哈佛公开课-公正课-第五课双语字幕.docx

公正课N迈克尔桑德尔教授主讲第五讲 选择的自由上节课结束时When we finished last time,我们讲到约翰斯图尔特穆勒试图回应we were looking at John Stuart Mills attempt to reply对边沁功利主义的批判to the critics of Benthams Utilitarianism.在穆勒的功利主义中 In his book Utilitarianism,他试图证明 与批判者所言相反Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary在功利主义的框架下it is possible within the utilitarian framework是能区分高级和低级快乐的to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.是能对价值进行定性区分的It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth.我们用辛普森一家And we tested that idea和莎士比亚作品检验了这一观点with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.检验结果And the results of our experiment却似乎让我们质疑穆勒的区分seem to call into question Mills distinction因为在座大多数because a great many of you都表示更喜欢辛普森一家reported that you prefer the Simpsons却仍然认为莎士比亚的作品but that you still consider Shakespeare能带来更高级 更有价值的快乐to be the higher or the worthier pleasure.这就是我们的检验中 穆勒的观点所遭遇的困境Thats the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.那么穆勒在功利主义What about Mills attempt to account第五章中提到的for the especially weighty character of个人权利和公正重要性的解释 又是否成立呢individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism.他想说明个人权利He wants to say that individual rights值得特别的尊重are worthy of special respect.实际上 他甚至声称In fact, he goes so far as to say that公正 是道德中最神圣justice is the most sacred part和最不可或缺的部分and the most incomparably binding part of morality.但穆勒的这番辩护面临着同样质疑But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mills defense.为何公正是道德中最主要 Why is justice the chief part最不可或缺的部分and the most binding part of our morality?他说 因为从长远看Well, he says because in the long run,如果我们秉持公正 尊重权利if we do justice and if we respect rights,社会整体会发展得更好society as a whole will be better off in the long run.这能令人信服吗Well, what about that?如果有个特例What if we have a case where making an exception侵犯个人权利and violating individual rights actually长远来看 反而让人们获益更多呢will make people better off in the long run?那样就可以利用人了吗Is it all right then to use people?还有另一个能更深入地And there is a further objection驳斥穆勒有关公正和权利的观点that could be raised against Mills case for justice and rights.假设如他所说 长远来看 Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run功利主义演算真能实现works out as he says it will即尊重个人权利such that respecting peoples rights从长远来看 真的能让大家都获益is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.这理由说得过去吗Is that the right reason?这就是我们该尊重别人的唯一理由吗Is that the only reason to respect people?如果那位医生If the doctor goes in偷摘走那位来体检的and yanks the organs from the healthy patient健康人的器官who came in for a checkup去挽救另外五人to save five lives,这事从长远来看 会有负面影响there would be adverse effects in the long run.人们终会得知此事 Eventually, people would learn about this而不再去医院体检and would stop going in for checkups.这理由说得过去吗Is it the right reason?这就是唯一原因Is the only reason让你作为医生that you as a doctor不会偷摘取体检病人的器官吗wont yank the organs out of the healthy patient因为你认为 如果你这样利用他that you think, well, if I use him in this way,长远来看 会导致更多人丧命in the long run more lives would be lost?还是有另一原因Or is there another reason这其实跟在本质上尊重每个个体有关having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual?如果其中确有这一原因And if that reason matters那隐约可以看出 and its not so clear即便是穆勒的功利主义也考虑了这点that even Mills utilitarianism can take account of it,为了全面检视对穆勒的这两点fully to examine these two worries or objections,质疑或担忧to Mills defense我们需要更进一步we need to push further.我们要问 就更高的或更有价值的快乐而言And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures是否存在良善生活的理论are there theories of the good life that能为快乐的价值 can provide independent moral standards提供独立的道德标准for the worth of pleasures?如果存在 那会是怎样的理论 If so, what do they look like?这是一个问题Thats one question.就公正和权利而言 如果我们怀疑In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that穆勒其实也隐约靠向了个人尊严Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity或尊重个人的观点or respect for person而严格说来 这不属于功利主义范畴that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,我们就需要看看 we need to look to see有没有更强有力的权利理论whether there are some stronger theories of rights能解释穆勒的这点隐约的直觉that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares,即尊重个人 不利用个人的理由the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them甚至胜过了长远看来的功利goes beyond even utility in the long run.今天 我们讨论其中一项强有力的权利理论Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.这些强有力的权利理论认为 Strong theories of rights say个人很重要 不仅仅是用来 individuals matter not just as instruments实现更高社会目标的工具to be used for a larger social purpose或为了实现功利最大化的工具or for the sake of maximizing utility,个人是独立的存在 individuals are separate beings有独立的生命值得尊重with separate lives worthy of respect.这些强有力的权利理论认为 And so its a mistake,下列看法是错误的according to strong theories of rights, its a mistake不该只以偏好和价值的加总 to think about justice or law来考虑公正或法律by just adding up preferences and values.我们今天要讨论的权利理论是自由主义The strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism.自由主义非常重视个人权利Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.它被称为自由主义Its called libertarianism是因为它宣称个人的基本权利是自由权because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty就因为我们都是独立存在的个体Precisely because we are separate individual beings,我们不能被利用were not available to any use去满足社会可能的需求that the society might desire or devise就因为我们是独立存在的个体Precisely because we are individual separate human beings,我们享有自由的基本权利we have a fundamental right to liberty,即我们有权自由选择 and that means a right to choose freely,过自己喜欢的生活to live our lives as we please只要尊重他人同等的权利provided we respect other peoples rights to do the same.这是它的基本理念Thats the fundamental idea.罗伯特诺齐克Robert Nozick,本课涉及到的一位自由主义哲学家one of the libertarian philosophers we read是这样说的for this course, puts it this way:个人有权利Individuals have rights.这些权利如此强大 如此深远So strong and far reaching are these rights以至引发一个问题 如果有的话 政府可以做什么that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.自由主义对于政府或国家的角色So what does libertarianism say有什么看法呢about the role of government or of the state?大部分当代政府所做的三种事Well, there are three things that most modern states do在自由主义理论看来是不合法 that on the libertarian theory of rights不公正的are illegitimate or unjust.第一 家长式的立法One of them is paternalist legislation.即制定保护人们免受自身行为伤害的法律Thats passing laws that protect people from themselves,诸如系安全带 骑摩托车带头盔的法规seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.自由主义者说 系安全带也许是件好事The libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seatbelts但这应由人们自己作主but that should be up to them政府没有资格and the state, the government, has no business用法律来强迫人们系安全带coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law.这是强迫Its coercion,所以第一点 不应有家长式的立法so no paternalist legislation, number one.第二点 不应有道德式的立法Number two, no morals legislation.很多法律试图提高公民的品德Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens或者试图树立or try to give expression to the moral values整个社会的道德标准of the society as a whole.自由主义者说 这也违反了个人的自由权Libertarian say thats also a violation of the right to liberty.举一个经典的例子Take the example of, well, a classic example以弘扬传统道德之名立法of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality历来都有法律traditionally have been laws禁止同性恋性行为that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians.自由主义者认为The libertarian says其他人没有因此受到伤害 也没被侵权nobody else is harmed,nobody elses rights are violated,所以政府不应该插手此事so the state should get out of the business entirely of不该试图立法弘扬道德trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.第三种不被自由主义认同的And the third kind of law or policy法律或政策是that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy任何为了劫富济贫 进行收入或财富再分配is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose而制定的税收或其他政策of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor.仔细想想 再分配这个概念Redistribution is a - if you think about it,按自由主义者的话来说 就是强迫says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.它相当于政府施行的盗窃What it amounts to is theft by the state若是民主政府的话 则是大多数人施行的盗窃or by the majority, if were talking about a democracy,其对象是工作出色而赚得大钱的人from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money.诺齐克和其他自由主义者认为Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that可以有这样一种小政府there can be a minimal state它的税收只用来提供所有人都需要的服务that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,包括国防 治安the national defense, police force,强制履约和保护产权的司法系统judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,不过仅此而已but thats it.我想听听你们对Now, I want to get your reactions自由主义第三种观点的态度to this third feature of the libertarian view.看看你们当中谁赞同 I want to see who among you agree with that idea谁不赞同以及为什么and who disagree and why.但为了更形象 看看问题何在But just to make it concrete and to see whats at stake,以美国的财富分配状况为例consider the distribution of wealth in the United States.在所有发达的民主国家之中United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far asan8fn方正黑体简体fs18b1bord1shad13c&H2F2F2F&该图为美国10%的人口占据了70%的社会财富美国财富分配不均的问题最为严重the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.这样是否公平Now, is this just or unjust?自由主义者们怎么说Well, what does the libertarian say?他们说 你不能仅从这个事实来判断Libertarian says you cant know just from the facts Ive just given you.你无法判断财富分配是否公平You cant know whether that distribution is just or unjust.你不能仅凭分配格局 You cant know just by looking at a pattern或分配结果or a distribution or result来判断其是否公平whether its just or unjust.你得知道它是怎么来的You have to know how it came to be.不能只关注最终结果You cant just look at the end stage or the result.an8诺齐克 收入分配怎样才公平你得考虑两个原则You have to look at two principles.第一个原则 诺齐克称之最初占有的公正原则The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.这很简单 就是说And what that means simply is人们是否公平地获得生产资料did people get the things they used to make their money fairly?我们需要了解 最初的占有是否来得公平So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?让他们赚到钱的土地 工厂 或者商品Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods这些生产资料是不是偷来的that enabled them to make all that money?如果不是偷来的 如果他们If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was有权享有那些生产资料that enabled them to gather the wealth,那就算符合第一条原则the first principle is matched.第二条原则 财富的分配是否The second principle is did the distribution arise基于自由达成的交易 from the operation of free consent,基于自由市场的买卖people buying and trading on the market?可以看出 自由主义眼中的公平As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice相当于自由市场理念下的公平corresponds to a free market conception of justice只要生产资料的获取是公平的 provided people got what they used fairly,不是偷来的didnt steal it,只要分配的结果是出自and provided the distribution results自由市场上个体的自由选择from the free choice of individuals buying and selling things,这样的分配就是公平的the distribution is just.反之则不公平And if not, its unjust.为了进一步限定讨论的话题So lets, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,我们举个真实的例子take an actual example.美国最有钱的人是谁Whos the wealthiest person in the United States -全世界最有钱的人是谁 比尔盖茨wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.的确是 没错 这就是他It is. Thats right. Here he is.要是你 你也会很开心的Youd be happy, too.他的净资产有多少 有人知道吗Now, whats his net worth? Anybody have any idea?an8fn方正黑体简体fs18b1bord1shad13c&H2F2F2F&净资产 400亿美元 福布斯2009年数据数字非常巨大Thats a big number.克林顿当政期间During the Clinton years,有个竞价捐款记得吧remember there was a controversy donors?参与的大手笔捐款人都被邀请Big campaign contributors were invited to在白宫的林肯卧室留宿一晚stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?你要是捐到2.5万美元以上 也可以啊I think if youve contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above.有人算出来Someone figured out at按能受邀在林肯卧室留宿一夜the median contribution that got you invited所需捐款额的中位数计算to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,比尔盖茨完全付得起在林肯卧室Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night住上6万6千年for the next sixty six thousand years.还有人算出了Somebody else figured out,他一个小时能挣多少钱how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?他们算出 自从他创立了微软And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,假设他每天工作14个小时 合理的猜测I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,然后你算算他的净资产and you calculate this net wealth,结果算出 他的工资率在150美元以上it turns out that his rate of pay is over 150 dollars,不是每小时 也不是每分钟not per hour, not per minute而是每秒钟150美元以上150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second这意味着 如果盖茨在上班路上which means that if on his way to the office,就算看到地上有一张百元大钞Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,都不值得他停下来去捡it wouldnt be worth his time to stop and pick it up.你们很多人会说Now, most of you will say这么有钱的人 我们当然可以向他收税someone that wealthy surely we can tax them以满足那些得不到教育to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education缺乏食物或者无家可归者的迫切需求or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing.他们比他更需要这些钱They need it more than he does.如果你是个功利主义者 你会怎么办And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?你会制定怎样的税收政策What tax policy would you have?你会马上进行再分配 对吧Youd redistribute in a flash, wouldnt you?因为作为一个优秀的功利主义者 你知道Because you would know being a good utilitarian that收走一些对他们来说根本无关痛痒的钱taking some, a small amount, hed scarcely going to notice it,却能大大改善社会底层那些人的生活but it will make a huge improvement in the lives增加他们的福利and in the welfare of those at the bottom.但是记住 But remember,自由主义理论说the libertarian theory says我们不能那样we cant just add up简单加总偏好和满足an aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.我们必须要尊重个人We have to respect persons and如果他公平地赚到钱 if he earned that money fairly没有侵犯到他人权利without violating anybody elses rights完全遵守了那两条公正原则in accordance with the two principles最初占有公正原则和转让公正原则of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,那么向他多征税就是错的 then it would be wrong,这无异于强取豪夺it would be a form of coercion to take it away.迈克尔乔丹没有比尔盖茨那么富有Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates但他也自有一番成就but he did pretty well for himself.想看迈克尔乔丹 这就是他You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.他一年的收入有3100万His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars另外他为耐克和其他公司代言and then he made another 47 million dollars又能赚4700万in endorsements for a Nike and other companies.所以他一年的总收入有7800万So his income was, in one year, $78 million.假设 让他拿出三分之一的收入To require him to pay, lets say, a third of his earnings交给政府来支持公益事业 to the government to support good causes为穷人提供食物 医疗保障 住房和教育like food and health care and housing and education for the poor,这就是强迫 是不公平的thats coercion, thats unjust.侵犯了他的权利That violates his rights.正因如此 再分配是错误的And thats why redistribution is wrong.有多少人同意自由主义者的这一驳论Now, how many agree with that argument,认为为了帮助穷人 agree with the libertarian argument that redistribution进行财富再分配不对for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?有多少人不同意这个观点And how many disagree with that argument?好 我们先从那些不同意的人开始All right, lets begin with those who disagree.自由主义者反对再分配怎么不对了Whats wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?请说Yes.我认为像迈克尔乔丹这样的人I think these people like Michael Jordan have received在社会中工作 were talking about working within a society他们从社会中得到的更多and they received larger gift from the society因此他们该承担更大的责任and they have a larger obligation通过财富再分配来回报社会in return to give that through redistribution, you know,你可以说乔丹也许和那些you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,一天洗12甚至14小时衣服的人一样辛苦you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day,但他得到的更多but hes receiving more.如果说这都是靠他自己辛苦挣来的 I dont think its fair to say that, you know, its all on him,是他天赋所赐 我觉得这不算公平on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work.好 我们来听听自由主义者的辩护All right, lets hear from defenders of libertarianism.为何向富人征税救济穷人在原则上是错的Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?说吧Go ahead.我名叫乔 我收集滑板My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.我已经买了100个滑板了Ive since bought a hundred skateboards.我居住的社区有一百人 I live in a society of a hundred people.我是唯一有滑板的人Im the only one with skateboards.突然 大家都想要滑板了Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.他们跑到我家来 They come to my house,拿走了我的99个滑板they take my they take 99 of my skateboards.我觉得这是不公平的I think that is unjust.我认为在某些情况下 Now, I think in certain circumstances我们需要忽视这种不公平 it becomes necessary to overlook that unjustness,容忍这种不正义perhaps condone that injustice例如在救生艇里被当作食物的男孩as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food.如果人们在死亡边缘挣扎 If people are on the verge of dying,也许忽视这样的不公平是必要的 perhaps it is necessary to overlook that injustice,但我认为即使这样 我们依然要铭记 but I think its important to keep in mind我们的行为不公正that were still committing injustice这是在占有他人的财物或资产by taking peoples belongings or assets.你是说按33%的税率向乔丹征税Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say, at a 33 percent tax rate来支持公益事业 解决温饱是盗窃行为吗for good causes to feed the hungry is theft?我觉得这不公正I think its unjust.我确实认为这是盗窃Yes, I do believe its theft但也许我们有必要容忍它but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.但它依然是盗窃But its theft.是的Yes.为什么是盗窃呢 乔Why is it theft, Joe?因为Because -为什么这和你收集滑板有相同之处呢Why is it like your collection of skateboards?这是盗窃是因为 至少在我看来Its theft because, or at least, in my opinion在自由主义者的观点看来 and by the libertarian opinion他公平地取得收入 这些收入都是属于他的he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him.拿走他的收入 毫无疑问就是盗窃So to take it from him is by definition theft.有人想反驳乔吗 你请说Who wants to reply to Joe? Yes, go ahead.我觉得他的例子不恰当I dont think this is necessarily a case不是你有99个滑板 而政府.in which you have 99 skateboards and the government.或你有100个滑板 or you have a hundred skateboards而政府收走99个and the government is taking 99 of them.恰当的例子是你的滑板多到Its like you have more skateboards每天用一个都不重样than there are days in a year.你的滑板多到You have more skateboards一辈子也用不完than youre going to be able to use in your entire lifetime而政府只是拿走其中的一些and the government is taking part of those.如果你生活在一个那样的社会And I think that if you are operating in a society in which这个社会中 the governments not,政府不进行财富再