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。
So this point to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning,…
这是另外一种道德推理的原则,…
Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain duties and rights, regardless the consequences.
绝对主义的道德推理认为，道德有其绝对的道德推理原则,有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果怎样。We‘re gonna to explore in the day and next weeks to come the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.
我们会在今天和未来几周来讨论结果主义和绝对主义的异同。
We also take up contemporary political and legal controversy the raise philosophical questions.
我们还讨论当代的政治和法律争议,讨论它们背后的哲学问题。
We‘ll debate equality and inequality，affirmative action, free speech vs hate speech，same sex marriage, military conscription, a range of practical questions.
我们将讨论，何为平等和不平等,平权运动，言论自由，攻击性言论,同性婚姻，征兵，一系列实际问题。Not just to enlive these abstract and distant books, but to make clear to br ing out what‘s at stake in our daily lives, including our political lives, for philosophy.
因为我们不仅要真实地感受这样抽象的、古老的书籍,还要认真地讨论我们日常生活中的一些问题，包括我们的政治生活。
We‘ll see how each informs and illuminates the others.
我们将看到它们之间的联系。
These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we‘ve already known.
这些风险根源于一个事实，哲学会教化我们，扰动我们，让我们面对已经知道的。
Once the familiar turns strange, it‘s never quite the same again.
一旦熟悉变得陌生，它就绝不会和以前一样了。
Self knowledge is like a lost innocent.
自我认识，就像一个迷了路的人。
By reading these books and debating these issues, you will become a more responsible citizen. Y ou‘ll exam preconceive notion that public policy, you‘ll hone your political judgment. Y ou‘ll become a more effective participant in public affairs，but this would be a partial and misleading promise. P olitical philosophy for the most part hasn‘t work that way.
通过阅读这些（哲学）书籍和讨论问题,你将会成为一位更负责任的公民。你重新审视那些，你过去的观念和政策,你会训练你的政治判断力。你会更有效地参与公共事务.但这是一个片面的、误导人的承诺.大部分政治哲学并不是那样的。
Philosophy is a distant thing.
哲学是一个遥远的事情。
It‘s true these questions have been debated for a very long time.
这些问题确实已经被辩论过很长时间了。
Skepticism just throwing up your hands, and given up by moral reflection is no solution.
怀疑主义只是让你放手，放弃思考道德问题，并不是问题的答案。
Skepticism is a resting place for human reasoning where it can reflect on dogmatic wandering，but it‘s not a permanent settlement.
康德说的,怀疑主义是人类推理的安息之地,它只是让我们在一些教条之间徘徊，它并不是我们最好的安身之处。
We tried to articulate the reasons and principles lied behind our judgement.
我们试图阐明它们背后的原因和原则,我们决策背后的原因。
He meant by utility the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.
