[公正：该如何做是好？].中英文字幕对照+整理校订版(1)

Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do? Episode Two第二集PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFEToday, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of “cost-benefit analysis.” Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURESandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number” is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.第一部分：给生命定一个价格今天，企业和政府经常在“成本效益分析”的名义下使用杰里米边沁的功利主义逻辑。桑德尔演示了几个当代的给人的生命定价的成本效益分析案例。这些案例引起了几个对“为最多数人的最大好处”的功利主义逻辑反对的意见。即使多数人是残酷而不光彩的，我们也应该总是更重视多数人的幸福吗？是否可以用通常的尺度比如金钱来汇总和比较所有的价值？第二部分：如何测量幸福桑德尔介绍了J.S.穆勒，功利主义哲学家，他试图为功利主义辩护，和该理论的批评者的反对声音对抗。他的论调是“为最多数人的最大好处”是和保护个体权利相兼容的，而且功利主义可以为区别高级的和低级的乐趣提供空间。穆勒的观点是高级的乐趣总是被见多识广的大多数人所喜欢。桑德尔通过播放三种不同形式的视频片段来检验这个理论：莎士比亚的哈姆莱特，恐怖因素真人秀以及辛普森一家，学生们争论哪一种体验提供了更高级的乐趣，以及穆勒的辩护是否是成功的。Funding for this program is provided by:本节目由以下组织Additional funding provided by:和以下个人提供赞助Last time, we argued about the case of The Queen vs. Dudley & Stephens,上次,我们谈到女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件,the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea.那个救生艇上,海上吃人的案件.And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,以及针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论，并列举了Dudley和Stephens没有考虑到的支持和反对的意见。lets turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.让我们回头来看看Jeremy Bentham的功利主义哲学.Bentham was born in England in 1748. At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学.At 15, he went to law school. He was admitted to the Bar at age 19,15岁时,他去了法学院.19岁就取得了大律师资格but he never practiced law.但他从来没有从事于法律.Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.相反,他毕生致力于判例法和道德哲学.Last time, we began to consider Benthams version of utilitarianism.上一次,我们开始思考Bentham版本的功利主义.The main idea is simply stated and its this:简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality,道德的最高原则,无论个人或政治道德,is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,就是将普通人的福利,或集体的幸福最大化,or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;或在快乐与痛苦的权衡中取得总体优势;in a phrase, maximize utility.简而言之就是,功利最大化.Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning:Bentham是由如下理由来得出这个原则的：Were all governed by pain and pleasure,我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制,they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system has to take account of them. How best to take account? By maximizing.他们是我们的主宰,所以任何道德体系都要考虑到这点. 如何以最优化考虑?通过最大化.And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.从此引出的原则就是将最好的东西最大化.What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility - maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators.Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用-最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人而且还适用于社区及立法者.What, after all, is a community? Bentham asks.“到底什么是社区?” Bentham问道.Its the sum of the individuals who comprise it.它是组成这个社区的所有个体的总和.And thats why in deciding the best policy,这就是为什么在决定什么是最好的政策,in deciding what the law should be, in deciding whats just,在决定法律应该是什么样,在决定什么是公正时,citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question if we add up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.公民和立法者应该问自己的问题，如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益减去所有的损耗,正确的做法就是将幸福相对于痛苦做一个最大化的平衡.Thats what it means to maximize utility.这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it,现在,我想看看您是否同意它,and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑,under the name of cost-benefit analysis,名为成本效益分析,which is used by companies and by governments all the time.也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的 .And what it involves is placing a value, usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.当它涉及到价值时, 通常是由美元,来代表成本以及效益.Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris, the tobacco company, does huge business in the Czech Republic.最近,在捷克共和国,有人建议对吸烟增加消费税.菲利普莫里斯烟草公司, 在捷克共和国有大笔的生意.They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke. Now, how do they gain?他们委托了一个研究, 来做吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析. 他们的分析发现,政府将会因捷克公民吸烟而收益. 那么,他们如何收益?Its true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking-related diseases. On the other hand, there were positive effects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.确实,捷克政府的公共财政会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增大的医疗保健开支, 从而受到负面影响. 另一方面,在帐册的另一端, 也有着累计起来的积极影响.The positive effects included, for the most part, various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products, but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early, pension savings - you dont have to pay pensions for as long - and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.积极影响包括,在大多数情况下, 政府通过出售卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入, 但也包括政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄,例如养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-还有,老人住房储蓄费用.And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,当把所有的花费和收益都分别加起来,the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000, and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs, the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking. Cost-benefit analysis.菲利普莫里斯公司的研究发现,捷克共和国会有产生$ 147000000的公共财政净增益, 并鉴于节省了住房储蓄,医疗保健,养老金费用, 每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200. 成本效益分析.Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test.现在,你们中间,那些功利主义的捍卫者可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.菲利普莫里斯公司在媒体中遭到了嘲笑他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that whats missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏，它没有正确评估上人的价值，以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.What about the value of life?如何评估生命价值?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life.一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估.One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.其中最有名的要数Ford Pinto案件.Did any of you read about that?你们有没有阅读过这个案件?This was back in the 1970s.那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody?你还记得Ford Pinto是, 什么样的车么?谁能记得?It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,那是一种小型车,超小型车,很受欢迎,but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured.但它也有问题,车后座的油箱，在少数情况下,碰撞会导致爆炸并且有些人死亡，还有些人严重受伤.Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.这些伤害的受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case, it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.而在诉讼案件,人们发现福特原来早已知道油箱的脆弱，并且已做了成本效益分析,以确定是否值得投入来放入一个特殊的盾牌来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-benefit analysis.他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,增加Pinto的安全的每部分费用,they calculated at $11.00 per part.他们算出,要每件$ 11.00.And heres - this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.这里这就是当时审批中出示的成本效益分析.Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车得到一个总成本,需要13700万美元来改善安全.But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death, 180 injuries,$67,000,and then the costs to repair, the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles, it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.不过, 随后他们计算了花这笔钱的收益，假设会导致180人死亡，他们对此用美元价值来代替,每个死亡赔偿$200000, 180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67000,然后是维修受损车的费用, 2000辆车,由于未安装安全设施,每辆车将需要$700来维修.So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didnt install the device.结论是效益仅$49.5 million因此他们没有安装那个设备.Needless to say, when this memo of the Ford Motor Companys cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial, it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.毫无疑问,福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录在审判中出现时, 震惊了陪审团,也因此引发了巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?这是一个功利主义计算的反例么?Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counterexample? Who has a defense?好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例来捍卫成本效益分析? 谁来辩护?Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus? Yes?或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了功利主义演算? 是吗?Well, I think that once again, theyve made the same mistake the previous case did, that they assigned a dollar value to human life, and once again, they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families. I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one and that is more valued than $200,000.嗯,我想再次指出,他们犯了和之前同样的错误,他们对人的生命指派一个美元价格,同样的, 他们没有考虑到家属的痛苦和情感损失等因素. 我的意思是,家庭收入损失了,但他们也失去了亲人，这是更有价值的, 是超过了$200,000的.10minRight and - wait, wait, wait, thats good. Whats your name?好的-等等,等等,很好.你叫什么名字?Julie Roteau.Julie Roteau.So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure because it doesnt include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life, what would be - what do you think would be a more accurate number?因此,朱莉, 如果 $200,000 是个太低的金额, 因为它不包括失去亲人以及那些在没有亲人的岁月里的损失,你认为，更准确的金额是多少?I dont believe I could give a number. I think that this sort of analysis shouldnt be applied to issues of human life. I think it cant be used monetarily.我不认为, 我可以对此给出一个金额. 我认为这类分析不适用于生命相关的问题. 我认为不能用金钱来衡量.So they didnt just put too low a number, Julie says.因此,Julie认为,他们不只是金额定的太低.They were wrong to try to put any number at all.他们压根就不应该用金额来衡量.All right, lets hear someone who -好吧,让我们听听还有谁-You have to adjust for inflation.(这个金额)要根据通货膨胀进行调整.You have to adjust for inflation.要根据通货膨胀进行调整.All right, fair enough.好吧,很公平.So what would the number be now?那么现在这个金额将是?This was 35 years ago.这发生在35年前.Two million dollars.两百万美元.Two million dollars? You would put two million?200万美元? 你认为是200万?And whats your name?你的名字是?VoytekVoytekVoytek says we have to allow for inflation.Voytek说,我们必须允许通胀.We should be more generous.我们应以更慷慨些.Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of thinking about the question?然后,你认为这就是考虑这个问题的正确的方式么?I guess, unfortunately, it is for -我想,不幸的是,现在-there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, Im not sure what that number would be, but I do agree that there could possibly be a number put on the human life.我们需要有一个金额,我不确定合适的金额是多少,但我同意对人类生命设置一个金额是可行的.All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie. Julie says we cant put a number on human life for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.好的,Voytek说,他不同意Julie. 朱莉认为,我们不能在成本效益分析中对人的生命设置金额.Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.Voytek认为,无论如何要做决定所以我们必须这样做。What do other people think about this?其他人觉得呢?Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.这里有人打算为成本效益分析辩护么? 好? 请继续.I think that if Ford and other car companies我认为, 如果福特和其他汽车公司didnt use cost-benefit analysis, theyd eventually go out of business没有使用成本效益分析,他们会最终歇业because they wouldnt be able to be profitable and millions of people因为他们将无法盈利,(从而导致)数百万的人wouldnt be able to use their cars to get to jobs,将无法受聘于这些汽车公司,to put food on the table, to feed their children.(没钱)购买餐桌上的食物,(没钱)来喂养孩子.So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isnt employed,因此,我认为, 如果不利用成本效益分析,the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.在这种情况下,(我们将会)牺牲更大的利益.All right, let me add. Whats your name?好吧,让我来补充. 你叫什么名字?Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, and there was a debate whether that should be banned.Raul,最近有一项研究表明,关于开车时驾驶者使用手机有一场辩论, 关于这种行为是否应被禁止.Yeah.是啊.And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.结论是每年大约有2000人因这种行为而死亡.And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use and you put some value on the life, it comes out about the same because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on while theyre driving.然而,哈佛风险分析中心(针对此事)所做的成本效益分析发现如果你看看使用手机所得到的好处如果你将生命设置一个金额,结论也是相同的. 因为它能够使驾驶者能够充分利用时间来获得巨大的经济利益,不需要浪费时间,就可以进行交易，与朋友交谈等等.Doesnt that suggest that its a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?这是不是表明,在涉及生命的问题中试图用货币数字来衡量是个错误的尝试?Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to derive maximum utility out of a service, like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide, that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur.嗯,我认为, 如果大多数人试图获得最大的效用, 例如用手机和手机所提供的便利, 这种牺牲是必要的.Youre an outright utilitarian.你是一个完全功利主义者.Yes. Okay.是.好吧.All right then, one last question, Raul. 那么好吧,最后一个问题,Raul. - Okay.-好.And I put this to Voytek, what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?我问了Voytek同样的问题, 在决定是否应该禁止使用手机时, 对人类生命的合理金额评估应该是多少?Well, I dont want to arbitrarily calculate a figure,嗯,我不想随便说出一个金额,I mean, right now. I think that -我的意思是,现在.我认为-You want to take it under advisement?你一定要深思熟虑吗?Yeah, Ill take it under advisement.是的,我要好好考虑一下.But what, roughly speaking, would it be? You got 2,300 deaths.但是,粗略地讲,将会是多少? (例如)有2,300人死亡. - Okay.-好.You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want to prevent those deaths by banning the use of cell phones in cars.你必须设置一个金额,才能知道是否应该通过禁止在车内使用手机来阻止那些死亡.- Okay.-好.So what would your hunch be? How much? A million?所以,你觉得会是多少呢? 多少钱? 100万?Two million? Two million was Votes figure.200万? 200万是Voytek的数字. - Yeah.-是啊.Is that about right?对么? - Maybe a million.-也许100万元.A million? 100万? - Yeah.-是啊.You know, thats good. Thank you.恩,很好. 谢谢. -Okay.-好吧.So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days from cost-benefit analysis, especially those that involve placing a dollar value on everything to be added up. Well, now I want to turn to your objections,因此,这些天有一些争议，针对成本效益分析,特别是那些涉及到将所有东西都设置一个金额的成本效益分析. 那么,现在我想听听反对方to your objections not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically,具体而言,你不一定要反对成本效益分析,because thats just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today,因为这只是如今功利主义的其中一个版本而已,but to the theory as a whole, to the idea that the right thing to do,但作为一个整体的理论,就是说做一个正确的事,the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility.公正的基础就是在政策和法律上将效用最大化.How many disagree with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good?有多少人不同意将功利主义应用于法律和共同利益?How many agree with it? So more agree than disagree.有多少人同意? 好,同意的比不同意多.So lets hear from the critics. Yes?恩,让我们听听批评. 请?My main issue with it is that I feel like you cant say that just because someones in the minority, what they want and need is less valuable than someone who is in the majority. So I guess I have an issue with the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay because there are still -我对它的主要意见是，你不能说仅仅因为一些人是少数派,他们想要的东西和需要就要比那些占大多数的价值低. 所以我认为主要意见是,为最大多数人谋求最大的利益依然是对的-what about people who are in the lesser number? Like, its not fair to them.但那些占少数的人们怎么办呢? 这样,对他们不公平.They didnt have any say in where they wanted to be.当他们想表达却没有任何发言权.All right. Thats an interesting objection.好的.这是一个有趣的反对.Youre worried about the effect on the minority.你担心对少数人的影响.Yes.是.Whats your name, by the way?你叫什么名字,顺便说一句?Anna.Anna.Who has an answer to Annas worry about the effect on the minority?是谁回答Anna的担心? 关于对少数人的影响?What do you say to Anna?你对Anna的回应是?Um, she said that the minority is valued less.嗯,她说,少数人的价值少.I dont think thats the case because individually,我不认为是这种情况,因为个体,the minoritys value is just the same as the individual of the majority.少数人的价值和作为多数人的个人是一样的.Its just that the numbers outweigh the min