哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记.doc

Professor: Michael sandelClass 1: the moral side of murderFirst question: What is the right thing to do? Kill one instead of five?Backgrounds: Suppose that you are a trolley（电车） driver, your breaks dont work, you still could control the steering wheel, and there are two tracks in front of you One opinion: go straightSecond one: turn around to the track where only one people standingPrinciple: better to save five lives even if it means to sacrificing one第一种观点：转弯牺牲一个人的做法和极权主义和种族主义（genocide and totalitarianism）的出发点一致 第二种观点：你不能做出杀死五个人而放弃牺牲一个人就能救五人性命的选择。（多数选择）场景转换：你变成了一个onlooker（旁观者）在桥上看着轨道，身边有一个胖子探出身子再看，你会把他推下桥从而救五个人的命吗？ 不会（多数选择）:推人是主观行动而且是你可控制的行为，而电车的情况你无法控制Moral principle: 1 what you should do depends on the consequences that will result from your actions. (consequentialist moral reasoning 结果主义道德伦理 locates morality in the consequence of an act) related to utilitarianism(功利主义)2 categorical moral reasoning 绝对主义道德伦理 locates morality in certain duties and rightsPhilosophy estranges us from the familiar by inviting and provoking us a new way of seeing哲学使得熟悉的事物变得陌生通过引进和启发我们一个看待事物的新方式Once the familiar turns strange is never quite same againImmanuel kant skepticism is a resting place for human reasonOne of the most important and influential versions of consequentialist moral theory: philosophy of utilitarianism, Jeremy bentham,english philosopher first gave this conceptUtilitarianism : Jeremy bentham idea is maximize the utility(效益最大化)，utility: Pleasure over pain, the slogan of it “the greatest good for the greatest number” 故事：19世纪的英国法律案件，在所在帆船被风浪击毁，超过二十天在救生艇上飘荡的四名英国船员，三人因为生存的需要杀了他们奄奄一息的同伴并以他的血和肉生存下来并且最终得救，回到英国三人面临抹杀罪名的审判，他们的行为在道德上能否被接受？It still unaccepted to killing one for survival (vast majority): you dont own this power to decide others fatesClass two: putting a price tag on lifeUtility logic :cost-benefit analysis(成本收益分析)，placing a value to stand for utility on cost and benefits of various proposalsA cost-benefit analysis of smoking on Czech by Philip morris studycostsbenefitsIncreased in health care costsTax revenue from cigarette salesHealth care savings(early death)Pension savingsSavings on housing costsConclusion: Czech government net gain $147 million dollar if citizens smokeSavings from premature deaths $1227 per person Repairing the ford pinto(斑马)(a flawed car produced by ford who have already known this problem)CostsBenefits$11 per part*12.5 million cars=$137 million for improving safety180 deaths*$200.000+180 injuries*67.000+2000 vehicles*$700$49.5 millionObjections to utilitarianism:1 fails to respect individual/minority rights2 not possible to aggregate(合计) all values into $-using a single measure like $-isnt there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasureBentham says :“pushpin(图钉游戏) is as good as poetry”，which shows he just address the duration and intensity of pleasureWho to say their pleasures are higher、wealthier and nobler than othersAny want or satisfaction which exists exists in some account and therefore measurable A latter-day(近代) utilitarian John Stuart mill try to humanize utilitarianism accommodate humanitarian concerns(纳入人道关怀)The only test for distinguish higher and lower pleasure is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it.“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than be a pig satisfied .” said by mill, because we would prefer higher pleasure that we know it can engages our higher human faculties(系，才能),and for receiving the higher pleasure need education、cultivation(培养)、appreciation.Bentham(who died in 1832) provided his body be preserved in embalmed and displayed in university of London where he still wore his actual clothes with waxed head in a glass case. He fulfills his concept of philosophy to maximize a body of a dead people.Class three: free to chooseQuestion one: are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worthy of pleasure, if so, what do they look like?Strong theories of rights say that individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a lager social purpose or for the sake of the utility, individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect. And it is a mistake according to the strong theories that think about justice or law just by adding up preferences and values, which we talk about now is libertarianism (自由意志论)，it think the fundamental individual right is the right to be liberty. Provided we respect others” have the same right to choose freely and live our lives as please.The Libertarianism views of government1 no paternalist legislation (家长式立法)2 no moral legislation3 no redistribution (再分配) of income from rich to poor.Nozick : what makes income distribution just?1 justice in acquisition (initial holdings)2 justice in transfer (free marketNozick”s arguments against taxation:Taxation=taking of earningsTaking of earnings = forced laborForced labor=slavery Violate the principle of self-possessionBut what if we dont have self-possession cause we agree to live in a society ,which dont allow you choose whatever you want to do.Class four: this land is my land.Under the law of nature, Im not free to take someone elses life or liberty, or property, nor am I free to take my own life or liberty and property. (natures constrains)Nature rights are unalienable and nontransferable for mankind, which means that the state of nature (we have it before state comes out) ask us to keep the rights to ourselves and not allow us to trade or give up them. Locker and other libertarians say that cause we own the property in ourselves furthermore we our own labor and from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labor with that is un-owned becomes our property.Locker thinks that private property is raised without consent(同意) Problem : If the right to private property is natural, not conventional(协议性), if it is something that we acquire even before we agree to government, how does this right constrain what a legitimate(合法的)government can do? Furthermore, it rises what becomes our natural right once it enters society?We consent to be governed by a legitimate government and human laws just when it respects our unalienable natural rights to life、liberty and property. No parliament (议会)，no legislature(立法机构) can legitimate violate our natural roghts.Lockers two big ideas, one is private property and another one is consent.With the idea of consent that everyone is an executer of the law of nature to punish the ones who against the law of nature, everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature, in this situation people tend to overreact use the punish power, which makes the inconveniences that every is insecure.So for escape the state of nature to protect themselves, they agree to give up the enforcement power to do whatever the majority decides.Question: what the majority can decide?First of all, the government limited by respecting and enforcing our fundamental natural rights, we didnt give up the rights when we entered the society.Question: what is the work of consent? And meanwhile the consent is not the personal decision but based on the collective consent when we first entered into this society.(i.e. the taxation) Question :if we dont have the power to give up our natural rights ,which is the limits of the government ,how can we agree to be bound(约束)by a majority that will enforce us to sacrifice our lives or the property(like the military conscription 征兵制度 and taxation)To answer this question that john locker actually support that only if the government or the authority not arbitrarily(蛮横、专制的) take individuals life or property, but the majority according to fair procedure to make generally applicable law to require individual, that is not a violation, which justify the conscription and taxation.Class five: hired guns?Question: why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and obligation to obey?Us government is facing a huge difficulties meeting recruitment.Ways to increase recruitment for the force:1 increase the pay and benefit.2 shift to military conscription(a draft选择)强制征兵3 outsource: hire mercenaries(雇佣兵)During civil war, the union used a combination of conscription and market system to recruit solider. which means if you were chosen you could find a substitute (代替者)。One opinion the combination system is actually putting a dollar value on someones life and is morally wrong.Other opinion: the people who accept the price have the freedom to decide their life worth how much. furthermore ,this maybe a coercion (强制) to the lower incomers. The draft conscription is not very different from volunteer army system.-is patriotism a better motivation for the money to serve their responsibility.?Questions :whether eggs(卵子)or sperm should or should not be bought or sold for money?Furthermore is the surrogate mother acceptable?Objections to enforcing surrogacy contract:1 tainted consent or flawed contract -coercion -lack of information (mother dont know how strong emotional bond can bebefore the child was born)2 dehumanizing(有失人道)Certain goods should not be treated as open to use or to profit Certain goods are properly valued in ways other than useQuestion: For utilitarianism side is the use the only proper way of treating goods including life ,military service, procreation(生殖)，childbearing(分娩)?Class six: Mind your motiveKant(康德) said : all human beings have a certain dignity that commands our respect because we are reasonable and autonomous beings(存在) instead of the idea we own ourselves, because we have the capacity for reason(think reasonably) freedom(choose freely) .Kant against utilitarianism, he thought that was half right, because he didnt agree with Benthams claim that pain and pleasure are our sovereign(至高无上的) masters.Because respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means(工具)But also as ends in ourselves(把自己本身也视为目的).so its wrong to use peopel for the sake of others happiness or well-beingHe thinks the reasonable capacity(理性思考的能力) makes human distinctive from animals.For kant that the freedom is the opposite of the necessity.Kants conception of freedom.Autonomy(自主)To act freely To act according to a law I give myself, not the natural law.Kant s conception of moralityMoral worth of an action depends on the motive(do the right thing for the right reason) Furthermore moral duty make moral to an action is moral duty ,which is the exactly opposite of inclination(喜好)desires that affect moral actions.Kants groundwork includes two questions：First, what is the supreme principle of morality? Second, how is freedom possible?Kants three contrastsMoralityMotive: duty vs. inclinationFreedomDetermination of will autonomous vs. heteronomous(排他)ReasonImperatives(命令): Categorical（绝对） vs. hypothetical (mean-end手段结果) The categorical imperativesThe formula of universal law 通过普及，你可以确定一种道德准则或者说道德行为是否符合绝对命令的形式，即是否是可以放之四海皆准的，比如当所有人都给出假的承诺，当我们尝试普及假承诺使它与绝对命令相符的时候会发现，承诺这个词本身就失去了存在的价值，因为普及的过程实际上使这个词本身变得无意义，因此违反的判断的法则不能称为绝对的命令，所以说承诺是需要遵守不能被忽视、背叛的。The formula of humanity as end 不能把人当作是工具，而把人本身看作是一种目的，因为工具的引入只是牵扯到特定的人群，而不是针对人类整体，而且把人看作可利用的工具是对作为理性存在的人的内在绝对价值的一种侵犯，一种对他人尊压的不尊重。Class seven: A lesson in lyingFirst question : how can duty and autonomy(自律) go together?Acting of Duty follow by a moral law that you impose on yourself makes duty compatible with (并存)freedom。Pure reason decides that we will ultimately follow the same conscience and moral law, which is supreme.Kant bases the morality formal adherence(坚持) to the moral law not on consequencesWhite lie(善意的谎言)Is there distinctive difference between a lie and misleading truth(evasion回避，借口)?For the dignity of the moral law would partially make the lie different because the motivation base on respecting the dignity that not betray the moral principle Kant s political theory that certain laws arise from the social contract., which is unusual unique that it doesnt involve actual people gather together to figure out a convention, the contract he thinks justify the law just be called “an idea of reason”, because whenever people attend would just reflect the differences between a bargaining power Moral force of actual contracts1 how do they bind or obligate?A consent-based autonomyB benefit-based reciprocity(互惠主义)But this two ideals may not be realized ,so the rawls claim that the way to think about justice should from standpoint of a hypothetical contract, behind the veil of ignorance (无知的面纱)that creates the condition of equality by ruling out or enabling us to forgot for the moment the differences in power and knowledge that could even lead in principle unfair results.2 how do they justify the terms they produce?All agree to something not justify itContract bind us sometimes depend on the mutual benefit (互惠)Class eight: Whats a fair start?Rawls claims about different ways of distributive justice.First principle: we wouldnt trade off our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages.Second: only the inequalities that work to the benefit of the least well off are just. Difference principle.The objection to feudal aristocracy(封建贵族统治) leads ,people to say careers should be open to talents. There should be formal equality of opportunity regardless of the accident of birth(出身).A merit-based system(绩效系统) :In a fair meritocracy the society(精英社会) sets up institutions to bring the everyone to the same starting point before the race begins. Equal educational opportunityDifference principle: people may benefit from their good fortune, from their luck in the genetic lottery, but on terms that work to the advantages of the least well off(社会底层)Psychologists say that the birth order makes a lot of difference in work ethic（职业道德ive, effort. (first birth order tend to be more successful, which changeling the merit-based systems moral fair，obviously you cant decide your birth order.)Theories of distributive justiceLibertarian -free market systemMeritocracy -fair equality of opportunityEgalitarian(平等主义) -rawls difference principle Objections to the difference principle1 what about the incentives(激励，积极性)?差异原则的核心是要求天赋高的人获得远超于一般人的收益时要基于同时帮助那些没有被天赋垂怜的社会底层的人，但是当你对高天赋的人的收益过度收取会造成他们可能的积极性下降，收益下降，无心工作，实质上是最终损害了社会底层人们的生活，因为他们的生活很大程度上受税收的保障。2 what about efforts?两个反驳，首先是说你个人的成功很大因素上归功于一些社会、自然方面的偶然因素，第二个是崇尚绩效系统的人实际并没有在道德层面上将道德的因素和努力相互关联，绩效系统看重的是你的结果而不是过程中付出的贡献，所以说在绩效系统下，努力这个词实际上不成立，绩效拥护者看重的分配份额的道德基础，就是说实际对于事物达成的贡献是多少。3 what about self-ownership?(the idea that we own ourselves)反驳在于可能你在依靠自身天赋得到收益的方面并不拥有自我拥有的权利，因为不同于人的基本自由权利，例如言论、宗教自由，因为天赋本身带有的一定的不公平性决定了，你并不在这方面拥有自己。What your talent can reap(获得) in a market economy depend on the law of supply and demand(供需原则),which you cant decide, what counts on contributing base on if you have the qualities the society prize .Moral deserts is way different from the entitlements to the legitimate expectations(合法预期)两者的条件可能无法同时满足，但你取得合法预期的成就的时候，可能无法保证那是你道德上应该得到，比如说你通过努力进入顶尖名校，在规则下的努力和付出符合合法预期的条件，但是还是存在制度上提出的对你在获得这种收益是道德地位的质疑（相对于没有这种机会的人来说）。Class nine:arguing affirmative action (讨论反歧视运动)Affirmative action:The example is university of texas turn down a applicants apply ,because for the race policy that this school tended to admit more minority group background students when they had same condition compared to the white candidates.Arguments1 Correcting for the effects of unequal preparation(before you are admitted into a higher educational institution) 2 A way of compensating(补偿) for past injustice.（like slavery 奴隶制度and segregation种族分离 ）3 diversityFor educational experienceFor the society as wholeBoth arguments back up the university has the social responsibility and mission Harvards argumentThe quality of the educational experience of all students depends on in part on these differences in the background and outlook that students bring with them.Question:whether the moral desert is or is not the basis for distributive justice.Rawls theory seems to detach (分离)the justice from moral desert for equality(平等)Other philosophers all agree that justice is not a matter of rewarding or honoring virtue or moral desert,because they think that tie the justice with moral merit or virtue is restricting the freedom of human ,which against the nature we are free beings.But one philosopher insist on doing this who is Aristotle（亚里士多德）。His way of justice is to give people what they deserve ,并且找到有美德的人和他们社会地位的平衡点。He said:“Justice involves two factors: Things and the persons to whom the things are assigned. In general we say that persons who are equal should have equal things assigned to them. Aristotle think the just allocation or just discrimination (区别)defined by the goal.which is called teleological reasoning 目的论推理Class ten:good citizenAristotle value the offices and the honors aspect of justice.Aristotle think politics is about the forming the character，cultivating the virtue of citizen and the good life.For the reason to live on a better life,he thinks we should live in polis(城邦) and participating politics ,its only in the political life that we can exercise our distinctly capacity for language,which is the capacity to deliberate abut right and wrong(明辨是非),the just and the unjust.Virtue is something we can only acquire by practicing in the society ,in the political communities that is something we can get from reading a bo