哈佛-公正课第1集英文字幕.doc

,第1集上 杀人的道德侧面This is a course about justice. We begin with a story.Suppose youre the driver of a trolley carYour trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.At the end of the track, you notice five workers are working on the track.You try to stop, but you cantyour brakes dont workYou feel desperate, because you knowif you crash into these five workersthey will all diebut to soon you know thats for sureso you feel helplessuntil you notice, there isoff to the right, a side trackat the end of that trackTheres a worker working on the trackyour steering wheel worksso you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side trackkilling the one, but sparing the fiveHeres our first question?whats the right thing to dowhat would you do?Lets take a pollHow many would turn the trolley car onto the side trackRaise your handsHow many wouldnt? How many would go straight aheadA handful of people would. A vast majority would turnLets hear first. Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you thinkis the right thing to do. Lets begin with those in the majorityWho would turn to go onto the side trackWhy would you do it? Would would be your reason?Who is willing to volunteer a reason?Because it cannt be right to kill five people when you could only kill one person insteadit wouldnt be right to kill five if you could only kill one person insteadThats a good reasonWho else? Does anybody agree with that reason?I think its the same reason on the 9/11we regard the people who flew the plane into Pennsylvania field as herosbecause they chose to kill the people on the plane, and not kill more people in the buildingSo the principle there is the same as 9/11 to tragic circumstanceBetter to kill one so that five can liveIs that the reason most of you have those will turn?Lets hear now from those in the minority, those wouldnt turnI think thats the same type of mentality that justify genocide and totalitarianismin order to save one type of race, you wipe out the otherSo what would you do in this case?To avoid the horror of genocideyou would crash into the five and kill themPresumedly yesOk. Who else? Thats a brave answer. Thank youLets consider another trolley car caseand see whether those of you in the majoritywhy would here to the principle, better one should die so that five should liveThis time youre not the driver of the trolley car, youre an onlookerYoure standing on a bridge, overlooking a trolley car trackdown the track come the trolley car. At the end of the track are five workers.the brakes dont workthe trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill themand now youre not the driveryou really feel helplessuntil you notice standing next to youleaning over the bridge is a very fat manand you could give him a shovehe would fall over the bridge onto the trackright in the way of the trolley carhe would die but he would spare the fivenow how many would push the fat man over the bridge. Raise your handsHow many wouldnt? Most people wouldntHeres the obvious questionWhat became of the principle?Better to save five lives even if it means to sacrifice oneWhat became of the principle that almost everyone endorse in the first caseI need to hear from someone whos in the majority in both casesHow do you explain the differences between the twoThe second one I guess involves an act of choice of pushing the person downThat person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at at allTo choose on his behalf, I guess, involve him in something thathe otherwise would escape, I guess, is more than in what you have in the first casewhere the three parties, the driver, the two sets of workers are already in the situationBut the guy working on the track off the sidehe didnt choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did, did he?Thats true. But hes on the trackThis guy is on the bridgeGo ahead. You can come back if you want.All right. Its a hard question. You did very wellWho else can find a way of reconciling the reaction in the majority in these two casesI guess, in the first case we have the one worker and the fiveIts choice between those two. And youve to make certain choicepeople are gonna die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct actionthe trolley car is run away and then youre making a split second choicewhereas pushing the fat man over is an actualized murder on your partyouve control over that whereas you may not control over the trolley carso I think its slightly different situationAll right. Who has a reply? Thats good.Who want to reply? Is there a way out of this?I dont think thats a very good reasonIn either way youve to choose you diebecause you either choose to turn and kill a person which is an act of conscious thought to turnor you choose to push the fat man over which is also an act of conscious actionso either way youre making a choiceDo you want to reply?Im not really sure thats the caseIts just seem kind of different to act actuallypushing someone over on the track and killing himyoure actually killing him yourselfyoure pushing him in your own handsThats different from steering something thats gonna to cause death into otherIt dosent really sound right.Thats good. Whats your name?AndrewLet me ask you this quesiton, AndrewSuppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man I didnt have to push himsuppose he was standing over a trap that I could open by turning a steering wheel like thatSo some reasons, that just seems more wrongI mean maybe if you accidentally like lean into this steering wheeltheres something like thator say that the car isnt hurtling towards a switch or drop the trackthat I could I agree with thatFair enough. Its still seem wrong in a way it doesnt seem wrong in the first case to turnIn another way, in the first situation youre involved directly with the situationIn the second one, youre an onlooker as well.So you can have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat manLets just forget a moment about this caseLets imagine a different caseThis time youre a doctor in a emergency room. Six patients come to youTheyve been in a terrible trolley car wrackFive of them were moderately injured and one was severely injuredYou could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victimbut in that time the five would dieor you could look after the five restore then to helpbut during that time the severely injured person would dieHow many would save the five? Now is the doctorHow many would save the one?Very few people. Just a handful of peopleSame reason I assume. One life versus fiveNow consider another doctor case. This time youre a transplant surgeon.Youve five patients. Each in desperate needof an organ transplant in order to surviveOne needs a heart. One a lung, one a kidney, one a liverand the fifth a pancreasYouve no organ donors. Youre about to see them dieand then it occurs to you that in the next roomtheres a healthy guy who came in for a check upHes taking a napYou could go in very quietly,yank out the five organs that person would diebut you could save the fiveHow many of you would do it?Anyone?How many? Put your hands up if youd do itAnyone in the balcony.I would.Be careful. Dont lean overHow many wouldnt?All right. What do you say? Speak up in the balconyI actually like to explore an slightly alternative possibilitythat just taking the one of the five who need an organ who dies first usingtherefore the healthy organ save the other fourThats a pretty good ideaexcept for the fact that you just wrecked the philisophical pointLets step back from these stories and these argumentsTo notice a couple of things about the waythe arguments have begun to unfoldcertain moral principles have already begun to emergefrom the discussion we hadLets consider what those moral principles look likeThe first moral principle that emerged in the discussion saidthe right thing to do, the moral thing to dodepends on the consequences that we resolve from your actionAt the end of the day, better the five should live even if one must dieThats an example of consequentialist moral reasoningConsequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an actin the state of the rule that we resolve from the thing you doBut then we ran a littlt further, we consider those other casesand people wouldnt so sure about consequentialist moral reasoningwhen people hesitate, e.g. the fat man over the bridgeor to yank out the organs of the innocent patientpeople gestured toward reasonshaving to with the intrinsic quality of the act itselfconsequence be with they madePeople were reluctant.People thought its just wrong, categorically wrongTo kill an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five livesat least people thought that in a second version of each story we considerSo this point to a secend categorical way of thinking about moral reasoningCategorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirementscertain categorical duties and rights, regardless the consequencesWere gonna to explore in the day and next weeks to comethe contrast between Consequentialist and Categorical moral principlesthe most influential example of consequential moral reasoningis Utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham，the 18th century English political philosopherThe most important philosopher of categorically moral reasoningis the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel KantSo well look at those two different modes of moral reasoningassess them and also consider othersIf you look at the syllabus, youll notice we read a number of great and famous booksbooks by Aristotle,John Locke,Immanuel Kant,John Stuart Mill and othersyoull notice too from the syllabus we dont only read these bookswe also take up contemporary political and legal controversythat raise philosophical questionswell debate equality and inequalityaffirmative action, free speech vs hate speechsame sex marriage, military conscriptiona range of practical questionWhy? Not just to enlive these abstract and distant booksbut make clear to bring out whats at stake in our daily lifeincluding our political lives, for philosophy?so well read these books and well debate these issuesand well see how each informs and illuminates the othersThis may sound appealing enoughbut here Ive to issue a warningThe warning is this:To read these books in this wayas an excise in self knowledgeTo read them in this way carries certain risksRisks that are both personal and politicalRisks that every student of political philosophy has knownThese risks spring from the fact thatphilosophy teaches us and unsettles usby confronting us with what we already knowTheres an irony. The difficulty of this courseconsist in a fact that teach us what youve already knownIt works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settingsand making it strangeThats how those examples workThe hypothetical which we beganwith their mix of playfulness and sobrietyits also how those phisophical books where philosophy estranges usfrom the familiar, not by supplying new informationbut by inviting and provoking a new way of seeingbut heres the riskOnce the familiar turns strange, its never quite the same againSelf knowledge is like a lost innocenthowever unsettling you find ityou can never be unthought or unknownWhat makes this and your enterprise difficult but also rivetingis that moral and political philosophy is a storyand you dont know where the story will leadbut you do know is that the story is about youThose are the personal risks. Now wherere the political risks?One way of introducing a course like this would be the promise youby reading these books and debeting issuesyoull be a more responsible citizenYoull exam preconceive notion that public policyyoull hone your political judgementyoull become a more effective participant in public affairsBut this would a partial and misleading promisePolitical philosophy for the most part hasnt worked that wayYouve to allow for the possibilitythat political philosophy may make you a worse citizenrather than a better oneor at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better oneAnd thats because philosophy is a distant thingeven debilitating activityAnd you see this going back to Socratestheres a dialogue the gorgeous in which one of Socratess friendCallicles tried to talk him out a philosophizingCallicles tells Socrates, "Philosophy is a pretty toy""if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life""but if one pursuits it further then one shouldits abosolutely ruining"Take my advice" Callicles says"Abandon argument. Learn the accomplishment of act of lifeTake for your models, not those people who spend their time on these petty quibblingbut those who have good livelihood and reputation and many other blessingsSo Callicles is really saying to SocratesQuit philosophizing. Get real. Go to business schoolAnd Callicles did have a pointHe had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, from settle beliefsThose are the risks, personal and politicalAnd at the face of these risks theres a characteristic evasionThe name of the evasion is scepticismIts the idea that goes something like thisWe didnt resolve once for alleither the cases or the principles were arguing when we beganAnd if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill havent solved these quesitonsafter all of these yearsWho are we to think? That, we here in Sanders Theater over the course of this semester can resolve themSo maybe its just a matter of each person having his own principlesand theres nothing more to say about itno way of reasoningThats the evasion, the evasion of scepticismTo each Id offer the following replyIts true these quesitons have been debated for a very long timebut the very fact that theyve recurred and persistedmay suggest though theyre impossible in one sensetheyre unavoidable in anotherthe reason that theyre unavoidable, the reason that theyre inescapableis that we live some answer to these questions everydaySo scepticism just throwing up your hands, and given up by moral reflectionis no solutionImmanuel Kant described very well the problems with scepticism when he wrote"Scepticism is a resting place for human reasoningwhere it can relect on dogmatic wa