完整word版哈佛公开课 公正课 第五课双语字幕

1、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 looki ng at John Stuart Mills atte mpt 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 ln his book Utilitaria nism,他试图证明与批判者所言相反 Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary在功禾 主义的框架下 it is pos

2、sible 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 lt 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 Shakes peare excer pts. 检验结果 And the results of our ex

3、p erime nt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者E表示更喜欢辛普森一家rep orted that you p refer 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

4、with whichour exp erime nt confronts Mill.那么穆勒在功利主义What about Mills atte mpt to accou nt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 incha pter five of Utilitaria ni sm.他想说明个人权利 He wan ts to say that in dividual rights 值得特别的尊重 are worthy of special

5、respect.实际上他甚至声称 ln 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 challe nge could be p ut to this part of Mills defe nse.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

6、 most binding part of our morality? 他说 因为从长远看 Well, he says because in the long run, 女口果我们秉持公正尊重权禾y 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?女口果有个特例 What if we have a case where making an exception 侵犯个人权禾

7、and violati ng in dividual 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 ls 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 agai nst Mills case for justice and rights.假设如他所说 长远来看 Suppose the utilitar

8、ia n 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 thelong run.这理由说得过去吗ls that the right reason?这就是我们该尊重别人的唯一理由吗 ls that the only reason to resp ect peo ple? 如果那位医生lf the doctor goes

9、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 check up会有负面影响 there would be adverse effects in the long run. Eve ntually, people would lear n about thisand would stop going in for check ups.Is it the right reas on?去挽救另外五人 to save five lives,这事从长远来看 人们终会得知此事 而不再去医院

10、体检 这理由说得过去吗 这就是唯一原因ls 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 l 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 havi ng to

11、 do with intrin sic respect for the person as an in dividual?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 utilitaria nism can take acco unt 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 nee

12、d 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 ofhigher or worthier p leasures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ca n pro vide independent moral sta ndards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lf so, what do they look like?这是一个问题 Thats one quest

13、ion.就公正和权利而言如果我们怀疑In the case of justice and rights, if we suspectthat穆勒其实也隐约靠向了个人尊严 Mill is imp licitly lea ning on notio ns of human dig nity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 n eed to look to see有没有更强有力的权禾 理论 whether there are some st

14、ronger theories of rights 能解释穆勒的这点隐约的直觉 that ca n ex plai n the in tuition which eve n Mill shares, 即尊重个人 不利用个人的理由the intuition that the reason for respecting in dividuals and not using them甚至胜过了长远看来的功禾y 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 stro

15、ngtheories of rights.这些强有力的权利理论认为Stro ng 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in dividuals are sep arate beings有独立的生命值得尊重 with separate lives worthy

16、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 thi nk 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 stro ng rights theory we turn to today islibertaria nism.自由主义非常重视个人权禾 Libertaria

17、 nism takes in dividual 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 fun dame ntal in dividualright is the right to liberty就因为我们都是独立存在的个体 P recisely because we are sep arate in dividual bein gs,我们不能被禾I用 were not available to any use去满足社会可能的需求 that the socie

18、ty might desire or devise就因为我们是独立存在的个体 P recisely because we are in dividual sep arate huma n bein gs,我们享有自由的基本权利 we have a fun dame ntal 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禾 provided we respect other peoples rights to

19、 do the same. 这是它的基本理念 Thats the fun dame ntal idea.罗伯特诺齐克Robert Nozick,本课涉及至U的一位自由主义哲学家 one of the libertaria n p hilos op hers we read 是这样说的 for this course, puts it this way: 个人有权禾y lndividuals have rights.这些权利如此强大如此深远 So stro ng and far reachi ng 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 rai

20、se the question ofwhat, if anything, the state may do.自由主义对于政府或国家的角色 So what does libertaria nism 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

21、 unjust.第一 家长式的立法 One of them is paternalist legislation.Thats p ass ing laws that p rotect people即制定保护人们免受自身行为伤害的法律from themselves,seatbelt laws, for exa mp le, or motorcycle诸如系安全带骑摩托车带头盔的法规helmet laws.The libertaria n says it may be a good thi ng自由主义者说系安全带也许是件好事if people wear seatbelts但这应由人们自己作主bu

22、t that should be up to them政府没有资格 and the state, the gover nment, has no bus in ess用法律来强迫人们系安全带 coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law. 这是强迫 lts 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 promo

23、te 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 ofthe 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 pro

24、moting morality 历来都有法律 traditi on ally have bee n 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 rightsare violated,所以政府不应该插手此事 so the state should get out of the bus in ess en tirely of 不该试图立法弘扬道德 try

25、ing to pro mote virtue or to enact morals legislati on. 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 thatserves the purp ose而制定的税收或其他政策 of redistributi ng in come or wealth from the rich to the

26、 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 libertaria n is a kind of coerci on.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 talkingabout a democracy, 其对象是工作出色而赚得大钱的人 from peo ple who happen to do very wel

27、l a nd earn a lot of mon ey.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 peo ple for the sake of whateverybody n eeds, 包括国防治安 the n atio nal defe nse, p olice force,强制履约和保护产权的司法系统 judicial system to enforce con tracts

28、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 atstake,

29、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 adva need democracies.这样是否公平 Now,

30、 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 thefacts rve just give n 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 kn ow just by looki ng at a pattern或分配结果 or a distribut

31、ion 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 inacquisiti on or in in itial hold in gs.

32、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 inthe in itial holdi ngs?让他们赚到钱的土地工厂 或者商品Did they steal the land or the factory or thegoods这些生产资料是不是偷来的that enabled them to make all

33、 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.第二条原贝U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 op erati on of free consent,基于自由市场的买卖 people buying a

34、nd 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 peo pie 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 fre

35、e choice of in dividuals buying and sell ingthi ngs,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 pe

36、rson 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 anyidea?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

37、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 fivethousa nd 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 contrib

38、ution 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 Li ncoln bedroom every ni ght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

39、算出 自从他创立了微软 And so they figured out, si nee 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, reas on able guess,然后你算算他的净资产and you calculate this net wealth,他的工资率在 150 美元以上 it turns out that his rate of pay is over 150结果算出也不是每分钟 not per hour, not per minute150 美元以上 15

40、0 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second 女口果盖茨在上班路上 which means that if on his way to the office,dollars,不是每小时 而是每秒钟 这意味着 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 would nt be worth his time to st op and p ick 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

41、向他收税someone that wealthy surely we can taxthem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 en ough to eat or lack dece nt hous ing. 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 youdo?你会制定怎样的税收政策Wha

42、t tax policy would you have? 你会马上进行再分配对吧 Youd redistribute in a flash, would nt you?因为作为一个优秀的功利主义者你知道Because you would know bei ng a goodutilitaria n that收走一些对他们来说根本无关痛痒的钱 taki ng some, a small am oun t, hed scarcely going to no tice it,却能大大改善社会底层那些人的生活 but it will make a huge imp roveme nt in the l

43、ives增加他们的福利 and in the welfare of those at the bottom.但是记住But remember,an aggregate p refere nces and satisfacti ons that way. We have to res pect persons andif he earned that money fairlywithout violat ing an ybody elses rights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

44、 我们必须要尊重个人 如果他公平地赚到钱 没有侵犯到他人权利完全遵守了那两条公正原贝U in accordanee with the two principles 最初占有公正原贝U和转让公正原贝U of justice in acquisiti on and in justice in tran sfer, 那么向他多征税就是错的the n 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 B

45、ill 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 Jorda n. There he is.他一年的收入有 3100 万His in come alone in one year was 31 milli on 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

46、收入有 7800 万 So his in come was, in one year, $78 millio n. 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 gover nment 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 housingand educatio n for the poor,这就是强迫是不公平的thats coercion, thats unjus

47、t.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 ma ny agree with that argume nt, 认为为了帮助穷人agree with the libertaria n argume nt that redistributi on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 disagr

48、ee 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 agai nst redistributi on?请说Yes.我认为像迈克尔乔丹这样的人 I think these peopie like Michael Jordan have received在社会中工作 were talk ing about worki ng within a society 他们从社会中得到的

49、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,more.I dont think its fair to say that, you kno w,

50、its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如果说这都是靠他自己辛苦挣来的all on him,on his, you know, in here nt, you know, hard是他天赋所赐我觉得这不算公平work.All right, lets hear from defe nders of好我们来听听自由主义者的辩护libertaria nism.为何向富人征税救济穷人在原则上是错的 Why would it be wrong in pr

51、in ci ple totax 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 si nee bought a hundred skateboards.我居住的社区有一百人I live in a society of a hun dred peop le.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 Sudde nly, every one decides they

52、 want a skateboard. 他们跑至U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 thi nk in certa in circumsta nces 我们需要忽视这种不公平it becomes n ecessary to overlook that un just ness,容忍这种不正义 perhaps condone that injustice例如在救生艇里被

53、当作食物的男孩 as in the case of the cabin boy bei ng killed for food.如果人们在死亡边缘挣扎lf p eo pie are on the verge of dyi ng,也许忽视这样的不公平是必要的p erha ps it is n ecessary to overlook that injustice,但我认为即使这样我们依然要铭记but I thi nk its important to keep in mi nd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

54、 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 p erce nt 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 istheft?我觉得这不公正l 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 condon

55、e 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 collectio n of skateboards? 这是盗窃是因为至少在我看来lts theft because, or at least, in my opinion在自由主义者的观点看来 and by the libertarian opin io n他公平地取得收入这些收入都是属于他的he earned that money fairly and itb

56、el ongs 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 thegover nmen t.或你有 100 个滑板 or you have a hun dred skateboards 而政府收走 99 (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 skateboard