完整word版公正哈佛大学公开课程英文字幕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 your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour.And at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track.You try to stop but y

2、ou cant, your brakes dont work.You feel des perate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die.Lets assume you know that for sure.And so you feel helpl ess until you notice that there is, off to the right, a side track and at the end of that track, there is one work

3、er working on the track.Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track killing the one but sp aring the five.Heres our first question: whats the right thing to do?What would you do? Lets take a poll.Howmany would turn the trolley car onto the side tra

4、ck?Raise your hands.How many wouldnt? How many would go straight ahead?Keep your hands up those of you who would go straightahead.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

5、 with those 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 p erson instead.It wouldnt be right to kill five if you coul

6、d killonep erson 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 intothePennsylvania field as heroes because they chose tokillthe people on the plane

7、and not kill more people in big buildings.So the p rinc ip le there was the same on 9/11.Its a tragic circumstance but better to kill one so that five can live, is that the reason most of you had, those of you who would turn? Yes?Lets hear now from those in the minority, those who wouldnt turn. Yes.

8、Well, I think 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 would crash into the five and kill them?P resumably, yes.You would?

9、-Yeah.Okay. Who 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 thep rinci pie betterthat one should die so that fiveshould live.This time youre not the driver of the trolley car,youre an onlooker. Youre stand

10、ing ona bridgeoverlooking a trolley car track.And down the track comes a trolley car, at the end ofthe track are five workers, the brakes dont work, thetrolley car is about to careen into the five and killthem.And now, youre not the driver, you really feelhel pl essuntil you notice standing next to

11、you, leaningover thebridge 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 wouldspare the five.Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge?Raise your hand. How many wouldnt?Most people woul

12、dnt. Heres the obvious question.What became of the principlebetter to save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one?What became of the principle that almost everyoneendorsed in the first case?I need to hear from someone who was in the majority inboth cases.Howdo you explain the difference between

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

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

15、t he 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 of the majority in these two cases? Yes.Well, I guess in the first cas

16、e where you have the one worker and the five, its a choice between those two and you have to make a certain choice and people are going to die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct actions.The trolley car is a runaway thing and youre making a sp lit second choice.Whereas

17、 p ushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part.You have control over that whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.So I think 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 t

18、hink thats a very good reason because you choose toeither way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the p erson, which is an act of conscious thought to turn, or you choose to push the fat man over which is also an active, conscious action.So either way, youre making

19、 a choice.Do you want 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 pu shing him with your own hands.Youre pu shing him and thats different th

20、an steering something 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, I didnt have to push him, suppose

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

22、 switch that will drop 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 situation youre involved directly with the situation.In the second one, youre

23、an onlooker as well.All right. -So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pu shing 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 six p atients come to you.Theyve been in a terri

24、ble trolley car wreck.Five of them sustain moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could sp end all day caring for the one severely injured victim but in that time, the five woulddie.Or you could look after the five, restore them to healthbut during that time, the one severely injured p erso

25、nwould 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, yourea trans pl antsurgeon and you have fivep atients,each indes perate need of an o

26、rgan trans plantin order to survive.One needs a heart,one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver,and the fifth a p ancreas.And you have no organ donors.You are about to see them die.And then it occurs to you that in thenext room theresa healthy guy who came in for a check- up.And hes - you like that - an

27、d hestaking a nap, youcould go in very quietly, yank out thefive organs, thatp erson 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 rig

28、ht. What do you say?Sp eak up in the balcony, you who would yank out theorgans. Why?rdactually like to explore a slightlyalternatepossibilityof just taking the one of the fivewho needsan organ who dies first and using their four healthyorgans to save the other four.Thats a p retty good idea.Thats a

29、great idea exce pt for the fact that you justwrecked the p hilos op hical po int.Lets step back from these stories and theseargumentsto notice a couple of things about the way theargumentshave begun to unfold.Certain moral p rinc iples have already begun to emergefrom the discussions weve had.And le

30、ts consider what those moral p rinc iples lookthelike.The first moralp rinc iplethat emerged indiscussion said the right thing to do, the moral thingto do dep ends on the consequences thatwill resultfromyour action.At the end of the day, better that fiveshould liveevenif one must die.Thats an exampl

31、e of consequentialistmoral reasoning.Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality inthe 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 thoseother cases and people werent so sureaboutconsequentialist moral

32、reasoning.When people hesitated to push the fat man over thebridge or to yank out the organs of the innocentp atient,people gestured toward reasons having to do with theintrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences bewhat they may.People were reluctant.People thought it was just wrong, categoric

33、allywrong,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 po ints to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning.Categorical moralreasoning locates morality incertain ab

34、solutemoral requirements,certaincategorical dutiesand rights, regardlessof theconsequences.Were going to explore in the days and weeks to come the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral p rinc iples.The most influential exa mple of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a

35、doctrine invented byJeremy Bentham, English p olitical p hilos op her.The most imp ortant p hilos op her of categorical moral reasoning German p hilos op her Immanuel Kant.So we will look at those two different modes of moralwe readreasoning, assess them, and also consider others.If you look at the

36、syllabus, youll notice that 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 only read these books; we also take up contemporary,p olitical,and legal controversies that raisep hilos op hica

37、l questions.We will debate equality and inequality, affirmativeaction, freespeech versus hate speech, same sex marriage, military conscri ption, a range of p ractical questions. Why?Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books but to make clear, to bring out whats at stake in oureveryday liv

38、es, including our politicallives, for p hilos ophy.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 app ealing enough, but here I have to issue a warning.And the warning is this, to read these books in this way as

39、 an exercise in self knowledge, to read them in this way carries certain risks, risks that are bothp ersonal and p olitical, risks that every student ofp olitical p hilos ophy has known.These risks spring from the fact thatphilosophyteaches us and unsettles us by confronting uswith whatwe already kn

40、ow.Theres an irony.The difficultyof this course consists in thefact thatit teaches what you already know.It works by taking what we know fromfamiliarunquestioned settings and making it strange.Thats how those exam pies worked, the hypo theticalswith which we began, with their mix of pl ayfulness and

41、sobriety.Its also how these p hilos op hical books work.Philosophyestranges us from the familiar, not bysupplying new information but by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but, and heres the risk, once thefamiliar turns strange, its never quite the same again.Self knowledge is like lost innoc

42、ence, howeverunsettling you find it; it can never be un-thought orun-known.What makes this enter prise difficult but also rivetingis that moral and p olitical p hilos ophy 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 p erson

43、al risks.Now what of the p olitical risks?One way of introducing a course like this would be tomorepro mise you that by reading these books and debatingthese issues, you will become a better, presupp ositions of p ublic p olicy, you will hone your p olitical judgment, you will become a more effectiv

44、e p artic ip ant in p ublic affairs.respo nsiblecitizen;you will examinetheBut this would be a p artial and misleading pro mise.Politicalphilosophy,for the most part, hasnt worked that way.You have to allow for the po ssibility that p olitical p hilos ophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a

45、better one or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one, and thats because p hilos ophy is a distancing, even debilitating, activity. And you see this, going back to Socrates, theres a dialogue, theGorgias, in which one of Socrates friends, Callicles,tries to talk him out of p hilos

46、op hizing.Callicles tells Socrates P hilos ophy is a p retty toyif one indulges in it with moderation at the right timeof 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 yourmo

47、dels not those people who sp end their time on thesepetty quibbles but those who have a good livelihoodandrepu tation and many other blessings.So Callicles is really saying to SocratesQuitp hilos op hizing, get real, go to business school. AndCallicles did have a po int.He had a po int because p hil

48、os ophy distances us fromconventions, from established assu mp tions, and fromsettled beliefs.Those are the risks, p ersonal and p olitical.And in the face of these risks, thereis acharacteristic evasion.The name of the evasion is ske pticism, its the ideawell, it goes something like thiswedidntreso

49、lve once and for all either the cases or theprincipleswe were arguing when we began and ifAristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill havent solvedthese questions after all of these years, who are weto think that we, here in Sanders Theatre, over thecourse of a semester, can resolve them?And so, maybe its

50、 just a matter of each p erson havinghis or her own p rinc iples and theres nothing more tobe said about it, no way of reasoning.Thats the evasion, the evasionof skepticism, to whichI would offer the following reply.Its true, these questions havebeen debated for a verylong time but the very fact tha

51、tthey have recurred andp ersisted may suggest that though theyre impo ssiblein one sense, theyre unavoidable in another.And the reason theyre unavoidable, the reason theyreinescapableis that we live some answer tothesequestions every day.So ske pticism, just throwing up your hands and givingup on mo

52、ral reflection is no solution.Immanuel Kant described very wellthe p roblemwithskepticism when he wrote Skepticismis a restingpl aceupon its dogmaticfor humanreason, where it can reflectwanderings, but it is no dwelling pl ace for p ermanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in ske pticism, Kant wrote

53、, can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason. r ve tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments some sense of the risks and temp tations, of the p erils and the po ssibilities.I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of r

54、eason and to see where it might lead.Thank you very much.Like, in a situation that des perate, 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, p retty much.without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice.Someonehas to make the sacrifice and 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 aboutdoctors and