哈佛大学公开课justice整理版

1、This is a course about justice and we begin with a story.这是一堂关于公平与正义的公共课，让我们先从一个故事讲起Suppose youre the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour.假设你现在是一辆有轨电车的司机而你的电车正在铁轨上以时速60英里疾驶And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the trac

2、k. 在铁轨末端，你发现有五个工人在铁轨上工作You try to stop but you cant, your brakes dont work.你尽力想停下电车, 但是你做不到，电车的刹车失灵了You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die.你觉得十分绝望,因为你知道如果你就这样撞向这5个工人,他们必死无疑 Lets assume you know that for sure. 假定你很清楚这一点And so you feel helpless

3、 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.正当你感到无助的时候, 你突然发现 就在右边一条岔道,那根轨道的尽头 只有一个工人在那里工作Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track killing the one but sp

4、aring the five.你的方向盘没有失灵, 只要你愿意你可以让电车转向到那条分叉铁轨上 撞死一个工人但却因此救了另外5个人Heres our first question: whats the right thing to do? 现在提出第一个问题,我们该怎么做才对?What would you do? Lets take a poll.你会怎么做? 我们做个调查看看How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track? Raise your hands.有多少人会选择让电车转向到分叉铁轨上,请举手How many would

5、nt? How many would go straight ahead?多少人不会?多少人选择就这样笔直开下去?Keep your hands up those of you, who would go straight ahead. 选笔直开下去的人先别放手A handful of people would, 少数人会the vast majority would turn.大多数人选择转向 Lets hear first, now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think让我们先听听看现在我们研究下你为什么觉得it

6、s the right thing to do. 这样做是正确的Lets begin with those in the majority who would turn to go 让我们先从大多数人开始吧,谁选择转向的?onto the side track. Why would you do it? 你为什么这么选?What would be your reason? Whos willing to volunteer a reason?你的理由是什么?谁愿意给我一个理由的? Go ahead. Stand up. 站起来说吧Because it cant be right to kill

7、 five people when you can only kill one person instead. 因为当你可以只撞死一个人时却去撞死5个人肯定是不对的It wouldnt be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead. Thats a good reason.当可以只撞死一个人时却去撞死5个人肯定不对这是个好理由Thats a good reason. Who else? 这是个好理由其他人呢?Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead. 每个人都同意刚刚那

8、个理由么? 你来Well I was thinking its 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.我觉得这和9.11的一项事件是同样原因,我们把那些将飞机撞向宾夕法尼亚空地的人视为英雄.因为他们选择只牺牲飞机里的人从而拯救了大楼里的更

9、多生命So the principle there was the same on 9/11.所以原因和9.11事件中那些人的选择是相同的 Its 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?虽然一定会发生悲剧但只撞死一个人好过撞死五个 你们大多数人是不是都这么想选择转向的各位,是么?Lets hear now from those in the minority,

10、those who wouldnt turn. Yes.现在让我们听听那些少数人的想法 选择直行的人Well, I think thats the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism.我觉得这和对种族灭绝与极权主义 的诡辩相似In order to save one type of race, you wipe out the other. So what would you do in this case? 为了拯救一个种族,你抹去了其他的种族，那么在这个事例中你会怎么做?You would,

11、to avoid the horrors of genocide, you would crash into the five and kill them? 你会,为了避免骇人的种族灭绝主义而选择撞死那5个人么?Presumably, yes. 理论上,是这样 You would? 真的?-Yeah. 是Okay. Who else? Thats a brave answer. 好吧,还有谁?这是个大胆的想法Thank you. 谢谢Lets consider another trolley car case 让我们再考虑另一个有关电车的例子and see whether those of y

12、ou in the majority want to adhere to the principle “better that one should die so that five should live.”看看是不是那些占多数的人仍然会坚持刚才的原则 “牺牲一个人总好过撞死5个人.”This time youre not the driver of the trolley car, 这次你不是电车的司机了youre an onlooker. Youre standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track.你是个旁观者,你站在桥上 俯瞰桥

13、下电车的铁轨 And down the track comes a trolley car, at the end of the track are five workers, the brakes dont work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.此时电车开过铁轨尽头有5个工人刹车失灵，电车马上就要冲向那5个人了And now, youre not the driver, you really feel helpless until you notice standing next to you

14、, leaning over the bridge is a very fat man.而这次,你不是司机你真的感到毫无办法直到你突然发现,你旁边一个非常非常胖的人靠在桥上 And you could give him a shove. 你可以推他一下 He would fall over the bridge onto the track right in the way of the trolleycar.他会摔下桥而且挡住电车的去路He would die but he would spare the five. 虽然他会被压死,但因此另外五个人将得救.Now, how many wou

15、ld push the fat man over the bridge? 这次,多少人会推一把桥上的胖子Raise your hand. 举起你的手How many wouldnt? 多少人不会这样做?Most people wouldnt. Heres the obvious question. 绝大多数人不会问题显而易见 What became of the principle “better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?” 刚才的原则发生了什么?牺牲一个人总比牺牲5个人好?What became of the p

16、rinciple that almost everyone endorsed in the first case? I need to hear from someone刚才第一个事例里几乎每个人都赞同的原则怎么了么?我要听听。who was in the majority in both cases.两次都站在多数人阵营里的人的想法How do you explain the difference between the two? Yes.你怎么解释前后不同的选择? 你来The second one, I guess, involves an active choice of pushing

17、 a person down which I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all. 第二个例子, 我觉得,涉及到主动选择的问题。我想去推一个人,而那个人本不会涉及到这场事故里and so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is, I guess, more than what you have

18、 in the first case where the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers, are already, I guess, in the situation.我们替他做了选择, 把他卷入进来,而这件事本与他无关;但第一个例子里,三方, 司机、两队工人已经身在这麻烦事当中了。But the guy working, the one on the track off to the side, 但是那个在铁轨上单独工作的家伙he didnt choose to sacrifice his life any mor

19、e than the fat man did, did he? 他没有自己选择牺牲他的生命,而胖子也是这样, 不是么?Thats true, but he was on the tracks and 是的, 但是他已经在铁轨上了所以This guy was on the bridge. 那那个胖子也已经在桥上了啊Go ahead; you can come back if you want. All right. 你愿意的话可以待会儿接着说. 好吧.Its a hard question. You did well. You did very well. 这是个很困难的问题,你做的很好,你做的

20、很好Its a hard question. 问题很难.Who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes. 还有谁能综合解释一下为何多数人在两个事例中的选择截然不同? 你。Well, I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five, its a choice between those two and you have to make a certain choice an

21、d people are going to die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is a runaway thing and youre making a split second choice. 是的, 我觉得在第一个例子中一个工人和五个工人这两者之间选择,你不得不做出选择,工人们是死于那辆电车而不是因你直接行为必然造成的电车失控了, 你必须在一瞬间做出选择Whereas pushing the fat man over is an ac

22、tual act of murder on your part. 而推那个胖子的话,就你的行为来说,是确确实实的谋杀行为。You have control over that where as you may not have control over the trolley car. 你可以控制自己是否推他,但你没办法控制电车是否撞向工人So I think its a slightly different situation. 所以我认为这两个场合略有不同All right, who has a reply? Thats good. Who has a way? 很好, 谁想对他说的做出回

23、应?很好,谁想回应?Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this? 谁想说? 有别的答案么?I dont think thats a very good reason because you choose to - either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the person, which is an act of conscious thought to turn, or you choose to push the fat

24、 man over which is also an active, conscious action. 我觉得那不是一个很好的理由,因为你选择.无论你怎么选你都是在选择杀人。因为不管你是选择让电车撞向另一边的一个人,这是你自己有意识的行为,还是你选去推桥上那个胖子,这也是你自己主动, 而且有意识的行为So either way, youre making a choice. 所以无论你怎么做,你都在做选择 Do you want to reply? 你想回应她的说法么?Im not really sure that thats the case. 我不是很确定我刚刚说的是完全对的It jus

25、t still seems kind of different. 它只是看起来好像有点不同The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him, you are actually killing him yourself. 把一个人推向铁轨的行为,他死了,你事实上是自己亲手杀了他Youre pushing him with your own hands. 你亲手去推他了Youre pushing him and thats different than steering something that i

26、s going to cause death into another. 你推他了这就造成了不同,前者则是你打方向盘造成了别人的死亡。You know, it doesnt really sound right saying it now. 好吧, 现在说起来似乎就不是那么对了No, no. Its good. Its good. Whats your name? 不, 不, 你说的很好了,你叫什么? Andrew. 安德鲁Andrew. Let me ask you this question, Andrew. 让我问你个问题,安德鲁Yes. 好的Suppose standing on th

27、e bridge next to the fat man, 假如我站在桥上,在胖子身边I didnt have to push him, suppose he was standing over 我不必一定要去推他,假设他站在一扇活动门旁a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that. Would you turn? 而我可以像这样用方向盘打开那扇门,你会开么?trap trp n. 圈套, 陷阱,trap door:地板门; 天窗; 活板门For some reason, that still just

28、seems more wrong. 那个多少那个看起来更加不对了 Right? 是么?I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that. 我是说, 可能你只是不小心靠到了方向盘上,或者类似的But. Or say that the car is hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap. 或者说电车冲到了那个转换器上导致活动门打开了Then I could agree with that. 那我会赞同

29、Thats all right. Fair enough. 好的It still seems wrong in a way that it doesnt seem wrong in the first case to turn, you say. 在第一种情况下是正确的选择,这会儿就不对了.你说And in another way, I mean, in the first situation 换种说法, 我觉得, 在第一种情况下 youre involved directly with the situation. 你已经直接卷入事件中了In the second one, youre an

30、 onlooker as well. 而在第二种情况下你只是个旁观者 All right. 好的-So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man. 所以你不得不选择是否卷入进去,是否要推那个胖子。All right. Lets forget for the moment about this case. 好吧, 让我们先暂且不考虑这个事例Thats good. Lets imagine a different case. 很好现在想象一个不一样的场景 imagine imdin vt.想象,幻想

31、,猜测 vi. 想象This time youre a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you. 这次你是急诊室里的一个医生,有六个病人向你求助Theyve been in a terrible trolley car wreck. 他们都被电车重重压过 Five of them sustain moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could spend all da caring for the one severely injured victim but

32、in that time, the five would die.其中五个人中度受伤,另一个受到重伤, 你可以花一整天救治那个重伤的受害者，但是同时另外五人会因此死掉 Or you could look after the five, restore them to health but during that time, the one severely injured person would die. 或者你可以去照顾那五个让他们恢复健康,但是同时,那个受重伤的病人会死How many would save the five? Now as the doctor, 现在作为一个医生多少人

33、会选择去救那五个人?how many would save the one? 多少人选救那个重伤的?Very few people, just a handful of people. 很少人,非常非常少 versus v:ss prep.对Same reason, I assume. One life versus five? 我猜是同样理由吧,一条生命对五条生命? transplant trnspl:nt vt.移居,移栽(植物), 移植(器官) n. 移植,被移植的事物Now consider another doctor case. 现在考虑另一个关于医生的例子This time, y

34、oure a transplant surgeon and you have five patients, each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive.这次,你是个器官移植的外科医生你有五个病人，他们每个人都迫切需要进行器官移植才能活命 lung l n.肺; kidney kidni n肾One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and the fifth a pancreas.一个人需要心脏一个人需要肺脏,一个人需要肾，一个人需要

35、肝脏，而第五个人需要胰脏 pancreas pkris n. 胰脏And you have no organ donors. You are about to see them die. 你因没有可用的捐献器官将不得不看着他们死去And then it occurs to you that in the next room theres a healthy guy who came in for a check-up. 然后你想到 在隔壁的房间有一个健康的家伙来医院做检查 And hes you like that and hes taking a nap, you could go in v

36、ery quietly, yank out the five organs, that person would die, but you could save the five.而且他正在,-你像那个家伙- 他正在打瞌睡你可以悄悄的走进去取出他的五个器官，虽然这个人会死但你却救了另五条人命How many would do it? Anyone? How many? 多少人会这么做?有么?多少人?Put your hands up if you would do it. 如果你会这么做举起你的手Anyone in the balcony? 二楼的呢? balcony blkni n. 阳台,

37、 楼座, 包厢I would. You would? Be careful, dont lean over too much. 我会。你会么?小心,别走极端(不探出身体太多)How many wouldnt? All right. What do you say? 多少人不会?好吧,你有什么说法么Speak up in the balcony, 在二楼的同学,you who would yank out the organs. Why? 你会取出那个人的五个器官, 为什么?Id actually like to explore as lightly alternate possibility

38、of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first and using their four healthy organs to save the other four. 我只是想提出另外一种稍稍不同的选择,只要从那五个病人里找出第一个死去的,然后就能用他健康的器官来救另外四个人Thats a pretty good idea. Thats a great idea 这是个非常好的主意好主意 except for the fact that you just wrecked (raked) the philo

39、sophical point.只可惜你的办法掠过了我们要讨论的哲学观点Lets step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.我们先把这些事例和争论放一边注意一些别的事情我们的争论是如何开始展开的 Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions weve had. 一些道德准则已经在我们刚

40、刚的讨论过程中开始显现出来了And lets consider what those moral principles look like. 现在让我们认真思考,那些道德准则究竟是什么The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion said the right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action.讨论中涉及到的第一条事情的正确以及道德与否取决于你的行为所产生的后果 At t

41、he end of the day, better that five should live even if one must die.如果在最后可以有五个人活下来那么哪怕牺牲一个人的生命也是值得的 Thats an example of consequentialist moral reasoning. 这个例子体现了结果主义的道德推理Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from

42、the thing you do.结果主义的道德推理将行为的道德与否取决于该行为所产生的后果即我们的行为对外界产生的影响But then we went a little further, 但是当我们进一步讨论的时候,we considered those other cases and people werent so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning. 我们加入了一些别的事例,于是大家就对结果主义的道德推理产生疑问了When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge or

43、to yank out the organs of the innocent patient, people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences be what they may. People were reluctant.当你们犹豫是不是要推那个胖子的时候,或是不是要取走那个无辜病人的器官你们在考虑是不是要这么做的时候会考虑到这个行为的本身。无论结果如何,这么做你们并不情愿 People thought it was just wron

44、g, categorically wrong, to kill a person, an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives.人们觉得这是错的而且大错特错，即使是为了救5个人而杀害一个无辜者也是错的 At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.至少大家在刚刚我们的故事中是这么想的So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about mora

45、l reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences.所以这就引出了第二种道德推理绝对主义的道德推理: 绝对主义的道德推理认为道德有其绝对的道德原则有明确的责任和权利而无论其结果是怎么样的Were going to explore in the days and weeks to come the contrast

46、between consequentialist and categorical moral principles. 在未来的几周内我们将讨论结果主义和绝对主义之间道德准则的区别The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher. 结果主义的道德准则中最著名的理论是功利主义,杰里米边沁提出的学说。他是18世纪的一位英

47、国政治哲学家 doctrine dktrin n.教义,主义,学说The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.而绝对主义道德推理的代表是18世纪的德国哲学家 伊曼纽尔康德So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning, assess them, and also consider others. 我们将探索这两种不同的道德推理,评估

48、它们,同时也将考虑其他的一些道德推理模式If you look at the syllabus, youll notice that we read a number of great and famous books, books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others. 如果你看过教学大纲,你会发现 syllabus silbs n.摘要,大纲我们将要阅读大量的名家著作亚里士多德,洛克,伊曼纽尔康德, 约翰斯图尔特穆勒等等Youll notice too from the syllabus

49、 that we dont only read these books; 你也会发现我们不只是读它们 we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversies that raises philosophical questions. 我们也会举一些当代的有关政治或者法律的争议事件,并借此提出些哲学上的问题We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage,

50、military conscription, a range of practical questions. Why?我们将辩论何为平等与不平等, 讨论反歧视行动,言论自由与攻击性言论、同性之间的婚姻、征兵等等一系列现实问题,为什么呢?Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books but to make clear, to bring out whats at stake in our everyday lives, including our political lives, for philosophy. 不只是为了让这些久远且抽

51、象的书生动起来，更是要在哲学层面上弄清一些我们日常生活中的问题包括我们的政治生活、哲学等And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues, and well see how each informs and illuminates the other. 所以我们将阅读这些书,对一些事件展开辩论 这样我们就会看到它们之间的联系This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. 这听起来很有吸引力但是我需要提醒你们一点And the w

52、arning is this, to read these books in this way as an exercise in self-knowledge, to read them in this way carries certain risks, risks that are both personal and political, risks that every student of political philosophy has known. 读这些书,可以作为你们认知自我的一种练习，但同时也有一定的冒险。这种冒险既有个人层面上的也有政治层面上的，修政治哲学的学生们应该都知

53、道这点illuminate ilju:mineit vt.照明,阐释,说明appealing pi:li adj.引起兴趣的, 动人的These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know. Theres an irony.冒险来自于这样一个事实,哲学教化的同时也扰动着我们,使我们和本来已知的事物产生矛盾,这是个讽刺。The difficulty of this course consists in the f

54、act that it teaches what you already know. 这门课程的难度正在于它在教你一些你已经知道的东西It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange. 它使我们一些本来毫无疑问熟悉的事物一下子变得陌生Thats how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. 刚刚

55、一开始时就起到了这种作用我们开始时的那些假设虚构事件混合了趣味性和严肃性Its also how these philosophical books work. 那些哲学书也有同样的力量 Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing but, and heres the risk, once the familiar turns strange, its never quite the sa

56、me again. 哲学使我们原本熟悉的东西变的陌生，它不是给我们更多新信息而是给我们另一种看待事物的方法所谓的冒险就是一旦那些熟悉的东西变陌生了,它们就再也不会和以前一样了Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it; it can never be un-thought or un-known. 自我认知就像一个失去天真的过程,无论你多么不安的寻找,你也无法回到无思或未知的状态了What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting is th

57、at moral and political philosophy is a story and you dont know where the story will lead.这个过程困难却又不得不全身心投入道德和政治的哲学就像个故事,你不知道它会将你带向何方But what you do know is that the story is about you. 但你清楚的知道,这是关于你的故事 Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks? 以上是个人层面的冒险,那么政治层面上的呢?One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you that by reading these books and debating these issues, you will become a better, more responsible citizen;有一种介绍这门课程的方法是向你承诺:你读了这些书,参与了这些讨论之后, 你将会变成一个更好的、更负责的公民you will examine the presuppositions of public policy,你将审视那些对公共政治领域的假设 you will ho