下载文档原格式
Justice 02 Putting a Price Tag on Life / How to Measure Pleasure 给生命一个价格标签/如何衡量快乐Last time, we argued about the case of The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens, the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea.And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind, let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.Bentham was born in England in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 19 but he never practiced law.Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.Last time, we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.The main idea is simply stated and it's this: The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality, is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness, or the overall balance of pleasure over pain; in a phrase, maximize utility.Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: We're all governed by pain and pleasure, they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system has to take account of them.How best to take account?By maximizing.And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.What exactly should we maximize?Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility - maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators."What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.And that's why in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just, citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question if we add up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.That's what it means to maximize utility.Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it, and it often goes, this utilitarian logic, under the name of cost-benefit analysis, which is used by companies and by governments all the time.And what it involves is placing a value, usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking.Philip Morris, the tobacco company, does huge business in the Czech Republic.They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.Now, how do they gain?It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking-related diseases.On the other hand, there were positive effects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.The positive effects included, for the most part, various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products, but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early, pension savings -- you don't have to pay pensions for as long - and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.And when all of the costs and benefits were added up, the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000, and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs, the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking.Cost-benefit analysis.Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test.Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.What about the value of life?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life.One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.Did any of you read about that?This was back in the 1970s.Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car?Anybody?It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular, but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured.Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.And in the court case, it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.They did a cost-benefit analysis.The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto, they calculated at $11.00 per part.And here's -- this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death, and then the costs to repair, 105 the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles, it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didn't install the device.Needless to say, when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial, it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counterexample?Who has a defense?Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus?Yes?Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake the previous case did, that they assigned a dollar value to human life, and once again, they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families.I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one and that is more valued than $200,000.Right and -- wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name?Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life, what would be - what do you think would be a more accurate number?I don't believe I could give a number.I think that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.I think it can't be used monetarily.So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.They were wrong to try to put any number at all.All right, let's hear someone who - You have to adjust for inflation.You have to adjust for inflation.All right, fair enough.So what would the number be now?This was 35 years ago.Two million dollars.Two million dollars?You would put two million?And what's your name?Voytek Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.We should be more generous.Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of thinking about the question?I guess, unfortunately, it is for - there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, I'm not sure what that number would be, but I do agree that there could possibly be a number put on the human life.All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie.Julie says we can't put a number on human life for the purpose of acost-benefit analysis.Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.What do other people think about this?Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.I think that if Ford and other car companies didn't use cost-benefit analysis, they'd eventually go out of business because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs, to put food on the table, to feed their children.So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed, the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.All right, let me add.What's your name?Raul.Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, and there was a debate whether that should be banned.Yeah.And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use and you put some value on the life, it comes out about the same because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on whilethey're driving.Doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to derive maximum utility out of a service, like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide, that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur.You're an outright utilitarian.Yes. Okay.All right then, one last question, Raul.- Okay.And I put this to Voytek, what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure, I mean, right now.I think that - You want to take it under advisement?Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.But what, roughly speaking, would it be?You got 2,300 deaths. - Okay.You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want to prevent those deaths by banning the use of cell phones in cars. - Okay.So what would your hunch be?How much? A million?Two million?Two million was Voytek's figure. - Yeah.Is that about right?- Maybe a million.A million?- Yeah.You know, that's good.Thank you. -Okay.So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days from cost-benefit analysis, especially those that involve placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.Well, now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically, because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today, but to the theory as a whole, to the idea that the right thing to do, the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility.How many disagree with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good?How many agree with it?So more agree than disagree.So let's hear from the critics.Yes?My main issue with it is that I feel like you can't say that just because someone's in the minority, what they want and need is less valuable than someone who is in the majority.So I guess I have an issue with the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay because there are still - what about people who are in the lesser number?Like, it's not fair to them.They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.All right.That's an interesting objection.You're worried about the effect on the minority.Yes.What's your name, by the way?Anna.Who has an answer to Anna's worry about the effect on the minority?What do you say to Anna?Um, she said that the minority is valued less.I don't think that's the case because individually, the minority's value is just the same as the individual of the majority.It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority.And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision and I'm sorry for the minority but sometimes, it's for the general, for the greater good.For the greater good.Anna, what do you say?What's your name?Yang-Da.What do you say to Yang-Da?Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed.Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about when you say you're worried about utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?And give an example.Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about, like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten still had as much of a right to live as the other people and just because he was the minority in that case, the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living, that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live.So there may be certain rights that the minority members have, that the individual has that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility?Yes.Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.Back in Ancient Rome, they threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport.If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go, yes, the Christian thrown to the lions suffers enormous excruciating pain.But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans!Yang-Da.Well, in that time, I don't -- if -- in modern day of time, to value the -- to give a number to the happiness given to the people watching, I don't think any, like, policymaker would say the pain of one person, of the suffering of one person is much, much -- is, I mean, in comparison to the happiness gained, it's - No, but you have to admit that if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness, it would outweigh even the most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism.One has to do with whether utilitarianism adequately respects individual rights or minority rights, and the other has to do with the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values.Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms?There was, in the 1930s, a psychologist who tried to address this second question.He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes, that it is possible to translate all goods, all values, all human concerns into a single uniform measure, and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief, this was in the 1930s, and he asked them, he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them, "How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?" and he kept track.For example, how much would you have to be paid to have one upper front tooth pulled out?Or how much would you have to be paid to have one little toe cut off?Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long?Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands?Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list? - Kansas!Kansas?You're right, it was Kansas.For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them - they have to be paid $300,000.What do you think was the next most expensive?Not the cat.Not the tooth.Not the toe.The worm!People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm.What do you think was the least expensive item?Not the cat.The tooth.During the Depression, people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4,500.What?Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount and is therefore measurable.The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken consists of appetites, cravings, desires, and their gratifications.So does the life of human beings, though the appetites and desires are more complicated.But what about Thorndike's study?Does it support Bentham's idea that all goods, all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value?Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list suggest the opposite conclusion that maybe, whether we're talking about life or Kansasor the worm, maybe the things we value and cherish can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value?And if they can't, what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality?That's a question we'll continue with next time.All right, now, let's take the other part of the poll, which is the highest experience or pleasure.How many say Shakespeare?How many say Fear Factor?No, you can't be serious.Really?Last time, we began to consider some objections to Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.People raised two objections in the discussion we had.The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism, by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number, fails adequately to respect individual rights.Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th and you had reason to believe that the suspect had crucial information about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people and you couldn't extract the information.Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information or do you say no, there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights?In a way, we're back to the questions we started with about Charlie Carson organ transplant.So that's the first issue.And you remember, we considered some examples of cost-benefit analysis, but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing a dollar value on human life.And so that led us to the second objection.It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values into a single uniform measure of value.It asks, in other words, whether all values are commensurable.Let me give you one other example of an experience.This actually is a true story.It comes from personal experience that raises a question at least about whether all values can be translated without loss into utilitarian terms.Some years ago, when I was a graduate student, I was at Oxford in England and they had men's and women's colleges.They weren't yet mixed and the women's colleges had rules against overnight male guests.By the 1970s, these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated, or so I was told.By the late 1970s, when I was there, pressure grew to relax these rules and it became the subject of debate among the faculty at St. Anne's College, which was one of these all-women's colleges.The older women on the faculty were traditionalists.They were opposed to change unconventional moral grounds.But times have changed and they were embarrassed to give the true grounds for their objection and so they translated their arguments into utilitarian terms."If men stay overnight", they argued, "the costs to the college will increase." "How?" you might wonder."Well, they'll want to take baths and that'll use up hot water," they said.Furthermore, they argued, "We'll have to replace the mattresses more often." The reformers met these arguments by adopting the following compromise.Each woman could have a maximum of three overnight male guests each week.They didn't say whether it had to be the same one or three different provided, and this was the compromise, provided the guest paid 50 pence to defray the cost to the college.The next day, the national headline in the national newspaper read, "St. Anne's Girls, 50 Pence A Night." Another illustration of the difficulty of translating all values, in this case, a certain idea of virtue, into utilitarian terms.So, that's all to illustrate the second objection to utilitarianism, at least the part of that objection, that questions whether utilitarianism is right to assume that we can assume the uniformity of value, the commensurability of all values and translate all moral considerations into dollars or money.But there is a second aspect to this worry about aggregating values and preferences.Why should we weigh all preferences that people have without assessing whether they're good preferences or bad preferences?Shouldn't we distinguish between higher pleasures and lower pleasures?Now, part of the appeal of not making any qualitative distinctions about the worth of people's preferences, part of the appeal is that it is nonjudgmental and egalitarian.The Benthamite utilitarian says everybody's preferences count and they count regardless of what people want, regardless of what makes different people happy.For Bentham, all that matters, you'll remember, are the intensity and the duration of a pleasure or pain.The so-called "higher pleasures or nobler virtues" are simply those, according to Bentham, that produce stronger, longer pleasure.Yet a famous phrase to express this idea, the quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.What was pushpin?It was some kind of a child's game, like tiddlywinks."Pushpin is as good as poetry", Bentham says.And lying behind this idea, I think, is the claim, the intuition, that it's a presumption to judge whose pleasures are intrinsically higher or worthier or better.And there is something attractive in this refusal to judge.After all, some people like Mozart, others Madonna.Some people like ballet, others bowling.Who's to say, a Benthamite might argue, who is to say which of these pleasures, whose pleasures are higher, worthier, nobler than others?But is that right, this refusal to make qualitative distinctions?Can we altogether dispense with the idea that certain things we take pleasure in are better or worthier than others?Think back to the case of the Romans in the Colosseum.One thing that troubled people about that practice is that it seemed to violate the rights of the Christian.Another way of objection to what's going on there is that the pleasure that the Romans take in this bloody spectacle, should that pleasure, which is abased, kind of corrupt, degrading pleasure, should that even be valorized or weighed in deciding what the general welfare is?So here are the objections to Bentham's utilitarianism and now, we turn to someone who tried to respond to those objections, a latter-day utilitarian, John Stuart Mill.So what we need to examine now is whether John Stuart Mill had a convincing reply to these objections to utilitarianism.John Stuart Mill was born in 1806.His father, James Mill, was a disciple of Bentham's, and James Mill set about giving his son, John Stuart Mill, a model education.He was a child prot®¶g®¶, John Stuart Mill.He knew Greek at the age of three, Latin at eight, and age 10, he wrote "A History of Roman Law." At age 20, he had a nervous breakdown.This left him in a depression for five years, but at age 25, what helped lift him out of this depression is that he met Harriet Taylor.She and Mill got married, they lived happily ever after, and it was under her influence that John Stuart Mill tried to humanize utilitarianism.What Mill tried to do was to see whether the utilitarian calculus could be enlarged and modified to accommodate humanitarian concerns, like theconcern to respect individual rights, and also to address the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.In 1859, Mill wrote a famous book on liberty, the main point of which was the importance of defending individual rights and minority rights, and in 1861, toward the end of his life, he wrote the book we read as part of this course, "Utilitarianism." He makes it clear that utility is the only standard of morality, in his view, so he's not challenging Bentham's premise.He's affirming it.He says very explicitly, "The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it." So he stays with the idea that our de facto actual empirical desires are the only basis for moral judgment.But then, page eight, also in chapter two, he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish higher from lower pleasures.Now, for those of you who have read Mill already, how, according to him, is it possible to draw that distinction?How can a utilitarian distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures from lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones? Yes?If you've tried both of them and you prefer the higher one, naturally, always.That's great.That's right.What's your name?- John.So as John points out, Mill says here's the test.Since we can't step outside actual desires, actual preferences that would violate utilitarian premises, the only test of whether a pleasure is higher or lower is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it.And here, in chapter two, we see the passage where Mill makes the point that John just described."Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it -- in other words, no outside, no independent standard -- then, that is the more desirable pleasure." What do people think about that argument?Does it succeed?How many think that it does succeed of arguing within utilitarian terms for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?How many think it doesn't succeed?I want to hear your reasons.But before we give the reasons let's do an experiment of Mill's claim.In order to do this experiment, we're going to look at three short excerpts of popular entertainment.The first one is a Hamlet soliloquy.It'll be followed by two other experiences.See what you think.What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals - and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?Man delights not me.Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality.Ahh! They're biting me!Each show, six contestants from around the country battle each other in three extreme stunts.Ow!These stunts are designed to challenge the contestants both physically and mentally.Six contestants, three stunts, one winner.Yes! Whooo!Fear Factor.Hi-diddily-ho, pedal-to-the-metal-o-philes.Flanders, since when do you like anything cool?Well, I don't care for the speed but I can't get enough of that safety gear.Helmets, roll bars, caution flags...I like the fresh air...and looking at the poor people in the infield.Dang, Cletus, why'd you have to park by my parents?Now, Honey, they's my parents too.I don't even have to ask which one you liked most.The Simpsons, how many liked The Simpsons most?How many Shakespeare?What about Fear Factor?How many preferred Fear Factor?。
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 whowould 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\Who's 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 can't 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 wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.这理由不错\That's a good reason.不错\That's 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9·11的时候是一种情况\Well I was thinking it's the same reason on9 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9·11的是一样的\So the principle there was the same on 9 11. 虽然是悲剧\It's 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\Let's hear now from those in the minority那些选择不转弯的\those who wouldn't 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 that's 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\That's a brave answer. Thank you.我们来考虑一下另一种情况的例子\Let's 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 you're not the driver of the trolley car只是一名旁观者\you're an onlooker.你站在一座桥上俯瞰着电车轨道\You're 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 don't 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 you're 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 wouldn't?大多数人不会这么做\Most people wouldn't.一个显而易见的问题出现了\Here's 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 thesituation 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 didn't 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...\That's 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. It's a hard question.你回答得很不错\You did well. You did very well.真的难以抉择\It's 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\it's 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 you're 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 it's a slightly different situation. 很好有没谁来回应的有人吗\All right who has a reply? That's 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 don't think that's 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 theperson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 you're 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\I'm not really sure that that's 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\You're pushing him with your own hands.是你在推他这不同于\You're pushing him and that's 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 doesn't really sound right saying it now. 不你回答得不错叫什么名字\No no. It's good. It's good. What's 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 didn't 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. - That's 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 doesn't 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\you're involved directly with the situation.而第二种情况中你只是旁观者\In the second one you're 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\Let's forget for the moment about this case.你们很不错\That's good.我们来想象一个不同的情况\Let's imagine a different case.这次你是一名急诊室的医生\This time you're 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\They've 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 you're 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\there's a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.而且他...\And he's...你们喜欢这剧情吧\you like that...而且他正在打盹\... and he's 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 don't lean over too much.有多少人不会\How many wouldn't?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\I'd 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\That's a pretty good idea.想法不错\That's 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\Let's 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 we've had.我们来细想下这些道德原则都是怎样的\And let's 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\That's 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 weren't 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\We're 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 the18th 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 you'll 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\You'll notice too from the syllabus我们不仅要读这些著作\that we don't 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 what's 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 we'll 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\There's 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\That's 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\It's 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 here's 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\it's 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 don't 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\hasn't 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 that's 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 there's 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 it's the idea...It goes something like this.刚才争论过的案例或者原则\We didn't 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\haven't 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 it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles多说无益也无从论证\and there's nothing more to be said about it no way of reasoning.这就是怀疑论的回避方式\That's the evasion the evasion of skepticism对此我给予如下回应\to which I would offer the following reply.诚然这些问题争论已久\It's true these questions have been debated for a very long time但正因为这些问题反复出现\but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted也许表明虽然在某种意义上它们无法解决\may suggest that though they're impossible in one sense但另一种意义上却又无可避免\they're unavoidable in another.它们之所以无可避免无法回避\And the reason they're unavoidable the reason they're inescapable是因为在日常生活中我们一次次地在回答这些问题\is that we live some answer to these questions every day.因此怀疑论让你们举起双手放弃道德反思\So skepticism just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection这绝非可行之策\is no solution.康德曾很贴切地描述了怀疑论的不足\Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism他写道怀疑论是人类理性暂时休憩的场所\when he wrote "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason}参见康德的《纯粹理性批判》是理性自省以伺将来做出正确抉择的地方\where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings但绝非理性的永久定居地\but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement." 康德认为简单地默许于怀疑论\"Simply to acquiesce in skepticism" Kant wrote 永远无法平息内心渴望理性思考之不安\"can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason."以上我是想向大家说明这些故事和争论\I've tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments展示的风险与诱惑挑战与机遇\some sense of the risks and temptations of the perils and the possibilities.简而言之这门课程旨在\I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course唤醒你们永不停息的理性思考探索路在何方\is to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might lead.谢谢\Thank you very much.在那样的绝境之下\Like in a situation that desperate为了生存你不得不那样做\you have to do what you have to do to survive.。
Harvard University - Justice Michael Sandel哈佛大学公开课----公平迈克尔·桑代尔教授主讲Y our trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.你的电车正以每小时60英里行驶。
Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think is the right thing to do.我们还要研究你这样做的原因.Who is willing to volunteer a reason?谁愿意说说你的想法？Better to save five lives even if it means to sacrifice one.牺牲一个，救活更多人。
What became of the principle that almost everyone endorse in the first case?第一种情况几乎每个人都赞同，原因何在？Is there a way out of this?是否有更好的办法？Let‘s just forget a moment about this case.让我们暂时搁下这个故事。
Don‘t lean over.不要摔下来哦。
Let‘ step back from these stories, these arguments.让我们回过头来看这些故事和争论。
Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from discussion we had.我们的谈论已经涉及到了一些道德的原则.Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act in the state of the rule that we resolve from the thing you do.结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果,它取决于我们最后的结果。
Funding for this program is provided by...Additional funding provided by...This is a course about justice and we begin with a you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the trackat miles an hour. And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all 's assume you know that for so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the endof that track, there is one worker working on the steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling the one but sparing the 's our first question:what's the right thing to doWhat would you doLet's take a many would turnthe trolley caronto the side trackRaise your many wouldn'tHow many would go straight aheadKeep your hands up those of youwho would go straight handful of people would,the vast majority would 's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to 's begin with those in the majoritywho would turn to goonto the side would you do itWhat would be your reasonWho's willing to volunteer a reasonGo ahead. Stand it can't be rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person 's a good 's a good elseDoes everybody agreewith that reason Go I was thinking it's the same reasonon / with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big the principle therewas the same on /.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn YesLet's hear nowfrom those in the minority,those who wouldn't turn. , I think that'sthe same type of mentalitythat justifies genocideand order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the what would you doin this caseYou would, toavoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill themPresumably, would. Who elseThat's a brave 's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of youin the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso that five should live."This time you're not the driverof the trolley car,you're an 're standing on a bridgeoverlooking a trolley car down the track comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat you couldgive him a would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley would diebut he would spare the , how many would pushthe fat man over the bridgeRaise your many wouldn'tMost people wouldn''s the obvious became of the principle"better to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one"What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first caseI need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both do you explainthe difference between the two second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have beeninvolved in the situation at so to choose on his behalf,I guess, to involve himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere the three parties,the driver and the two sets of workers,are already, I guess,in the the guy working,the one on the trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did heThat's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the ahead, you can come backif you want. All 's a hard question. You did did very 's a hard else can find a wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases , I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certainchoice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley I think it's a slightlydifferent right, who has a replyThat's good. Who has a wayWho wants to replyIs that a way out of thisI don't think that'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person,which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious either way,you're making a you want to replyI'm not really surethat that's the just still seemskind of act of actually pushingsomeone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him 're pushing himwith your own 're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath into know, it doesn't really sound rightsaying it , no. It's good. It's 's your name me ask you this question, standing on the bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby turning a steering wheel like you turnFor some reason,that still just seems more I mean, maybe if you accidentallylike leaned into the steering wheelor something like ... Or say thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the I could agree with 's all right. Fair still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the the second one,you're an onlooker as right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby pushing the fat right. Let's forget for the momentabout this 's 's imagine a different time you're a doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to 've been in a terribletrolley car of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spendall daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould many would save the fiveNow as the doctor,how many would save the oneVery few people,just a handful of reason, I life versus fiveNow consider another doctor time, you're a transplant surgeonand you have five patients,each in desperate needof an organ transplantin order to needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a you have no organ are about to see them then it occurs to youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho came in for a 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 many would do itAnyone How manyPut your hands upif you would do in the balconyI would Be careful,don't lean over too many wouldn'tAll right. What do you saySpeak up in the balcony,you who would yank outthe organs. WhyI'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other 's a pretty good 's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical 's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've let's considerwhat those moral principles look first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must 's an exampleof consequentialist moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral peoplehesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasonshaving to do withthe intrinsic qualityof the act itself,consequences be what they were thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral moral reasoninglocates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights,regardless of the 're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast betweenconsequentialist and categoricalmoral most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke,Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill,and 'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary,political, and legal controversiesthat raise philosophical will debate equality and inequality,affirmative action, free speech versushate speech, same sex marriage,military conscription,a range of practical questions. WhyNot just to enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the may sound appealing enough,but here I have to issue a the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks,risks that are both personaland political,risksthat every studentof political philosophy has risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already 's an difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat you already works by taking what we knowfrom familiar unquestioned settingsand making it 's how those examples worked,the hypotheticals with which we began,with their mix of playfulnessand 's also how thesephilosophical books estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and here's the risk,once the familiar turns strange,it's never quite the same knowledge is like lost innocence,however unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thoughtor makes this enterprise difficultbut also rivetingis that moral and political philosophyis a story and you don't knowwhere the story will what you do knowis that the story is about are the personal what of the political risksOne way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise youthat by reading these booksand debating these issues,you will become a better,more responsible citizen;you will examine the presuppositionsof public policy,you will hone your political judgment,you will become a moreeffective participant in public this would be a partialand misleading philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that have to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out tells Socrates"Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat the right time of life. But if onepursues it further than one should,it is absolute ruin.""Take my advice," Callicles says,"abandon the accomplishmentsof active life,take for your modelsnot those people whospendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihoodand reputation and manyother blessings."So Callicles is really saying to Socrates"Quit philosophizing, get real,go to business school."And Callicles did have a had a point because philosophydistances us from conventions,from established assumptions,and from settled are the risks,personal and in the faceof these risks,there is a characteristic name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for alleither the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter all of these years,who are we to think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over the course of a semester,can resolve themAnd so, maybe it's just a matterof each person having his or her ownprinciples and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of 's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following 's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every skepticism, just throwing up your handsand giving up on moral reflectionis no Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis to awaken the restlessness of reasonand to see where it might you very , in a situation thatdesperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to do what you have to doYou got to dowhat you got to do, pretty you've been going dayswithout any food, you know,someone just hasto take the has to make the sacrificeand people can , that's 's your name, what do you say to MarcusLast time,we started out last timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were began with our judgmentsin particular tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles,revising eachin the light of the we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought we called thisconsequentialist moral we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the , many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrongeven if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat the cost of one we contrasted consequentialistmoral principles with categorical and in the next few days,we will begin to examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral that's the philosophyof Bentham,the th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple a lot of morallyintuitive appeal,Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize did he mean byutilityHe meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain,happiness over 's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and human beingslike pleasure and dislike so we should base morality,whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens,we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of 's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and was a th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law 's what happened in the 'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the newspaper account of the timedescribed the sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, ship flounderedin the South Atlantic, miles from the were four in the crew,Dudley was the captain,Stevens was the first mate,Brooks was a sailor,all men of excellent characteror so the newspaper account tells fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker, years was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of , it was not to facts of the casewere not in wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went four crew membersescaped to a only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh the first three days,they ate the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate next daythey caught a with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few then for eight days,theyhad food. No yourselfin a situation like that,what would you doHere's what they now the cabin boy, Parker,is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawateragainst the advice of the othersand he had become illand he appeared to be on the th day,Dudley, the captain,suggested that they should allhave a lottery,that they should draw lotsto see who would dieto save the didn't like the lottery don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral in any case,no lots were next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin then they were describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism."On the th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand turned state's and Stevens went to didn't dispute the claimed they hadacted out of necessity;that was their argued in effectbetter that one should dieso that three could prosecutor wasn't swayedby that said murder is murder,and so the case went to imagine you are the just to simplify the discussion,put aside the question of law,let's assume that you as the juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissibleAnd how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrongA pretty sizeable let's see what people's reasons areand let me begin with thosewho are in the 's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and would you morallyexonerate themWhat are your reasons think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthereis a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensibleand what makes someonelegally other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact,exonerate you from any . Good. Other voices for the justificationsfor what they did. just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to have to dowhat you have to , you've got to dowhat you've got to you've been going days without any food, you know,someone just has to take the sacrifice,someone has to make the sacrificeand people can furthermore from that,let's say they surviveand then they become productivemembers of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizationsand this and thatand this and mean they benefited everybodyin the end. , I mean I don't knowwhat they did afterwards,they might have gone and like,I don't know,killed more people, I don't but. -WhatMaybe they were if they went homeand they turned out to be assassinsWhat if they'd gone homeand turned out to be assassins Well…You'd want to knowwho they 's true too. That's 's fair. I would want to knowwho they right. That's 's your name. All 've heard a defense,a couple of voicesfor the we need to hearfrom the people thinkwhat they did was wrong. WhyYes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be if that's an appealing argumentthat you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincingdo think that they wereacting what do you-I want to knowwhat you defend 'm sorry, you vote to convict, rightYeah, I don't think thatthey acted in a morallyappropriate why notWhat do you say,here's Marcus,he justdefended said –you heard what he you've got to dowhat you've got to doin a case like that. do you say to MarcusThat there'sno situation that would allowhuman beings to take the ideaof fate orthe other people's livesin their own hands,that we don't havethat kind of . what's your name. Okay. Who elseWhat do you say Stand 'm wondering if Dudley and Stevenhad asked for Richard Parker'sconsent in you know, dying,if that would exonerate themfrom an act of murderand if so,is that still morally justifiableThat's right. wait, hang 's your name sayssuppose they had that,what would thatscenario look likeSo in the story Dudley is there,pen knife in hand,but instead of the prayeror before the prayer,he says "Parker, would you mind""We're desperately hungry",as Marcus empathizes with,"we're desperately 're not going to last long anyhow."-Yeah. You can be a martyr."Would you be a martyrHow about it Parker"Then what do you thinkWould it be morally justified thenSuppose Parkerin his semi-stupor says "Okay."I don't think it would bemorally justifiable but I'm wondering if –Even then, even then it wouldn't be don't think thateven with consentit would be morally justifiedAre there people who thinkwho want to take upKathleen's consent ideaand who think thatthat would make itmorally justifiedRaise your handif it would, if you think it 's very would consentmake a moral differenceWhy would it , I just thinkthat if he was makinghis own original ideaand it was his ideato start with,then that would bethe only situationin which I would see itbeing appropriate in any waybecause that wayyou couldn't make the argumentthat he was pressured,you know it's three-to-oneor whatever the ratio . -And I think that if he wasmaking a decisionto give his lifeand he took on the agencyto sacrifice himselfwhich some peoplemight see as admirableand other people might disagreewith that if he came upwith the idea,that's the only kindof consent we could haveconfidence in morallythen it would be , it would be kind ofcoerced consentunder the circumstances,you thereanyone who thinksthat even the consent of Parkerwould not justify their killing himWho thinks that us why. Stand think that Parkerwould be killed with the hopethat the other crew memberswould be rescued so there's nodefinite reason thathe should be killedbecause you don't knowwhen they're going to get rescuedso if you kill him,it's killing him in vain,do you keep killing a crew memberuntil you're rescuedand then you're left with no onebecause someone's goingto die eventuallyWell, the moral logicof the situation seems to be that,that they would keep onpicking off the weakest maybe,one by one,until they were in this case, luckily,they were rescued when three at leastwere still , if Parker did give his consent,would it be all right,do you think or notNo, it still wouldn't be tell us whyit wouldn't be all of all, cannibalism,I believe, is morally incorrectso you shouldn't beeating human cannibalism is morallyobjectionable as such so then,even on the scenario ofwaiting until someone died,still it would be , to me personally,I feel like it all dependson one's personal moralsand like we can't sit here and just,like this is just my opinion,of course other peopleare going to disagree, but –Well we'll see,let's see what their disagreements areand then we'll seeif they have reasons that canpersuade you or 's try that. All , is there someonewho can explain,those of you who aretempted by consent,can you explain whyconsent makes sucha moral differenceWhat about the lottery ideaDoes that count as consentRemember at the beginning,Dudley proposed a lottery,suppose that they had agreedto a lottery,then how many would then sayit was all rightSuppose there were a lottery,cabin boy lost,and the rest of the story unfolded,then how many people would sayit was morally permissibleSo the numbers are risingif we had a 's hear from one of youfor whom the lotterywould make a moral would itI think the essential element,in my mind,that makes it a crimeis the idea that they decidedat some point that their liveswere more important than his,andthat, I mean, that's kind ofthe basis for really any It's like my needs,my desires are more importantthan yours and minetake if they had done a lotterywhere everyone consentedthat someone should dieand it's sort of like they're allsacrificing themselvesto save the it would be all rightA little grotesque but–.-But morally permissible what's your name Matt, for you,what bothers you isnot the cannibalismbut the lack of due guess you could say And can someone who agreeswith Matt say a little bit moreabout why a lottery would make it,in your view, morally way I understood itoriginally was thatthat was the whole issueis that the cabin boywas never consultedabout whether or notsomething was goingto happen to him,even with the original lotterywhether or nothe would bea part of that,it was just decidedthat he was the onethat was going to , that's what happenedin the actual if there were a lotteryand they'd all agreed to the procedure,you think that would be okayRight, because then everyoneknows that there's going to be a death,whereas the cabin boy didn't know thatthis discussion was even happening,there was no forewarningfor him to know that"Hey, I may be the one that's dying."All , suppose everyone agreesto the lottery, they have the lottery,the cabin boy loses,and he changes his 've already decided,it's like a verbal can't go back on that,you've decided,the decision was you know that you're dyingfor the reason of others to someone else had died,you know that you wouldconsume them so –Right. But then you could say,"I know, but I lost".I just think thatthat's the whole moral issueis that there was no consultingof the cabin boyand that's what makes itthe most horribleis that he had no ideawhat was even going had he knownwhat was going on,it would be a bit right. I want to hear –so there are some who thinkit's morally permissiblebut only about %,led by there are some who saythe real problem hereis the lack of consent,whether the lack of consentto a lottery, to a fair procedure or,Kathleen's idea,lack of。
Professor: Michael sandelClass 1: the moral side of murderFirst question: What is the right thing to do? Kill one instead of five?Backgrounds: Suppose that you are a trolley（电车） driver, your breaks don’t work, you still could control the steering wheel, and there are two tracks in front of youOne opinion: go straightSecond one: turn around to the track where only one people standingPrinciple: better to save five lives even if it means to sacrificing one 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（genocide and totalitarianism）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Moral principle: 1 what you should do depends on the consequences that will result from your actions. (consequentialist moral reasoning 结果主义道德伦理 locates morality in the consequence of an act) related to utilitarianism(功利主义)2 categorical moral reasoning 绝对主义道德伦理 locates morality in certain duties and rightsPhilosophy estranges us from the familiar by inviting and provoking usa new way of seeing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Once the familiar turns strange is never quite same againImmanuel kant skepticism is a resting place for human reasonOne of the most important and influential versions of consequentialist moral theory: philosophy of utilitarianism, Jeremy bentham,english philosopher first gave this conceptUtilitarianism : Jeremy bentham idea is maximize the utility(效益最大化)，utility: Pleasure over pain, the slogan of it “the greatest good for the greatest number”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？It still unaccepted to killing one for survival (vast majority): you don’t own this power to decide others’ fatesClass two: putting a price tag on lifeUtility logic :cost-benefit analysis(成本收益分析)，placing a value to stand for utility on cost and benefits of various proposalssmokeSavings from premature deaths $1227 per personRepairing the ford pinto(斑马)(a flawed car produced by ford who haveObjections to utilitarianism:1 fails to respect individual/minority rights2 not possible to aggregate(合计) all values into $-using a single measure like $-isn’t there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasureBentham says :“pushpin(图钉游戏) is as good as poetry”，which shows he just address the duration and intensity of pleasureWho to say their pleasures are higher、wealthier and nobler than othersAny want or satisfaction which exists exists in some account and therefore measurableA latter-day(近代) utilitarian John Stuart mill try to humanize utilitarianism accommodate humanitarian concerns(纳入人道关怀)The only test for distinguish higher and lower pleasure is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it.“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than be a pig satisfied .”said by mill, because we would prefer higher pleasure that we know it can engages our higher human faculties(系，才能),and for receiving the higher pleasure need education、cultivation(培养)、appreciation.Bentham(who died in 1832) provided his body be preserved in embalmed and displayed in university of London where he still wore his actual clothes with waxed head in a glass case. He fulfills his concept of philosophy to maximize a body of a dead people.Class three: free to chooseQuestion one:are there theories of the good life that can provide independent moral standards for the worthy of pleasure, if so, what do they look like?Strong theories of rights say that individuals matter not just as instruments to be used for a lager social purpose or for the sake of the utility, individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect. And it is a mistake according to the strong theories that think about justice or law just by adding up preferences and values, which we talk about now is libertarianism (自由意志论)，it think the fundamental individual right is the right to be liberty. Provided we respect others”have the same right to choose freely and live our lives as please.1 no paternalist legislation (家长式立法)2 no moral legislation3 no redistribution (再分配) of income from rich to poor.Nozick : what makes income distribution just?1 justice in acquisition (initial holdings)2 justice in transfer (free marketNozick”s arguments against taxation:Taxation=taking of earningsTaking of earnings = forced laborForced labor=slaveryViolate the principle of self-possessionBut what if we don’t have self-possession cause we agree to live in a society ,which don’t allow you choose whatever you want to do.Class four: this land is my land.Under the law of nature, I’m not free to take someone else`s life or liberty, or property, nor am I free to take my own life or liberty and property. (nature`s constrains)Nature rights are unalienable and nontransferable for mankind, which means that the state of nature (we have it before state comes out) ask us to keep the rights to ourselves and not allow us to trade or give up them.Locker and other libertarians say that cause we own the property in ourselves furthermore we our own labor and from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labor with that is un-owned becomes our property.Locker thinks that private property is raised without consent(同意)Problem: If the right to private property is natural, not conventional(协议性), if it is something that we acquire even before we agree to government, how does this right constrain what a legitimate(合法的)government can do? Furthermore, it rises what becomes our natural right once it enters society?We consent to be governed by a legitimate government and human laws just when it respects our unalienable natural rights to life、liberty and property. No parliament (议会)，no legislature(立法机构) can legitimate violate our natural roghts.Locker`s two big ideas, one is private property and another one is consent.With the idea of consent that everyone is an executer of the law of nature to punish the ones who against the law of nature, everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature, in this situation people tend to overreact use the punish power, which makes the inconveniences that every is insecure.So for escape the state of nature to protect themselves, they agree togive up the enforcement power to do whatever the majority decides. Question: what the majority can decide?First of all, the government limited by respecting and enforcing our fundamental natural rights, we didn`t give up the rights when we entered the society.Question: what is the work of consent? And meanwhile the consent is not the personal decision but based on the collective consent when we first entered into this society.(i.e. the taxation)Question :if we don`t have the power to give up our natural rights ,which is the limits of the government ,how can we agree to be bound(约束)by a majority that will enforce us to sacrifice our lives or the property(like the military conscription 征兵制度 and taxation)To answer this question that john locker actually support that only if the government or the authority not arbitrarily(蛮横、专制的) take individual`s life or property, but the majority according to fair procedure to make generally applicable law to require individual, that is not a violation, which justify the conscription and taxation..Class five: hired guns?Question: why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and obligation to obey?Us government is facing a huge difficulties meeting recruitment.Ways to increase recruitment for the force:1 increase the pay and benefit.2 shift to military conscription(a draft选择)强制征兵3 outsource: hire mercenaries(雇佣兵)During civil war, the union used a combination of conscription and market system to recruit solider. which means if you were chosen you could find a substitute (代替者)。
THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER This is a course about justiceand we begin with a story. Suppose you're the driverof a trolley car,and your trolley caris hurtling down the trackat 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the trackyou notice five workersworking on the track.You try to stopbut you can't,your brakes don't work.You feel desperatebecause you knowthat if you crashinto these five workers,they will all die.Let's assumeyou know that for sure.And so you feel helplessuntil you noticethat there is,off to the right,a side track and at the endof that track,there is one workerworking on the track.Your steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling 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 turnthe trolley caronto the side track?Raise your hands.How many wouldn't?How many would go straight ahead? Keep your hands up those of youwho would go straight ahead.A handful of people would,the vast majority would turn.Let's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to do.Let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to goonto 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 rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person instead.It wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person instead.That's a good reason.That's a good reason.Who else?Does everybody agreewith that reason? Go ahead.Well I was thinking it's the same reason on 9/11 with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big buildings.So the principle therewas the same on 9/11.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn? Yes?Let's hear nowfrom those in the minority, those who wouldn't turn. Yes. Well, I think that'sthe same type of mentality that justifies genocideand totalitarianism.In order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the other.So what would you doin this case?You would, to avoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill them? Presumably, yes.You would?-Yeah.Okay. Who else?That's a brave answer.Thank you.Let's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of you in the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso 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 comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill them. And now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat man.And you couldgive him a shove.He would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley car.He would diebut he would spare the five.Now, how many would pushthe 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 liveseven if it means sacrificing one?" What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first case?I need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both cases.How do you explainthe difference between the two? Yes. The second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich 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 himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere 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 trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did he?That's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the bridge.Go ahead, you can come backif 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 wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases? Yes.Well, I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certain choice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct actions.The trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second choice. Whereas pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your part.You have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley car.So I think it's a slightlydifferent 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'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person, which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious action.So either way,you're making a choice.Do you want to reply?I'm not really surethat that's the case.It just still seemskind of different.The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him yourself. You're pushing himwith your own hands.You're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath 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 bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby 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 thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the trap.Then I could agree with that.That's all right. Fair enough.It still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you say. And in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the situation.In the second one,you're an onlooker as well.All right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby 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 doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to you.They've been in a terribletrolley car wreck.Five of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spend all daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would die.Or you could look after the five, restore them to healthbut 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 needof an organ transplantin 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 youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho 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 upif 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 outthe organs. Why?I'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other four.That's a pretty good idea.That's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical point.Let's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to unfold.Certain moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've had.And let's considerwhat those moral principles look like. The first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your action.At the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must die.That's an exampleof consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasons having to do withthe intrinsic qualityof 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 sakeof saving five lives.At least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we considered.So this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.The most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the 18th centuryEnglish political philosopher.The most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the 18th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel Kant.So we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider others.If you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others.You'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversiesthat 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 enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for philosophy.And so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the other.This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks, risks that are both personaland political,risks that every studentof political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already know.There's an irony.The difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat 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 playfulnessand sobriety.It's also how thesephilosophical books work. Philosophy estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga 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-thoughtor un-known.What makes this enterprise difficult but also rivetingis that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don't knowwhere the story will lead.But what you do knowis that the story is about you.Those are the personal risks.Now what of the political risks?One way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise you that by reading these booksand 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 moreeffective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partialand misleading promise.Political philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that way.You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, activity.And you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing.Callicles tells Socrates "Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat 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 accomplishmentsof active life, take for your modelsnot those people who spendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihood and reputation and manyother 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 faceof these risks,there is a characteristic evasion.The name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for all either the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter 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 matterof each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of reasoning.That's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following reply.It's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in another.And the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every day.So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflectionis no solution.Immanuel Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the possibilities.I would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis 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 dowhat you have to do to survive.-You have to do what you have to do? You got to dowhat you got to do, pretty much.If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just hasto 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 timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ transplantation.We noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were arguing.We began with our judgmentsin particular cases.We tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour judgments.And then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles, revising eachin the light of the other.And we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon reflection.We also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the discussion.We noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought about.And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.But we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the result.Sometimes, many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters morally.Some people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrong even if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat 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 examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral theory.And that's the philosophyof utilitarianism.Jeremy Bentham,the 18th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral theory.And Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple one.With a lot of morallyintuitive appeal, Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize utility.What did he mean by utility?He meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.Here's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing utility. He started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and pleasure.We human beingslike pleasure and dislike pain.And so we should base morality, whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens, we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should be.The right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of happiness. Bentham's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and Stevens.This was a 19th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law schools.Here's what happened in the case.I'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the jury.A newspaper account of the time described the background.A sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, Mignonette.The ship flounderedin 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 characteror so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker,17 years old.He was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at sea.He went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his friends.He went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.The facts of the casewere not in dispute.A wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went down. The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat.The only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh water.For the first three days,they ate nothing.On the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate it.The next daythey caught a turtle. Together with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few days. And then for eight days,they had nothing.No food. No water.Imagine yourselfin a situation like that,what would you do?Here's what they did.By now the cabin boy, Parker, is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others and he had become illand 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 lotsto see who would dieto save the rest.Brooks refused.He didn't like the lottery idea. We don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral principles.But in any case,no lots were drawn.The next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be killed.Dudley offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular vein.Brooks emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome bounty.For four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin boy.True story.And then they were rescued.Dudley describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism. "On the 24th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German ship. They were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand 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 effectbetter that one should dieso that three could survive.The prosecutor wasn't swayedby 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 juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or not.How many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissible?And how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrong?A pretty sizeable majority.Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with thosewho are in the minority.Let's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and Stevens.Why would you morallyexonerate them?What are your reasons?Yes.I think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthere is a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensible and what makes someonelegally accountable.In other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt. Okay. Good. Other defenders.Other voices for the defense.Moral justificationsfor what they did. Yes.Thank you.I just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to survive.You have to dowhat you have to do.Yeah, you've got to dowhat you've got to do.Pretty much.If you've been going19 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 surviveand then they become productive members of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizations and this and thatand this and that.I mean they benefited everybodyin the end. -Yeah.So, I mean I don't knowwhat 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 homeand turned out to be assassins? Well…You'd want to knowwho 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 voicesfor the defense.Now we need to hearfrom the prosecution.Most people thinkwhat they did was wrong. Why? Yes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be making. And if that's an appealing argument that you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincing do think that they wereacting immorally.But what do you-I want to knowwhat you think.You defend them.。
[哈佛大学公共课][公正：该如何做是好？][RMVB][中英双字]内容介绍：这是关于道德与政治哲学的一个入门系列课程，主要是围绕哈佛大学迈克尔•桑德尔教授法学系列课程《公正：该如何做是好？》展开评议。
本课程共12部分，旨在引导观众一起评判性思考关于公正、平等、民主与公民权利的一些基本问题。
每周，超过1000位学生来听哈佛教授兼作家迈克尔•桑德尔的课，以拓展他们对于政治与道德哲学的认知理解，探究固有观念是与非。
学生们同时还将接触过去一些伟大哲学家——亚里士多德、康德、密尔、洛克。
然后，应用课程去分析复杂多变的现代问题：赞助性措施、同性婚姻、爱国主义、忠诚度与人权等。
桑德尔在教学中通过一些假设或真实案例的描述，置学生于伦理两难困境中，然后要他们做出决定：―该如何做是好？‖他鼓励学生站出来为自己的观点辩护，这通常激发生动而幽默的课堂辩论。
桑德尔然后围绕伦理问题展开，更深层次地触及不同道德选择背后的假设。
这种教学法通常会揭示道德推论的矛盾本质。
这一系列课程被评为哈佛新生最欢迎的公开课，并不是因为它只适合涉世未深的年轻人，又或者是它只适合哈佛学生那样的高智商人群。
我推荐的它的理由在于：1、大家可以看到什么是真正的―学习‖。
课程没有任何内容需要你强背记忆，也不会要求你去做笔记，但是我相信你能够在很久之后还会记得课程所要讲授的内容，而且愿意在自己的Blog里主动做课堂笔记。
对于真正有价值的知识传授，你没有道理会去错过，或者遗忘。
2、大家可以看到什么是真正的―教学‖，许多网友反应，看这套课程需要时常暂停。
这是因为每一小节里，迈克尔.桑德尔都会从平实简单的例子出发，让你不由自主地去思考他提出的命题。
他并非回答问题，或者是解答问题，更不是灌输你观点，而是自始至终激发你的脑力震荡，对习见提出挑战，换从多个角度思考看似最为简单的事情。
3、大家可以看到什么是真正的―政治学‖。
《公正：该如何做是好？》是为法学院学生开设的课程，出发点是谈公正和正义，一共分为12堂课。
![[公正：该如何做是好？].中英文字幕对照整理校订版.docx](https://uimg.taocdn.com/61cacf4aa216147916112849.webp)
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?1Funding for this program is provided by: 本节目由以下组织Additional funding provided by: 和以下个人提供赞助Last time, we argued about the case of The Queen vs. Dudley & Stephens, 上次,我们谈到女王诉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, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind, 以及针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论，并列举了Dudley和Stephens没有考虑到的支持和反对的意见。
let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. 让我们回头来看看Jeremy 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岁就取得了大律师资格but he never practiced law. 但他从来没有从事于法律.Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy. 相反,他毕生致力于判例法和道德哲学.Last time, we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism. 上一次,我们开始思考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, 就是将普通人的福利,或集体的幸福最大化,or the overall balance of pleasure over pain; 或在快乐与痛苦的权衡中取得总体优势;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是由如下理由来得出这个原则的：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 has to take account of them. How best to take account? By maximizing. 他们是我们的主宰,所以任何道德体系都要考虑到这点. 如何以最优化考虑?通过最大化.And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. 从此引出的原则就是将最好的东西最大化. What exactly should we maximize? 我们究竟该如何最大化?Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility - maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators. Bentham告诉我们幸福,或者更准确地说,实用-最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人而且还适用于社区及立法者."What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks. “到底什么是社区?” Bentham问道.It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it. 它是组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什么是最好的政策,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 if we add up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering. 公民和立法者应该问自己的问题，如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益减去所有的损耗,正确的做法就是将幸福相对于痛苦做一个最大化的平衡.2That'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,我想看看您是否同意它,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, usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on thecosts and the benefits of various proposals.当它涉及到价值时, 通常是由美元,来代表成本以及效益.Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris, the tobacco company, does huge business in the Czech Republic. 最近,在捷克共和国,有人建议对吸烟增加消费税.菲利普莫里斯烟草公司, 在捷克共和国有大笔的生意.They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke. Now, how do they gain? 他们委托了一个研究, 来做吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析. 他们的分析发现,政府将会因捷克公民吸烟而收益. 那么,他们如何收益?It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who developsmoking-related diseases. On the other hand, there were positive effects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger. 确实,捷克政府的公共财政会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增大的医疗保健开支, 从而受到负面影响. 另一方面,在帐册的另一端, 也有着累计起来的积极影响.The positive effects included, for the most part, various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products, but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early, pension savings -- you don't have to pay pensions for as long - and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly. 积极影响包括,在大多数情况下, 政府通过出售卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入, 但也包括政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄,例如养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-还有,老人住房储蓄费用.And when all of the costs and benefits were added up, 当把所有的花费和收益都分别加起来,the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000, and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs, the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking. Cost-benefit analysis. 菲利普莫里斯公司的研究发现,捷克共和国会有产生$ 147000000的公共财政净增益, 并鉴于节省了住房储蓄,医疗保健,养老金费用, 每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200. 成本效益分析.Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test. 现在,你们中间,那些功利主义的捍卫者可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation. 菲利普莫里斯公司在媒体中遭到了嘲笑他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer. 你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏，它没有正确评估上人的价值，以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.3What about the value of life? 如何评估生命价值?Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life. 一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估. One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. 其中最有名的要数Ford Pinto案件.Did any of you read about that? 你们有没有阅读过这个案件?This was back in the 1970s. 那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? 你还记得Ford Pinto是, 什么样的车么?谁能记得? It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular, 那是一种小型车,超小型车,很受欢迎,but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured. 但它也有问题,车后座的油箱，在少数情况下,碰撞会导致爆炸并且有些人死亡，还有些人严重受伤.Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue. 这些伤害的受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case, it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding. 而在诉讼案件,人们发现福特原来早已知道油箱的脆弱，并且已做了成本效益分析,以确定是否值得投入来放入一个特殊的盾牌来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-benefit analysis. 他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto, 增加Pinto的安全的每部分费用,they calculated at $11.00 per part. 他们算出,要每件$ 11.00.And here's -- this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial. 这里——这就是当时审批中出示的成本效益分析.Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety. 每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车得到一个总成本,需要13700万美元来改善安全.But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death, 180 injuries,$67,000,and then the costs to repair, the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles, it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle. 不过, 随后他们计算了花这笔钱的收益，假设会导致180人死亡，他们对此用美元价值来代替,每个死亡赔偿$200000, 180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67000,然后是维修受损车的费用, 2000辆车,由于未安装安全设施,每辆车将需要$700来维修.So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didn't install the device. 结论是效益仅$49.5 million因此他们没有安装那个设备.Needless to say, when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial, it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement. 毫无疑问,福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录在审判中出现时, 震惊了陪审团,也因此引发了巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating? 这是一个功利主义计算的反例么? Because Ford included a measure of the value of life. 因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counterexample? Who has a defense? 好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例来捍卫成本效益分析? 谁来辩护?Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus? Yes? 或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了功利主义演算? 是吗?45678910Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism. 今天,我们来谈谈酷刑和恐怖主义.Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th and you had reason to believe that the suspect had crucial information about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people and you couldn't extract the information. 假设一个恐怖分子疑犯在9月10日被捕你有理由相信疑犯有着重要信息有着对于即将发生的恐怖袭击,并且超过3000人死亡的重要信息你却无法得到这份信息.Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information or do you say no, there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights? 通过酷刑来得到这份信息是正义的么? 或者你认为不,应该有一个绝对的道德责任来尊重个人的权利呢?In a way, we're back to the questions we started with about trolley cars and organ transplant. So that's the first issue. 在某种程度上,我们就回到了开始的问题, 关于电车和器官移植. 所以这是第一个问题.And you remember, we considered some examples of cost-benefit analysis, but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing a dollar value on human life. 而你还记得, 我们同样考虑了一些成本效益分析的例子,但很多人对于成本效益分析感到不满, 如果其中涉及到了用金钱来衡量人类生命.And so that led us to the second objection. 因此这引出了我们第二个反对.It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values into a single uniform measure of value. It asks, in other words, whether all values are commensurable. 它质疑是否能将所有的值转化成一个统一的价值尺度. 它要求,换句话说, 是否所有的价值相称的.Let me give you one other example of an experience. 让我给另一个例子.This actually is a true story. 这实际上是一个真实的故事.It comes from personal experience that raises a question at least about whether all values can be translated without loss into utilitarian terms. 它来自于个人的经验并提出了一个问题，是否所有价值值都可以不受损害的被转换成功利条款.Some years ago, when I was a graduate student, 几年前,当我还是一名研究生,I was at Oxford in England and they had men's and women's colleges. They weren't yet mixed and the women's colleges had rules against overnight male guests. By the 1970s, these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated, or so I was told. 我在英格兰的牛津大学, 那里有男子和女子学院. 当时尚未男女混合,并且女子学院严令禁止留宿男性客人. 70年代后,这些法则很少得到执行且常被违反,或者只是我听说的。
Justice 08 What’s a Fair Start? / What Do We Deserve? 什么是公平的起点？/我们该得到什么？Today, we turn to the question of distributive justice.How should income in wealth and power and opportunities be distributed? According to what principles?John Rawls offers a detailed answer to that question.And we're going to examine and assess his answer to that question, today.We put ourselves in a position to do so last time.By trying to make sense of why he thinks that principles of justice are best derived from a hypothetical contract.And what matters is that the hypothetical contract be carried out in an original position of equality, behind, what Rawls calls, the veil of ignorance.So that much is clear?Alright, then let's turn to the principles that Rawls says would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.First, he considered some of the major alternatives.What about utilitarianism?Would the people in the original position choose to govern their collective lives utilitarian principles, the greatest good for the greatest number?No, they wouldn't, Rawls says.And the reason is, that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone knows that once the veil goes up, and real life begins, we will each want to be respected with dignity.Even if we turn out to be a member of a minority.We don't want to be oppressed.And so we would agree to reject utilitarianism, and instead to adopt as our first principle, equal basic liberties.Fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the like.We wouldn't want to take the chance that we would wind up as members of an oppressed or a despised minority with the majority tyrannizing over us.And so Rawls says utilitarianism would be rejected."Utilitarianism makes the mistake", Rawls writes, "of forgetting, or at least not taking seriously, the distinction between persons." And in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, we would recognize that and reject utilitarianism.We wouldn't trade off our fundamental rights and liberties for any economic advantages.That's the first principle.Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities.What would we agree to?Remember, we don't know whether we're going to wind up rich or poor.Healthy or unhealthy.We don't know what kind of family we're going to come from.Whether we're going to inherit millions or whether we will come from an impoverished family.So we might, at first thought, say, "Well let's require an equal distribution of income and wealth." Just to be on the safe side.But then we would realize, that we could do better than that.Even if we're unlucky and wind up at the bottom.We could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality.Rawls calls it "the Difference Principle".A principle that says, only those social and economic inequalities will be permitted that work to the benefit of the least well off.So we wouldn't reject all inequality of income and wealth.We would allow some.But the test would be, do they work to the benefit of everyone including those, or as he specifies, the principle, especially those at the bottom.Only those inequalities would be accepted behind the veil of ignorance.And so Rawls argues, only those inequalities that work to the benefit of the least well off, are just.We talked about the examples of Michael Jordan making 81 Of Bill Gates having a fortune in the tens of billions.Would those inequalities be permitted under the difference principle?Only if they were part of a system, those wage differentials, that actually work to the advantage of least well off.Well, what would that system be?Maybe it turns out that as a practical matter you have to provide incentives to attract the right people to certain jobs.And when you do, having those people in those jobs will actually help those at the bottom.Strictly speaking, Rawls's argument for the difference principle is that it would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.Let me hear what you think about Rawls's claim that these two principles would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be chosen?Alright, let's start up in the balcony, if that's alright.Go ahead.OK, your argument depends upon us believing that we would argue in said policy, or justice from a bottom.For the disadvantaged.And I just don't see from a proof standpoint, where we've proven that.Why not the top?Right, and what's your name?- Mike.Mike, alright, good question.Put yourself behind the veil of ignorance.Enter into the thought experiment.What principles would you choose?How would you think it through?Well, I would say things like, even Harvard's existence is an example of preaching toward the top.Because Harvard takes the top academics.And I didn't know when I was born how smart I would be.But I worked my life to get to a place of this caliber.Now, if you had said Harvard's going to randomly take 1600 people of absolutely no qualification, we'd all be saying, "There's not much to work for." And so what principle would you choose?In that situation I would say a merit based one.One where I don't necessarily know, but I would rather have a system that rewards me based on my efforts.So you, Mike, behind the veil of ignorance, would choose a merit-based system, where people are rewarded according to their efforts?Alright, fair enough.What would you say?Go ahead.My question is, if the merit-based argument is based on when everyone is at a level of equality?Where from that position, you're rewarded to where you get, or is it regardless of what advantages you may have when you began your education to get where you are here?I think what the question you're asking is saying that if we want to look at, whatever, utilitarianism, policy, do you want to maximize world wealth.And I think a system that rewards merit is the one that we've pretty much all established, is what is best for all of us.Despite the fact that some of us may be in the second percentile and some may be in the 98th percentile.At the end of the day it lifts that lowest based level, a community that rewards effort as opposed to an differences.But, I don't understand how you're rewards someone's efforts who clearly has had, not you, but maybe myself, advantages throughout, to get where I am here.I mean, I can't say that somebody else who maybe worked as hard as I did would have had the same opportunity to come to a school like this.Alright, let's look at that point.What's your name?Kate. -Kate, you suspect that the ability to get into top schools may largely depend on coming from an affluent family.Having a favorable family background, social, cultural, economic advantages and so on?I mean, economic, but yes, social, cultural.All of those advantages, for sure.Someone did a study, of the 146 selective colleges and universities in the United States.And they looked at the students in those colleges and universities to try to find out what their background was, their economic background.What percentage do you think, come from the bottom quarter of the income scale?You know what the figure is?Only three percent of students, at the most selective colleges and universities come from poor backgrounds.Over 70 percent come from affluent families.Let's go one step further then, and try to address Mike's challenge.Rawls actually has two arguments, not one, in favor of his principles of justice.And in particular, of the difference principle.One argument is the official argument, what would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.Some people challenge that argument, saying, "Maybe people would want to take their chances.Maybe people would be gamblers behind the veil of ignorance.Hoping that they would wind up on top." That's one challenge that has been put to Rawls.But backing up the argument from the original position is the second argument.And that is the straightforwardly moral argument.And it goes like this, it says, the distribution of income and wealth and opportunities should not be based on factors for which people can claim no credit.It shouldn't be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.Rawls illustrates this by considering several rival theories of justice.He begins with the theory of justice that most everyone these days would reject.A feudal aristocracy.What's wrong with the allocation of life prospects in a feudal aristocracy?Rawls says, well the thing that's obviously wrong about it is that people's life prospects are determined by the accident of birth.Are you born to a noble family or to a family of peasants and serfs?And that's it.You can't rise.It's not your doing where you wind up or what opportunities you have.But that's arbitrary from a moral point of view.And so that objection to feudal aristocracy leads, and historically has lead, people to say, careers should be open to talents.There should be formal equality of opportunity regardless of the accident of birth.Every person should be free to strive, to work, to apply for any job in the society.And then, if you open up jobs, and you allow people to apply, and to work as hard as they can, then the results are just.So it's more or less the libertarian system that we've discussed in earlier weeks.What does Rawls think about this?He says it's an improvement.It's an improvement because it doesn't take as fixed the accident of birth.But even with formal equality of opportunity the libertarian conception doesn't extend that, doesn't extend its insight far enough.Because if you let everybody run the race, everybody can enter the race, but some people start at different starting points, that race isn't going to be fair.Intuitively, he says, the most obvious injustice of this system is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by factors arbitrary from a moral point of view.Such as, whether you got a good education or not.Whether you grew up in a family that support you and developed in you a work ethic and gave you the opportunities.So that suggests moving to a system of fair equality of opportunity.And that's really the system that Mike was advocating earlier on.What we might call a merit-based system.A meritocratic system.In a fair meritocracy the society sets up institutions to bring everyone to the same starting point before the race begins.Equal educational opportunities.Head start programs, for example.Support for schools in impoverished neighborhoods.So that everyone, regardless of their family background, has a genuinely fair opportunity.Everyone starts from the same starting line.Well, what does Rawls think about the meritocratic system?Even that, he says, doesn't go far enough in remedying, or addressing, the moral arbitrariness of the natural lottery.Because if you bring everyone to the same starting point and begin the race, who's going to win the race?Who would win?To use the runners example.The fastest runners would win.But is it their doing that they happen to be blessed with athletic prowess to run fast?So Rawls says, "Even the principle of meritocracy, where you bring everyone to the same starting point, may eliminate the influence of social contingencies and upbringing, ...but it still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents." And so he thinks that the principle of eliminating morally arbitrary influences in the distribution of income and wealth requires going beyond what Mike favors, the meritocratic system.Now, how do you go beyond?Do you bring everyone to the same starting point and you're still bothered by the fact that some are fast runners and some are not fast runners, what can you do?Well, some critics of a more egalitarian conception say the only thing you can do is handicap the fast runners.Make them wear lead shoes.But who wants to do that?That would defeat the whole point of running the race.But Rawls says, you don't have to have a kind of leveling equality, if you want to go beyond a meritocratic conception.You permit, you even encourage, those who may be gifted, to exercise their talents.But what you do, is you change the terms on which people are entitled to the fruits of the exercise of those talents.And that really is what the difference principle is.You establish a principle that says, people may benefit from their good fortune, from their luck in the genetic lottery, but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off.And so, for example, Michael Jordan can make 290 only under a system that taxes away a chunk of that to help those who lack the basketball skills that he's blessed with.Likewise, Bill Gates.He can make his billions.But he can't think that he somehow morally deserves those billions."Those who have been favored by nature, may gain from their good fortune but only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out." That's the difference principle.And it's an argument from moral arbitrarianists.Rawls claims, that if you're bothered by basing distributive shares on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view, you don't just reject a feudal aristocracy for a free market.You don't even rest content with a meritocratic system that brings everyone to the same starting point.You set up a system, where everyone, including those at the bottom, benefit from the exercise of the talents held by those who happen to be lucky.What do you think?Is that persuasive?Who finds that argument unpersuasive?The argument for moral arbitrarianists.Yes.I think that in the egalitarian proposition the more talented people, I think it's very optimistic to think that they would still work really hard, even if they knew that part of what they made would be given away.So I think that the only way for the more talented people to exercise their talents to the best of their ability is in the meritocracy.And in a meritocracy, what's your name?Kate.Kate, does it bother you, and Mike, does it bother you, that in a meritocratic system, that even with fair equality of opportunity, people get ahead, people get rewards that they don't deserve simply because they happen to be naturally gifted.What about that?I think that it is arbitrary.Obviously it's arbitrary.But I think that correcting for it would be detrimental.Because it would reduce incentives, is that why?It would reduce incentives, yeah.Mike, what do you say?We're all sitting in this room and we have undeserved, we have undeserved glory of some sort.So you should not be satisfied with the process of your life.Because you have not created any of this.And I think, from a standpoint of, not just this room, us being upset, but from a societal standpoint we should have some kind of a gut reaction to that feeling.The guy who runs the race, he doesn't...He actually harms us as opposed to maybe makes me run that last ten yards faster.And that makes the guy behind me run ten yards faster and the guy behind him ten yards faster.Alright, so Mike, let me ask you.You talked about effort before.Effort.Do you think when people work hard to get ahead, and succeed, that they deserve the rewards that go with effort?Isn't that the idea behind your defense?I mean, of course, bring Michael Jordan here, I'm sure you can get him, and have him come and defend himself about he makes 31 million dollars.And I think what you're going to realize is his life was a very, very tough one to get to the top.And that we are basically being the majority oppressing the minority in a different light.It's very easy to pick on him.Very easy.Alright, effort.You've got...I've got a few. I've got a few.But that's about it.Effort, you know what Rawls's answer to that is?Even the effort that some people expend, conscientious driving, the work ethic, even effort depends a lot on fortunate family circumstances.For which you, we, can claim no credit.Let's do the test.Let's do a test here.Never mind economic class, those differences are very significant.Put those aside.Psychologists say that birth order makes a lot of difference in work ethic, striving, effort.How many here, raise your hand, those of you here, who are first in birth order.I am too by the way.Mike, I noticed you raised your hand.If the case for the meritocratic conception is that effort should be rewarded, doesn't Rawls have a point that even effort striving, work ethic is largely shaped even by birth order?Is it your doing?Mike, is it your doing that you were first in birth order?Then why, Rawls says, of course not.So why should income and wealth and opportunities in life be based on factors arbitrary from a moral point of view?That's the challenge that he puts to market societies, but also to those of us at places like this.A question to think about for next time.A justice of the United States Supreme Court, what do they make?It's just under $200,000.But there's another judge who makes a lot more than Sandra Day O'Connor.Do you know who it is?- Judge Judy?Judge Judy.How did you know that?Judge Judy, you know how much she makes?$25 million.Now, is that just?Is it fair?We ended last time with that remarkable poll, do you remember?The poll about birth order.What percentage of people in this room raised their hands, was it, to say that they were the first born?403 And what was the significance of that?If you're thinking about these theories of distributive justice.Remember, we were discussing three different theories of distributive justice.Three different ways of answering the question, "How should income and wealth and opportunities and the good things in life, be distributed?" And so far we've looked at the libertarian answer.That says, the just system of distribution is a system of free exchange, a free market economy.Against a background of formal equality.Which simply means, that jobs and careers are open to anyone.Rawls says that this represents an improvement over aristocratic and caste systems, because everyone can compete for every job.Careers open to talents.And beyond that, the just distribution is the one that results from free exchange.Voluntary transactions.No more, no less.Then Rawls argues, if all you have is formal equality, jobs open to everyone, the result is not going to be fair.It will be biased in favor of those who happen to be born to affluent families, who happen to have the benefit of good educational opportunities.And that accident of birth is not a just basis for distributing life chances.And so, many people who notice this unfairness, Rawls argues, are lead to embrace a system of fair equality of opportunity.That leads to the meritocratic system.Fair equality of opportunity.But Rawls says, even if you bring everyone to the same starting point in the race, what's going to happen?Who's going to win?The fastest runners.So once you're troubled by basing distributive shares on morally arbitrary contingencies, you should, if you reason it through, be carried all the way to what Rawls calls, "the democratic conception".A more egalitarian conception of distributive justice that he defines by the difference principle.Now, he doesn't say that the only way to remedy or to compensate for differences in natural talents and abilities is to have a kind of, leveling equality.A guaranteed equality of outcome.But he does say there's another way to deal with these contingencies.People may gain, may benefit from their good fortune, but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off.And so, we can test how this theory actually works by thinking about some paid differentials that arise in our society.What does the average school teacher make in the United States, do you suppose?Roughly.-$35,000.It's a little more, 40, $42,000.What about David Letterman?How much do you think David Letterman makes?More than a school teacher?$31 million.David Letterman.Is that fair?That David Letterman makes that much more than a school teacher?Well, Rawls's answer would be, it depends whether the basic structure of society is designed in such a way that Letterman's $31 million is subject to taxation so that some of those earnings are taken to work for the advantage of the least well off.One other example of a paid differential.A justice of the United States Supreme Court.What do they make?It's just under $200,000.Here's Sandra Day O'Connor, for example. There she is.But there's another judge who makes a lot more than Sandra Day O'Connor.Do you know who it is?- Judge Judy.Judge Judy.How did you know that?You watch?You're right.Judge Judy, you know how much she makes?There she is.$25 million.Now, is that just?Is it fair?Well, the answer is, it depends on whether this is against a background system in line with the difference principle.Where those who come out on top, in terms of income and wealth are taxed in a way that benefits the least well off members of society.Now, we're going to come back to these wage differentials, pay differentials, between a real judge and a TV judge.The one Marcus watches all the time.What I want to do now, is return to these theories and to examine the objections to Rawls's more egalitarian theory.The difference principle.There are at least three objections to Rawls's difference principle.One of them came up last time in the discussion and a number of you raised this worry.What about incentives?Isn't there the risk, if taxes reach 506 that Michael Jordan won't play basketball?That David Letterman won't do late night comedy?Or that CEOs will go into some other line of work?Now, who among those who are defenders of Rawls who has an answer to this objection about the need for incentives?Yes. Go ahead, stand up.Rawls's idea is that there should only be so much difference that it helps the least well off the most.So if there's too much equality, then the least well off might not be able to watch late night TV, or might not have a job because their CEO doesn't want to work.So you need to find the correct balance where taxation still leaves enough incentive to least well off to benefit from the talents.- Good.And what's your name?- Tim.Tim. Alright, so Tim is saying, in effect, that Rawls is taking count of incentives.And could allow for pay differentials and for some adjustment in the tax rate to take account of incentives.But, Tim points out, the standpoint from which the question of incentives needs to be considered is not the effect on the total size of the economic pie.But instead from the standpoint of the effect of incentives, or disincentives, on the well-being of those on the bottom.Right?Good. Thank you.I think that is what Rawls would say.In fact, if you look in section 17, where he describes the difference principle, he allows for incentives."The naturally advantaged are not gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education andfor using their endowments in ways that help less fortunate as well." So you can have incentives.You can adjust the tax rate.If taking too much from David Letterman or from Michael Jordan, or from Bill Gates, winds up actually hurting those at the bottom.That's the test.So incentives, that's not a decisive objections against Rawls's difference principle.But there are two weightier, more difficult objections.One of them comes from defenders of a meritocratic conception.The argument that says, what about effort?What about people working hard having a right to what they earn because they've deserved it.They've worked hard for it.That's the objection from effort and moral desert.Then there's another objection.That comes from libertarians.And this objection has to do with reasserting the idea of self-ownership.Doesn't the difference principle, by treating our natural talents and endowments as common assets, doesn't that violate the idea that we own ourselves?Now, let me deal first, with the objection that comes from the libertarian direction.Milton Friedman writes, in his book, "Free to Choose," "Life is not fair.And it's tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned." But his answer is, "The only way to try to rectify that is to have a leveling equality of outcome." Everyone finishing the race at the same point.And that would be a disaster.This is an easy argument to answer.And Rawls addresses it.In one of the most powerful passages, I think, of the theory of justice.It's in Section 17."The natural distribution", and here he's talking about the natural distribution talents and endowments."...is neither just nor unjust."Nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position.These are simply natural facts.What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts." That's his answer to libertarian laissez faire economists like Milton Friedman who say, "Life is unfair but get over it." Get over it and let's see if we can, at least, maximize the benefits that flow from it.But the more powerful libertarian objection to Rawls is not libertarian from the libertarian economists like Milton Friedman.It's from the argument about self-ownership.Developed as we saw, in Nozick.And from that point of view, yes, it might be a good thing, to create head start programs and public schools so that everyone can go to a decent school and start the race at the same starting line.That might be good.But if you tax people to create public schools, if you tax people against their will, you coerce them.It's a form of theft.If you take some of Letterman's $31 million, tax it away to support public schools, against his will, the state is really doing no better than stealing from him.It's coercion.And the reason is, we have to think of ourselves as owning our talents and endowments.Because otherwise we're back to just using people and coercing people.That's the libertarian reply.What's Rawls's answer to that objection?He doesn't address the idea of self-ownership directly.But the effect, the moral weight of his argument for the difference principle is, maybe we don't own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all.Now, he says, this doesn't mean that the state is an owner in me, in the sense that it can simply commandeer my life.Because remember, the first principle we would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, is the principle of equal basic liberties.Freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the like.So the only respect in which the idea of self-ownership must give way, comes when we're thinking about whether I own myself in the sense that I have a privileged claim on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents in a market economy.。
公正课\N迈克尔·桑德尔教授主讲第五讲《选择的自由》上节课结束时\When we finished last time,我们讲到约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒试图回应\we were looking at John Stuart Mill's attempt to reply对边沁功利主义的批判\to the critics of Bentham's Utilitarianism.在穆勒的《功利主义》中\In his book Utilitarianism,他试图证明与批判者所言相反\Mill tries to show that critics to the contrary在功利主义的框架下\it is possible within the utilitarian framework是能区分高级和低级快乐的\to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.是能对价值进行定性区分的\It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth. 我们用《辛普森一家》\And we tested that idea和莎士比亚作品检验了这一观点\with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts. 检验结果\And the results of our experiment却似乎让我们质疑穆勒的区分\seem to call into question Mill's distinction因为在座大多数\because a great many of you都表示更喜欢《辛普森一家》\reported that you prefer the Simpsons却仍然认为莎士比亚的作品\but that you still consider Shakespeare能带来更高级更有价值的快乐\to be the higher or the worthier pleasure.这就是我们的检验中穆勒的观点所遭遇的困境\That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.那么穆勒在《功利主义》\What about Mill's attempt to account第五章中提到的\for the especially weighty character of个人权利和公正重要性的解释又是否成立呢\individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism.他想说明个人权利\He wants to say that individual rights值得特别的尊重\are worthy of special respect.实际上他甚至声称\In fact, he goes so far as to say that公正是道德中最神圣\justice is the most sacred part和最不可或缺的部分\and the most incomparably binding part of morality.但穆勒的这番辩护面临着同样质疑\But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.为何公正是道德中最主要\Why is justice the chief part最不可或缺的部分\and the most binding part of our morality?他说因为从长远看\Well, he says because in the long run,如果我们秉持公正尊重权利\if we do justice and if we respect rights,社会整体会发展得更好\society as a whole will be better off in the long run.这能令人信服吗\Well, what about that?如果有个特例\What if we have a case where making an exception侵犯个人权利\and violating individual rights actually长远来看反而让人们获益更多呢\will make people better off in the long run?那样就可以利用人了吗\Is it all right then to use people?还有另一个能更深入地\And there is a further objection驳斥穆勒有关公正和权利的观点\that could be raised against Mill's case for justice and rights.假设如他所说长远来看\Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run功利主义演算真能实现\works out as he says it will即尊重个人权利\such that respecting people's rights从长远来看真的能让大家都获益\is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.这理由说得过去吗\Is that the right reason?这就是我们该尊重别人的唯一理由吗\Is that the only reason to respect people?如果那位医生\If the doctor goes in偷摘走那位来体检的\and yanks the organs from the healthy patient健康人的器官\who came in for a checkup去挽救另外五人\to save five lives,这事从长远来看会有负面影响\there would be adverse effects in the long run.人们终会得知此事\Eventually, people would learn about this而不再去医院体检\and would stop going in for checkups.这理由说得过去吗\Is it the right reason?这就是唯一原因\Is the only reason让你作为医生\that you as a doctor不会偷摘取体检病人的器官吗\won't yank the organs out of the healthy patient因为你认为如果你这样利用他\that you think, well, if I use him in this way,长远来看会导致更多人丧命\in the long run more lives would be lost?还是有另一原因\Or is there another reason这其实跟在本质上尊重每个个体有关\having to do with intrinsic respect for the person as an individual?如果其中确有这一原因\And if that reason matters那隐约可以看出\and it's not so clear即便是穆勒的功利主义也考虑了这点\that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it,为了全面检视对穆勒的这两点\fully to examine these two worries or objections,质疑或担忧\to Mill's defense我们需要更进一步\we need to push further.我们要问就更高的或更有价值的快乐而言\And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures是否存在"良善生活"的理论\are there theories of the good life that能为快乐的价值\can provide independent moral standards提供独立的道德标准\for the worth of pleasures?如果存在那会是怎样的理论\If so, what do they look like?这是一个问题\That's one question.就公正和权利而言如果我们怀疑\In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that 穆勒其实也隐约靠向了个人尊严\Mill is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity或尊重个人的观点\or respect for person而严格说来这不属于功利主义范畴\that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,我们就需要看看\we need to look to see有没有更强有力的权利理论\whether there are some stronger theories of rights能解释穆勒的这点隐约的直觉\that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares, 即尊重个人不利用个人的理由\the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals and not using them甚至胜过了长远看来的功利\goes beyond even utility in the long run.今天我们讨论其中一项强有力的权利理论\Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.这些强有力的权利理论认为\Strong theories of rights say个人很重要不仅仅是用来\individuals matter not just as instruments实现更高社会目标的工具\to be used for a larger social purpose或为了实现功利最大化的工具\or for the sake of maximizing utility,个人是独立的存在\individuals are separate beings有独立的生命值得尊重\with separate lives worthy of respect.这些强有力的权利理论认为\And so it's a mistake,下列看法是错误的\according to strong theories of rights, it's a mistake不该只以偏好和价值的加总\to think about justice or law来考虑公正或法律\by just adding up preferences and values.我们今天要讨论的权利理论是自由主义\The strong rights theory we turn to today is libertarianism.自由主义非常重视个人权利\Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.它被称为自由主义\It's called libertarianism是因为它宣称个人的基本权利是自由权\because it says the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty就因为我们都是独立存在的个体\Precisely because we are separate individualbeings,我们不能被利用\we're not available to any use去满足社会可能的需求\that the society might desire or devise就因为我们是独立存在的个体\Precisely because we are individual separate human beings,我们享有自由的基本权利\we have a fundamental right to liberty,即我们有权自由选择\and that means a right to choose freely,过自己喜欢的生活\to live our lives as we please只要尊重他人同等的权利\provided we respect other people's rights to do the same. 这是它的基本理念\That's the fundamental idea.罗伯特·诺齐克\Robert Nozick,本课涉及到的一位自由主义哲学家\one of the libertarian philosophers we read是这样说的\for this course, puts it this way:个人有权利\Individuals have rights.这些权利如此强大如此深远\So strong and far reaching are these rights以至引发一个问题如果有的话政府可以做什么\that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.自由主义对于政府或国家的角色\So what does libertarianism say有什么看法呢\about the role of government or of the state?大部分当代政府所做的三种事\Well, there are three things that most modern states do在自由主义理论看来是不合法\that on the libertarian theory of rights不公正的\are illegitimate or unjust.第一家长式的立法\One of them is paternalist legislation.即制定保护人们免受自身行为伤害的法律\That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,诸如系安全带骑摩托车带头盔的法规\seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.自由主义者说系安全带也许是件好事\The libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seatbelts但这应由人们自己作主\but that should be up to them政府没有资格\and the state, the government, has no business用法律来强迫人们系安全带\coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law.这是强迫\It's coercion,所以第一点不应有家长式的立法\so no paternalist legislation, number one.第二点不应有道德式的立法\Number two, no morals legislation.很多法律试图提高公民的品德\Many laws try to promote the virtue of citizens或者试图树立\or try to give expression to the moral values整个社会的道德标准\of the society as a whole.自由主义者说这也违反了个人的自由权\Libertarian say that's also a violation of the right to liberty.举一个经典的例子\Take the example of, well, a classic example以弘扬传统道德之名立法\of legislation authored in the name of promoting morality 历来都有法律\traditionally have been laws禁止同性恋性行为\that prevent sexual intimacy between gays and lesbians.自由主义者认为\The libertarian says其他人没有因此受到伤害也没被侵权\nobody else is harmed,nobody else's rights are violated,所以政府不应该插手此事\so the state should get out of the business entirely of不该试图立法弘扬道德\trying to promote virtue or to enact morals legislation.第三种不被自由主义认同的\And the third kind of law or policy法律或政策是\that is ruled out on the libertarian philosophy任何为了劫富济贫进行收入或财富再分配\is any taxation or other policy that serves the purpose而制定的税收或其他政策\of redistributing income or wealth from the rich to the poor.仔细想想再分配这个概念\Redistribution is a - if you think about it,按自由主义者的话来说就是强迫\says the libertarian is a kind of coercion.它相当于政府施行的盗窃\What it amounts to is theft by the state若是民主政府的话则是大多数人施行的盗窃\or by the majority, if we're talking about a democracy,其对象是工作出色而赚得大钱的人\from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money.诺齐克和其他自由主义者认为\Now, Nozick and other libertarians allow that可以有这样一种"小政府"\there can be a minimal state它的税收只用来提供所有人都需要的服务\that taxes people for the sake of what everybody needs,包括国防治安\the national defense, police force,强制履约和保护产权的司法系统\judicial system to enforce contracts and property rights,不过仅此而已\but that's it.我想听听你们对\Now, I want to get your reactions自由主义第三种观点的态度\to this third feature of the libertarian view.看看你们当中谁赞同\I want to see who among you agree with that idea谁不赞同以及为什么\and who disagree and why.但为了更形象看看问题何在\But just to make it concrete and to see what's at stake,以美国的财富分配状况为例\consider the distribution of wealth in the United States. 在所有发达的民主国家之中\United States is among the most inegalitarian society as far as{\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}该图为美国10%的人口占据了70%的社会财富美国财富分配不均的问题最为严重\the distribution of wealth of all the advanced democracies.这样是否公平\Now, is this just or unjust?自由主义者们怎么说\Well, what does the libertarian say?他们说你不能仅从这个事实来判断\Libertarian says you can't know just from the facts I've just given you.你无法判断财富分配是否公平\You can't know whether that distribution is just or unjust.你不能仅凭分配格局\Y ou can't know just by looking at a pattern或分配结果\or a distribution or result来判断其是否公平\whether it's just or unjust.你得知道它是怎么来的\You have to know how it came to be.不能只关注最终结果\Y ou can't just look at the end stage or the result.{\an8}诺齐克收入分配怎样才公平你得考虑两个原则\You have to look at two principles.第一个原则诺齐克称之最初占有的公正原则\The first he calls justice in acquisition or in initial holdings.这很简单就是说\And what that means simply is人们是否公平地获得生产资料\did people get the things they used to make their money fairly?我们需要了解最初的占有是否来得公平\So we need to know was there justice in the initial holdings?让他们赚到钱的土地工厂或者商品\Did they steal the land or the factory or the goods这些生产资料是不是偷来的\that enabled them to make all that money?如果不是偷来的如果他们\If not, if they were entitled to whatever it was有权享有那些生产资料\that enabled them to gather the wealth,那就算符合第一条原则\the first principle is matched.第二条原则财富的分配是否\The second principle is did the distribution arise基于自由达成的交易\from the operation of free consent,基于自由市场的买卖\people buying and trading on the market?可以看出自由主义眼中的公平\As you can see, the libertarian idea of justice相当于自由市场理念下的公平\corresponds to a free market conception of justice只要生产资料的获取是公平的\provided people got what they used fairly,不是偷来的\didn't steal it,只要分配的结果是出自\and provided the distribution results自由市场上个体的自由选择\from the free choice of individual's buying and selling things,这样的分配就是公平的\the distribution is just.反之则不公平\And if not, it's unjust.为了进一步限定讨论的话题\So let's, in order to fix ideas for this discussion,我们举个真实的例子\take an actual example.美国最有钱的人是谁\Who's the wealthiest person in the United States -全世界最有钱的人是谁比尔·盖茨\wealthiest person in the world? Bill Gates.的确是没错这就是他\It is. That's right. Here he is.要是你你也会很开心的\You'd be happy, too.他的净资产有多少有人知道吗\Now, what's his net worth? Anybody have any idea? {\an8}{\fn方正黑体简体\fs18\b1\bord1\shad1\3c&H2F2F2F&}净资产400亿美元[《福布斯》2009年数据]数字非常巨大\That's a big number.克林顿当政期间\During the Clinton years,有个竞价捐款记得吧\remember there was a controversy donors?参与的大手笔捐款人都被邀请\Big campaign contributors were invited to在白宫的林肯卧室留宿一晚\stay overnight in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?你要是捐到2.5万美元以上也可以啊\I think if you've contributed twenty five thousand dollars or above.有人算出来\Someone figured out at按能受邀在林肯卧室留宿一夜\the median contribution that got you invited所需捐款额的中位数计算\to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,比尔·盖茨完全付得起在林肯卧室\Bill Gates could afford to stay in the Lincoln bedroom every night住上6万6千年\for the next sixty six thousand years.还有人算出了\Somebody else figured out,他一个小时能挣多少钱\how much does he get paid on an hourly basis?他们算出自从他创立了微软\And so they figured out, since he began Microsoft,假设他每天工作14个小时合理的猜测\I suppose he worked, what 14 hours per day, reasonable guess,然后你算算他的净资产\and you calculate this net wealth,结果算出他的工资率在150美元以上\it turns out that his rate of pay is over 150 dollars,不是每小时也不是每分钟\not per hour, not per minute而是每秒钟150美元以上\150 dollars, more than 150 dollars per second这意味着如果盖茨在上班路上\which means that if on his way to the office,就算看到地上有一张百元大钞\Gates noticed a hundred dollar bill on the street,都不值得他停下来去捡\it wouldn't be worth his time to stop and pick it up.你们很多人会说\Now, most of you will say这么有钱的人我们当然可以向他收税\someone that wealthy surely we can tax them 以满足那些得不到教育\to meet the pressing needs of people who lack in education 缺乏食物或者无家可归者的迫切需求\or lack enough to eat or lack decent housing. 他们比他更需要这些钱\They need it more than he does.如果你是个功利主义者你会怎么办\And if you were a utilitarian, what would you do?你会制定怎样的税收政策\What tax policy would you have?你会马上进行再分配对吧\You'd redistribute in a flash, wouldn't you?因为作为一个优秀的功利主义者你知道\Because you would know being a good utilitarian that收走一些对他们来说根本无关痛痒的钱\taking some, a small amount, he'd scarcely going to notice it,却能大大改善社会底层那些人的生活\but it will make a huge improvement in the lives增加他们的福利\and in the welfare of those at the bottom.但是记住\But remember,自由主义理论说\the libertarian theory says我们不能那样\we can't just add up简单加总偏好和满足\an aggregate preferences and satisfactions that way.我们必须要尊重个人\We have to respect persons and如果他公平地赚到钱\if he earned that money fairly没有侵犯到他人权利\without violating anybody else's rights完全遵守了那两条公正原则\in accordance with the two principles最初占有公正原则和转让公正原则\of justice in acquisition and in justice in transfer,那么向他多征税就是错的\then it would be wrong,这无异于强取豪夺\it would be a form of coercion to take it away.迈克尔·乔丹没有比尔·盖茨那么富有\Michael Jordan is not as wealthy as Bill Gates 但他也自有一番成就\but he did pretty well for himself.想看迈克尔·乔丹这就是他\You wanna see Michael Jordan. There he is.他一年的收入有3100万\His income alone in one year was 31 million dollars另外他为耐克和其他公司代言\and then he made another 47 million dollars又能赚4700万\in endorsements for a Nike and other companies.所以他一年的总收入有7800万\So his income was, in one year, $78 million.假设让他拿出三分之一的收入\To require him to pay, let's say, a third of his earnings交给政府来支持公益事业\to the government to support good causes为穷人提供食物医疗保障住房和教育\like food and health care and housing and education for the poor,这就是强迫是不公平的\that's coercion, that's unjust.侵犯了他的权利\That violates his rights.正因如此再分配是错误的\And that's why redistribution is wrong.有多少人同意自由主义者的这一驳论\Now, how many agree with that argument,认为为了帮助穷人\agree with the libertarian argument that redistribution进行财富再分配不对\for the sake of trying to help the poor is wrong?有多少人不同意这个观点\And how many disagree with that argument?好我们先从那些不同意的人开始\All right, let's begin with those who disagree.自由主义者反对再分配怎么不对了\What's wrong with the libertarian case against redistribution?请说\Yes.我认为像迈克尔·乔丹这样的人\I think these people like Michael Jordan have received在社会中工作\we're talking about working within a society他们从社会中得到的更多\and they received larger gift from the society因此他们该承担更大的责任\and they have a larger obligation通过财富再分配来回报社会\in return to give that through redistribution, you know, 你可以说乔丹也许和那些\you can say that Michael Jordan may work just as hard as some who works,一天洗12甚至14小时衣服的人一样辛苦\you know, doing laundry 12 hours, 14 hours a day,但他得到的更多\but he's receiving more.如果说这都是靠他自己辛苦挣来的\I don't think it's fair to say that, you know, it's all on him,是他天赋所赐我觉得这不算公平\on his, you know, inherent, you know, hard work. 好我们来听听自由主义者的辩护\All right, let's hear from defenders of libertarianism.为何向富人征税救济穷人在原则上是错的\Why would it be wrong in principle to tax the rich to help the poor?说吧\Go ahead.我名叫乔我收集滑板\My name is Joe and I collect skateboards.我已经买了100个滑板了\I've since bought a hundred skateboards.我居住的社区有一百人\I live in a society of a hundred people.我是唯一有滑板的人\I'm the only one with skateboards.突然大家都想要滑板了\Suddenly, everyone decides they want a skateboard.他们跑到我家来\They come to my house,拿走了我的99个滑板\they take my they take 99 of my skateboards.我觉得这是不公平的\I think that is unjust.我认为在某些情况下\Now, I think in certain circumstances我们需要忽视这种不公平\it becomes necessary to overlook that unjustness,容忍这种不正义\perhaps condone that injustice例如在救生艇里被当作食物的男孩\as in the case of the cabin boy being killed for food.如果人们在死亡边缘挣扎\If people are on the verge of dying,也许忽视这样的不公平是必要的\perhaps it is necessary to overlook that injustice, 但我认为即使这样我们依然要铭记\but I think it's important to keep in mind我们的行为不公正\that we're still committing injustice这是在占有他人的财物或资产\by taking people's belongings or assets.你是说按33%的税率向乔丹征税\Are you saying that taxing Michael Jordan, say, at a 33 percent tax rate来支持公益事业解决温饱是盗窃行为吗\for good causes to feed the hungry is theft? 我觉得这不公正\I think it's unjust.我确实认为这是盗窃\Y es, I do believe it's theft但也许我们有必要容忍它\but perhaps it is necessary to condone that theft.但它依然是盗窃\But it's theft.是的\Yes.为什么是盗窃呢乔\Why is it theft, Joe?因为\Because --为什么这和你收集滑板有相同之处呢\Why is it like your collection of skateboards? 这是盗窃是因为至少在我看来\It's theft because, or at least, in my opinion在自由主义者的观点看来\and by the libertarian opinion他公平地取得收入这些收入都是属于他的\he earned that money fairly and it belongs to him.拿走他的收入毫无疑问就是盗窃\So to take it from him is by definition theft.有人想反驳乔吗你请说\Who wants to reply to Joe? Yes, go ahead.我觉得他的例子不恰当\I don't think this is necessarily a case不是你有99个滑板而政府...\in which you have 99 skateboards and the government...或你有100个滑板\or you have a hundred skateboards而政府收走99个\and the government is taking 99 of them.恰当的例子是你的滑板多到\It's like you have more skateboards每天用一个都不重样\than there are days in a year.你的滑板多到\You have more skateboards一辈子也用不完\than you're going to be able to use in your entire lifetime而政府只是拿走其中的一些\and the government is taking part of those.如果你生活在一个那样的社会\And I think that if you are operating in a society in which这个社会中\the government's not,政府不进行财富再分配\in which the government doesn't redistribute wealth,就等于允许一些人无限累积过多的财富\then that allows for people to amass so much wealth以至于那些不在同一起跑线的人\that people who haven't started from this very the equal footing当然这只是假设\in our hypothetical situation,现实中是不存在的\that doesn't exist in our real society他们将余生都将没有机会翻身\get undercut for the rest of their lives.所以你担心\So you're worried that如果没有一定程度的再分配\if there isn't some degree of redistribution of some照顾社会底层\or left at the bottom,就不会有名副其实的机会均等\there will be no genuine equality of opportunity.很好关于税收是盗窃这个观点\All right, the idea that taxation is theft,诺齐克要更进一步\Nozick takes that point one step further.他同意这是盗窃而且比乔苛刻\He agrees that it's theft. He's more demanding than Joe.乔说这是盗窃但在极端情况下也许可以原谅\Joe says it is theft, maybe in an extreme case it's justified,例如为了养活饥饿的家人\maybe a parent is justified in stealing a loaf of bread而去偷面包的家长\to feed his or her hungry family.乔你会如何称呼自己\So Joe I would say, what would you call yourself,慈悲的自由主义者吗\a compassionate quasi-libertarian?仔细想想\Nozick says, if you think about it,诺齐克说征税相当于强占收入\taxation amounts to the taking of earnings.换句话说就是\In other words, it means强占劳动果实\taking the fruits of my labor.但如果政府有权\But if the state has the right强占我的收入或劳动果实\to take my earning or the fruits of my labor,这在道义上不就等同于\isn't that morally the same政府有权\as according to the state the right让我做部分义务劳动吗\to claim a portion of my labor?所以实际上\So taxation actually征税道义上等同于强迫劳动\is morally equivalent to forced labor因为强迫劳动会强占我的\because forced labor involves the taking of闲暇时间还有努力\my leisure, my time, my efforts,就像征税会强占我的劳动所得一样\just as taxation takes the earnings that I make with my labor.所以对诺齐克和其他自由主义者来说\And so, for Nozick and for the libertarians, 再分配的税收是盗窃就像乔说的\taxation for redistribution is theft, as Joe says,但不仅如此\but not only theft is morally equivalent盗窃还在道义上等同于\to laying claim to certain hours强占生命和劳动的时间\of a person's life and labor,因此等于强迫劳动\so it's morally equivalent to forced labor.如果政府有权强占我的劳动果实\If the state has a right to claim the fruits of my labor,这就说明它确实有权强迫我劳动\that implies that it really has an entitlement to my labor itself.什么是强迫劳动\And what is forced labor?诺齐克指出强迫劳动就是奴役\Forced labor, Nozick points out, is what, is slavery, 因为如果我连对自己劳动的独占权都没有\because if I don't have the right, the sole 这就说明\then that's really to say政府或是政治共同体\that the government or the political community是我的部分主人\is a part owner in me.政府是我的部分主人又意味着什么呢\And what does it mean for the state to be a part owner in me?仔细想想这就意味着我是一个奴隶\If you think about it, it means that I'm a slave, 我不是自己的主人\that I don't own myself.这些推理把我们带回到\So what this line of reasoning brings us to自由主义的权利主张\is the fundamental principle所隐含的基本原则\that underlies the libertarian case for rights.那是什么原则呢\What is that principle?我是我自己主人的原则\It's the idea that I own myself.是尊重人权\It's the idea of self possession自然会接受自我拥有的原则\if you want to take right seriously.如果你不想只把人看成是各种偏好的集合\If you don't want to just regard people ascollections of preferences,那你必将走向\the fundamental moral idea这一基本道德理念\to which you will be lead is the idea我们是自己的主人\that we are the owners or the propietors of our own person,功利主义的问题就出在这里\and that's why utilitarianism goes wrong.这也是为什么\And that's why it's wrong摘取健康人的器官是错的\to yank the organs from that healthy patient.你这么做仿佛他的器官属于你或这个社会\You're acting as if that patient belongs to you or to the community.但我们只属于我们自己\But we belong to ourselves.也正是出于这一理由\And that's the same reason才不该制定法律保护我们免受自己伤害\that it's wrong to make laws to protect us from ourselves或告诉我们该如何生活\or to tell us how to live,该秉持怎样的道德规范\to tell us what virtues we should be governed by,这也是为什么向富人征税来救济穷人不对\and that's also why it's wrong to tax the rich to help the poor就算是为了公益事业\even for good causes,就算是为了帮助卡特里娜飓风的灾民\even to help those who are displaced by the Hurricane Katrina.请富人去搞慈善活动吧\Ask them to give charity.但如果对他们征税就成了强迫劳动\But if you tax them, it's like forcing them to labor.你能强迫乔丹放弃下周的比赛\Could you tell Michael Jordan he has to skip the next week's games必须下灾区去帮助卡特里娜飓风的灾民吗\and go down to help the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina?道义上说两者是一样\Morally, it's the same.因此利害关系很分明的\So the stakes are very high.我们现在已经听了一些对自由主义的反对声\So far we've heard some objections to the libertarian argument.但要想驳倒自由主义\But if you want to reject it,你就得打破它的这个推理过程\you have to break in to this chain of reasoning which goes,强占我的收入就是强迫劳动\taking my earnings is like taking my labor,强迫劳动就是让我做奴隶\but taking my labor is making me a slave.不同意这一点的\And if you disagree with that,你肯定相信自我拥有的原则\you must believe in the principle of self possession.不同意的收集下反对意见\Those who disagree, gather your objections。
哈佛大学公开课分析介绍作者：张宇（一）课程基本信息学校：哈佛大学（Harward University）课程名称：《公正：该如何做是好》（Justice）讲师：迈克尔.桑德尔（Michael.J.Sandel）课程数：12节时长：45分钟/节（二）课程内容《公正：该如何做是好》是为法学院学生开设的课程，出发点是谈公正和正义，分为12堂课。
本课程旨在引导观众一起评判性地思考关于公正、平等、民主与公民权利的一些基本问题。
每周，超过1000位学生来听哈佛教授兼作家的迈克尔.桑德尔的课，以拓展他们对于政治与道德哲学的认知理解，探究固有观念是与非。
（三）讲师介绍讲师：迈克尔.桑德尔（Michael.J.Sandel）职称：美国哈佛大学政府系讲座教授学位：英国牛津大学政治哲学博士简介：迈克尔.桑德尔（Michael.J.Sandel）是美国哲学家，美国哈佛大学政府系讲座教授，美国人文艺术与科学学院院士，当代西方社群主义（共同体主义）最著名的理论代表人物，哈佛大学“最受欢迎的课程讲席教授”之一。
（四）课程组织形式a.思考1哈佛大学对于此课程采用大课的形式，也就是西方大学里所说的“lecture”,一般是在1000人左右的大阶梯教室进行授课。
因为此课程是属于哲学、伦理类的课程，比较更适合“lecture”这种形式。
（这与我们学校的授课形式差不多，通常是几个行政班一块上，但是我们一堂课最多达到120人，而哈佛大学一堂课学生却接近1000人，讲师却没有授课压力，学生也听的乐在其中。
）b.思考2在视频中，我们可以明显感觉到，哈佛大学课堂气氛很轻松，很活跃，学生可以自由站起来发表看法、辩论，讲师具有幽默性能够吸引学生的听课兴趣。
（我们学校的有些课堂也能达到这种效果，课堂活跃、师生互动。
但是能像哈佛大学这样，课堂气氛极其活跃，学生积极发表看法，还是少的。
甚至我们的有些课堂非常沉闷，学生不知老师所云。
）c.思考3当我们被哈佛大学的名师公开课所感染的同时，回过头去思考一下：为什么我们很喜欢听哈佛大学的课？首先，讲师是相当优秀相当有名的，这也是公开课独具魅力之处。
公正：该如何做才好？第一课（因为整理比较麻烦，后续课程翻译会陆续上传）这是一门关于什么公正的课程。
我们先讲一个故事This is a course about justice. We begin with a story.设想你是一位电车司机Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car你的电车正已每小时60英里行驶Your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.你发现，在车轨的尽头有5位工人在那里干活At the end of the track, you notice five workers are working on the track. 你想尽办法停下来，但已经停不住了You try to stop, but you can't你的手刹不灵了your brakes don't work你感到十分绝望，因为你知道You feel desperate, because you know如果你撞向这5位工人if you crash into these five workers他们必死无疑they will all die你很快会就知道but to soon you know that's for sure你不知道该怎么办好so you feel helpless直到你发现until you notice, there is在电轨的尽头，刚好有一条分叉off to the right, a side track在电轨的尽头，刚好有一条分叉at the end of that track而在那条分叉路上，只有1位工人There's a worker working on the track你的方向盘还没有失灵your steering wheel works所以你可以选择把电车拐向那条分叉路so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track 撞向1位工人，但救活了另外那5位killing the one, but sparing the five现在我要问第一个问题Here's our first question?什么是我们应该什么做？what's the right thing to do你会怎么做？what would you do?让我们来做一次投票Let's take a poll多少人会选择转入拐向那条分叉路How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track举起你的手Raise your hands有多少人选择一直往前开的？How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead极少数人会。
THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER This is a course about justiceand we begin with a story. Suppose you're the driverof a trolley car,and your trolley caris hurtling down the trackat 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the trackyou notice five workersworking on the track.You try to stopbut you can't,your brakes don't work.You feel desperatebecause you knowthat if you crashinto these five workers,they will all die.Let's assumeyou know that for sure.And so you feel helplessuntil you noticethat there is,off to the right,a side track and at the endof that track,there is one workerworking on the track.Your steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolley car,if you want to,onto the side trackkilling 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 turnthe trolley caronto the side track?Raise your hands.How many wouldn't?How many would go straight ahead? Keep your hands up those of youwho would go straight ahead.A handful of people would,the vast majority would turn.Let's hear first,now we need to beginto investigate the reasonswhy you thinkit's the right thing to do.Let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to goonto 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 rightto kill five peoplewhen you can onlykill one person instead.It wouldn't be rightto kill five if you could killone person instead.That's a good reason.That's a good reason.Who else?Does everybody agreewith that reason? Go ahead.Well I was thinking it's the same reason on 9/11 with regardto the people who flew the planeinto the Pennsylvania fieldas heroes because they choseto kill the people on the planeand not kill more peoplein big buildings.So the principle therewas the same on 9/11.It's a tragic circumstancebut better to kill oneso that five can live,is that the reasonmost of you had,those of youwho would turn? Yes?Let's hear nowfrom those in the minority, those who wouldn't turn. Yes. Well, I think that'sthe same type of mentality that justifies genocideand totalitarianism.In order to saveone type of race,you wipe out the other.So what would you doin this case?You would, to avoidthe horrors of genocide,you would crashinto the five and kill them? Presumably, yes.You would?-Yeah.Okay. Who else?That's a brave answer.Thank you.Let's consideranother trolley car caseand see whether those of you in the majoritywant to adhereto the principle"better that one should dieso 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 comesa trolley car,at the end of the trackare five workers,the brakes don't work,the trolley caris about to careeninto the five and kill them. And now, you're not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you noticestanding next to you,leaning over the bridgeis a very fat man.And you couldgive him a shove.He would fall over the bridgeonto the track right in the wayof the trolley car.He would diebut he would spare the five.Now, how many would pushthe 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 liveseven if it means sacrificing one?" What became of the principlethat almost everyone endorsedin the first case?I need to hear from someonewho was in the majorityin both cases.How do you explainthe difference between the two? Yes. The second one, I guess,involves an active choiceof pushing a person downwhich 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 himin something that heotherwise would have escaped is,I guess, more than whatyou have in the first casewhere 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 trackoff to the side,he didn't chooseto sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did he?That's true, but he wason the tracks and...This guy was on the bridge.Go ahead, you can come backif 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 wayof reconciling the reactionof the majorityin these two cases? Yes.Well, I guess in the first casewhere you have the one workerand the five,it's a choice between those twoand you have to makea certain choice and peopleare going to diebecause of the trolley car,not necessarily becauseof your direct actions.The trolley car is a runaway thingand you're making a split second choice. Whereas pushing the fat man overis an actual actof murder on your part.You have control over thatwhereas you may not have controlover the trolley car.So I think it's a slightlydifferent 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'sa very good reasonbecause you choose to-either way you have to choosewho dies because you eitherchoose to turn and kill the person, which is an actof conscious thought to turn,or you choose to pushthe fat man overwhich is also an active,conscious action.So either way,you're making a choice.Do you want to reply?I'm not really surethat that's the case.It just still seemskind of different.The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him yourself. You're pushing himwith your own hands.You're pushing himand that's differentthan steering somethingthat is going to causedeath 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 bridgenext to the fat man,I didn't have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could openby 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 thatthe car is hurtlingtowards a switchthat will drop the trap.Then I could agree with that.That's all right. Fair enough.It still seems wrong in a waythat it doesn't seem wrongin the first case to turn, you say. And in another way, I mean,in the first situationyou're involved directlywith the situation.In the second one,you're an onlooker as well.All right. -So you have the choiceof becoming involved or notby 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 doctorin an emergency roomand six patientscome to you.They've been in a terribletrolley car wreck.Five of themsustain moderate injuries,one is severely injured,you could spend all daycaring for the oneseverely injured victimbut in that time,the five would die.Or you could look after the five, restore them to healthbut 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 needof an organ transplantin 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 youthat in the next roomthere's a healthy guywho 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 upif 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 outthe organs. Why?I'd actually like to explore aslightly alternate possibilityof just taking the oneof the five who needs an organwho dies first and usingtheir four healthy organsto save the other four.That's a pretty good idea.That's a great ideaexcept for the factthat you just wreckedthe philosophical point.Let's step back from these storiesand these argumentsto notice a couple of thingsabout the way the argumentshave begun to unfold.Certain moral principleshave already begun to emergefrom the discussions we've had.And let's considerwhat those moral principles look like. The first moral principlethat emerged in the discussionsaid the right thing to do,the moral thing to dodepends on the consequencesthat will result from your action.At the end of the day,better that five should liveeven if one must die.That's an exampleof consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates moralityin the consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further,we considered those other casesand people weren't so sureabout consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitatedto push the fat manover the bridgeor to yank out the organsof the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasons having to do withthe intrinsic qualityof 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 sakeof saving five lives.At least people thoughtthat in the second versionof each story we considered.So this pointsto a second categorical wayof thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates moralityin certain absolutemoral requirements,certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explorein the days and weeks to comethe contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.The most influential exampleof consequential moral reasoningis utilitarianism,a doctrine inventedby Jeremy Bentham,the 18th centuryEnglish political philosopher.The most important philosopherof categorical moral reasoningis the 18th centuryGerman philosopher Immanuel Kant.So we will lookat those two different modesof moral reasoning,assess them,and also consider others.If you look at the syllabus,you'll notice that we reada number of greatand famous books,books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others.You'll notice toofrom the syllabusthat we don't onlyread these books;we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversiesthat 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 enliventhese abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out what's at stakein our everyday lives,including our political lives,for philosophy.And so we will read these booksand we will debate these issues,and we'll see how each informsand illuminates the other.This may sound appealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this,to read these booksin this way as an exercisein self knowledge,to read them in this waycarries certain risks, risks that are both personaland political,risks that every studentof political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the factthat philosophy teaches usand unsettles usby confronting us withwhat we already know.There's an irony.The difficulty of this courseconsists in the factthat it teacheswhat 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 playfulnessand sobriety.It's also how thesephilosophical books work. Philosophy estranges usfrom the familiar,not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provokinga 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-thoughtor un-known.What makes this enterprise difficult but also rivetingis that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don't knowwhere the story will lead.But what you do knowis that the story is about you.Those are the personal risks.Now what of the political risks?One way of introducing a courselike this would be to promise you that by reading these booksand 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 moreeffective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partialand misleading promise.Political philosophy,for the most part,hasn't worked that way.You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophymay make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizenbefore it makes you a better one,and that's becausephilosophy is a distancing,even debilitating, activity.And you see this,going back to Socrates,there's a dialogue,the Gorgias, in whichone of Socrates' friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing.Callicles tells Socrates "Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in itwith moderationat 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 accomplishmentsof active life, take for your modelsnot those people who spendtheir time on these petty quibblesbut those who have a good livelihood and reputation and manyother 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 faceof these risks,there is a characteristic evasion.The name of the evasionis skepticism, it's the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn't resolve once and for all either the cases or the principleswe were arguing when we beganand if Aristotle and Lockeand Kant and Millhaven't solved these questionsafter 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 matterof each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing moreto be said about it,no way of reasoning.That's the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to which I would offerthe following reply.It's true, these questions have beendebated for a very long timebut the very factthat they have recurred and persistedmay suggest that thoughthey're impossible in one sense,they're unavoidable in another.And the reason they're unavoidable,the reason they're inescapableis that we live some answerto these questions every day.So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflectionis no solution.Immanuel Kant described very wellthe problem with skepticismwhen he wrote"Skepticism is a resting placefor human reason,where it can reflect uponits dogmatic wanderings,but it is no dwelling placefor permanent settlement.""Simply to acquiesce in skepticism,"Kant wrote,"can never suffice to overcomethe restlessness of reason."I've tried to suggestthrough these storiesand these argumentssome sense of the risksand temptations,of the perils and the possibilities.I would simply conclude by sayingthat the aim of this courseis 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 dowhat you have to do to survive.-You have to do what you have to do? You got to dowhat you got to do, pretty much.If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just hasto 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 timewith some stories,with some moral dilemmasabout trolley carsand about doctorsand healthy patientsvulnerable to being victimsof organ transplantation.We noticed two thingsabout the arguments we had,one had to do with the waywe were arguing.We began with our judgmentsin particular cases.We tried to articulate the reasonsor the principles lying behindour judgments.And then confrontedwith a new case,we found ourselvesreexamining those principles, revising eachin the light of the other.And we noticed thebuilt in pressureto try to bring into alignmentour judgmentsabout particular casesand the principleswe would endorseon reflection.We also noticed somethingabout the substanceof the argumentsthat emerged from the discussion.We noticed that sometimeswe were tempted to locatethe morality of an actin the consequences, in the results,in the state of the worldthat it brought about.And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.But we also noticedthat in some cases,we weren't swayedonly by the result.Sometimes, many of us felt,that not just consequencesbut also the intrinsic qualityor characterof the act matters morally.Some people arguedthat there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrong even if they bring abouta good result,even if they saved five peopleat 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 examineone of the most influential versionsof consequentialist moral theory.And that's the philosophyof utilitarianism.Jeremy Bentham,the 18th centuryEnglish political philosophergave first the first clearsystematic expressionto the utilitarian moral theory.And Bentham's idea,his essential idea,is a very simple one.With a lot of morallyintuitive appeal, Bentham's ideais the following,the right thing to do;the just thing to dois to maximize utility.What did he mean by utility?He meant by utilitythe balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.Here's how he arrivedat the principle of maximizing utility. He started out by observingthat all of us,all human beings are governedby two sovereign masters:pain and pleasure.We human beingslike pleasure and dislike pain.And so we should base morality, whether we're thinking aboutwhat to do in our own livesor whether as legislators or citizens, we're thinking aboutwhat the laws should be.The right thing to do individuallyor collectively is to maximize,act in a way that maximizesthe overall level of happiness. Bentham's utilitarianismis sometimes summed upwith the slogan"The greatest goodfor the greatest number."With this basic principleof utility on hand,let's begin to test itand to examine itby turning to another case,another story, but this time,not a hypothetical story,a real life story,the case of the Queenversus Dudley and Stevens.This was a 19th centuryBritish law casethat's famous and much debatedin law schools.Here's what happened in the case.I'll summarize the storythen I want to hearhow you would rule,imagining that you were the jury.A newspaper account of the time described the background.A sadder story of disasterat sea was never toldthan that of the survivorsof the yacht, Mignonette.The ship flounderedin 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 characteror so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew memberwas the cabin boy,Richard Parker,17 years old.He was an orphan,he had no family,and he was on his firstlong voyage at sea.He went,the news account tells us,rather against the adviceof his friends.He went in the hopefulnessof youthful ambition,thinking the journeywould make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.The facts of the casewere not in dispute.A wave hit the shipand the Mignonette went down. The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat.The only food they hadwere two cans ofpreserved turnips,no fresh water.For the first three days,they ate nothing.On the fourth day,they opened oneof the cans of turnipsand ate it.The next daythey caught a turtle. Together with the othercan of turnips,the turtle enabled themto subsist for the next few days. And then for eight days,they had nothing.No food. No water.Imagine yourselfin a situation like that,what would you do?Here's what they did.By now the cabin boy, Parker, is lying at the bottomof the lifeboatin the cornerbecause he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others and he had become illand 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 lotsto see who would dieto save the rest.Brooks refused.He didn't like the lottery idea. We don't knowwhether this wasbecause he didn't wantto take the chanceor because he believedin categorical moral principles.But in any case,no lots were drawn.The next daythere was still no ship in sightso Dudley told Brooksto avert his gazeand he motioned to Stevensthat the boy, Parker,had better be killed.Dudley offered a prayer,he told the boy his time had come,and he killed himwith a pen knife,stabbing himin the jugular vein.Brooks emergedfrom his conscientious objectionto sharein the gruesome bounty.For four days,the three of them fedon the body and bloodof the cabin boy.True story.And then they were rescued.Dudley describes their rescuein his diary with staggering euphemism. "On the 24th day,as we were having our breakfast,a ship appeared at last."The three survivorswere picked up by a German ship. They were taken backto Falmouth in Englandwhere they were arrestedand 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 effectbetter that one should dieso that three could survive.The prosecutor wasn't swayedby 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 juryare charged with decidingwhether what they didwas morally permissible or not.How many would vote'not guilty',that what they didwas morally permissible?And how manywould vote 'guilty',what they did wasmorally wrong?A pretty sizeable majority.Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with thosewho are in the minority.Let's hear first from the defenseof Dudley and Stevens.Why would you morallyexonerate them?What are your reasons?Yes.I think it is morallyreprehensiblebut I think thatthere is a distinctionbetween what's morally reprehensible and what makes someonelegally accountable.In other words,as the judge said,what's always moralisn't necessarily against the lawand while I don't thinkthat necessity justifies theftor murder or any illegal act,at some point your degreeof necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt. Okay. Good. Other defenders.Other voices for the defense.Moral justificationsfor what they did. Yes.Thank you.I just feel likein the situation that desperate,you have to dowhat you have to do to survive.You have to dowhat you have to do.Yeah, you've got to dowhat you've got to do.Pretty much.If you've been going19 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 surviveand then they become productive members of societywho go home and startlike a million charity organizations and this and thatand this and that.I mean they benefited everybodyin the end. -Yeah.So, I mean I don't knowwhat 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 homeand turned out to be assassins? Well…You'd want to knowwho 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 voicesfor the defense.Now we need to hearfrom the prosecution.Most people thinkwhat they did was wrong. Why? Yes. -One of the first thingsthat I was thinking wasthey haven't been eatingfor a really long timemaybe they're mentallylike affected and sothen that could be usedas a defense,a possible argumentthat they weren'tin the proper state of mind,they weren't making decisionsthey might otherwise be making. And if that's an appealing argument that you have to bein an altered mindsetto do something like that,it suggests that peoplewho find that argument convincing do think that they wereacting immorally.But what do you-I want to knowwhat you think.You defend them.。
