether a pleasure is higher or lower

就是看同时体验过两者的人更喜欢哪个\is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it. 在第二章的这里\And here, in chapter two,

我们可以看到\we see the passage where

穆勒的这段话表达了约翰刚才描述的观点\Mill makes the point that John just described.

这两种快乐中如果所有或几乎所有\"Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all 两种都体验过的人都更偏好其中一种\who have experience of both give a decided preference,

而且并不是出于任何道德责任\irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it -- 换句话说没有外界的独立的标准影响\in other words, no outside, no independent standard -- 那么该快乐就是更令人满意的\then, that is the more desirable pleasure."

大家怎么看这一观点\What do people think about that argument?

它成立吗\Does it succeed?

有多少人觉得它成功地\How many think that it does succeed of arguing

在功利主义范畴区分了高级和低级快乐\within utilitarian terms for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

多少人觉得它不成立\How many think it doesn't succeed?

我想听听你们的理由\I want to hear your reasons.

但在给出理由之前\But before we give the reasons

先对穆勒的观点做个实验\let's do an experiment of Mill's claim.

为了做此实验\In order to do this experiment,

我们先来看三个大众文艺节目的片段\we're going to look at three short excerpts of popular entertainment.

第一个是《哈姆雷特》的一段独白\The first one is a Hamlet soliloquy.

之后还会放另外两个片段\It'll be followed by two other experiences.

看看你们的想法\See what you think.

人类是一件多么了不起的杰作\What a piece of work is a man,

多么高贵的理性\how noble in reason,

多么无穷的力量多么优雅的仪表\how infinite in faculties, in form and moving

多么端庄的举止行为像天使\how express and admirable, in action how like an angel,

智慧像天神\in apprehension how like a god!

宇宙之华万物之灵\The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals

但对于我这尘土的精华又算得了什么\and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

人不能让我快乐\Man delights not me.

想象一个世界\Imagine a world

在这里你最大的恐惧将成为现实\where your greatest fears become reality.

它们在咬我\Ahh! They're biting me!

每次节目六名来自全国的参赛者\Each show, six contestants from around the country

在三项极限特技中一比高下\battle each other in three extreme stunts.

这些特技项目专为在体能和精神上\These stunts are designed to challenge the contestants

挑战参赛者而设计\both physically and mentally.

六名选手三项特技唯有一名胜者\Six contestants, three stunts, one winner.

《挑战恐惧极限》\Fear Factor.

嗨邻居\Hi-diddily-ho, pedal-to-the-metal-o-philes.

弗兰德你什么时候也开始赶时髦了\Flanders, since when do you like anything cool?

我不在乎速度\Well, I don't care for the speed

我就是对那些安全装置百看不厌\but I can't get enough of that safety gear.

头盔保险杠警示旗\Helmets, roll bars, caution flags...

我喜欢新鲜空气\I like the fresh air...

还喜欢看场上的倒霉蛋们\and looking at the poor people in the infield.

克莱特斯你为什么非要停在我爸妈家门口\Dang, Cletus, why'd you have to park by my parents?

亲爱的现在他们也算我爸妈\Now, Honey, they's my parents too.

我都不用问你们最喜欢哪个\I don't even have to ask which one you liked most.

《辛普森一家》多少人最喜欢《辛普森一家》\The Simpsons, how many liked The Simpsons most?

多少人喜欢莎士比亚\How many Shakespeare?

那《挑战恐惧极限》呢\What about Fear Factor?

多少人喜欢《挑战恐惧极限》\How many preferred Fear Factor?

不是吧\Really?

《辛普森一家》远比莎士比亚更受人们喜爱\People overwhelmingly like The Simpsons better than Shakespeare.

好现在我们再投个票\All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll,

哪个是最高级的体验或者快乐\which is the highest experience or pleasure.

多少人认为是莎士比亚\How many say Shakespeare?

多少人认为是《挑战恐惧极限》\How many say Fear Factor?

你开玩笑的吧是吧\No, you can't be serious. Really? What?

好请说你可以说\All right, go ahead. You can say it.

我觉得那个最具娱乐性\I found that one the most entertaining.

我懂但是你觉得哪个是最有价值\I know, but which do you think was the worthiest,

最高贵的体验\the noblest experience?

我知道你觉得那个最具娱乐性\I know you found it the most entertaining.

既然令人喜爱的事物就是好的\If something is good just because it is pleasurable,

那么何必在乎\what does it matter whether you have sort of an

别人对它的感受如何这般抽象的观念呢\abstract idea of whether it is good by someone else's sense or not?

好你直接站到了边沁主义者那一边\All right, so you come down in the straight Benthamite side. 谁来判定又何必判定\Who is to judge and why should we judge,

只要记录和加总实际偏好即可\apart from just registering and aggregating de facto preference? 好有道理你叫什么名字\All right, that's fair enough. And what's your name?

奈特好很合理\Nate, okay, fair enough.

好那么有多少人不但喜欢《辛普森一家》\All right, so how many think The Simpsons is actually, 还认为它其实就是更高级的体验\apart from liking it, is actually the higher experience?

比莎士比亚更高级\Higher than Shakespeare?

好我们再对莎士比亚投个票\All right, let's see the vote for Shakespeare again.

多少人认为莎士比亚更高级\How many think Shakespeare is higher?

好那这是为什么\All right. So why is it...

其实我最想听的是\ideally, i'd like to hear from someone,

有没有人认为莎士比亚更高级\is there someone who thinks shakespeare is highest

却更爱看《辛普森一家》\but who preferred watching The Simpsons?

请讲\Yes?

我觉得如果单看《辛普森一家》\Like, I guess just sitting and watching The Simpsons,

确实很有乐趣因为它很搞笑令人捧腹\it's entertaining because they make jokes and they make us laugh.

但必须有人教导我们\But like, someone has to tell us

莎士比亚是位伟大的作家\that Shakespeare was this great writer.

我们得通过学习才能理解他的作品\We had to be taught how to read him, how to understand him.

我们得通过学习\We had to be taught

才能欣赏伦勃朗{\fs18}[荷兰画家]{\r}和赏析画作\how to kind of take in Rembrandt, how to analyze a painting.

那... 你叫什么名字\But let me...What's your name?

艾妮莎\Anisha.

艾妮莎你所说的\Anisha, when you say

有人教导你说莎士比亚更好\someone told you that Shakespeare is better...

对\Right.

你就盲目地接受了吗\Are you accepting it on blind faith?

你认为莎士比亚更高级\You voted that Shakespeare is higher

只因为那是文化或者老师这样告诉你的\only because the culture tells you that or teachers tell you that

还是你自己也真正认同呢\or do you actually agree with that yourself?

就莎士比亚而言不是的\Well, in the sense that Shakespeare no,

但是之前提过的伦勃朗的例子\but earlier you made an example of Rembrandt.

我感觉我更喜欢看漫画\I feel like I would enjoy reading a comic book

而不会因为别人说伦勃朗的画作很伟大\more than I would enjoy kind of analyzing Rembrandt

-就更喜欢赏析它 -对\- because someone told me it was great, you know. - Right.

所以其中部分因素你暗示了\So some of this seems to be, you're suggesting,

出自文化传统和压力\a kind of a cultural convention and pressure.

-别人教导我们什么书和艺术伟大 -对\- We're told what books, what works of art are great. - Right. 好还有谁\Great. Who else?

请讲\Yes?

虽然此刻我更喜欢看《辛普森一家》\Although I enjoyed watching The Simpsons more in this particular