哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记

哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记哈佛公开课：公正该如何是好笔记Professor：MichaelsandelClass1:themoralsideofmurderFirstquestion：Whatistherightthingtodo?Killoneinsteadoffive?Backgrounds：Supposethatyouareatrolley（电车）driver,yourbreaksdon’twork,youstillcouldcontrolthesteeringwheel，andtherearetwotracksinfrontofyouOneopinion:gostraightSecondone：turnaroundtothetrackwhereonlyonepeoplestandingPrinciple：bettertosavefivelivesevenifitmeanstosacrificingone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(genocideandtotalitarianism)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Moralprinciple：1whatyoushoulddodependsontheconsequencesthatwillresultfromyouractions.(consequentialistmoralreasoning结果主义道德伦理locatesmoralityintheconsequenceofanact)relatedtoutilitarianism（功利主义）2categoricalmoralreasoning绝对主义道德伦理locatesmoralityincertaindutiesandrightsPhilosophyestrangesusfromthefamiliarbyinvitingandprovokingusanewwayofseeing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OncethefamiliarturnsstrangeisneverquitesameagainImmanuelkantskepticismisarestingplaceforhumanreasonOneofthemostimportantandinfluentialversionsofconsequentialistmoraltheory：philosophyofutilitarianism,Jeremybentham，englishphilosopherfirstgavethisconceptUtilitarianism:Jeremybenthamideaismaximizetheutility(效益最大化)，utility：Pleasureoverpain,thesloganofit“thegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber"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？Itstillunacceptedtokillingoneforsurvival(vastmajority)：youdon’townthispowertodecideothers’fatesClasstwo:puttingapricetagonlifeUtilitylogic:cost-benefitanalysis(成本收益分析）,placingavaluetostandforutilityoncostandbenefitsofvariousproposalsAcost-benefitanalysisofsmokingonCzechbyPhilipmorrisstudycostsbenefitsIncreasedinhealthcarecostsTaxrevenuefromcigarettesalesHealthcaresavings（earlydeath)PensionsavingsSavingsonhousingcostsConclusion：Czechgovernmentnetgain＄147milliondollarifcitizenssmokeSavingsfromprematuredeaths$1227perpersonRepairingthefordpinto（斑马)（aflawedcarproducedbyfordwhohavealreadyknownthisproblem)CostsBenefits＄11perpart＊12.5millioncars=$137millionforimprovingsafety180deaths＊$200.000+180injuries*67。000+2000vehicles＊＄700$49。5millionObjectionstoutilitarianism:1failstorespectindividual/minorityrights2notpossibletoaggregate(合计）allvaluesinto＄ —usingasinglemeasurelike$ -isn'tthereisadistinctionbetweenhigherandlowerpleasureBenthamsays:“pushpin（图钉游戏)isasgoodaspoetry”，whichshowshejustaddressthedurationandintensityofpleasureWhotosaytheirpleasuresarehigher、wealthierandnoblerthanothersAnywantorsatisfactionwhichexistsexistsinsomeaccountandthereforemeasurableAlatter—day(近代）utilitarianJohnStuartmilltrytohumanizeutilitarianismaccommodatehumanitarianconcerns(纳入人道关怀）Theonlytestfordistinguishhigherandlowerpleasureiswhethersomeonewhohasexperiencedbothwouldpreferit.“Itisbettertobeahumanbeingdissatisfiedthanbeapigsatisfied。”saidbymill，becausewewouldpreferhigherpleasurethatweknowitcanengagesourhigherhumanfaculties（系，才能）,andforreceivingthehigherpleasureneededucation、cultivation(培养)、appreciation.Bentham(whodiedin1832)providedhisbodybepreservedinembalmedanddisplayedinuniversityofLondonwherehestillworehisactualclotheswithwaxedheadinaglasscase。Hefulfillshisconceptofphilosophytomaximizeabodyofadeadpeople。Classthree：freetochooseQuestionone：aretheretheoriesofthegoodlifethatcanprovideindependentmoralstandardsfortheworthyofpleasure,ifso,whatdotheylooklike?Strongtheoriesofrightssaythatindividualsmatternotjustasinstrumentstobeusedforalagersocialpurposeorforthesakeoftheutility,individualsareseparatebeingswithseparatelivesworthyofrespect.Anditisamistakeaccordingtothestrongtheoriesthatthinkaboutjusticeorlawjustbyaddinguppreferencesandvalues,whichwetalkaboutnowislibertarianism（自由意志论)，itthinkthefundamentalindividualrightistherighttobeliberty。Providedwerespectothers”havethesamerighttochoosefreelyandliveourlivesasplease.TheLibertarianismviewsofgovernment1nopaternalistlegislation（家长式立法)2nomorallegislation3noredistribution(再分配)ofincomefromrichtopoor。Nozick:whatmakesincomedistributionjust？1justiceinacquisition(initialholdings）2justiceintransfer(freemarketNozick”sargumentsagainsttaxation：Taxation=takingofearningsTakingofearnings=forcedlaborForcedlabor=slaveryViolatetheprincipleofself-possessionButwhatifwedon'thaveself-possessioncauseweagreetoliveinasociety，whichdon’tallowyouchoosewhateveryouwanttodo.Classfour：thislandismyland.Underthelawofnature，I’mnotfreetotakesomeoneelse`slifeorliberty，orproperty，noramIfreetotakemyownlifeorlibertyandproperty.(nature`sconstrains）Naturerightsareunalienableandnontransferableformankind，whichmeansthatthestateofnature（wehaveitbeforestatecomesout)askustokeeptherightstoourselvesandnotallowustotradeorgiveupthem.Lockerandotherlibertarianssaythatcauseweownthepropertyinourselvesfurthermoreweourownlaborandfromthattothefurtherclaimthatwhateverwemixourlaborwiththatisun-ownedbecomesourproperty.Lockerthinksthatprivatepropertyisraisedwithoutconsent（同意)Problem:Iftherighttoprivatepropertyisnatural，notconventional（协议性），ifitissomethingthatweacquireevenbeforeweagreetogovernment,howdoesthisrightconstrainwhatalegitimate(合法的)governmentcando?Furthermore,itriseswhatbecomesournaturalrightonceitenterssociety？Weconsenttobegovernedbyalegitimategovernmentandhumanlawsjustwhenitrespectsourunalienablenaturalrightstolife、libertyandproperty。Noparliament（议会）,nolegislature（立法机构）canlegitimateviolateournaturalroghts.Locker`stwobigideas，oneisprivatepropertyandanotheroneisconsent。Withtheideaofconsentthateveryoneisanexecuterofthelawofnaturetopunishtheoneswhoagainstthelawofnature,everyonecandothepunishinginthestateofnature,inthissituationpeopletendtooverreactusethepunishpower,whichmakestheinconveniencesthateveryisinsecure.Soforescapethestateofnaturetoprotectthemselves,theyagreetogiveuptheenforcementpowertodowhateverthemajoritydecides.Question:whatthemajoritycandecide?Firstofall，thegovernmentlimitedbyrespectingandenforcingourfundamentalnaturalrights，wedidn`tgiveuptherightswhenweenteredthesociety.Question:whatistheworkofconsent？Andmeanwhiletheconsentisnotthepersonaldecisionbutbasedonthecollectiveconsentwhenwefirstenteredintothissociety.（i。e。thetaxation)Question:ifwedon`thavethepowertogiveupournaturalrights，whichisthelimitsofthegovernment，howcanweagreetobebound(约束)byamajoritythatwillenforceustosacrificeourlivesortheproperty（likethemilitaryconscription征兵制度andtaxation）Toanswerthisquestionthatjohnlockeractuallysupportthatonlyifthegovernmentortheauthoritynotarbitrarily（蛮横、专制的)takeindividual`slifeorproperty,butthemajorityaccordingtofairproceduretomakegenerallyapplicablelawtorequireindividual，thatisnotaviolation,whichjustifytheconscriptionandtaxation。。Classfive:hiredguns？Question：whyisconsentsuchapowerfulmoralinstrumentincreatingpoliticalauthorityandobligationtoobey？Usgovernmentisfacingahugedifficultiesmeetingrecruitment.Waystoincreaserecruitmentfortheforce：1increasethepayandbenefit。2shifttomilitaryconscription（adraft选择)强制征兵3outsource：hiremercenaries(雇佣兵)Duringcivilwar，theunionusedacombinationofconscriptionandmarketsystemtorecruitsolider。whichmeansifyouwerechosenyoucouldfindasubstitute(代替者).Oneopinionthecombinationsystemisactuallyputtingadollarvalueonsomeone`slifeandismorallywrong.Otheropinion:thepeoplewhoacceptthepricehavethefreedomtodecidetheirlifeworthhowmuch.furthermore,thismaybeacoercion(强制)tothelowerincomers.Thedraftconscriptionisnotverydifferentfromvolunteerarmysystem.-—————ispatriotismabettermotivationforthemoneytoservetheirresponsibility.？Questions:whethereggs(卵子)orspermshouldorshouldnotbeboughtorsoldformoney？Furthermoreisthesurrogatemotheracceptable？Objectionstoenforcingsurrogacycontract：1taintedconsentorflawedcontract—coercion—lackofinformation（motherdon`tknowhowstrongemotionalbondcanbebeforethechildwasborn）2dehumanizing(有失人道)CertaingoodsshouldnotbetreatedasopentouseortoprofitCertaingoodsareproperlyvaluedinwaysotherthanuseQuestion:Forutilitarianismsideistheusetheonlyproperwayoftreatinggoodsincludinglife,militaryservice,procreation(生殖），childbearing(分娩）？Classsix：MindyourmotiveKant（康德）said:allhumanbeingshaveacertaindignitythatcommandsourrespectbecausewearereasonableandautonomousbeings(存在）insteadoftheideaweownourselves，becausewehavethecapacityforreason(thinkreasonably）freedom（choosefreely）。Kantagainstutilitarianism，hethoughtthatwashalfright,becausehedidn’tagreewithBentham’sclaimthatpainandpleasureareoursovereign（至高无上的）masters.Becauserespectinghumandignitymeansregardingpersonsnotjustasmeans（工具)Butalsoasendsinourselves（把自己本身也视为目的)。soit`swrongtousepeopelforthesakeofother`shappinessorwell—beingHethinksthereasonablecapacity(理性思考的能力)makeshumandistinctivefromanimals。Forkantthatthefreedomistheoppositeofthenecessity。Kant`sconceptionoffreedom。Autonomy（自主）ToactfreelyToactaccordingtoalawIgivemyself,notthenaturallaw.Kant`sconceptionofmoralityMoralworthofanactiondependsonthemotive(dotherightthingfortherightreason)Furthermoremoraldutymakemoraltoanactionismoralduty，whichistheexactlyoppositeofinclination（喜好）--desiresthataffectmoralactions。Kant`sgroundworkincludestwoquestions:First,whatisthesupremeprincipleofmorality?Second，howisfreedompossible？Kant`sthreecontrastsMoralityMotive：dutyvs.inclinationFreedomDeterminationofwillautonomousvs.heteronomous(排他)ReasonImperatives(命令）:Categorical(绝对）vs.hypothetical（mean-end手段结果）ThecategoricalimperativesTheformulaofuniversallaw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。Theformulaofhumanityasend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。Classseven:AlessoninlyingFirstquestion:howcandutyandautonomy(自律）gotogether？ActingofDutyfollowbyamorallawthatyouimposeonyourselfmakesdutycompatiblewith（并存）freedom。Purereasondecidesthatwewillultimatelyfollowthesameconscienceandmorallaw，whichissupreme。Kantbasesthemoralityformaladherence(坚持)tothemorallawnotonconsequencesWhitelie（善意的谎言)Istheredistinctivedifferencebetweenalieandmisleadingtruth（evasion回避，借口）？ForthedignityofthemorallawwouldpartiallymaketheliedifferentbecausethemotivationbaseonrespectingthedignitythatnotbetraythemoralprincipleKant‘spoliticaltheorythatcertainlawsarisefromthesocialcontract。,whichisunusualuniquethatitdoesn’tinvolveactualpeoplegathertogethertofigureoutaconvention，thecontracthethinksjustifythelawjustbecalled“anideaofreason”，becausewheneverpeopleattendwouldjustreflectthedifferencesbetweenabargainingpower\Moralforceofactualcontracts1howdotheybindorobligate?Aconsent—basedautonomyBbenefit-basedreciprocity(互惠主义)Butthistwoidealsmaynotberealized,sotherawls’claimthatthewaytothinkaboutjusticeshouldfromstandpointofahypotheticalcontract，behindtheveilofignorance(无知的面纱）thatcreatestheconditionofequalitybyrulingoutorenablingustoforgotforthemomentthedifferencesinpowerandknowledgethatcouldevenleadinprincipleunfairresults.2howdotheyjustifythetermstheyproduce？AllagreetosomethingnotjustifyitContractbindussometimesdependonthemutualbenefit（互惠）Classeight：What'safairstart？Rawlsclaimsaboutdifferentwaysofdistributivejustice.Firstprinciple:wewouldn’ttradeoffourfundamentalrightsandlibertiesforanyeconomicadvantages。Second：onlytheinequalitiesthatworktothebenefitoftheleastwelloffarejust.Differenceprinciple.Theobjectiontofeudalaristocracy(封建贵族统治）leads，peopletosaycareersshouldbeopentotalents.Thereshouldbeformalequalityofopportunityregardlessoftheaccidentofbirth(出身）。Amerit-basedsystem（绩效系统）:Inafairmeritocracythesociety(精英社会）setsupinstitutionstobringtheeveryonetothesamestartingpointbeforetheracebegins.EqualeducationalopportunityDifferenceprinciple：peoplemaybenefitfromtheirgoodfortune，fromtheirluckinthegeneticlottery,butontermsthatworktotheadvantagesoftheleastwelloff（社会底层)Psychologistssaythatthebirthordermakesalotofdifferenceinworkethic（职业道德ive，effort。（firstbirthordertendtobemoresuccessful，whichchangelingthemerit-basedsystem’smoralfair，obviouslyyoucan’tdecideyourbirthorder.）TheoriesofdistributivejusticeLibertarian-freemarketsystemMeritocracy-fairequalityofopportunityEgalitarian（平等主义）—rawls’differenceprincipleObjectionstothedifferenceprinciple1whatabouttheincentives(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。2whataboutefforts?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.3whataboutself—ownership?(theideathatweownourselves）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。Whatyourtalentcanreap（获得)inamarketeconomydependonthelawofsupplyanddemand(供需原则），whichyoucan’tdecide，whatcountsoncontributingbaseonifyouhavethequalitiesthesocietyprize.Moraldesertsiswaydifferentfromtheentitlementstothelegitimateexpectations（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）。Classnine:arguingaffirmativeaction（讨论反歧视运动）Affirmativeaction：Theexampleisuniversityoftexasturndownaapplicant'sapply，becausefortheracepolicythatthisschooltendedtoadmitmoreminoritygroupbackgroundstudentswhentheyhadsameconditioncomparedtothewhitecandidates.Arguments1Correctingfortheeffectsofunequalpreparation（beforeyouareadmittedintoahighereducationalinstitution)2Awayofcompensating(补偿）forpastinjustice。（likeslavery奴隶制度andsegregation种族分离)3diversityForeducationalexperienceForthesocietyaswholeBothargumentsbackuptheuniversityhasthesocialresponsibilityandmissionHarvard'sargumentThequalityoftheeducationalexperienceofallstudentsdependsoninpartonthesedifferencesinthebackgroundandoutlookthatstudentsbringwiththem.Question:whetherthemoraldesertisorisnotthebasisfordistributivejustice。Rawls'theoryseemstodetach（分离)thejusticefrommoraldesertforequality(平等）Otherphilosophersallagreethatjusticeisnotamatterofrewardingorhonoringvirtueormoraldesert，becausetheythinkthattiethejusticewithmoralmeritorvirtueisrestrictingthefreedomofhuman,whichagainstthenaturewearefreebeings.ButonephilosopherinsistondoingthiswhoisAristotle（亚里士多德）.Hiswayofjusticeistogivepeoplewhattheydeserve，并且找到有美德的人和他们社会地位的平衡点。Hesaid:“Justiceinvolvestwofactors：Thingsandthepersonstowhomthethingsareassigned。Ingeneralwesaythatpersonswhoareequalshouldhaveequalthingsassignedtothem。Aristotlethinkthejustallocationorjustdiscrimination（区别)definedbythegoal。whichiscalled"teleologicalreasoning”目的论推理Classten：goodcitizenAristotlevaluetheofficesandthehonors’aspectofjustice.Aristotlethinkpoliticsisabouttheformingthecharacter，cultivatingthevirtueofcitizenandthegoodlife。Forthereasontoliveonabetterlife，hethinksweshouldliveinpolis（城邦)andparticipatingpolitics，it'sonlyinthepoliticallifethatwecanexerciseourdistinctlycapacityforlanguage，whichisthecapacitytodeliberateabutrightandwrong（明辨是非)，thejustandtheunjust.Virtueissomethingwecanonlyacquirebypracticinginthesociety,inthepoliticalcommunitiesthatissomethingwecangetfromreadingabookorattendaphilosophyclass.Justlikethecooking，playingmusicalinstrumentorjoke-tellingcan'tbelearnedbybooklearning,becauseyoucan’tgetahangofit（掌握诀窍)，wecan'tdiscern（分辨）thedetailsandtheparticularfeaturesofthesituationofthem。Thissituationissimilarwiththevirtue.Torealizehuman'snature,weshouldengageinpoliticsThepartofthePoliticsistosingleoutandhonorthosewhoposstherelevantvirtue，whichisthehonorificdimension（尊崇导向)。Realsports,realathleticcompetitionsisnotsolelyaboutamusement,isaboutappreciation.Thedifferencebetweensportsandamerespectacle(表演赛)，sportisapracticethatcallsforprizeanhonor。Aristotlesaidthatsomepeoplewhoarefitbynature，whoarecutouttobeslaves(无从选择）。theyaremeanttoberuled，becausetheirnatureisbestrealizedifthey'reslaves。Debateonteleologicalreasoning：1itseemsleavenoroomforfreedom，whichmeansyoudon’thavethechoicetochoosewhatyouwanttopursuitorwhatkindsofqualitiesyouhave，alldecisionsaremadebasedonthegoal.2itbringsoutthesuspicionthatteleologicalreasoningleadpeoplenotbeabletoagreeonsomething。Question：1whethertherightispriortothegood(美德）.2whatitmeanstobeafreeperson。furthermore，whatdoesthefreedommeantous?Todiscoverwhatyournaturereallyisortofindwhatisyourfinalgoal,end。Classeleven：theclaimsofcommunityLaw:Aristotlepointofview：thepurposeistoshapecharacter,tocultivatethevirtueifcitizen（培养公民的美德),tomakepossibleagoodwayoflife.Kant'view：thepurposeoflaw,thepointoftheconstitution(宪法的核心）isnottoinculcate（教导)orpromotetothevirtue.It’stosetupaframeworkofrightswithinwithcitizenmaybefreetopersuetheirownconceptionsforthegoodfothemselves。Whatitmeanstobeafreeperson？Aristotle：wearefreesofarthatwehavethecapacitytorealizeourpotential，whichmeanstoleadafreelifeistoliveupmyownpotential,tobewhatifit.Kant’view：freedomisthecapacitytoactautonomously。（自主的）Freedommeanstoactaccordingtothelawigivemyself.Fromthestandpointofindividualismiamwhatmyselfchoosetobe.Alasdairmaclntyre:”thecontrastwiththenarrativeviewoftheselfisclear。Forthestoryofmylifeisalwaysembedded(嵌入)inthestoryofthosecommunitiesfromwhichiderivemyidentity。””iambornwithapast,andtotrytocutmyselfofffromthepastistodeform（畸变)mypresentrelationships"Threedifferentkindsofobligations:1naturalduties（respectlifeorpersoni。e）2voluntaryobligations,obligationsthatweowetoparticularotherswehaveagreedtothroughthepromiseorcontractoradeal。Questions:isthereathirdcategoryofobligationslikeobligationofmembershiporsolidarity（团结），whichcan'tbeacceptthroughconsent.Objectionsofthethirdobligation：ifwebelongtomultiplecommunities,doesthatmeanssometimesourobligationswouldconflict（冲突）。Theyarepointingtomattersofemotions,sentiment（情绪).Nottruemoralobligations。Theideaofloyaltyormembershipashavingindependentmoralweigh,whichindicatesyoualwaystendtoprotectthebenefitsofthecommunitiesyouhavemoreconnectionswith。(likefamilyversuscountry).theprincipleo