哈佛公开课-公正课中英字幕_第一课

制作人：心舟 QQ:1129441083第一讲 杀人的道德侧面这是一门讨论公正的课程This is a course about justice我们以一则故事作为引子and we begin with a story.假设你是一名电车司机Suppose youre the driver of a trolley car你的电车以60英里 小时的速度and your trolley car is hurtling down the track在轨道上飞驰at 60 miles an hour.突然发现在轨道的尽头And at the end of the track you notice有五名工人正在施工five workers working on the track.你无法让电车停下来You try to stop but you cant因为刹车坏了your brakes dont work.你此时极度绝望You feel desperate因为你深知because you know如果电车撞向那五名工人that if you crash into these five workers他们全都会死they will all die.假设你对此确信无疑Lets assume you know that for sure.你极为无助And so you feel helpless直到你发现 在轨道的右侧 until you notice that there is off to the right有一条侧轨 a side track而在侧轨的尽头and at the end of that track只有一名工人在那施工there is one worker working on the track.而你的方向盘还没坏Your steering wheel works只要你想so you can turn the trolley car就可以把电车转到侧轨上去if you want to onto the side track牺牲一人挽救五人性命killing the one but sparing the five.下面是我们的第一个问题:Heres our first question:何为正确的选择whats the right thing to do?换了你会怎么做What would you do?我们来做个调查Lets take a poll.有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track?请举手Raise your hands.有多少人会让电车继续往前开How many wouldnt? How many would go straight ahead?选择往前开的 请不要把手放下Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead.只有少数人选择往前开A handful of people would绝大多数都选择转弯the vast majority would turn.我们先来听听大家的说法Lets hear first探究一下为何now we need to begin to investigate the reasons你们会认为这是正确的选择why you think its the right thing to do.先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始Lets begin with those in the majority who would turn to go onto the side track.为何会这样选择Why would you do it?理由是什么What would be your reason?有没有自告奋勇的Whos willing to volunteer a reason?你来 站起来告诉大家Go ahead. Stand up.我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时Because it cant be right to kill five people牺牲五人不是正确之举when you can only kill one person instead.当可以只牺牲一人时 牺牲五人不是正确之举It wouldnt be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.这理由不错Thats a good reason.不错Thats a good reason.还有其他人吗Who else?人人都赞同这个理由Does everybody agree with that reason?你来Go ahead.我认为这和911的时候是一种情况Well I was thinking its the same reason on 9 11那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人 被视为英雄with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes因为他们选择了牺牲自己because they chose to kill the people on the plane而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多人and not kill more people in big buildings.这么看来这条原则和911的是一样的So the principle there was the same on 9 11.虽然是悲剧Its a tragic circumstance但牺牲一人保全五人依然是更正确的选择but better to kill one so that five can live这就是大多数人选择把电车开上侧轨的理由吗is that the reason most of you had those of you who would turn? Yes?现在我们来听听少数派的意见Lets hear now from those in the minority那些选择不转弯的those who wouldnt turn.你来Yes.我认为这与为种族灭绝以及极权主义正名Well I think thats the same type of mentality that justifies genocide是同一种思维模式and totalitarianism.为了一个种族能生存下来In order to save one type of race以灭绝另一个种族为代价you wipe out the other.那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做So what would you do in this case?为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝You would to avoid the horrors of genocide你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗you would crash into the five and kill them?大概会吧Presumably yes.-真的会吗 -对- You would? - Yeah.好吧 还有谁Okay. Who else?很有勇气的回答 谢谢Thats a brave answer. Thank you.我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子Lets consider another trolley car case看看你们and see whether大多数的人those of you in the majority会不会继续坚持刚才的原则want to adhere to the principle即牺牲一人保全五人是更好的选择better that one should die so that five should live.这次你不再是电车司机了This time youre not the driver of the trolley car只是一名旁观者youre an onlooker.你站在一座桥上 俯瞰着电车轨道Youre standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track.电车沿着轨道从远处驶来And down the track comes a trolley car轨道的尽头有五名工人at the end of the track are five workers电车刹车坏了the brakes dont work这五名工人即将被撞死the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.但你不是电车司机 你真的爱莫能助And now youre not the driver you really feel helpless直到你发现 在你旁边until you notice standing next to you靠着桥站着的leaning over the bridge是个超级大胖子is a very fat man.你可以选择推他一把And you could give him a shove.他就会摔下桥He would fall over the bridge onto the track正好摔在电车轨道上挡住电车right in the way of the trolley car.他必死无疑 但可以救那五人的性命He would die but he would spare the five.现在Now有多少人会选择把那胖子推下桥how many would push the fat man over the bridge?请举手Raise your hand.有多少人不会How many wouldnt?大多数人不会这么做Most people wouldnt.一个显而易见的问题出现了Heres the obvious question.我们牺牲一人保全五人的这条原则What became of the principle到底出了什么问题呢better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?第一种情况时What became of the principle大多数人赞同的这条原则怎么了that almost everyone endorsed in the first case?两种情况中都属多数派的人 你们是怎么想的I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别呢How do you explain the difference between the two?你来Yes.我认为第二种情况The second one I guess牵涉到主动选择推人involves an active choice of pushing a person down而被推的这个人which I guess that person himself本来跟这事件一点关系都没有would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all.所以 从这个人自身利益的角度来说And so to choose on his behalf I guess他是被迫卷入这场无妄之灾的to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is而第一种情况不同I guess more than what you have in the first case第一种情况里的三方 电车司机及那两组工人where the three parties the driver and the two sets of workers之前就牵涉进这事件本身了are already I guess in the situation.但在侧轨上施工的那名工人But the guy working the one on the track off to the side他并不比那个胖子 更愿意牺牲自我 不是吗he didnt choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did he?对 但谁让他就在那侧轨上 而且.Thats true but he was on the tracks and.那胖子还在桥上呢This guy was on the bridge.如果你愿意 可以继续说下去Go ahead you can come back if you want.好吧 这是一个难以抉择的问题All right. Its a hard question.你回答得很不错You did well. You did very well.真的难以抉择Its a hard question.还有谁能来为两种情况中Who else can find a way of reconciling大多数人的不同选择作出合理解释the reaction of the majority in these two cases?你来Yes.我认为 在第一种情况中是撞死一个还是五个Well I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five你只能在这两者中选择its a choice between those two不管你做出的是哪一个选择and you have to make a certain choice总得有人被电车撞死and people are going to die because of the trolley car而他们的死 并非你的直接行为导致not necessarily because of your direct actions.电车已失控 而你必须在那一瞬间做出选择The trolley car is a runaway thing and youre making a split second choice.而反之 把胖子推下去则是你自己的直接谋杀行为Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part.你的行为是可控的You have control over that而电车则是不可控的whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.所以我认为这两种情况略有不同So I think its a slightly different situation.很好 有没谁来回应的 有人吗All right who has a reply? Thats good. Who has a way?有人要补充吗 刚才那个解释合理吗Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this?我认为这不是一个很好的理由I dont think thats a very good reason因为不论哪种情况 你都得选择让谁死because you choose to- either way you have to choose who dies或者你是选择转弯撞死一名工人because you either choose to turn and kill the person这种转弯就是种有意识的行为which is an act of conscious thought to turn或者你是选择把胖子推下去or you choose to push the fat man over这同样是一种主动的 有意识的行为which is also an active conscious action.所以不管怎样 你都是在作出选择So either way youre making a choice.你有话要说吗Do you want to reply?我不太确定情况就是这样的Im not really sure that thats the case.只是觉得似乎有点不同It just still seems kind of different.真的动手把人推到轨道上让他死的这种行为the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him就等于是你亲手杀了他you are actually killing him yourself.你用你自己的手推他Youre pushing him with your own hands.是你在推他 这不同于Youre pushing him and thats different操控方向盘进而导致了他人死亡.than steering something that is going to cause death into another.现在听起来好像不太对头了You know it doesnt really sound right saying it now.不 你回答得不错 叫什么名字No no. Its good. Its good. Whats your name?安德鲁Andrew.我来问你一个问题 安德鲁Andrew. Let me ask you this question Andrew.您问Yes.假设我站在桥上 胖子就在我旁边Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man我不用去推他I didnt have to push him假设他踩在一扇活板门上方suppose he was standing over a trap door而活板门可以通过转动方向盘来开启that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that.你会转动方向盘吗Would you turn?出于某种原因 我觉得这样似乎错上加错For some reason that still just seems more wrong.是吗Right?如果是你不小心靠着方向盘 导致活门开启I mean maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel或是发生之类的情况or something like that.但是.或者是列车飞驰而来时But. Or say that the car is hurtling正好可以触发活门开关towards a switch that will drop the trap.-那我就赞同 -没关系 好了- Then I could agree with that. - Thats all right. Fair enough.反正就是不对It still seems wrong in a way而在第一种情况 这样做就是对的 是吧that it doesnt seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.换个说法就是 在第一种情况中And in another way I mean in the first situation你是直接涉及其中的youre involved directly with the situation.而第二种情况中 你只是旁观者In the second one youre an onlooker as well.-好了 -所以你有权选择是否把胖子推下去- All right. - So you have the choice of becoming involved or not-从而牵涉其中 -好了- by pushing the fat man. - All right.先不管这个情况Lets forget for the moment about this case.你们很不错Thats good.我们来想象一个不同的情况Lets imagine a different case.这次你是一名急诊室的医生This time youre a doctor in an emergency room有天送来了六个病人and six patients come to you.他们遭受了一次严重的电车事故Theyve been in a terrible trolley car wreck.其中五人伤势不算严重Five of them sustain moderate injuries另外一人受重伤 你可以花上一整天时间one is severely injured you could spend all day来医治这一名受重伤的病人caring for the one severely injured victim但那另外五个病人就会死but in that time the five would die.你也可以选择医治这五人Or you could look after the five restore them to health但那样的话 那名受重伤的病人就会死but during that time the one severely injured person would die.有多少人会选择救那五人How many would save the five?作为医生 又有多少人选择救那一人Now as the doctor how many would save the one?只有极少数人Very few people just a handful of people.我猜理由还是一样Same reason I assume.牺牲一个保全五个One life versus five?现在来考虑一下另外一种情况Now consider another doctor case.这次你是一名器官移植医生 你有五名病人This time youre a transplant surgeon and you have five patients每名病人都急需器官移植才能存活each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive.分别需要心脏移植 肺移植 肾移植One needs a heart one a lung one a kidney肝移植 以及胰腺移植one a liver and the fifth a pancreas.没有器官捐赠者And you have no organ donors.你只能眼睁睁看他们死去You are about to see them die.然后你突然想起And then it occurs to you在隔壁病房that in the next room有个来做体检的健康人theres a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.而且他.And hes.你们喜欢这剧情吧you like that.而且他正在打盹. and hes taking a nap你可以悄悄地进去 取出那五个器官you could go in very quietly yank out the five organs这人会死 但你能救那另外五人that person would die but you could save the five.有多少人会这么做How many would do it?有吗Anyone?选择这么做的请举手How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.楼座上的呢Anyone in the balcony?我会I would.你会吗 小心别太靠着那栏杆You would? Be careful dont lean over too much.有多少人不会How many wouldnt?很好 你来All right. What do you say?楼座上那位Speak up in the balcony就是支持取出那些器官的 为什么这么做you who would yank out the organs. Why?其实我想知道可否稍微变通一下Id actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility就是选择五人中最先死的那人of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first利用他的器官来救其他四人and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.这想法很赞Thats a pretty good idea.想法不错Thats a great idea只不过except for the fact你避开了我们今天要谈论的哲学问题that you just wrecked the philosophical point.让我们暂时先不忙讨论这些故事以及争论Lets step back from these stories and these arguments来关注一下这些争论是怎样展开的to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.某些道德原则 已经随着我们讨论的展开Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge逐渐开始浮现出来了from the discussions weve had.我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的And lets consider what those moral principles look like.在讨论中出现的第一条道德原则The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion正确的选择 道德的选择said the right thing to do the moral thing to do取决于你的行为所导致的后果depends on the consequences that will result from your action.最终结论: 牺牲一人保全五人 是更好的选择At the end of the day better that five should live even if one must die.这是后果主义道德推理的一则例子Thats an example of consequentiality moral reasoning.后果主义道德推理Consequentiality moral reasoning认为是否道德取决于行为的后果locates morality in the consequences of an act取决于你的行为对外界所造成的影响in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.但随着谈论的深入 我们发现在其他情况中But then we went a little further we considered those other cases人们不再对后果主义道德推理那么确定了and people werent so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning.当人们开始犹豫是否要推胖子下桥When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge或者是否切取无辜病人的器官时or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient他们更倾向于去评判行为本身的动机people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself而不是该行为的后果consequences be what they may.人们动摇了People were reluctant.他们认为杀掉一个无辜的人People thought it was just wrong categorically wrong是绝对错误的to kill a person an innocent person哪怕是为了拯救五条生命even for the sake of saving five lives.至少在每个故事的第二种情况中 是这样认为的At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.这表明有第二种绝对主义方式的道德推理So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.绝对主义道德推理认为Categorical moral reasoning是否道德取决于特定的绝对道德准则locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements取决于绝对明确的义务与权利certain categorical duties and rights而不管后果如何regardless of the consequences.我们将用以后的几天到几周时间来探讨Were going to explore in the days and weeks to come后果主义与绝对主义道德原则的差别the contrast between consequentiality and categorical moral principles.后果主义道德推理中最具影响的 就是功利主义The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism由18世纪英国政治哲学家 杰里米边沁提出a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham18th century English political philosopher而绝对主义道德推理中最为著名的The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning则是18世纪德国哲学家康德is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.我们将着眼于这两种迥异的道德推理模式So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning评价它们 还会考虑其他模式assess them and also consider others.如果你有留意教学大纲 就能发现If you look at the syllabus youll notice教学大纲里列出了不少人的著作that we read a number of great and famous books包括亚里士多德 约翰洛克 伊曼努尔康德books by Aristotle John Locke Immanuel Kant约翰斯图尔特穆勒及其他哲学家的著作John Stewart Mill and others.在教学大纲中还能看到Youll notice too from the syllabus我们不仅要读这些著作that we dont only read these books;还会探讨当代政治及法律争议we also take up contemporary political and legal controversies所引发的诸多哲学问题that raise philosophical questions.我们将讨论平等与不平等We will debate equality and inequality平权行动 自由言论与攻击性言论 同性婚姻affirmative action free speech versus hate speech same-sex marriage兵役制等一系列现实问题military conscription a range of practical questions.为什么呢Why?不仅是为了将这些深奥抽象的著作形象化Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books还为了让我们通过哲学辨明but to make clear to bring out whats at stake日常生活 包括政治生活中什么才是最关键的in our everyday lives including our political lives for philosophy.所以我们要读这些著作 讨论这些议题And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues并了解两者是怎样互相补充互相阐释的and well see how each informs and illuminates the other.也许听起来蛮动人 不过我要事先提个醒This may sound appealing enough but here I have to issue a warning.那就是 通过用这样的方式阅读这些著作And the warning is thisto read these books in this way来训练自我认知as an exercise in self knowledge必然会带来一些风险to read them in this way carries certain risks包括个人风险和政治风险risks that are both personal and political每位学政治哲学的学生都知道的风险risks that every student of political philosophy has known.这风险源自于以下事实These risks spring from the fact即哲学就是让我们面对自己熟知的事物that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us然后引导并动摇我们原有的认知by confronting us with what we already know.这真是讽刺Theres an irony.这门课程的难度 就在于The difficulty of this course consists in the fact传授的都是你们已有的知识that it teaches what you already know.它将我们所熟知的 毋庸置疑的事物It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings变得陌生and making it strange.正如我们刚举的例子Thats how those examples worked那些严肃而又不乏趣味的假设性问题the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.这些哲学类著作亦然Its also how these philosophical books work.哲学让我们对熟知事物感到陌生Philosophy estranges us from the familiar不是通过提供新的信息not by supplying new information而是通过引导并激发我们 用全新方式看问题but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing但这正是风险所在but and heres the risk一旦所熟知的事物变得陌生once the familiar turns strange它将再也无法回复到从前its never quite the same again.自我认知就像逝去的童真 Self knowledge is like lost innocence 不管你有多不安however unsettling you find it;你已经无法不去想或是充耳不闻了it can never be un-thought or un-known.这一过程会充满挑战又引人入胜What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting因为道德与政治哲学就好比一个故事is that moral and political philosophy is a story你不知道故事将会如何发展and you dont know where the story will lead.你只知道这个故事与你息息相关But what you do know is that the story is about you.以上为我提到的个人风险Those are the personal risks.那么政治风险是什么呢Now what of the political risks?介绍这门课程时 可以这样许诺:One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you通过阅读这些著作 讨论这些议题that by reading these books and debating these issues你将成为更优秀 更有责任感的公民you will become a better more responsible citizen;你将重新审视公共政策的假定前提you will examine the presuppositions of public policy你将拥有更加敏锐的政治判断力you will hone your political judgment你将更有效地参与公共事务you will become a more effective participant in public affairs.但这一许诺也可能片面而具误导性But this would be a partial and misleading promise.因为绝大多数情况下 政治哲学Political philosophy for the most part并不是那样的hasnt worked that way.你们必须承认政治哲学You have to allow for the possibility可能使你们成为更糟的公民that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen而不是更优秀的rather than a better one至少在让你成为更优秀公民前 先让你更糟or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one因为哲学使人疏离现实 甚至可能弱化行动力and thats because philosophy is a distancing even debilitating activity.追溯到苏格拉底时代 就有这样一段对话And you see this going back to Socrates theres a dialogue在高尔吉亚篇中 苏格拉底的一位朋友the Gorgias in which one of Socrates friends高尔吉亚篇 柏拉图著 古希腊哲学家卡里克利斯 试图说服苏格拉底放弃哲学思考Callicles tries to talk him out of philosophizing.他告诉苏格拉底:Callicles tells Socrates如果一个人在年轻时代Philosophy is a pretty toy有节制地享受哲学的乐趣 那自然大有裨益if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life.但倘若过分沉溺其中 那他必将走向毁灭But if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin.听我劝吧 卡里克利斯说 收起你的辩论Take my advice Callicles says abandon argument.学个谋生的一技之长Learn the accomplishments of active life别学那些满嘴谬论的人take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles要学那些生活富足 声名显赫及福泽深厚的人but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings.言外之意则是So Callicles is really saying to Socrates放弃哲学 现实一点 去读商学院吧Quit philosophizing get real go to business school.卡里克利斯说得确有道理And Callicles did have a point.因为哲学的确将我们与习俗He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions既定假设以及原有信条相疏离from established assumptions and from settled beliefs.以上就是我说的个人以及政治风险Those are the risks personal and political.面对这些风险 有一种典型的回避方式And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion.这种方式就是怀疑论 大致的意思是The name of the evasion is skepticism its the idea.It goes something like this. 刚才争论过的案例或者原则We didnt resolve once and for all没有一劳永逸的解决方法either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began如果亚里士多德 洛克 康德以及穆勒and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill花了这么多年都没能解决这些问题havent solved these questions after all of these years那今天我们齐聚桑德斯剧院who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre仅凭一学期的课程学习 就能解决了吗over the course of a semester can resolve them?也许这本就是智者见智 仁者见仁的问题And so maybe its just a matter of each person having his or her own principles多说无益 也无从论证and theres nothing more to be said about it no wa