《Justice：Whats the Right Thing to Do with Michael Sandel 1-4 哈佛大学公共课——公正：该如何做是好 1-4》英中字幕.doc

justice：whats the right thing to do with michael sandel 1-4 哈佛大学公共课公正：该如何做是好 1-4英中字幕 制作：沈金河()说明：本字幕文件未经过实际视频验证，请在下载前小试一段。第一讲 杀人的道德侧面this is a course about justice这是一门讨论公正的课程and we begin with a story.我们以一则故事作为引子suppose youre the driver of a trolley car,假设你是一名电车司机and your trolley car is hurtling down the track你的电车以60英里/小时的速度at 60 miles an hour.在轨道上飞驰and at the end of the track you notice突然发现在轨道的尽头five workers working on the track.有五名工人正在施工you try to stop but you cant,你无法让电车停下来your brakes dont work.因为刹车坏了you feel desperate你此时极度绝望because you know因为你深知that if you crash into these five workers,如果电车撞向那五名工人they will all die.他们全都会死lets assume you know that for sure.假设你对此确信无疑and so you feel helpless你极为无助until you notice that there is, off to the right,直到你发现 在轨道的右侧a side track有一条侧轨and at the end of that track,而在侧轨的尽头there is one worker working on the track.只有一名工人在那施工your steering wheel works,而你的方向盘还没坏so you can turn the trolley car,只要你想if you want to, onto the side track就可以把电车转到侧轨上去killing the one but sparing the five.牺牲一人挽救五人性命heres our first question:下面是我们的第一个问题:whats the right thing to do?何为正确的选择what would you do?换了你会怎么做lets take a poll.我们来做个调查how many would turn the trolley car onto the side track?有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去raise your hands.请举手how many wouldnt? how many would go straight ahead?有多少人会让电车继续往前开keep your hands up, those of you who would go straight ahead.选择往前开的 请不要把手放下a handful of people would,只有少数人选择往前开the vast majority would turn.绝大多数都选择转弯lets hear first,我们先来听听大家的说法now we need to begin to investigate the reasons探究一下为何why you think its the right thing to do.你们会认为这是正确的选择lets begin with those in the majority who would turn to go onto the side track.先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始why would you do it?为何会这样选择what would be your reason?理由是什么whos willing to volunteer a reason?有没有自告奋勇的go ahead. stand up.你来 站起来告诉大家because it cant be right to kill five people我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时when you can only kill one person instead.牺牲五人不是正确之举it wouldnt be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.当可以只牺牲一人时 牺牲五人不是正确之举thats a good reason.这理由不错thats a good reason.不错who else?还有其他人吗does everybody agree with that reason?人人都赞同这个理由go ahead.你来well i was thinking its the same reason on 9/11我认为这和911的时候是一种情况with regard to the people who flew the plane into the pennsylvania field as heroes那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人 被视为英雄because they chose to kill the people on the plane因为他们选择了牺牲自己and not kill more people in big buildings.而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人so the principle there was the same on 9/11.这么看来这条原则和911的是一样的its a tragic circumstance虽然是悲剧but better to kill one so that five can live,但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择is that the reason most of you had, those of you who would turn? yes?这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗lets hear now from those in the minority,现在我们来听听少数派的意见those who wouldnt turn.那些选择不转弯的yes.你来well, i think thats the same type of mentality that justifies genocide我认为这与为种族灭绝以及极权主义正名and totalitarianism.是同一种思维模式in order to save one type of race,为了一个种族能生存下来you wipe out the other.以灭绝另一个种族为代价so what would you do in this case?那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做you would, to avoid the horrors of genocide,为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝you would crash into the five and kill them?你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗presumably, yes.大概会吧- you would? - yeah.-真的会吗 -对okay. who else?好吧 还有谁thats a brave answer. thank you.很有勇气的回答 谢谢lets consider another trolley car case我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子and see whether看看你们those of you in the majority大多数的人want to adhere to the principle会不会继续坚持刚才的原则better that one should die so that five should live.即牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择this time youre not the driver of the trolley car,这次你不再是电车司机了youre an onlooker.只是一名旁观者youre standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track.你站在一座桥上 俯瞰着电车轨道and down the track comes a trolley car,电车沿着轨道从远处驶来at the end of the track are five workers,轨道的尽头有五名工人the brakes dont work,电车刹车坏了the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.这五名工人即将被撞死and now, youre not the driver, you really feel helpless但你不是电车司机 你真的爱莫能助until you notice standing next to you,直到你发现 在你旁边leaning over the bridge靠着桥站着的is a very fat man.是个超级大胖子and you could give him a shove.你可以选择推他一把he would fall over the bridge onto the track他就会摔下桥right in the way of the trolley car.正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车he would die but he would spare the five.他必死无疑 但可以救那五人的性命now,现在how many would push the fat man over the bridge?有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥raise your hand.请举手how many wouldnt?有多少人不会most people wouldnt.大多数人不会这么做heres the obvious question.一个显而易见的问题出现了what became of the principle我们牺牲一人保全五人的这条原则better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?到底出了什么问题呢what became of the principle第一种情况时that almost everyone endorsed in the first case?大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了i need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.两种情况中都属多数派的人 你们是怎么想的how do you explain the difference between the two?应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢yes.你来the second one, i guess,我认为第二种情况involves an active choice of pushing a person down牵涉到主动选择推人which i guess that person himself而被推的这个人would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all.本来跟这事件一点关系都没有and so to choose on his behalf, i guess,所以 从这个人自身利益的角度来说to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is,他是被迫卷入这场无妄之灾的i guess, more than what you have in the first case而第一种情况不同where the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers,第一种情况里的三方 电车司机及那两组工人are already, i guess, in the situation.之前就牵涉进这事件本身了but the guy working, the one on the track off to the side,但在侧轨上施工的那名工人he didnt choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did, did he?他并不比那个胖子 更愿意牺牲自我 不是吗thats true, but he was on the tracks and.对 但谁让他就在那侧轨上 而且.this guy was on the bridge.那胖子还在桥上呢go ahead, you can come back if you want.如果你愿意 可以继续说下去all right. its a hard question.好吧 这是一个难以抉择的问题you did well. you did very well.你回答得很不错its a hard question.真的难以抉择who else can find a way of reconciling还有谁能来为两种情况中the reaction of the majority in these two cases?大多数人的不同选择作出合理解释yes.你来well, i guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five,我认为 在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个its a choice between those two你只能在这两者中选择and you have to make a certain choice不管你做出的是哪一个选择and people are going to die because of the trolley car,总得有人被电车撞死not necessarily because of your direct actions.而他们的死 并非你的直接行为导致the trolley car is a runaway thing and youre making a split second choice.电车已失控 而你必须在那一瞬间做出选择whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part.而反之 把胖子推下去则是你自己的直接谋杀行为you have control over that你的行为是可控的whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.而电车则是不可控的so i think its a slightly different situation.所以我认为这两种情况略有不同all right, who has a reply? thats good. who has a way?很好 有没谁来回应的 有人吗who wants to reply? is that a way out of this?有人要补充吗 刚才那个解释合理吗i dont think thats a very good reason我认为这不是一个很好的理由because you choose to- either way you have to choose who dies因为不论哪种情况 你都得选择让谁死because you either choose to turn and kill the person,或者你是选择转弯撞死一名工人which is an act of conscious thought to turn,这种转弯就是种有意识的行为or you choose to push the fat man over或者你是选择把胖子推下去which is also an active, conscious action.这同样是一种主动的 有意识的行为so either way, youre making a choice.所以不管怎样 你都是在作出选择do you want to reply?你有话要说吗im not really sure that thats the case.我不太确定情况就是这样的it just still seems kind of different.只是觉得似乎有点不同the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him,真的动手把人推到轨道上让他死的这种行为you are actually killing him yourself.就等于是你亲手杀了他youre pushing him with your own hands.你用你自己的手推他youre pushing him and thats different是你在推他 这不同于than steering something that is going to cause death into another.操控方向盘进而导致了他人死亡.you know, it doesnt really sound right saying it now.现在听起来好像不太对头了no, no. its good. its good. whats your name?不 你回答得不错 叫什么名字andrew.安德鲁andrew. let me ask you this question, andrew.我来问你一个问题 安德鲁yes.您问suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man,假设我站在桥上 胖子就在我旁边i didnt have to push him,我不用去推他suppose he was standing over a trap door假设他踩在一扇活板门上方that i could open by turning a steering wheel like that.而活板门可以通过转动方向盘来开启would you turn?你会转动方向盘吗for some reason, that still just seems more wrong.出于某种原因 我觉得这样似乎错上加错right?是吗i mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel如果是你不小心靠着方向盘 导致活门开启or something like that.或是发生之类的情况but. or say that the car is hurtling但是.或者是列车飞驰而来时towards a switch that will drop the trap.正好可以触发活门开关- then i could agree with that. - thats all right. fair enough.-那我就赞同 -没关系 好了it still seems wrong in a way反正就是不对that it doesnt seem wrong in the first case to turn, you say.而在第一种情况 这样做就是对的 是吧and in another way, i mean, in the first situation换个说法就是 在第一种情况中youre involved directly with the situation.你是直接涉及其中的in the second one, youre an onlooker as well.而第二种情况中 你只是旁观者- all right. - so you have the choice of becoming involved or not-好了 -所以你有权选择是否把胖子推下去- by pushing the fat man. - all right.-从而牵涉其中 -好了lets forget for the moment about this case.先不管这个情况thats good.你们很不错lets imagine a different case.我们来想象一个不同的情况this time youre a doctor in an emergency room这次你是一名急诊室的医生and six patients come to you.有天送来了六个病人theyve been in a terrible trolley car wreck.他们遭受了一次严重的电车事故five of them sustain moderate injuries,其中五人伤势不算严重one is severely injured, you could spend all day另外一人受重伤 你可以花上一整天时间caring for the one severely injured victim来医治这一名受重伤的病人but in that time, the five would die.但那另外五个病人就会死or you could look after the five, restore them to health你也可以选择医治这五人but during that time, the one severely injured person would die.但那样的话 那名受重伤的病人就会死how many would save the five?有多少人会选择救那五人now as the doctor, how many would save the one?作为医生 又有多少人选择救那一人very few people, just a handful of people.只有极少数人same reason, i assume.我猜理由还是一样one life versus five?牺牲一个保全五个now consider another doctor case.现在来考虑一下另外一种情况this time, youre a transplant surgeon and you have five patients,这次你是一名器官移植医生 你有五名病人each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive.每名病人都急需器官移植才能存活one needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney,分别需要心脏移植 肺移植 肾移植one a liver, and the fifth a pancreas.肝移植 以及胰腺移植and you have no organ donors.没有器官捐赠者you are about to see them die.你只能眼睁睁看他们死去and then it occurs to you然后你突然想起that in the next room在隔壁病房theres a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.有个来做体检的健康人and hes.而且他.you like that你们喜欢这剧情吧. and hes taking a nap,.而且他正在打盹you could go in very quietly, yank out the five organs,你可以悄悄地进去 取出那五个器官that person would die, but you could save the five.这人会死 但你能救那另外五人how many would do it?有多少人会这么做anyone?有吗how many? put your hands up if you would do it.选择这么做的请举手anyone in the balcony?楼座上的呢i would.我会you would? be careful, dont lean over too much.你会吗 小心别太靠着那栏杆how many wouldnt?有多少人不会all right. what do you say?很好 你来speak up in the balcony,楼座上那位you who would yank out the organs. why?就是支持取出那些器官的 为什么这么做id actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility其实我想知道可否稍微变通一下of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first就是选择五人中最先死的那人and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.利用他的器官来救其他四人thats a pretty good idea.这想法很赞thats a great idea想法不错except for the fact只不过that you just wrecked the philosophical point.你避开了我们今天要谈论的哲学问题lets step back from these stories and these arguments让我们暂时先不忙讨论这些故事以及争论to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.来关注一下这些争论是怎样展开的certain moral principles have already begun to emerge某些道德原则 已经随着我们讨论的展开from the discussions weve had.逐渐开始浮现出来了and lets consider what those moral principles look like.我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的the first moral principle that emerged in the discussion在讨论中出现的第一条道德原则said the right thing to do, the moral thing to do正确的选择 道德的选择depends on the consequences that will result from your action.取决于你的行为所导致的后果at the end of the day, better that five should live even if one must die.最终结论: 牺牲一人保全五人 是更好的选择thats an example of consequentialist moral reasoning.这是后果主义道德推理的一则例子consequentialist moral reasoning后果主义道德推理locates morality in the consequences of an act,认为是否道德取决于行为的后果in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.取决于你的行为对外界所造成的影响but then we went a little further, we considered those other cases但随着谈论的深入 我们发现在其他情况中and people werent so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning.人们不再对后果主义道德推理那么确定了when people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge当人们开始犹豫是否要推胖子下桥or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient,或者是否切取无辜病人的器官时people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself,他们更倾向于去评判行为本身的动机consequences be what they may.而不是该行为的后果people were reluctant.人们动摇了people thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong,他们认为杀掉一个无辜的人to kill a person, an innocent person,是绝对错误的even for the sake of saving five lives.哪怕是为了拯救五条生命at least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.至少在每个故事的第二种情况中 是这样认为的so this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.这表明有第二种绝对主义方式的道德推理categorical moral reasoning绝对主义道德推理认为locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements,是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则certain categorical duties and rights,取决于绝对明确的义务与权利regardless of the consequences.而不管后果如何were going to explore in the days and weeks to come我们将用以后的几天到几周时间来探讨the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.后果主义与绝对主义道德原则的差别the most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism,后果主义道德推理中最具影响的 就是功利主义a doctrine invented by jeremy bentham,18th century english political philosopher由18世纪英国政治哲学家 杰里米边沁提出the most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning而绝对主义道德推理中最为著名的is the 18th century german philosopher immanuel kant.则是18世纪德国哲学家康德so we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning,我们将着眼于这两种迥异的道德推理模式assess them, and also consider others.评价它们 还会考虑其他模式if you look at the syllabus, youll notice如果你有留意教学大纲 就能发现that we read a number of great and famous books,教学大纲里列出了不少人的著作books by aristotle, john locke, immanuel kant,包括亚里士多德 约翰洛克 伊曼努尔康德john stewart mill, and others.约翰斯图尔特穆勒及其他哲学家的著作youll notice too from the syllabus在教学大纲中还能看到that we dont only read these books;我们不仅要读这些著作we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversies还会探讨当代政治及法律争议that raise philosophical questions.所引发的诸多哲学问题we will debate equality and inequality,我们将讨论平等与不平等affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same-sex marriage,平权行动 自由言论与攻击性言论 同性婚姻military conscription, a range of practical questions.兵役制等一系列现实问题why?为什么呢not just to enliven these abstract and distant books不仅是为了将这些深奥抽象的著作形象化but to make clear, to bring out whats at stake还为了让我们通过哲学辨明in our everyday lives, including our political lives, for philosophy.日常生活 包括政治生活中什么才是最关键的and so we will read these books and we will debate these issues,所以我们要读这些著作 讨论这些议题and well see how each informs and illuminates the other.并了解两者是怎样互相补充互相阐释的this may sound appealing enough, but here i have to issue a warning.也许听起来蛮动人 不过我要事先提个醒and the warning is this,to read these books in this way那就是 通过用这样的方式阅读这些著作as an exercise in self knowledge,来训练自我认知to read them in this way carries certain risks,必然会带来一些风险risks that are both personal and political,包括个人风险和政治风险risks that every student of political philosophy has known.每位学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险these risks spring from the fact这风险源自于以下事实that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us即哲学就是让我们面对自己熟知的事物by confronting us with what we already know.然后引导并动摇我们原有的认知theres an irony.这真是讽刺the difficulty of this course consists in the fact这门课程的难度 就在于that it teaches what you already know.传授的都是你们已有的知识it works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings它将我们所熟知的 毋庸置疑的事物and making it strange.变得陌生thats how those examples worked,正如我们刚举的例子the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.那些严肃而又不乏趣味的假设性问题its also how these philosophical books work.这些哲学类著作亦然philosophy estranges us from the familiar,哲学让我们对熟知事物感到陌生not by supplying new information不是通过提供新的信息but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing而是通过引导并激发我们 用全新方式看问题but, and heres the risk,但这正是风险所在once the familiar turns strange,一旦所熟知的事物变得陌生its never quite the same again.它将再也无法回复到从前self knowledge is like lost innocence, 自我认知就像逝去的童真 however unsettling you find it;不管你有多不安it can never be un-thought or un-known.你已经无法不去想或是充耳不闻了what makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting这一过程会充满挑战又引人入胜is that moral and political philosophy is a story因为道德与政治哲学就好比一个故事and you dont know where the story will lead.你不知道故事将会如何发展but what you do know is that the story is about you.你只知道这个故事与你息息相关those are the personal risks.以上为我提到的个人风险now what of the political risks?那么政治风险是什么呢one way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you介绍这门课程时 可以这样许诺:that by reading these books and debating these issues,通过阅读这些著作 讨论这些议题you will become a better, more responsible citizen;你将成为更优秀 更有责任感的公民you will examine the presuppositions of public policy,你将重新审视公共政策的假定前提you will hon