THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER This is a course about justice
and we begin with a story. Suppose you're the driver
of a trolley car,
and your trolley car
is hurtling down the track
at 60 miles an hour.
And at the end of the track
you notice five workers
working on the track.
You try to stop
but you can't,
your brakes don't work.
You feel desperate
because you know
that if you crash
into these five workers,
they will all die.
Let's assume
you know that for sure.
And so you feel helpless
until you notice
that there is,
off to the right,
a side track and at the end
of that track,
there is one worker
working on the track.
Your steering wheel works,
so you can turn the trolley car,
if you want to,
onto the side track
killing the one but sparing the five. Here's our first question:
what's the right thing to do?
What would you do?
Let's take a poll.
How many would turn
the trolley car
onto the side track?
Raise your hands.
How many wouldn't?
How many would go straight ahead? Keep your hands up those of you
who would go straight ahead.
A handful of people would,
the vast majority would turn.
Let's hear first,
now we need to begin
to investigate the reasons
why you think
it's the right thing to do.
Let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to go
onto the side track.
Why would you do it?
What would be your reason?
Who's willing to volunteer a reason? Go ahead. Stand up.
Because it can't be right
to kill five people
when you can only
kill one person instead.
It wouldn't be right
to kill five if you could kill
one person instead.
That's a good reason.
That's a good reason.
Who else?
Does everybody agree
with that reason? Go ahead.
Well I was thinking it's the same reason on 9/11 with regard
to the people who flew the plane
into the Pennsylvania field
as heroes because they chose
to kill the people on the plane
and not kill more people
in big buildings.
So the principle there
was the same on 9/11.
It's a tragic circumstance
but better to kill one
so that five can live,
is that the reason
most of you had,
those of you
who would turn? Yes?
Let's hear now
from those in the minority, those who wouldn't turn. Yes. Well, I think that's
the same type of mentality that justifies genocide
and totalitarianism.
In order to save
one type of race,
you wipe out the other.
So what would you do
in this case?
You would, to avoid
the horrors of genocide,
you would crash
into the five and kill them? Presumably, yes.
You would?
-Yeah.
Okay. Who else?
That's a brave answer.
Thank you.
Let's consider
another trolley car case
and see whether those of you in the majority
want to adhere
to the principle
"better that one should die
so that five should live."
This time you're not the driver of the trolley car,
you're an onlooker.
You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. And down the track comes
a trolley car,
at the end of the track
are five workers,
the brakes don't work,
the trolley car
is about to careen
into the five and kill them. And now, you're not the driver,
you really feel helpless
until you notice
standing next to you,
leaning over the bridge
is a very fat man.
And you could
give him a shove.
He would fall over the bridge
onto the track right in the way
of the trolley car.
He would die
but he would spare the five.
Now, how many would push
the fat man over the bridge?
Raise your hand.
How many wouldn't?
Most people wouldn't.
Here's the obvious question.
What became of the principle "better to save five lives
even if it means sacrificing one?" What became of the principle
that almost everyone endorsed
in the first case?
I need to hear from someone
who was in the majority
in both cases.
How do you explain
the difference between the two? Yes. The second one, I guess,
involves an active choice
of pushing a person down
which I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all.
And so to choose on his behalf,
I guess, to involve him
in something that he
otherwise would have escaped is,
I guess, more than what
you have in the first case
where the three parties,
the driver and the two sets of workers,
are already, I guess,
in the situation.
But the guy working,
the one on the track
off to the side,
he didn't choose
to sacrifice his life any more
than the fat man did, did he?
That's true, but he was
on the tracks and...
This guy was on the bridge.
Go ahead, you can come back
if you want. All right.
It's a hard question. You did well.
You did very well.
It's a hard question.
Who else can find a way
of reconciling the reaction
of the majority
in these two cases? Yes.
Well, I guess in the first case
where you have the one worker
and the five,
it's a choice between those two
and you have to make
a certain choice and people
are going to die
because of the trolley car,
not necessarily because
of your direct actions.
The trolley car is a runaway thing
and you're making a split second choice. Whereas pushing the fat man over
is an actual act
of murder on your part.
You have control over that
whereas you may not have control
over the trolley car.
So I think it's a slightly
different situation.
All right, who has a reply?
That's good. Who has a way?
Who wants to reply?
Is that a way out of this? I don't think that's
a very good reason
because you choose to-
either way you have to choose
who dies because you either
choose to turn and kill the person, which is an act
of conscious thought to turn,
or you choose to push
the fat man over
which is also an active,
conscious action.
So either way,
you're making a choice.
Do you want to reply?
I'm not really sure
that that's the case.
It just still seems
kind of different.
The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks
and killing him,
you are actually killing him yourself. You're pushing him
with your own hands.
You're pushing him
and that's different
than steering something
that is going to cause
death into another.
You know, it doesn't really sound right saying it now.
No, no. It's good. It's good.
What's your name?
Andrew.
Andrew.
Let me ask you this question, Andrew. Yes.
Suppose standing on the bridge
next to the fat man,
I didn't have to push him,
suppose he was standing over
a trap door that I could open
by turning a steering wheel like that.
Would you turn?
For some reason,
that still just seems more wrong. Right?
I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that.
But... Or say that
the car is hurtling
towards a switch
that will drop the trap.
Then I could agree with that.
That's all right. Fair enough.
It still seems wrong in a way
that it doesn't seem wrong
in the first case to turn, you say. And in another way, I mean,
in the first situation
you're involved directly
with the situation.
In the second one,
you're an onlooker as well.
All right. -So you have the choice
of becoming involved or not
by pushing the fat man.
All right. Let's forget for the moment about this case.
That's good.
Let's imagine a different case.
This time you're a doctor
in an emergency room
and six patients
come to you.
They've been in a terrible
trolley car wreck.
Five of them
sustain moderate injuries,
one is severely injured,
you could spend all day
caring for the one
severely injured victim
but in that time,
the five would die.
Or you could look after the five, restore them to health
but during that time,
the one severely injured person would die.
How many would save the five? Now as the doctor,
how many would save the one? Very few people,
just a handful of people.
Same reason, I assume.
One life versus five?
Now consider another doctor case. This time, you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients,
each in desperate need
of an organ transplant
in order to survive.
One needs a heart,
one a lung, one a kidney,
one a liver,
and the fifth a pancreas.
And you have no organ donors.
You are about to see them die.
And then it occurs to you
that in the next room
there's a healthy guy
who came in for a check-up.
And he's – you like that –
and he's taking a nap,
you could go in very quietly,
yank out the five organs,
that person would die,
but you could save the five.
How many would do it?
Anyone? How many?
Put your hands up
if you would do it.
Anyone in the balcony?
I would.
You would? Be careful,
don't lean over too much.
How many wouldn't?
All right. What do you say?
Speak up in the balcony,
you who would yank out
the organs. Why?
I'd actually like to explore a
slightly alternate possibility
of just taking the one
of the five who needs an organ
who dies first and using
their four healthy organs
to save the other four.
That's a pretty good idea.
That's a great idea
except for the fact
that you just wrecked
the philosophical point.
Let's step back from these stories
and these arguments
to notice a couple of things
about the way the arguments
have begun to unfold.
Certain moral principles
have already begun to emerge
from the discussions we've had.
And let's consider
what those moral principles look like. The first moral principle
that emerged in the discussion
said the right thing to do,
the moral thing to do
depends on the consequences
that will result from your action.
At the end of the day,
better that five should live
even if one must die.
That's an example
of consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality
in the consequences of an act,
in the state of the world
that will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further,
we considered those other cases
and people weren't so sure
about consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitated
to push the fat man
over the bridge
or to yank out the organs
of the innocent patient,
people gestured toward reasons having to do with
the intrinsic quality
of the act itself,
consequences be what they may. People were reluctant.
People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong,
to kill a person,
an innocent person,
even for the sake
of saving five lives.
At least people thought
that in the second version
of each story we considered.
So this points
to a second categorical way
of thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality
in certain absolute
moral requirements,
certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explore
in the days and weeks to come
the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.
The most influential example
of consequential moral reasoning
is utilitarianism,
a doctrine invented
by Jeremy Bentham,
the 18th century
English political philosopher.
The most important philosopher
of categorical moral reasoning
is the 18th century
German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
So we will look
at those two different modes
of moral reasoning,
assess them,
and also consider others.
If you look at the syllabus,
you'll notice that we read
a number of great
and famous books,
books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others.
You'll notice too
from the syllabus
that we don't only
read these books;
we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversies
that raise philosophical questions.
We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage, military conscription,
a range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliven
these abstract and distant books
but to make clear,
to bring out what's at stake
in our everyday lives,
including our political lives,
for philosophy.
And so we will read these books
and we will debate these issues,
and we'll see how each informs
and illuminates the other.
This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this,
to read these books
in this way as an exercise
in self knowledge,
to read them in this way
carries certain risks, risks that are both personal
and political,
risks that every student
of political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the fact
that philosophy teaches us
and unsettles us
by confronting us with
what we already know.
There's an irony.
The difficulty of this course
consists in the fact
that it teaches
what you already know.
It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange.
That's how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness
and sobriety.
It's also how these
philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us
from the familiar,
not by supplying new information
but by inviting and provoking
a new way of seeing but,
and here's the risk,
once the familiar turns strange,
it's never quite the same again.
Self knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it;
it can never be un-thought
or un-known.
What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting
is that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don't know
where the story will lead.
But what you do know
is that the story is about you.
Those are the personal risks.
Now what of the political risks?
One way of introducing a course
like this would be to promise you that by reading these books
and debating these issues,
you will become a better,
more responsible citizen;
you will examine the presuppositions of public policy,
you will hone your political judgment, you will become a more
effective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partial
and misleading promise.
Political philosophy,
for the most part,
hasn't worked that way.
You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy
may make you a worse citizen
rather than a better one
or at least a worse citizen
before it makes you a better one,
and that's because
philosophy is a distancing,
even debilitating, activity.
And you see this,
going back to Socrates,
there's a dialogue,
the Gorgias, in which
one of Socrates' friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing.
Callicles tells Socrates "Philosophy is a pretty toy
if one indulges in it
with moderation
at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should,
it is absolute ruin."
"Take my advice," Callicles says, "abandon argument.
Learn the accomplishments
of active life, take for your models
not those people who spend
their time on these petty quibbles
but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many
other blessings."
So Callicles is really saying to Socrates "Quit philosophizing, get real,
go to business school."
And Callicles did have a point.
He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions,
from established assumptions,
and from settled beliefs.
Those are the risks,
personal and political.
And in the face
of these risks,
there is a characteristic evasion.
The name of the evasion
is skepticism, it's the idea –
well, it goes something like this –
we didn't resolve once and for all either the cases or the principles
we were arguing when we began
and if Aristotle and Locke
and Kant and Mill
haven't solved these questions
after all of these years,
who are we to think that we,
here in Sanders Theatre,
over the course of a semester,
can resolve them?
And so, maybe it's just a matter
of each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more
to be said about it,
no way of reasoning.
That's the evasion,
the evasion of skepticism,
to which I would offer
the following reply.
It's true, these questions have been
debated for a very long time
but the very fact
that they have recurred and persisted
may suggest that though
they're impossible in one sense,
they're unavoidable in another.
And the reason they're unavoidable,
the reason they're inescapable
is that we live some answer
to these questions every day.
So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection
is no solution.
Immanuel Kant described very well
the problem with skepticism
when he wrote
"Skepticism is a resting place
for human reason,
where it can reflect upon
its dogmatic wanderings,
but it is no dwelling place
for permanent settlement."
"Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"
Kant wrote,
"can never suffice to overcome
the restlessness of reason."
I've tried to suggest
through these stories
and these arguments
some sense of the risks
and temptations,
of the perils and the possibilities.
I would simply conclude by saying
that the aim of this course
is to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead.
Thank you very much.
Like, in a situation that desperate,
you have to do
what you have to do to survive.
-You have to do what you have to do? You got to do
what you got to do, pretty much.
If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just has
to take the sacrifice.
Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.
Alright, that's good.
What's your name?
Marcus.
-Marcus, what do you say to Marcus? Last time,
we started out last time
with some stories,
with some moral dilemmas
about trolley cars
and about doctors
and healthy patients
vulnerable to being victims
of organ transplantation.
We noticed two things
about the arguments we had,
one had to do with the way
we were arguing.
We began with our judgments
in particular cases.
We tried to articulate the reasons
or the principles lying behind
our judgments.
And then confronted
with a new case,
we found ourselves
reexamining those principles, revising each
in the light of the other.
And we noticed the
built in pressure
to try to bring into alignment
our judgments
about particular cases
and the principles
we would endorse
on reflection.
We also noticed something
about the substance
of the arguments
that emerged from the discussion.
We noticed that sometimes
we were tempted to locate
the morality of an act
in the consequences, in the results,
in the state of the world
that it brought about.
And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.
But we also noticed
that in some cases,
we weren't swayed
only by the result.
Sometimes, many of us felt,
that not just consequences
but also the intrinsic quality
or character
of the act matters morally.
Some people argued
that there are certain things
that are just categorically wrong even if they bring about
a good result,
even if they saved five people
at the cost of one life.
So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones. Today and in the next few days,
we will begin to examine
one of the most influential versions
of consequentialist moral theory.
And that's the philosophy
of utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham,
the 18th century
English political philosopher
gave first the first clear
systematic expression
to the utilitarian moral theory.
And Bentham's idea,
his essential idea,
is a very simple one.
With a lot of morally
intuitive appeal, Bentham's idea
is the following,
the right thing to do;
the just thing to do
is to maximize utility.
What did he mean by utility?
He meant by utility
the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.
Here's how he arrived
at the principle of maximizing utility. He started out by observing
that all of us,
all human beings are governed
by two sovereign masters:
pain and pleasure.
We human beings
like pleasure and dislike pain.
And so we should base morality, whether we're thinking about
what to do in our own lives
or whether as legislators or citizens, we're thinking about
what the laws should be.
The right thing to do individually
or collectively is to maximize,
act in a way that maximizes
the overall level of happiness. Bentham's utilitarianism
is sometimes summed up
with the slogan
"The greatest good
for the greatest number."
With this basic principle
of utility on hand,
let's begin to test it
and to examine it
by turning to another case,
another story, but this time,
not a hypothetical story,
a real life story,
the case of the Queen
versus Dudley and Stevens.
This was a 19th century
British law case
that's famous and much debated
in law schools.
Here's what happened in the case.
I'll summarize the story
then I want to hear
how you would rule,
imagining that you were the jury.
A newspaper account of the time described the background.
A sadder story of disaster
at sea was never told
than that of the survivors
of the yacht, Mignonette.
The ship floundered
in the South Atlantic,
1300 miles from the cape.
There were four in the crew, Dudley was the captain,
Stevens was the first mate,
Brooks was a sailor,
all men of excellent character
or so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew member
was the cabin boy,
Richard Parker,
17 years old.
He was an orphan,
he had no family,
and he was on his first
long voyage at sea.
He went,
the news account tells us,
rather against the advice
of his friends.
He went in the hopefulness
of youthful ambition,
thinking the journey
would make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.
The facts of the case
were not in dispute.
A wave hit the ship
and the Mignonette went down. The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat.
The only food they had
were two cans of
preserved turnips,
no fresh water.
For the first three days,
they ate nothing.
On the fourth day,
they opened one
of the cans of turnips
and ate it.
The next day
they caught a turtle. Together with the other
can of turnips,
the turtle enabled them
to subsist for the next few days. And then for eight days,
they had nothing.
No food. No water.
Imagine yourself
in a situation like that,
what would you do?
Here's what they did.
By now the cabin boy, Parker, is lying at the bottom
of the lifeboat
in the corner
because he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others and he had become ill
and he appeared to be dying. So on the 19th day,
Dudley, the captain, suggested that they should all have a lottery,
that they should draw lots
to see who would die
to save the rest.
Brooks refused.
He didn't like the lottery idea. We don't know
whether this was
because he didn't want
to take the chance
or because he believed
in categorical moral principles.
But in any case,
no lots were drawn.
The next day
there was still no ship in sight
so Dudley told Brooks
to avert his gaze
and he motioned to Stevens
that the boy, Parker,
had better be killed.
Dudley offered a prayer,
he told the boy his time had come,
and he killed him
with a pen knife,
stabbing him
in the jugular vein.
Brooks emerged
from his conscientious objection
to share
in the gruesome bounty.
For four days,
the three of them fed
on the body and blood
of the cabin boy.
True story.
And then they were rescued.
Dudley describes their rescue
in his diary with staggering euphemism. "On the 24th day,
as we were having our breakfast,
a ship appeared at last."
The three survivors
were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back
to Falmouth in England
where they were arrested
and tried.
Brooks turned state's witness.
Dudley and Stevens went to trial. They didn't dispute the facts.
They claimed they had acted out of necessity;
that was their defense.
They argued in effect
better that one should die
so that three could survive.
The prosecutor wasn't swayed
by that argument.
He said murder is murder,
and so the case went to trial.
Now imagine you are the jury.
And just to simplify the discussion, put aside the question of law,
let's assume that you as the jury
are charged with deciding
whether what they did
was morally permissible or not.
How many would vote
'not guilty',
that what they did
was morally permissible?
And how many
would vote 'guilty',
what they did was
morally wrong?
A pretty sizeable majority.
Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with those
who are in the minority.
Let's hear first from the defense
of Dudley and Stevens.
Why would you morally
exonerate them?
What are your reasons?
Yes.
I think it is morally
reprehensible
but I think that
there is a distinction
between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone
legally accountable.
In other words,
as the judge said,
what's always moral
isn't necessarily against the law
and while I don't think
that necessity justifies theft
or murder or any illegal act,
at some point your degree
of necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt. Okay. Good. Other defenders.
Other voices for the defense.
Moral justifications
for what they did. Yes.
Thank you.
I just feel like
in the situation that desperate,
you have to do
what you have to do to survive.
You have to do
what you have to do.
Yeah, you've got to do
what you've got to do.
Pretty much.
If you've been going
19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.
And furthermore from that,
let's say they survive
and then they become productive members of society
who go home and start
like a million charity organizations and this and that
and this and that.
I mean they benefited everybody
in the end. -Yeah.
So, I mean I don't know
what they did afterwards,
they might have gone and like,
I don't know,
killed more people, I don't know. Whatever but. -What?
Maybe they were assassins.
What if they went home and they turned out to be assassins? What if they'd gone home
and turned out to be assassins? Well…You'd want to know
who they assassinated.
That's true too. That's fair.
That's fair. I would want to know who they assassinated.
All right. That's good.
What's your name?
Marcus.
Marcus. All right.
We've heard a defense,
a couple of voices
for the defense.
Now we need to hear
from the prosecution.
Most people think
what they did was wrong. Why? Yes. -One of the first things
that I was thinking was
they haven't been eating
for a really long time
maybe they're mentally
like affected and so
then that could be used
as a defense,
a possible argument
that they weren't
in the proper state of mind,
they weren't making decisions
they might otherwise be making. And if that's an appealing argument that you have to be
in an altered mindset
to do something like that,
it suggests that people
who find that argument convincing do think that they were
acting immorally.
But what do you-
I want to know
what you think.
You defend them.
I'm sorry, you vote to convict, right? Yeah, I don't think that
they acted in a morally appropriate way.
And why not?
What do you say,
here's Marcus,
he just defended them.
He said –
you heard what he said.
Yes.
That you've got to do
what you've got to do
in a case like that. -Yeah.
-What do you say to Marcus?
That there's
no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea
of fate or
the other people's lives
in their own hands,
that we don't have
that kind of power.
Good. Okay.
Thank you.
And what's your name?
Britt.
Britt. Okay. Who else?
What do you say? Stand up.
I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven had asked for Richard Parker's consent in you know, dying,
if that would exonerate them
from an act of murder
and if so,
is that still morally justifiable? That's interesting.
All right. Consent.
Wait wait, hang on.
What's your name?
Kathleen.
Kathleen says
suppose they had that,
what would that scenario look like?
So in the story Dudley is there,
pen knife in hand,
but instead of the prayer
or before the prayer,
he says "Parker, would you mind?" "We're desperately hungry",
as Marcus empathizes with,
"we're desperately hungry.
You're not going to last long anyhow." -Yeah. You can be a martyr.
"Would you be a martyr?
How about it Parker?"
Then what do you think?
Would it be morally justified then? Suppose Parker
in his semi-stupor says "Okay."
I don't think it would be
morally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be?
-No.
You don't think that
even with consent
it would be morally justified?
Are there people who think
who want to take up
Kathleen's consent idea
and who think that
that would make it
morally justified?
Raise your hand
if it would, if you think it would.
That's very interesting.
Why would consent
make a moral difference?
Why would it? Yes.
Well, I just think
that if he was making
his own original idea
and it was his idea
to start with,
then that would be
the only situation
in which I would see it
being appropriate in any way because that way
you couldn't make the argument that he was pressured,
you know it's three-to-one
or whatever the ratio was. Right. -And I think that if he was making a decision
to give his life
and he took on the agency
to sacrifice himself
which some people
might see as admirable
and other people might disagree with that decision.
So if he came up
with the idea,
that's the only kind
of consent we could have confidence in morally
then it would be okay. Otherwise, it would be kind of coerced consent
under the circumstances,
you think.
Is there anyone who thinks
that even the consent of Parker would not justify their killing him? Who thinks that? Yes.
Tell us why. Stand up.
I think that Parker
would be killed with the hope
that the other crew members would be rescued so there's no definite reason that
he should be killed
because you don't know
when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him,
it's killing him in vain,
do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued
and then you're left with no one because someone's going to die eventually?
Well, the moral logic
of the situation seems to be that, that they would keep on
picking off the weakest maybe,
one by one,
until they were rescued.
And in this case, luckily,
they were rescued when three at least were still alive.
Now, if Parker did give his consent, would it be all right,
do you think or not?
No, it still wouldn't be right.
-And tell us why
it wouldn't be all right.
First of all, cannibalism,
I believe, is morally incorrect
so you shouldn't be
eating human anyway.
So cannibalism is morally objectionable as such so then,
even on the scenario of
waiting until someone died,
still it would be objectionable. Yes, to me personally,
I feel like it all depends
on one's personal morals
and like we can't sit here and just, like this is just my opinion,
of course other people
are going to disagree, but –
Well we'll see,
let's see what their disagreements are and then we'll see
if they have reasons that can persuade you or not.
Let's try that. All right.
Now, is there someone
who can explain,
those of you who are
tempted by consent,
can you explain why
consent makes such
a moral difference?
What about the lottery idea? Does that count as consent? Remember at the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery, suppose that they had agreed
to a lottery,
then how many would then say it was all right?
Suppose there were a lottery, cabin boy lost,
and the rest of the story unfolded, then how many people would say it was morally permissible?
So the numbers are rising
if we had a lottery.
Let's hear from one of you
for whom the lottery
would make a moral difference. Why would it?
I think the essential element,
in my mind,
that makes it a crime
is the idea that they decided
at some point that their lives were more important than his, and that, I mean, that's kind of the basis for really any crime. Right? It's like my needs,
my desires are more important than yours and mine
take precedent.
And if they had done a lottery where everyone consented
that someone should die
and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves
to save the rest.
Then it would be all right?
A little grotesque but–.
-But morally permissible? Yes.
-And what's your name?
Matt. -So Matt, for you,
what bothers you is
not the cannibalism
but the lack of due process.
I guess you could say that.
Right? And can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more
about why a lottery would make it,
in your view, morally permissible.
Go ahead.
The way I understood it
originally was that
that was the whole issue
is that the cabin boy
was never consulted
about whether or not
something was going
to happen to him,
even with the original lottery whether or not
he would be a part of that,
it was just decided
that he was the one
that was going to die.
Right, that's what happened
in the actual case.
Right.
But if there were a lottery
and they'd all agreed to the procedure, you think that would be okay? Right, because then everyone
knows that there's going to be a death, whereas the cabin boy didn't know that this discussion was even happening, there was no forewarning
for him to know that
"Hey, I may be the one that's dying." All right.
Now, suppose everyone agrees
to the lottery, they have the lottery, the cabin boy loses,
and he changes his mind.
You've already decided,
it's like a verbal contract.
You can't go back on that,
you've decided,
the decision was made.
If you know that you're dying
for the reason of others to live.
If someone else had died,
you know that you would consume them so –
Right. But then you could say,
"I know, but I lost".
I just think that
that's the whole moral issue
is that there was no consulting
of the cabin boy
and that's what makes it
the most horrible
is that he had no idea
what was even going on.
That had he known
what was going on,
it would be a bit more understandable.
All right. Good.
Now I want to hear –
so there are some who think
it's morally permissible
but only about 20%,
led by Marcus.
Then there are some who say
the real problem here
is the lack of consent,
whether the lack of consent
739to a lottery, to a fair procedure or, Kathleen's idea,
lack of consent
at the moment of death.
And if we add consent,
then more people are willing
to consider the sacrifice
morally justified.
I want to hear now, finally,
from those of you
who think even with consent,
even with a lottery, even with a final murmur
of consent by Parker,
at the very last moment,
it would still be wrong.
And why would it be wrong?
That's what I want to hear. Yes. Well, the whole time
I've been leaning off towards
the categorical moral reasoning
and I think that there's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea
of a lottery
and then the loser taking into
their own hands to kill themselves so there wouldn't be
an act of murder,
but I still think that
even that way, it's coerced.
Also, I don't think that
there is any remorse,
like in Dudley's diary,
"We're eating our breakfast,'
it seems as though he's just
sort of like, you know,
the whole idea of
not valuing someone else's life.
So that makes me feel
like I have to take the –
You want to throw the book
at him when he lacks remorse
or a sense of having done
anything wrong.
Right.
So, all right. Good.
Are there any other defenders
who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent?
Yes. Stand up. Why?
I think undoubtedly
the way our society is shaped murder is murder.
Murder is murder
in every way
and our society looks at murder
down on the same light
and I don't think
it's any different in any case.
Good. Let me ask you a question.
There were three lives at stake versus one. Okay.
The one, the cabin boy,
he had no family,
he had no dependents,
these other three had families
back home in England;
they had dependents;
they had wives and children.
Think back to Bentham.
Bentham says
we have to consider
the welfare, the utility,
the happiness of everybody.
We have to add it all up
so it's not just numbers,
three against one;
it's also all of those
people at home.
In fact, the London newspaper
at that time and popular opinion sympathized with them,
Dudley and Stevens,
and the paper said
if they weren't motivated
by affection and concern
for their loved ones at home
and their dependents,
surely they wouldn't have done this. Yeah and how is that
any different
from people on a corner trying,
with the same desire
to feed their family.
I don't think it's any different.
I think in any case,
if I'm murdering you
to advance my status,
that's murder,
and I think that we should look at all that
in the same light
instead of criminalizing
certain activities and
making certain things
seem more violently savage
when in the same case,
it's all the same, it's all the same
act and mentality that goes
into murder,
necessity to feed your family so –Suppose it weren't three,
suppose it were 30? 300?
One life to save 300?
Or in wartime? 3000?
Suppose the stakes are even bigger. Suppose the stakes
are even bigger?
I think it's still the same deal.
You think Bentham is wrong
to say the right thing to do
is to add up the
collective happiness?
You think he's wrong
about that?
I don't think he's wrong
but I think murder is murder
in any case.
Well, then Bentham has
to be wrong.
If you're right, he's wrong.
Okay, then he's wrong. I'm right.
All right. Thank you.
Well done. All right.
Let's step back from this discussion and notice how many objections have we heard
to what they did?
We heard some defenses
of what they did.
The defenses had to do with necessity, their dire circumstance and, implicitly at least,
the idea that numbers matter.
And not only numbers matter
but the wider effects matter;
their families back home,
their dependents.
Parker was an orphan,
no one would miss him.
So if you add up,
if you try to calculate the balance of happiness and suffering,
you might have a case
for saying what they did
was the right thing.
Then we heard at least
three different types of objections. We heard an objection
that said what they did
was categorically wrong,
like here at the end, categorically wrong,
murder is murder,
it's always wrong even if
it increases the overall happiness of society,
a categorical objection.
But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong. Is it because even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights? And if that's the reason,
where do those rights come from if not from some idea
of the larger welfare
or utility or happiness?
Question number one.
Others said a lottery
would make a difference,
a fair procedure Matt said,
and some people
were swayed by that.
That's not a categorical
objection exactly.
It's saying everybody
has to be counted as an equal even though at the end of the day, one can be sacrificed
for the general welfare.
That leaves us with
another question to investigate. Why does agreement
to a certain procedure,
even a fair procedure,
justify whatever result flows
from the operation
of that procedure?
Question number two.
And question number three,
the basic idea of consent. Kathleen got us on to this.
If the cabin boy had agreed himself, and not under duress, as was added, then it would be all right
to take his life to save the rest
and even more people
signed on to that idea.
But that raises a third philosophical question:
What is the moral work
that consent does?
Why does an act of consent
make such a moral difference,
that an act that would be wrong, taking a life without consent,
is morally permissible with consent? To investigate those three questions, we're going to have to read
some philosophers.
And starting next time,
we're going to read Bentham
and John Stuart Mill,
utilitarian philosophers.
Don't miss the chance
to interact online
with other viewers of Justice.
Join the conversation,
take a pop quiz,
watch lectures you've missed
and learn a lot more.
Visit https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,.
it's the right thing to do.
Last time,
we argued about
上次,我们谈到
the case of
The 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 arguments
about the lifeboat in mind,
带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论
the arguments for and against
what 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,
let's 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 19
15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 to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.
相反,他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学. Last time, we began to consider Bentham's 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 stated
and it's 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 balance
of 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 principle
by the following line of reasoning: Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：We're 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
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 the greatest 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 principle
not only for individuals
最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人but also for communities
and 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.
It's the sum of the individuals
who comprise it.
它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和. And that's why in deciding
the 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 what's 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
公民和立法者应该问自己的问题
if we add up all of the benefits
of 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 balance
of happiness over suffering.
就是将幸福与痛苦之间的平衡最大化地倾向幸福.
That's 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 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,
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 benefits
of 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 business
in 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 government gains 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?
It's true that there are
negative effects to the public finance
确实,捷克政府的公共财政体系
of the Czech government
because 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 develop
smoking-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 up
on 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 the
《公正与正义》公开课观后感 学号：2011262138 商务1121班 为了丰富我们的思想素养，我们的敬爱的胡老师给我们看了由哈佛大学哲学教授迈克尔*桑德尔（Michael Sandel）主讲的美国哈佛大学《公正与正义》公开课程的讲学视频的前六讲。不得不说，看完之后，受益匪浅，感慨良多。 该讲座以哈佛教授迈克尔*桑德尔对道德和政治哲学的系列入门介绍。邀请大家带着批判的观点来思考正义，公平，民主和公民权等基础问题。看完了《公正与正义》前六讲，我似乎感觉到了其中所描述的是在一个秩序良好的理想的社会中探讨正义、阐述规则，正义的标准到底如何确定，我想这应该是一个很值得探讨的问题。桑德尔教授对假设的理想社会的正义原则的理性设计，展示了其精密而理性的逻辑思维。采用较为思辨的语言不见经传地阐述实质性的理论问题，而不是像分析哲学那样较多地集中于语言与形式方面。 在《公平与正义》中，桑德尔教授所假设出来的一切，都将重重的考验着我们每一次站在道德与法律、公平与正义上所做出的选择。在这里，仅写下一点哲学赋予我的人生智慧，这也算是在对该讲学中某一个方面的感悟吧。 哲学的任务不是为了人对客观实际增加正面的知识，而是为了提高人的心智。在学习中，我们面对事物，学会了用联系、发展、全面的观点看问题，避免了那些孤立的、静止的、片面的幼稚错误；我们认识到了世界的发展有其自身的规律，如果顺应规律将得到事半功倍的效果；我们明白量变质变的原理，懂得如果不防微杜渐，一点点小错误的积累都会导致严重的后果；我们明白矛盾的重点论，知道了面对纷繁复杂问题的时候，抓住其主要方面，其他都能迎刃而解。 学哲学可以养成清楚的思维，怀疑的精神，容忍的态度，开阔的眼界，我们要有这种眼界，不但可以做事，而且更能善于做事。任何一个知识领域，只要你愿意深入，展现在你眼前的将是一种不一样的画面，而知识的真谛也往往蕴于其中。另外，哲学以它巨大的
第一课 各位，早上好。很高兴能回到这里。 高兴见到你们。 我教授这门课是因为在我读本科阶段时非常希望能学习这样一门课程。 可能这门课并不是你希望的那样也可能并不适合你。 但希望几堂课后，你能有个大概印象让你决定这门课程是否适合你。 我1992年来到哈佛求学，一开始主修计算机科学。 大二期间，突然顿悟了。 我意识到我身处让人神往大学校园周围都是出色的同学，优秀的导师。 我成绩优异。擅长体育运动。那时壁垒打的不错。社交也游刃有余。 一切都很顺利除了一点我不快乐。而且我不明白为什么。 也就是在那时我决定要找出原因变得快乐。 于是我将研究方向从计算机科学转向了哲学及心理学。 目标只有一个:怎么让自己开心起来。 渐渐的，我的确变得更快乐了主要是因为我接触了一个新的领域，那时并未正式命名。 但本质上属于积极心理学畴。 研究积极心理学把其理念应用到生活中让我无比快乐。 而且这种快乐继续着。 于是我决定将其与更多的人分享。 选择教授这门学科。 这就是积极心理学，1504号心理学课程。 我们将一起探索这一全新相对新兴令人倾倒的领域。 希望同时还能探索我们自己。 我第一次开设这门课程是在2002年。 是以讨论会的形式，只有8名学生。两名退出了只剩我和其他六个人。一年后学生稍微多了点。有300多人参加。到了第三年，也就是上一次开课。 有850名参加是当时哈佛大学人数最多的课程。 这引起了媒体的注意。因为他们想知道为什么。 他们对这一奇特现象非常好奇竟然有比经济学导论更热门的课程。怎么可能呢？ 于是我被请去参加各类媒体采访，报纸，广播，电视。 在这些采访中，我发现了一种有趣的模式。 我前去参加采访。进行采访。 结束后，制片人或主持人会送我出来。说些诸如Tal多你抽空参加采访。 不过你跟我想象的不太一样的话。 我漫不经心的问。 我无所谓，不过总得回应“有何不同？” 他们会说“这个嘛，我们会以为你很外向”。 下一次采访结束时仍是如此“多接受采访”。 不过Tal，你跟我想象得不太一样。
哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》全12集 标题：哈佛大学公开课《公平与正义》全12集115网盘下载，英文对白中文字幕。 ◎片名 Justice What's The Right Thing To Do ◎译名公平与正义 ◎年代 2009 ◎影片类型纪录片/讲座 ◎片长 60Mins ×12 ◎国家美国 ◎对白语言英语 ◎字幕中文简/繁/英 ◎编码 x264 + AAC ◎视频码率 520 kbps ◎音频码率 48 kbps ◎视频尺寸 640 x 352 ◎文件大小 225MB×12（每集2讲） ◎片源 720P ◎简介 该讲座以哈佛教授Michael Sandel的《关于公平和正义的入门课》为基础，是对道德和政治哲学的系列入门介绍。 这套讲座共有12集，邀请观众们带着批判的观点来思考正义，公平，民主和公民权等基础问题。在哈佛大学，每星期都有一千多名学生去听教授兼作家的Michael Sandel开设的这门课程，渴望藉此扩充对政治和道德哲学的理解，并从中检验长期秉持的信仰。学生们学到了过去的伟大哲学家们的哲学理论-亚里士多德，康德，穆勒，洛克--再把学到的东西运用来思考复杂且动荡不定的现代社会的种种问题，包括反歧视行动，同性婚姻，爱国主义，忠诚和人@权。
演讲者：Michael Sandel (哈佛大学哲学教授) 第一集下载地址：https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/f5d9c24195 第1讲：《杀人的道德侧面》 如果必须选择杀死1人或者杀死5人，你会怎么选？正确的做法是什么？教授Michael Sandel在他的讲座里提出这个假设的情景，有多数的学生投票来赞成杀死1人，来保全其余五个人的性命。但是Sandel提出了三宗类似的道德难题-每一个都设计巧妙，以至于抉择的难度增加。当学生站起来为自己的艰难抉择辩护时，Sandel提出了他的观点。我们的道德推理背后的假设往往是矛盾的，而什么是正确什么是错的问题，并不总是黑白分明的。 第2讲：《同类自残案》 Sandel介绍了功利主义哲学家Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）与19世纪的一个著名案例，此案涉及到的人是4个失事轮船的船员。他们在海上迷失了19天之后，船长决定杀死机舱男孩，他是4个人中最弱小的，这样他们就可以靠他的血液和躯体维持生命。案件引发了学生们对提倡幸福最大化的功利论的辩论，功利论的口号是“绝大多数人的最大利益”。 第2集下载地址：https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/f58830c3d8 第3讲：《给生命一个价格标签》 Jeremy Bentham（杰瑞米·边沁）在18世纪后期提出的的功利主义理论-最大幸福理论 -今天常被称为“成本效益分析”。Sandel举出企业运用这一理论的实例：通过评估衡量一美元在生活中的价值来作出重要的商业决定。由此引起了功利主义的反对观点的讨论：即使当多数人的利益可能是卑鄙或不人道的时候也强调绝大多数人的利益，这样是否公平？ 第4讲：《如何衡量快乐》 Sandel介绍另一位功利主义哲学家J.S. Mill（穆勒，也译作“密尔”）。他认为，所有人类的体验都可以量化，但某些快乐是更值得
哈佛大学公开课“幸福课”第四课 大家好，我们是“哈佛召回”组合，想向教员和同学们传达一份特殊的情人节讯息…..(唱歌)。 早上好，请他们献歌时，本来想选另一首歌，但是…算了吧。“我们确实爱你们”。 今天课程的内容是上节课的延续，是这门课的基本前提，“我们来自哪里，我们将去哪里”。从各个方面展开论述螺旋的基础，我们将在本学期一起创建它。上次我们讲到改变有多么困难，我们谈到“双胞胎研究”（Twin studies），Lykken和Tellegen提出的，也许改变我们幸福水平和试图改变身高一样困难和徒劳无功，然后谈到这些研究学者们犯的一般性的失误和错误，误解改变的本质，因为如果一个人在改变，问题已不再是“是否可能改变？”，而是“怎样才可能改变”。还谈到剑桥--萨摩维尔研究（Somerville Cambridge study）,证明劳斯莱斯干预彻底失败。五年来，剑桥，哈佛和麻省理工的顶尖科学家，研究人员，精神病专家和心理学家，沥尽心血，带着美好的意图，事实改变，但最终失败。不仅没有实现正面的改变，实际上是带去了负面的改变。还记得吗？干预组的酗酒比例和对照组相比是增加的，未参与干预的对照组更有可能在二三十年后获得升职。改变是困难的，但我们又说“Marva Collins实现了改变，所以改变是可能的”。Martin Seligmen和Karen Reivich及大量学者都成功地实现改变，困难在于如果我们想成为实践理想主义者就是要理解是什么带来改变然后去做。传播理念，传播研究的理念，即使研究并非总是传达好消息，它传达的是行之有效的方法，渴望，希望，愿望，那远远不够。好的意愿，理想主义，好的意图是不够的，我们需要扎根于研究。这正是Maslow的想法，当他谈及类似的曼哈顿计划时，科学家，积极心理学家，当时的心理学家和社学科学工作者聚在一起，在流行学术领域中挑出几种观念，几个有效的项目，再复制它们。研究最好的，正如Mariam同学课后找到我时说的“流行学术其实是要将杰出大众化”，我喜欢这个说法。将杰出大众化研究最好的再应用在其他人身上。我们有了这样一个伟大的计划，有了Maslow创造类似曼哈顿计划（Manhattan-type Project）的伟大想法。但是如果我不想参与计划呢？不想成为学者？只想做自己的事，我能否实现改变？答案是：绝对能够。 人若想在世间有岁作为，真正实现改变，面对的最显著障碍之一是他们低估自己实现改变的能力。心理学界有很多研究。爱默生（Emerson）和莫斯科维奇（Moscovici）是先驱，他们和其他学者都证明少数人，经常是一个人，如何实现重大改变，能实现显著的改变。爱默生说：“人类历史是少数派和一个人的少数派的权力记录”。很多社会科学研究支持这个观点。人类学家Margaret Mead说：“永远不要怀疑一小群有思想、坚定的市民可以改变世界。”事实上，正是这群人改变着世界。所有改变从一个人或一小众人的思想开始，然后不断扩大。问题是“他如何扩大”以及为什么我们难以理解我们能够做出改变这个事实，并接受，被同化以及据此生活。如果我们能了解我们需要理解的是改变如何发生，改变以指数级发生，我们与其他人的联系及他们与更多人的联系形成了一个指数函数，可以用你们熟悉的“蝴蝶效应”（butterfly effect）为例加以解释，一只蝴蝶在新加坡拍动翅膀，理论上能在佛罗里达引起龙卷风，原因在于粒子的连续碰撞。它也解释了六度分隔理论（6 degrees of separation）:在一个潜在善的网络里我们是关联和相互关联的。为了说明人类网络的指数本质，我们来以笑为例。研究证明笑有传染性，别人笑会引起你发笑，你笑会引起别人发笑，以此类推。即使路人与你擦肩而过时，你没笑，表面上你没有笑，但你面部的细微肌肉会收缩，让你感觉更好。笑是传染的。如果你的笑感染了三个人，这三个人，每个人又引起另外三人发笑，那九个人，每个人再用笑容感染三个人，只需要20度的分隔，从你用笑容感染三个人开始，全世界就会笑起来。社会网络的指数本质，让别人感觉良好也有感染力。恭维别人，如果你能让三个人，甚至四个人度过美妙的一天，他们会推展，让四人有美好的一天，以此类推。只需要很短的时间，整个世界都会感觉更加美好。这是
哈佛公开课：幸福课 Harvard Open Course : Positive Psychology 背景： “幸福课”是2010年哈佛最受欢迎的选修课是，听课人数超过了王牌课《经济学导论》。教这门课的是一位名不见经传的年轻讲师，泰勒?本－沙哈尔。他的课程使得他成了“哈佛红人”。他提出：幸福，是可以通过学习和练习获得的。”他的课程目标在于把艰深的积极心理学学术成果简约化、实用化，让学生懂得自我帮助。 第一课什么是积极心理学 积极心理学课程由来 首先，解释自己为什么想开这门课“因为这是我自己想上的一门课”，然后叙述自己走入积极心理学研究的过程。——当自己刚进入哈佛，一切都仿佛很好，但他却不快乐。于是他想解决这个问题，于是慢慢从计算机走入心理学领域。（好棒的跨度，在国外因为想了解一样东西而跨专业好像蛮common的） 然后介绍了他逐渐从8个人的讨论组到850个人的大课的过程，写到达到850人后，引起了媒体的兴趣，然后描述了媒体采访他的时候，总是提出的一个问题“你比我们想象的更内向”，作为一个joke，1米7不够资格传授快乐吗？（good joke point，并且不光是joke，是发人深思的一种现象）但点出了他最后反思而得：因为他们想给自己一个答案：为什么这个课这样流行，唯一解释就是导师乐观开朗、高大。但他们关注错了，他们应该关注信息，而非传达者。因为这个课程遍及全国，以及全球。（这样引入幸福课的普及，远较直接说XX学校也开了XX好得多） 各个大学开设此课程，各国政府也是，为什么？因为它有效。幸福感这一领域，此前一直被心理自助运动统治，心理自助运动带来什么？热情外向的宣讲者，常具领袖气质，吸引大众参加他们的讲座，但常常言过其实。（通过描述相对立的一种心理学运动来映衬积极心理学） 再来说说学术界——（引入人们对学术界知之甚少，但学术界有好东西，又用了一个比较）：有多少人度过最近12期的《个性与社会心理学》？大多数人甚至不知道这是什么东西，我博士班的班主任估计过，学术期刊上一篇文章的读者只有7个人，甚至包括作者的母亲。（用具体的人代替somebody，令人更有亲切感，母亲的joke两个亮点）总结：作为学者，我觉得这很可悲，因为这些研究非常精彩、非常重要，但是晦涩难懂，所以我们需要积极心理学的课程，在象牙塔和大众之间搭建桥梁。（又落脚到主题，本课程的意义）
Outline of 13th lesson Carp Diem. Seize the day.→self-concordance English version: Conclusion: to pursuit things we care about and feel enjoyable; set up the overall goal to resolve internal conflicts; motivated and devote more, so enhance the possibility of success. Benefits of self-concordance: 1、Setting self-concordant goals can potentially make us happier. Because we are pursuing something we care about, it is more likely to reinforce our enjoyment of the journey. 2、Having self-concordance goals-having goals in general, but in particular self-concordant goals, resolve internal conflicts. 3、It increases the likelihood of success. Individuals who set-concordant goals are more motivated-they are more likely to work hard, to put their all in whatever it is-that they are doing. In practice, there is a lot of research on it. There is a lot of researches shows when we are engaged in a self-concordant goal, we are much more likely to then continue to pursue self-concordant goals. The goals of self-concordant have a trickle effect. Choosing to do things doing what we want to do has also health benefits. When we choose, when we want to, it has implications to our well being, to our success, and to our physical health to the point of leading to longer life. Too easy is not necessarily good. Finally we see this also in oppressive regimes versus democracies. One of the main reasons why people are happier under democracies and remember that is one of few external circumstances that can predict happiness-one of the reasons is because under democracies, people have choice. When you have a choice, which is a good
Justice-what to do is a series of open courses on philosophy and morality given by Professor Michael J. Sandel from Harvard University. It consists of twelve parts, each of which is defined with two themes in the style of a question, a case name or a pair of antonyms, like Who owns me, For sale motherhood, Free Vs Fit. Most impressive of all is that each course is unfolded in the follow steps: case introduction, then question raising, and at last heated discussion or debate. And if necessary, Professor Sandel will have core explanation on the famous theories discovered by the philosophers, Aristotle, Bethem, Kant, Rawls and Locke, and so on. The whole series of courses are organized in a progressive structure, which comparably leads us to be thoughtful, and furthermore think morally. Some of the contents will be summarized as follow
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 you're 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 can't 因为刹车坏了\your brakes don't 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\Let's 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:\Here's our first question: 何为正确的选择\what's the right thing to do? 换了你会怎么做\What would you do? 我们来做个调查\Let's 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 wouldn't? 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\Let's 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 it's the right thing to do. 先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始\Let's begin with those in the majority who
Funding for this program is 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 of The 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 arguments about the lifeboat in mind, 带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论 the arguments for and against what 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, let's 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 19 15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 to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.
THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER This is a course about justice and we begin with a story. Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track. You try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. Let's assume you know that for sure. And so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the end of that track, there is one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track killing the one but sparing the five. Here's our first question: what's the right thing to do? What would you do? Let's take a poll. How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track? Raise your hands. How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead? Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead. A handful of people would, the vast majority would turn. Let's hear first, now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think it's the right thing to do. Let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to go onto the side track. Why would you do it? What would be your reason? Who's willing to volunteer a reason? Go ahead. Stand up. Because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead. It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead. That's a good reason. That's a good reason. Who else? Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead. Well I was thinking it's the same reason on 9/11 with regard to the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people on the plane and not kill more people in big buildings. So the principle there was the same on 9/11. It's a tragic circumstance but better to kill one so that five can live, is that the reason most of you had, those of you
哈佛大学公开课–公正迈克尔.桑德尔教授主讲-<<杀人道德的侧面>> 由Graywolf_Robbie整理 这段时间一直在学习著名大学的公开课程,如哈佛大学的[该如何是好],[幸福课],[心理学],耶鲁大学的[金融市场],[博弈论],[心理学导论][死亡],普林斯顿大学的[领导能力简介],[人性],还有斯坦福大学的[经济学],[商业领袖和企业家].等等,下载了很多视频,上班看,下班也看,感觉著名大学授课方式与理论水平真不是盖的.一听就上瘾了.所以就想把视频里面的资料再取出来再复习一下,温故而知新.以下本文取自[该如何是好]课程的第一课.我觉得非常精彩. 这是一门讨论公正的课程，我们以一则故事作为引子: 假设你是一名电车司机，你的电车以60km\小时的速度形式在轨道上飞驰，突然发现在轨道的尽头有五名工人在施工，你无法令电车停下来，因为刹车坏了，此时你极度绝望,因为你深知,如果电车撞向那五名工人，他们会全部死亡。假设你对此确信无疑,你极为无助，直到你发现在轨道的右侧还有一条侧轨，而在侧轨的尽头，只有一名工人在那里施工，而你的方向盘并没有坏，只要你想，就可以把电车转到侧轨上去，牺牲一个人而挽救五个人. 下面是我们的第一个问题：何为正确的选择？换了你会怎么做？我们来做个调查，有多少人会把电车开到侧轨上去？有多少人会让电车继续往前开？选择往前开的,请不要把手放下. 测试结果表明:只有少数人选择继续开下去，而大部分人都选择转弯。我们先来听听大家的想法，探究一下原因？你们会认为这是正确的选择。先从大多数选择了转向侧轨的同学开始，为何要这样选择？理由是什么？有没有自告奋勇的. 学生A：我认为当可以只牺牲一个人时，牺牲五个人是不正确的选择。 教授：当可以只牺牲一个人时，牺牲五个人是不正确的选择，这理由不错，还有其他理由吗？人人都赞成这个理由吗？ 学生B:我认为这和9.11的时候是一种情况，那些让飞机在宾州坠毁的人，被视为英雄，因为他们选择牺牲了自己，而不是让飞机撞向大楼牺牲更多的人。 教授：这么看来这条原则和9.11是一样的，虽然是悲剧，但牺牲一个人保全五个人依然是更正确的选择。这就是大多数人选择把电车开到侧轨上去的理由吗？现在我们来听听少数派的意见。那些人选择不转弯的. 学生C：我认为这与种族灭绝和极权主义正名是同一种思维，为了一个种族生存下来，以灭绝另一个种族为代价。 教授：那换了是你在这种情况下会怎么做？为了避免骇人听闻的种族灭绝，你打算直接开上去把这五个人撞死吗？ 学生C:大概会吧。 教授：我们来考虑一下另一种情况下的例子，看看你们大多数人会不会坚持刚才的原则（即牺牲一个人保全五个人是更好的选择），这次你不是电车司机，只是一名旁观者，你站在桥上俯瞰电车轨道，电车沿轨道从远处驶来，轨道尽头有五名工人，电车刹车坏了，这五名工人将被撞死，但你不是电车司机，你真的爱莫能助，但是你真得不是电车司机,直到你发现，在你的旁边靠着桥站着一个超级大胖子，你可以选择推他一把，他就会摔下桥，正好摔在轨道上挡住电车，他必死无疑，但是可以拯救五个人的生命。 现在，有多少人愿意选择把胖子推下去？有多少人不会？通过举手调查结果，大多数人没有选择推胖子下去，一个显而易见的问题出现了我们“牺牲一个人保全五个人”的这条原则，到底出了什么问题？第一种情况的时候，大多数人会赞成的这条原则怎么了，两种情况下你们都属于多数派，你们是怎么想的？应该如何来解释这两种情况的区别？ 学生D：我认为第二种情况牵涉到主动选择推人，而被推的这个人本来和这件事情一点关
哈佛公正课的详细笔记及思考 迈克尔?桑德尔（Michael Sandel） 第一讲：杀人的道德侧面 【案例引子】 电车刹车失灵，正高速行驶在轨道上。如果继续往前，会撞死五个工人。转弯开向侧轨，会撞死一个工人，此时你的方向盘并没有坏。何为正确的选择？你会怎么做？ →大部分人选择开向侧轨，这样做的原则是“牺牲一人保全五人”。 更换案例的条件：假如我不是电车司机，而是站在桥上的旁观者，身边正有一个大胖子，我只要把他推下去，也能阻止电车撞向前面的五人。这时，我会怎么做？ →绝大部分人都拒绝这一行为。同样是“牺牲一人保全五人”，这个原则出现了什么问题？ 【争论的本质】 我们在特定的情况下作出判断，然后试图阐明作出这些判断的理由或原则。当我们面临新的情况时，我们重新检验这些原则，根据新的情况修正这些理由或原则，然后我们发现，要在特定案例之下自圆其说我们的判断，校正我们一再确认的原则，难度越来越大，我们也注意到了这些争论的本质： 两种不同的道德推理： 1、结果主义（Consequentialist）：取决于你行为所导致的后果。 2、绝对主义（Cateorical）：取决于特定的绝对道德准则，个人的权利与义务。 两种不同道理推理的代表性思想家：边沁VS. 康德 第二讲：食人惨案 【功利主义哲学】 核心观点：最大化功利。“为最多的人谋求最大的幸福”。 道德推理：痛苦和快乐是我们至高无上的主人，所有人类均受这两大因素所支配。人的本性是趋乐避苦，因此功利（utility）等于快乐减去痛苦，幸福减去苦难。 代表人物：边沁（1748-1832）英国政治哲学家。 【案例】
女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案 真实案例简述：1884年7月5日，英国米格诺耐特号在好望角外1600英里公海上失事，水手达德利、斯蒂芬斯、布鲁克斯和客舱侍役爬上一条救生船，除两罐咸菜外没有任何给养。7月24日，达德利提议，如果第二天早上仍看到不到船只，将杀了客舱侍役（此时已生病，且是孤儿）以挽救其他人，布鲁克斯表示不同意。次日，达德利取得斯蒂芬斯同意后杀了侍役，三个人靠侍役的血肉维持了四天后获救。 达德利和斯蒂芬斯的做法是否正当？ 辩护意见： 1、在那种情况下，不得已而为之 2、“人数重要”的理念，更广泛的影响也很重要，这主要是功利主义观点 反对意见： 1、绝对主义：在任何情况下，个人基本权利都是不可剥夺的 2、他们缺乏公平的程序 3、他们没有征得侍役的同意 深层追问： 1、某些基本权利我们有吗？ 2、只要程序公平就可以不论结果了吗？ 3、征得同意有何道德作用？ 第三讲：给生命标价 【对功利主义的反对】 功利主义的实践逻辑 成本效益分析：通常估算出金额，来代表功利。 引用“捷克香烟消费税提案”和“福特平托案例”，这两个案例的典型特征就是把一切价值，包括人的健康、生命，都转化成金钱来计算成本与收益，根据功利最大化来进行决策。 质问：是否同意以功利最大化作为政策法律基础的观点？ 两大反对意见： 1、没有充分重视个体和少数人权利 2、并不能用金钱来衡量一切价值
哈佛大学：幸福课13(1).mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/e6rtxoa1# 哈佛大学：幸福课22.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/e6rtxosv# 哈佛大学：幸福课21.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/dn9mu7pm# 哈佛大学：幸福课20.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/e6rtxq0b# 哈佛大学：幸福课19.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/dn9mu5yc# 哈佛大学：幸福课18.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/bh0gvlvl# 哈佛大学：幸福课17.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/clo36msl# 哈佛大学：幸福课16.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/e6rtxhp1# 哈佛大学：幸福课15.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/bh0gv89g# 哈佛大学：幸福课13.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/dn9mtmc7# 哈佛大学：幸福课14.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/clo350ja# 哈佛大学：幸福课11.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/aqaul593# 哈佛大学：幸福课12.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/e6rt9g6e# 哈佛大学：幸福课08.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/e6rt9acf# 哈佛大学：幸福课09.mp4
哈佛大学：幸福课04.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/bh0goy8n# 哈佛大学：幸福课07.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/bh0gouxf# 哈佛大学：幸福课06.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/dn9mtgkm# 哈佛大学：幸福课05.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/bh0go0d2# 哈佛大学：幸福课03.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/clo35txn# 哈佛大学：幸福课02.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/clo35qv4# 哈佛大学：幸福课01.mp4 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3e18879626.html,/file/clo35gmc# 哈佛大学：幸福课.mp4
摘要： 本次心得主要针对哈佛大学公开课——“公正”第一讲，即“杀人的道德侧面”做了一些听讲笔记和自己观看后，对于其中的一些案例和观点的看法。杀人的道德侧面中迈克尔教授将课堂分为两段，每段都以一个故事或案例来引发同学的思考和讨论，从而达到理论引入的目的。“电车问题”使我们对后果主义道德和绝对主义道德产生了疑问。“女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案”则使我们更为深入的思考了后果主义道德的代表人英国哲学政治家杰里米·边沁所提出的“功利主义”。 正文： 哈佛大学公开课——“公正”共有12集，分别是《谋杀的道德侧面》，《给生命一个价格标签》，《自由选择》，《我的地盘我做主》，《雇枪？》，《考虑你的动机》，《谎言的教训》，《什么是公平的起点？》，《讨论反歧视行动》，《好市民》，《社会的需求》，《辩论同性婚姻》。每堂课都发人深省，然而，在这12堂课中，最吸引我的，也是引发我最多思考是第一节，开篇的第一节课引导我进入了如何判断某一行为是否道德这一疑问，促使我思考。 笔记及观点： 迈克尔·桑德尔教授以一个故事作为课堂的引入：“假设你是一名电车司机，电车以每小时60英里的速度行驶。突然发现在轨道的尽头有五个工人在施工，你无法让电车停下来因为刹车坏了。你清楚地知道，若是电车撞向那五人，他们都活不下来。正在你觉得绝望无助的时候，你发现在轨道的右侧有一条侧轨，而在侧轨的尽头只有一名工人在施工。你可以将电车转到侧轨上，牺牲一人挽救五人的性命。那么，你是否会选择牺牲者一个人而去救那五个人？”大多数学生都选择了将车开向侧轨。而当迈克尔教授将问题换成“你可以从桥上推下一个胖子来阻止电车的前进”时，大多数人又选择了袖手旁观。 这样的选择结果实在奇怪，为什么同样是牺牲一人挽救五人，大家会选择电车司机的做法，而不是后者呢？ 其实这两种情况之间有一个最明显的差异：第一种情况下，无论如何我都会撞死人，不论多还是少，所以，为什么不选择人少的那方而让跟多的人活下去呢？这就是所谓的后果主义道德。后果主义道德的核心内容是：正确的选择，道德的选择取决于你的行为导致的后果。后果主义道德推理中最具影响的就是“功利主义”，由18世纪英国哲学政治家边沁提出：正
幸福课第四讲 大家好！我们是“哈佛召回“组合，想向教员和同学们传达一份特殊的情人节讯息。 早上好！请他们献歌时，本来想选另一首歌，但是…算了吧。我们确实爱你们！今天课程的内容是上节课的延续，是这门课的基本前提“我们来自哪里，我们将去哪里”从各个方面展开论述螺旋的基础。我们将在本学期一起创建它！ 上次我们讲到改变有多么困难。我们谈到“双胞胎研究”。举例说明了Lykken和Tellegen提出的“也许改变我们幸福水平和试图改变身高一样困难和徒劳无功”。然后谈到这些研究学者们犯的一般性的失误和错误，误解改变的本质。因为如果一个人在改变，问题已不再是“是否可能改变？”而是“怎样才可能改变”。还谈到剑桥-萨默维尔研究，证明劳斯莱斯干预彻底失败。五年来，剑桥、哈佛和麻省理工的顶尖科学家、研究人员、精神病专家和心理学家沥尽心血，带着美好的意图实施改变，但最终失败。不仅没有实现正面的改变，实际上是带去了负面的改变。 还记得吗？干预组的酗酒比例和对照组相比是增加的。未参与干预的对照组更有可能在二三十年后获得升职。改变是困难的，但我们又说“Marva Collins实现了改变，所以改变是可能的”Martin Seligmen 和Karen Reivich 及大量学者都成功地实现改变。困难在于，如果我们想成为实践理想主义者，就要理解是什么带来改变然后去做，传播理念、传播研究的理念。即使研究并非总是传达好消息，它传达的是
行之有效的方法。可为的方式而不是空洞的梦想、渴望、希望、愿望，那远远不够。好的意愿、理想主义、好的意图是不够的。我们需要扎根于研究。这正是Maslow的想法。当他谈及类似的曼哈顿计划时。科学家、积极心理学家、当时的心理学家、社学科学工作者聚在一起，在流行学术领域中挑选出几种观念、几个有效的项目，再复制它们，研究最好的。正如Mariam同学课后找到我时说的“流行学术其实是要将杰出大众化”我喜欢这个说法。 将杰出大众化，研究最好的再应用在其他人身上。我们有了这样一个伟大的计划，有了Maslow创造类似曼哈顿计划的伟大想法。但是如果我不想参与计划？不想成为学者？只想做自己的事，我能否实现改变？答案是，绝对能够。人若想在世间有所为，真正实现改变，面对的最显著障碍之一是他们低估自己实现改变的能力。心理学界有很多研究。爱默生和莫斯科维奇是先驱。他们和其他学者都证明少数人，经常是一个人，如何实现重大改变，能实现显著的改变。爱默生说“人类历史是少数派和一个人的少数派的权力记录。”很多社会科学研究支持这个观点。人类学家Margaret Mead说“永远不要怀疑一小群，有思想，坚定的市民可以改变世界。事实上，正是这群人改变着世界”。所有改变从一个人或一小众人的思想开始，然后不断扩大。问题是“它如何扩大”以及为什么我们难以理解我们能够做出改变这个事实。并接受“被同化以及据此生活。”如果我们能了解我们需要理解的，是改变如何发生，改变以指数级发生，我们与其他人的联系及他们与更多人的联系，形成了一个指数函数。可以用你们熟习的“蝴蝶效应”