《公正》哈佛大學(xué)公開課程英文字幕01

1、Justice 01Whats the Right Thing to Do?This is a course about justice and we begin with a story.Suppose youre the driver of a trolley car, and yourtrolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the track you notice five workersworking on the track.You try to stop but you

2、 cant, your brakes dont work.You feel desperate because you know that if you crashinto these five workers, they will all die.Lets assume you know that for sure.And so you feel helpless until you notice that thereis, off to the right, a side track and at the end ofthat track, there is one worker work

3、ing on the track.Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolleycar, if you want to, onto the side track killing theone but sparing the five.Heres our first question: whats the right thing todo?What would you do? Lets take a poll.Howmany would turn the trolley car onto the side track?Raise yo

4、ur hands.How many wouldnt? How many would go straight ahead?Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead.A handful of people would, the vast majority would turn.Lets hear first, now we need to begin to investigatethe reasons why you think its the right thing to do.Lets begin with thos

5、e in the majority who would turnto go onto the side track. Why would you do it?What would be your reason? Whos willing to volunteera reason?Go ahead. Stand up.Because it cant be right to kill five people when youcan only kill one person instead.It wouldnt be right to kill five if you could kill one

6、person instead.Thats a good reason.Thats a good reason. Who else?Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead.Well I was thinking its the same reason on 9/11 withregard to the people who flew the plane into thePennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people on the plane and not

7、 kill more people in big buildings.So the principle there was the same on 9/11.Its a tragic circumstance but better to kill one sothat five can live, is that the reason most of you had, those of you who would turn? Yes?Lets hear now from those in the minority, those who wouldnt turn. Yes.Well, I thi

8、nk thats the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism.In order to save one type of race, you wipe out the other.So what would you do in this case?You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide, you wouldcrash into the five and kill them?Presumably, yes.You would? -Yeah.Okay. W

9、ho else? Thats a brave answer.Thank you.Lets consider another trolley car case and see whether those of you in the majority want to adhere to theprinciple better that one should die so that five should live.This time youre not the driver of the trolley car,youre an onlooker. Youre standing on a brid

10、ge overlooking a trolley car track.And down the track comes a trolley car, at the end of the track are five workers, the brakes dont work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them.And now, youre not the driver, you really feel helpless until you notice standing next to you, lea

11、ning over the bridge is a very fat man.And you could give him a shove.He would fall over the bridge onto the track right inthe way of the trolley car. He would die but he would spare the five.Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge?Raise your hand. How many wouldnt?Most people wouldnt.

12、Heres the obvious question.What became of the principle better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one?What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed in the first case?I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases.Howdo you explain the difference between t

13、he two? Yes.The second one, I guess, involves an active choice ofpushing a person down which I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all.And so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is,I guess

14、, more than what you have in the first case where the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers, are already, I guess, in the situation.But the guy working, the one on the track off to theside, he didnt choose to sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did, did he?Thats true, but he

15、was on the tracks and.This guy was on the bridge.Go ahead, you can come back if you want. All right.Its a hard question. You did well. You did very well.Its a hard question.Who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction ofthe majority in these two cases? Yes.Well, I guess in the first case wher

16、e you have the oneworker and the five, its a choice between those twoand you have to make a certain choice and people aregoing to die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct actions.The trolley car is a runaway thing and youre makinga split second choice.Whereas pushing th

17、e fat man over is an actual act ofmurder on your part.You have control over that whereas you may not havecontrol over the trolley car.So I think its a slightly different situation.All right, who has a reply?Thats good. Who has a way?Who wants to reply?Is that a way out of this?I dont think thats a v

18、ery good reason because youchoose toeither way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the person, whichis an act of conscious thought to turn, or you chooseto push the fat man over which is also an active, conscious action.So either way, youre making a choice.Do you w

19、ant to reply?rm not really sure that thats the case.It just still seems kind of different.The act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him, you are actually killing him yourself. Youre pushing him with your own hands.Youre pushing him and thats different than steering somethi

20、ng that is going to cause death into another.You know, it doesnt really sound right saying it now.No, no. Its good. Its good.Whats your name?Andrew.Andrew.Let me ask you this question, Andrew.Yes.Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man, Ididnt have to push him, suppose he was standing ove

21、ra trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that.Would you turn?For some reason, that still just seems more wrong.Right?I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that.But. Or say that the car is hurtling towards a switch that will dro

22、p the trap.Then I could agree with that.Thats all right. Fair enough.It still seems wrong in a way that it doesnt seem wrong in the first case to turn, you say.And in another way, I mean, in the first situationyoure involved directly with the situation.In the second one, youre an onlooker as well.Al

23、l right. -So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man.All right. Lets forget for the moment about this case. Thats good.Lets imagine a different case.This time youre a doctor in an emergency room and sixpatients come to you.Theyve been in a terrible trolley car wreck.Fi

24、ve of them sustain moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim but in that time, the five would die.Or you could look after the five, restore them to health but during that time, the one severely injured person would die.How many wou

25、ld 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, youre a transplant surgeon and you have five patients, each in desperate need of an organ transplant in ord

26、er to survive.One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and the fifth a pancreas.And you have no organ donors.You are about to see them die.And then it occurs to you that in the next room theres a healthy guy who came in for a check-up.And hes - you like that - and hes taking a nap,

27、you could go in very quietly, yank out the five organs, that person would die, but you could save the five.How many would do it?Anyone? How many?Put your hands up if you would do it.Anyone in the balcony?I would.You would? Be careful, dont lean over too much.How many wouldnt?All right. What do you s

28、ay?Speak up in the balcony, you who would yank out the organs. Why?rdactually like to explore a slightly alternatepossibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first and using their four healthy organs to save the other four.Thats a pretty good idea.Thats a great idea ex

29、cept for the fact that you justwrecked the philosophical point.Lets step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold.Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions weve had.And lets consider wha

30、t those moral principles looklike.The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion said the right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action.At the end of the day, better that five should live even if one must die.Thats an example of cons

31、equentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do.But then we went a little further, we considered thoseother cases and people werent so sure about consequentialist moral rea

32、soning.When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient, people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences be what they may.People were reluctant.People thought it was just wrong, categori

33、cally wrong,Categoricalmoralcertain absolute categoricaldutiesconsequences.to kill a person, an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives.At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered.So this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral re

34、asoning.reasoning locates morality in moral requirements, certain and rights, regardless of theWere going to explore in the days and weeks to come the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles.The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a

35、 doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, English political philosopher. The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning German philosopher Immanuel Kant. So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning, assess them, and also consider others.If you look at the syllabus, you

36、ll notice that we read a number of great and famous books, books by Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, and others.Youll notice too from the syllabus that we dont onlyread these books; we also take up contemporary, political, and legal controversies that raise philosophical ques

37、tions.We will debate equality and inequality, affirmativeaction, free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage, military conscription, a range of practicalquestions. Why?Not just to enliven these abstract and distant booksbut to make clear, to bring out whats at stake in oureveryday lives, inclu

38、ding our political lives, for philosophy.And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues, and well see how each informs and illuminates the other.This may sound appealing enough, but here I have toissue a warning.And the warning is this, to read these books in thisway as an exercise

39、in self knowledge, to read them inthis way carries certain risks, risks that are bothpersonal and political, risks that every student of political philosophy has known.These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.Theres an i

40、rony.The difficultyof this course consists in the fact thatit teaches what you already know.It works by takingwhat we know from familiarunquestioned settings and making it strange.Thats how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.Its a

41、lso how these philosophical books work.Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing but, and heres the risk, once the familiar turns strange, its never quite the same again. Self knowledge is like lost innocence, howeve

42、r unsettling you find it; it can never be un-thought or un-known.What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting is that moral and political philosophy is a story and you dont know where the story will lead.But what you do know is that the story is about you.Those are the personal risks.Now w

43、hat of the political risks?One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you that by reading these books and debating these issues, you will become a better, more responsible citizen; you will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political judgment, you wi

44、ll become a more effective participant in public affairs.But this would be a partial and misleading promise.Political philosophy, for the most part, hasnt worked that way.You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one or at least

45、 a worse citizen before it makes you a better one, and thats because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating, activity. And you see this, going back to Socrates, theres a dialogue, the Gorgias, in which one of Socrates friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing.Callicles tells

46、 Socrates Philosophy is a pretty toyif one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin.Take my advice, Callicles says, abandon argument.Learn the accomplishments of active life, take for your models not those people who

47、 spend their time on these petty quibbles but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings.So Callicles is really saying to Socrates Quit philosophizing, get real, go to business school. AndCallicles did have a point.He had a point because philosophy distances us from con

48、ventions, from established assumptions, and from settled beliefs.Those are the risks, personal and political.And in the face of these risks, there is a characteristic evasion.The name of the evasion is skepticism, its the idea- well, it goes something like this - we didnt resolve once and for all ei

49、ther the cases or theprinciples we were arguing when we began and ifAristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill havent solved these questions after all of these years, who are we to think that we, here in Sanders Theatre, over the course of a semester, can resolve them?And so, maybe its just a matter of e

50、ach person having his or her own principles and theres nothing more tobe said about it, no way of reasoning.Thats the evasion, the evasion of skepticism, to whichI would offer the following reply.Its true, these questions have been debated for a very long time but the very fact that they have recurr

51、ed and persisted may suggest that though theyre impossible in one sense, theyre unavoidable in another.And the reason theyre unavoidable, the reason theyre inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions every day.So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and givingup on moral reflection

52、 is no solution.Immanuel Kant described very wellthe problem withskepticism when he wrote Skepticismis a resting placefor humanreason, where it can reflectupon its dogmaticwanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement.Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote, cannever suffice

53、 to overcome the restlessness of reason.Ive tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities.I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where i

54、t might lead.Thank you very much.Like, in a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive.-You have to do what you have to do?You got to do what you got to do, pretty much.without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice.Someonehas to make the sacrifice an

55、d people can survive.Alright, thats good.Whats your name?Marcus.-Marcus, what do you say to Marcus? Last time, we started out last time with some stories, with some moral dilemmas about trolley cars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims of organ transplantation.We notice

56、d two things about the arguments we had, one had to do with the way we were arguing.We began with our judgments in particular cases.We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments.And then confronted with a new case, we found ourselves reexamining those principles, re

57、vising each in the light of the other.And we noticed the built in pressure to try to bringinto alignment our judgments about particular cases and the principles we would endorse on reflection.We also noticed something about the substance of the arguments that emerged from the discussion.Wenoticed th

58、at sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences, in the results, in the state of the world that it brought about.And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.But we also noticed that in some cases, we werentswayed only by the result.Sometimes, many of us felt

59、, that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act matters morally.Some people argued that there are certain things thatare just categorically wrong even if they bring abouta good result, even if they saved five people at the cost of one life.So we contrasted consequ

60、entialist moral principles with categorical ones.Today and in the next few days, we will begin to examine one of the most influentialversions ofconsequentialist moral theory.And thats the philosophy of utilitarianism.Jeremy Bentham, English political philosopher gave first the first clear systematic