哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》第2集中英文字幕

Funding for this programis provided by:本节目的赞助来自. .Additional funding provided by:另外的赞助来自. .Last time,we argued about上次,我们谈到the case ofThe Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,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 argumentsabout the lifeboat in mind,带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论the arguments for and againstwhat Dudley and Stephens did in mind,带着支持和反对Dudley和Stephens所做的吃人行为的讨论,lets turn back to the philosophy,the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.让我们回头来看看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 1915岁时,他去了法学院.19岁就取得了律师资格but he never practiced law.但他没有从事于律师行业.Instead, he devoted his life tojurisprudence and moral philosophy.相反,他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学.Last time, we began to considerBenthams version of utilitarianism.上一次,我们开始考虑Bentham版本的功利主义.The main idea is simply statedand 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,就是将公共福利,或集体的幸福最大化,or the overall balanceof pleasure over pain;或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐;in a phrase, maximize utility.简而言之就是,功利最大化.Bentham arrives at this principleby the following line of reasoning:Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：Were all governedby 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他们是我们的主宰,所以任何道德体系has to take account of them.都要考虑到这点.How best to take account?By maximizing.如何能最好地考虑这一点?通过最大化.And this leads to the principle of thegreatest good for the greatest number.从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的.What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Bentham tells us happiness,or more precisely, utility -Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用-maximizing utility as a principlenot only for individuals最大化效用作为一个原则 不仅适用于个人but also for communitiesand for legislators.而且还适用于社区及立法者.What, after all, is a community?Bentham asks.“毕竟,什么是社区?” Bentham问道.Its the sum of the individualswho comprise it.它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和.And thats why in decidingthe best policy,这就是为什么在决定最好的政策,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 legislatorsshould ask themselves the question公民和立法者应该问自己的问题if we add up all of the benefitsof this policy如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益and subtract all of the costs,the right thing to do减去所有的成本,正确的做法is the one that maximizes the balanceof happiness over suffering.就是将幸福与痛苦之间的平衡最大化地倾向幸福.Thats what it meansto maximize utility.这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to seewhether you agree or disagree with it,现在,我想看看你们是否同意它,and it often goes,this utilitarian logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑,under the name ofcost-benefit analysis,名为成本效益分析,which is used by companiesand 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 involvesis placing a value,它的内涵是用一个价值usually a dollar value,to stand for utility on the costs通常是由美元,来代表不同提案的效用and the benefitsof various proposals.这效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recently, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal最近,在捷克共和国,有一个提案to increase the excise tax on smoking.Philip Morris, the tobacco company,对吸烟增加货物税.Philip Morris烟草公司,does huge businessin the Czech Republic.该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.They commissioned a study,a cost-benefit analysis他们委托了一个研究,of smoking in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-benefit关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.analysis found was the governmentgains by having Czech citizens smoke.他们的分析发现,捷克政府将会因公民吸烟而收益.Now, how do they gain?现在,他们如何收益?Its true that there arenegative effects to the public finance确实,捷克政府的公共财政体系of the Czech governmentbecause there are increased health care会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增加的医疗保健开支,costs for people who developsmoking-related diseases.从而受到负面影响.On the other hand,there were positive effects另一方面,这也有积极效应and those were added upon the other side of the ledger.并且这些积极效益累加到了账簿的另一面The positive effects included,for the most part,积极效益包括,在大多数情况下,various tax revenues that thegovernment derives from the sale政府通过卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入,of cigarette products,but it also included但也包括health care savings to thegovernment when people die early,政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄,例如pension savings - you dont have topay pensions for as long -养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-and also, savings inhousing costs for the elderly.还有,老年人住房费用.And when all of the costsand benefits were added up,当把所有的成本和效益都分别加起来,the Philip Morris study foundthat there is a net public finance gainPhilip Morris公司的研究发现,捷克共和国会有一个in the Czech Republicof $147,000,000,$147,000,000的公共财政净增益,and given the savings in housing,in health care, and pension costs,并鉴于节省了住房费用,医疗保健费用,养老金费用,the government enjoys savingsof over $1,200 for each personwho dies prematurely due to smoking.每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.Cost-benefit analysis.成本效益分析.Now, those among youwho are defenders of utilitarianism现在,你们中间,那些功利主义的捍卫者may think that this is an unfair test.可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloriedin the pressPhilip Morris公司在新闻界遭到了嘲笑 and they issued an apologyfor this heartless calculation.他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that whats missing hereis something that the utilitarian你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏can easily incorporate,namely the value to the person它没有正确评估人的价值and to the families of those who diefrom lung cancer.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 incorporatea 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 famousof 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 rememberwhat the Ford Pinto was,你还记得Ford Pinto是,a kind of car?Anybody?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但它也有问题,车后座的油箱was at the back of the carand in rear collisions,少数情况下,碰撞会导致the fuel tank explodedand some people were killed油箱爆炸并且有些人会因此死去and some severely injured.还有人因此严重受伤.Victims of these injuriestook Ford to court to sue.这些受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case,it turned out that Ford而在诉讼案件,人们发现福特原来had long since known about thevulnerable fuel tank早已知道油箱的脆弱and had done a cost-benefit analysisto determine whether it would be并且已做了成本效益分析,以确定是否worth it to put ina special shield that would值得来放入一个特殊的盾牌protect the fuel tankand prevent it from exploding.用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 partto increase the safety of the Pinto,增加Ford Pinto安全的每部件费用,they calculated at $11.00 per part.他们算出,要每部件$ 11.00.And heres - this was the cost-benefitanalysis that emerged in the trial.这里-这就是当时审判中出示的成本效益分析.Eleven dollars per partat 12.5 million cars and trucks每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车came to a total cost of$137 million to improve the safety.得到一个总成本,需要13700万美元来改善安全性.But then they calculated the benefitsof spending all this money不过,他们随后计算了一下花这笔钱来改善安全性的收益率on a safer carand they counted 180 deaths(如果不花这笔钱来改善安全,)假设会导致180人死亡and they assigned a dollar value,$200,000 per death,他们对此用美元价值来代替,每个死去的人赔偿$ 200,000180 injuries, $67,000,and then the costs to repair,180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67,000,然后是维修受损车的费用,the replacement costfor 2,000 vehicles,2 000辆车,it would be destroyed withoutthe safety device $700 per vehicle.由于没有安装安全设施,每辆车将会需要$700来维修.So the benefits turned out to beonly $49.5 million结论是总效益只有$49.5 million(相对于修复安全隐患总成本需要$137 million)and so they didntinstall the device.因此他们没有安装那个安全设备.Needless to say,when this memo of the毫无疑问,福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录Ford Motor Companys cost-benefitanalysis came out in the trial,在审判中出现时,it appalled the jurors,who awarded a huge settlement.震惊了陪审团,也因此裁定了福特公司巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a counterexample to theutilitarian idea of calculating?这是一个功利主义计算的反例么?Because Ford included a measureof the value of life.因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defendcost-benefit analysis好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例from this apparent counterexample?来捍卫成本效益分析?Who has a defense?谁来辩护?Or do you think thiscompletely destroys the whole或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了utilitarian calculus?Yes?功利主义计算? 你来Well, I think that once again,theyve made the same mistake嗯,我想再次指出,他们犯了同样的错误the previous case did,that they assigned a dollar value和以前的情况一样,他们对人的生命赋予to human life,and once again,一个美元为单位的价值,同样的,they failed to take accountthings like suffering他们没有考虑到家属的痛苦和损失and emotional losses by the families.诸如此类的因素.I mean, families lost earningsbut they also lost a loved one我的意思是,家庭损失了收入来源,但他们也失去了爱人and that is more valuedthan $200,000.这些的价值远远超过$200,000的.Right and - wait, wait, wait,thats good. Whats your name?好的-等等,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因此,Julie, 如果 $200,000 是个太低的金额,because it doesnt include theloss of a loved one因为它不包括失去爱人and the loss of those years of life,what would be -以及那些在没有亲人的岁月里的损失,你认为what do you thinkwould be a more accurate number?更准确的金额是多少?I dont believe I could give a number.I think that this sort of analysis我不认为, 我可以对此给出一个金额. 我认为这类分析shouldnt be applied to issuesof human life.不适用于人类生命相关的问题.I think it cant be used monetarily.我认为不能用金钱来衡量.So they didnt just puttoo 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 tryto 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 -You have to adjust for inflation.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.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 toallow for inflation.Voytek说,我们必须允许通货膨胀.We should be more generous.我们应该更慷慨些.Then would you be satisfiedthat this is the right way of然后,你认为这就是考虑这个问题的thinking about the question?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 numberput somewhere, like, Im not sure我们需要有一个金额,我不确定what that number would be,but I do agree that合适的金额是多少,但我同意there could possiblybe a number put on the human life.对人类生命定一个金额是可行的.All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie.好的,Voytek说,他不同意Julie.Julie says we cant put a numberon human life朱莉认为,我们不能在成本效益分析中for the purpose of acost-benefit analysis.对人的生命定一个金额.Voytek says we have to becausewe have to make decisions somehow.Voytek认为,我们必须这样做因为我们无论如何需要作出某种决定.What do other peoplethink about this?其他人觉得呢?Is there anyone preparedto defend cost-benefit analysis这里有人打算为能足够准确的成本效益分析辩护么?here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.好?请继续.I think that if Fordand 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 beprofitable 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 carsto get to jobs,将无法使用这些汽车去上班,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-benefitanalysis 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 doneabout cell phone use by a driverRaul,最近有一项研究表明,关于开车时驾驶者使用手机when people are driving a car,and there was a debate有一场辩论, 关于这种行为whether that should be banned.是否应被禁止.Yeah.是啊。And the figure was thatsome 2,000 people die as a result结论是每年大约有2000人of accidents each yearusing cell phones.因此而死亡.And yet, the cost-benefit analysiswhich was done by the然而,哈佛风险分析中心Center for Risk Analysisat Harvard found that(针对此事)所做的成本效益分析发现if you look at the benefitsof the cell phone use如果你看看使用手机所得到的好处and you put some value on the life,it comes out about the same如果你将生命设定一个金额,结论也是相同的.because of the enormous