《哈佛大学公开课：公正该如何做是好？》第14集英中字幕.doc

哈佛大学公开课：公正-该如何做是好？第1-4集英中字幕 制作：沈金河()目 录第1集2第2集36第3集69第4集106第1集(新集)这是一门关于什么公正的课程。我们先讲一个故事this is a course about justice. we begin with a story. 设想你是一位电车司机suppose youre the driver of a trolley car你的电车正已每小时60英里行驶your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 mph.你发现，在车轨的尽头有5位工人在那里干活at the end of the track, you notice five workers are working on the track.你想尽办法停下来，但已经停不住了you try to stop, but you cant你的手刹不灵了your brakes dont work你感到十分绝望，因为你知道you feel desperate, because you know如果你撞向这5位工人if you crash into these five workers他们必死无疑they will all die你很快会就知道but to soon you know thats for sure你不知道该怎么办好so you feel helpless直到你发现until you notice, there is在电轨的尽头，刚好有一条分叉off to the right, a side track在电轨的尽头，刚好有一条分叉at the end of that track而在那条分叉路上，只有1位工人theres a worker working on the track你的方向盘还没有失灵your steering wheel works所以你可以选择把电车拐向那条分叉路so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track撞向1位工人，但救活了另外那5位killing the one, but sparing the five现在我要问第一个问题heres our first question?什么是我们应该什么做？whats the right thing to do你会怎么做？what would you do?让我们来做一次投票lets take a poll多少人会选择转入拐向那条分叉路how many would turn the trolley car onto the side track举起你的手 raise your hands有多少人选择一直往前开的？ how many wouldnt? how many would go straight ahead极少数人会。绝大部份选择了变方向a handful of people would. a vast majority would turn让我们先听听。现在我们需要研究你这样做的原因 lets hear first. now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think让我们先听听占多数的人is the right thing to do. lets begin with those in the majority有谁选择转向一边岔道的？who would turn to go onto the side track为什么你会这么做？你的原因是什么？ why would you do it? would would be your reason?谁愿意说说你的想法？who is willing to volunteer a reason?如果你可以只撞死一人，那么撞死5人肯定是不对的 because it cannt be right to kill five people when you could only kill one person instead如果你可以只撞死一人，那么撞死5人肯定是不对的 it wouldnt be right to kill five if you could only kill one person instead这是一个很好的理由thats a good reason还有谁？是否有人同意这个想法，原因是什么？ who else? does anybody agree with that reason?我认为这和 9/11日事件是同样的道理i think its the same reason on the 9/11 我们把那些，把飞机撞向宾夕法尼亚州空地的人，视作英雄 we regard the people who flew the plane into pennsylvania field as heros因为他们选择了牺牲飞机上的人，而不是撞向有人的大厦because they chose to kill the people on the plane, and not kill more people in the building因此，原则是相同的，虽然都是发生在悲剧的情况下so the principle there is the same as 9/11 to tragic circumstance为了5个人能活下来，牺牲一个人 也是值得的better to kill one so that five can live 占多数人的你们，也是这样吗想吗？ is that the reason most of you have those will turn?现在让我们来听听 那些少数分子 lets hear now from those in the minority, those wouldnt turn我认为这跟种族灭族主义、极权主义，是同一个手法i think thats the same type of mentality that justify genocide and totalitarianism为了救活一个种族，你就能杀害其他人in order to save one type of race, you wipe out the other那么，在这种情况下你会怎么办？ so what would you do in this case? 为了避免 作出像种族灭绝一样的做法to avoid the horror of genocide你就宁愿撞向那5个工人you would crash into the five and kill them理论上是这样presumedly yes好的。还有谁？这是一个大胆的想法。谢谢您 ok. who else? thats a brave answer. thank you让我们考虑另外一种情况lets consider another trolley car case看看你们这些占多数的and see whether those of you in the majority为什么在这种情况下，你的原则是牺牲一人来救活5人why would here to the principle, better one should die so that five should live现在，你不是电车司机，你只是一个旁观者 this time youre not the driver of the trolley car, youre an onlooker你站在桥上，俯瞰电车的电轨youre standing on a bridge, overlooking a trolley car track沿着这个轨道，在尽头有5名工人 down the track come the trolley car. at the end of the track are five workers.电车的手刹照样不灵了the brakes dont work电车快要撞向那5个工人the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them现在你不是司机 and now youre not the driver你真的感到无助 you really feel helpless突然，你看见 站在你旁边 until you notice standing next to you桥上还是一个非常胖的人 leaning over the bridge is a very fat man你可以推他一把and you could give him a shove他会掉到轨道上he would fall over the bridge onto the track 刚好能停住那辆电车right in the way of the trolley car他会死去，但他能救活其他5个人he would die but he would spare the five现在，有多少人会推那个胖子。举起你的手now how many would push the fat man over the bridge. raise your hands有多少不会这么做？大部分人都不会 how many wouldnt? most people wouldnt问题显而易见heres the obvious question你每次的选择，原则是什么？ what became of the principle?牺牲一个，救活更多人 better to save five lives even if it means to sacrifice one在第一种情况几乎每个人都赞同，原因何在？what became of the principle that almost everyone endorse in the first case我要听听，在两种情况下都是站在大多数的人一边的人i need to hear from someone whos in the majority in both cases你如何解释二者之间的区别 how do you explain the differences between the two在第二种情况下，我认为涉及 选择的问题the second one i guess involves an act of choice of pushing the person down那个胖子原本不牵涉到这宗事故里that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at at all我觉得，第二种情况比第一种情况to choose on his behalf, i guess, involve him in something that 那个胖子可以选择置身其外he otherwise would escape, i guess, is more than in what you have in the first case但在第一种情况，司机，两边的工人的已经牵涉到里面 where the three parties, the driver, the two sets of workers are already in the situation但是，那个在岔道上的家伙but the guy working on the track off the side他不会比那个胖子，更想牺牲自己吧？ he didnt choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did, did he?这是事实。但他在岔道上thats true. but hes on the track胖子也是在桥上啊 this guy is on the bridge你可以继续，也可以待会儿再说go ahead. you can come back if you want.好的。这是个难题。你已经做得很好了all right. its a hard question. you did very well还有谁可以找到能调和的前后两种不同做法的？ who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction in the majority in these two cases我想在第一种情况，我们必须在牺牲那1个工人或另外5个之间的选择i guess, in the first case we have the one worker and the five我们必须作出的选择 its choice between those two. and youve to make certain choice那些工人是死于那驾电车，而不是你的直接行为 people are gonna die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct action电车失控了，然后你才闭着你选择 the trolley car is run away and then youre making a split second choice而推胖子的话，是你自愿的选择 whereas pushing the fat man over is an actualized murder on your part你有能力选择推还是不推，但你没办法控制的电车不撞向大家youve control over that whereas you may not control over the trolley car所以我认为两者略有不同 so i think its slightly different situation好的。谁想回应他的想法？这很好。 all right. who has a reply? thats good.谁想回应？是否有更好的解释？ who want to reply? is there a way out of this?我不认为这是一个很好的理由 i dont think thats a very good reason在这两种情况下，你都是选择杀人 in either way youve to choose you die因为前者你选择拐向那个岔道上的工人，这是你有意识的行为because you either choose to turn and kill a person which is an act of conscious thought to turn后者，你去推胖子也是一种有意的行为or you choose to push the fat man over which is also an act of conscious action所以不管怎样，都是有意的行为so either way youre making a choice你想回应？ do you want to reply?我不是肯定，事实就是这样im not really sure thats the case这看来是不同的its just seem kind of different to act actually推胖子到电轨上，他会死pushing someone over on the track and killing him你是在杀死他youre actually killing him yourself你是在亲手杀死他youre pushing him in your own hands这有别于把电车转向，然后再撞死其他人thats different from steering something thats gonna to cause death into other这好像听起来不对，是吧？it dosent really sound right.这很好。你叫什么名字？ thats good. whats your name?andrew让我问你一个问题，andrewlet me ask you this quesiton, andrew假设在桥上，我不用推那个胖子suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man i didnt have to push him假设他是站在了一个陷阱上，我可以像转方向盘那样打开那个陷阱suppose he was standing over a trap that i could open by turning a steering wheel like that不知道为什么，这样做似乎跟不对so some reasons, that just seems more wrong我的意思是，也许你不小心推动了那个陷阱的方向盘 i mean maybe if you accidentally like lean into this steering wheel或者是其他原因，就发生了theres something like that又或者，电车阴差阳错地就拐向那条岔道了or say that the car isnt hurtling towards a switch or drop the track我可能就认同了that i could i agree with that好的。在第一种情况是正确的做法，在第二种情况就变成不对的了fair enough. its still seem wrong in a way it doesnt seem wrong in the first case to turn而且，在第一种情况下，你直接牵涉到事故in another way, in the first situation youre involved directly with the situation在第二个，你是一个旁观者也。 in the second one, youre an onlooker as well. 所以你可以有选择卷入或不去推胖子so you can have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man让我们暂时搁下这个故事lets just forget a moment about this case让我们想象另外一个的情形lets imagine a different case这时候，你是急诊室的医生，6位病人来找你this time youre a doctor in a emergency room. six patients come to you他们刚刚经历了一场电车交通事故theyve been in a terrible trolley car wrack其中5人中度受伤，1人重伤 five of them were moderately injured and one was severely injured你可以花一整天来照顾那位重伤病人you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim但这样的话，其他5个会死去but in that time the five would die或者你可以先照顾好那5位，再来看那位重伤病人or you could look after the five restore then to help 但那位重伤病人也会死去but during that time the severely injured person would die现在你是医生，有多少人选择先就那5个病人？how many would save the five? now is the doctor又有多少人选择先救那位重伤者how many would save the one?极少数人。只有极少数人 very few people. just a handful of people我假设你们的原因跟之前的一样。1条生命对5条same reason i assume. one life versus five现在考虑一种情形。这一次你是外科医生。now consider another doctor case. this time youre a transplant surgeon.你有5名患者。每一个迫切需要youve five patients. each in desperate need 器官移植of an organ transplant in order to survive其中需要心脏，一个需要肺，一个要肾脏，另一个要肝脏one needs a heart. one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver第五个人要胰腺and the fifth a pancreas但现在没有可移植的器官。你即将看着他们死去youve no organ donors. youre about to see them die你突然发现，在你的隔壁病房and then it occurs to you that in the next room 有一个健康的家伙，来检查身体theres a healthy guy who came in for a check up他正在打瞌睡hes taking a nap你可以很安静地走进去，you could go in very quietly,把那个家伙的5个器官取出来，当然他会死去yank out the five organs that person would die但是你可以救活另外那5位病人but you could save the five你们有多少人愿意这样做？ how many of you would do it?还有其他人吗？anyone?把你的手举高how many? put your hands up if youd do it还有没有人，包括在二楼的anyone in the balcony.我会i would. 小心，不要摔下来哦be careful. dont lean over有多少人不会这样做？how many wouldnt?好的。你是怎么想的，刚才那位在二楼的同学all right. what do you say? speak up in the balcony我其实是想着有没有其他可能的替代做法i actually like to explore an slightly alternative possibility先把那5个病人中最先会死去的人，把他的器官捐出来that just taking the one of the five who need an organ who dies first using这样，他健康的器官可以救活其他4位therefore the healthy organ save the other four这是一个不错的主意 thats a pretty good idea可惜，您避开了我们要讨论的哲学观点except for the fact that you just wrecked the philisophical point让我们回过头来看这些故事，这些争论lets step back from these stories and these arguments要注意的方式几点to notice a couple of things about the way 注意我们的争论是围绕那几点展开的the arguments have begun to unfold我们的讨论已经涉及到了一些道德的原则certain moral principles have already begun to emerge我们的讨论已经涉及到了一些道德的原则from the discussion we had让我们回顾一下，有哪些道德原则lets consider what those moral principles look like第一道德原则是，the first moral principle that emerged in the discussion said正确的做法，符合道德的事the right thing to do, the moral thing to do取决于我们行为的后果depends on the consequences that we resolve from your action如果在最后，能救活5个，哪怕是牺牲一个也是值得的at the end of the day, better the five should live even if one must die这是关注以结果为中心一派，一个很好的例子thats an example of consequentialist moral reasoning结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act它取决于我们最后的结果in the state of the rule that we resolve from the thing you do但接着，我们考虑了另外一种情况but then we ran a littlt further, we consider those other cases在这种情况，人们对结果主义的道德推理原则就不那么坚定了and people wouldnt so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning我们在犹豫，例如对于那个站在桥上的胖子when people hesitate, e.g. the fat man over the bridge或者是去去掉那位无辜病人的器官or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient人们在思考什么是应该做的时候people gestured toward reasons会考虑到那个行为的本身having to with the intrinsic quality of the act itself而不只是行为的后果consequence be with they made人们改变了原意people were reluctant. 人们觉得这样做是不对的，行为本身是错误的people thought its just wrong, categorically wrong即使是为了拯救更多的生命，杀害无辜的人是不对的to kill an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives人们认为，在第二种情况下是不对的at least people thought that in a second version of each story we consider这是另外一种道德推理的原则so this point to a secend categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning绝对主义的道德推理认为，道德有其绝对的道德原则categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样certain categorical duties and rights, regardless the consequences我们会在今天和未来几周来讨论were gonna to explore in the day and next weeks to come讨论结果主义和绝对主义的异同the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles结果主义道德推理最有名的一个例子the most influential example of consequential moral reasoning 是功利主义，由 边沁 提出is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by jeremy bentham，他是18世纪英国的一位政治哲学家the 18th century english political philosopher而最重要的一位绝对主义的哲学家the most important philosopher of categorically moral reasoning是18世纪德国哲学家 康德is the 18th century german philosopher immanuel kant因此，我们来看看这两个不同的道德推理模式so well look at those two different modes of moral reasoning评价它们，也考虑其他替代的理论assess them and also consider others从教学大纲，你会发现我们将会读一些非常著名的书if you look at the syllabus, youll notice we read a number of great and famous books亚里士多德的，洛克，康德，约翰密尔等人books by aristotle,john locke,immanuel kant,john stuart mill and others从教学大纲中，你会看到，我们不只是读这些书youll notice too from the syllabus we dont only read these books我们还讨论当代的政治和法律争议we also take up contemporary political and legal controversy讨论它们背后的哲学问题that raise philosophical questions 我们将辩论 何为平等和不平等well debate equality and inequality平权行动，言论自由，攻击性言论affirmative action, free speech vs hate speech同性婚姻，征兵 same sex marriage, military conscription 一系列实际问题a range of practical question为什么？ 因为我们不仅要真实地感受这样抽象、遥远的书籍why? not just to enlive these abstract and distant books还要认真地讨论 我们日常生活中 一些的议题but make clear to bring out whats at stake in our daily life包括我们的政治生活，including our political lives, for philosophy?所以我们读这些书，我们将讨论这些问题 so well read these books and well debate these issues 我们将看到，它们之间的联系and well see how each informs and illuminates the others这听起来很吸引人this may sound appealing enough但在这里，我要提醒大家but here ive to issue a warning我的提醒是the warning is this: 阅读这些书to read these books in this way作为认识自我的一种训练as an excise in self knowledge 阅读这些书会有冒险to read them in this way carries certain risks个人的，政治上的冒险risks that are both personal and political每一个学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险risks that every student of political philosophy has known这些风险的根源于一个事实these risks spring from the fact that 哲学会教化我们，扰动让我们philosophy teaches us and unsettles us 面对在我们已经知道我们 by confronting us with what we already know有一个讽刺的说法，学习本课程的困难之处theres an irony. the difficulty of this course事实上，包括它教的东西，我们已经了解的consist in a fact that teach us what youve already known 它会把我们都熟视无睹的情景it works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings使其不在熟悉and making it strange刚才我列举的案例就是例子thats how those examples work我们一开始假定的情景the hypothetical which we began 融合了趣味性和严肃性with their mix of playfulness and sobriety它也是这些书籍里，哲学让我们对熟悉的事物its also how those phisophical books where philosophy estranges us变得陌生。它并不是提供新的信息from the familiar, not by supplying new information而只是引导着我们用新的方式看这些事物but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing但风险就在这but heres the risk一旦熟悉变得陌生，它就会永远和以前不一样了once the familiar turns strange, its never quite the same again自我认识，就像一个迷了路的人self knowledge is like a lost innocent不管你觉得它多么地扰动你however unsettling you find it你就不能不想起和思考这些问题了you can never be unthought or unknown 是什么让这个探索的过程，显得既困难，但又有趣呢what makes this and your enterprise difficult but also riveting 因为，道德和政治哲学就像一个故事is that moral and political philosophy is a story你不知道的故事将怎么发展下去and you dont know where the story will lead但你却知道的，这是关于您的故事but you do know is that the story is about you这些是个人的风险。那么政治的风险在哪呢？those are the personal risks. now wherere the political risks?我或许可以这样描述这门课程，它向你承诺one way of introducing a course like this would be the promise you通过阅读这些书籍和讨论这些问题by reading these books and debeting issues 你将会成为一位更负责任的公民youll be a more responsible citizen你会重新审视那些，你过去的观念和公共政策youll exam preconceive notion that public policy你会训练你的政治判断力youll hone your political judgement你会更有效地参与公共事务youll become a more effective participant in public affairs但这会是一个片面的、误导人的承诺but this would a partial and misleading promise大部分政治哲学并不是那样的political philosophy for the most part hasnt worked that way学习政治哲学，你将有可能youve to allow for the possibility成为一位更坏的公民that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen而不是一个更好rather than a better one或者，至少在你成为一个好公民之前，让你变成坏公民or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one那是因为，哲学是一个遥远的事情and thats because philosophy is a distant thing甚至是件破坏性的活动even debilitating activity这可以追溯到苏格拉底and you see this going back to socrates苏格拉底和他的一个朋友，曾有过这样一个美妙的对话theres a dialogue the gorgeous in which one of socratess friend# 试图说服放弃哲学# tried to talk him out a philosophizing#告诉苏格拉底，哲学是一个很好的玩偶# tells socrates, philosophy is a pretty toy如果你只是适度地沉溺其中，并在生命里合适的时候if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life但如果过度地追求but if one pursuits it further then one should 它绝对会伤害你its abosolutely ruining听我的劝告把”# 说take my advice # says放弃你的争论。学习那些将会让你有成就的事情（？）abandon argument. learn the accomplishment of act of life不要去研究那些，尽说些貌似优美但模棱两可的事情的人们take for your models, not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbling去研究那些生活过得很好，有名气的人们but those who have good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings# 是真心地对苏格拉底这样说的so