所以你没有明确的原因，应该牺牲他so there're no definite reason that he should be killed因为你不知道他们什么时候会被救because you don't know when they're gonna to be rescued所以，如果你杀了他。你是在谋杀So if you kill him. It's killing human beings你是否要一直杀死其他船员，直到你们被救Do you keep killing the crew members until you're rescued但是，这里，我们的道德逻辑似乎是，But the moral logic of this situation seems to be that他们将继续 杀死那个最弱的，也许they would keep on picking off the weakest, maybe一个接一个，直到获救。one by one,until they were rescued.幸运的是，在这种情况下，And in this case, luckily,他们最终被救出时，其他3人还活着they were rescued when three were still alive如果Parker同意了，你觉得就可以这样做呢呢？If Parker did give his consent, would it be all right, do you think?我不觉得No告诉我们，为什么你为什么不同意Tell us why it wouldn't be all right首先，人吃人，我相信在道德上是不正确的First of all, cannibalism I believe is morally incorrect因此我们反对人吃人so shouldn't eating human anyway因此，人吃人在道义上令人反感So cannibalism is morally objectionable因此，即使在这种情况下，等着有人死去So even in this scenario, waiting until someone die你仍然会反对这样做still would be objectionable是。我觉得，这一切都取决于一个人的道德原则Yes. I feel like it all depends on one's personal morals这只是我的意见。This is just my opinion.当然，其他人可能会不同意Of course, other people are gonna to disagree让我们看看你的分歧是什么，然后我们将看看Let's see what the disagreements are and then we'll see如果他们有足够的理由，可以说服你if they've reason that can persuade you enough我们来试一下Let's try that有没有谁能解释？Is there someone who can explain?你们谁是赞成这样做的Those of you who're tempted by consent你能解释为什么取得同意会带来这些道德上的区别？Can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference?再想想抽签？抽签是否能视作是一种同意？What about the lottery idea? Does that count as consent?还记得一开始，Dudley提出了抽签的做法Remember the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery假设他们已经同意了抽签Suppose they've agreed to a lottery那么有多少便认为这是可以合理的？Then how many would then say it's all right?假设抽签之后决定，要牺牲那个客舱的男孩Suppose there's a lottery. Cabin boy lost那么，故事还是原来那样发展下去Then the rest of the story unfolded那么有多少人会说这是道德上容许的？Then how many people would say it's morally permissible?因此，如果由抽签决定的，更多人就会赞成，So the number is arising if we've lottery让我们听到你们中的一个，对他们来说，抽签会产生这样的区别for whom the lottery would make such a moral differenceLet's hear from one of you,为什么会这样？Why would it?我认为，考虑是否是犯罪，一个是必不可少的因素I think the essential element that makes a crime是在他们自己在私底下做决定is the idea that they decide at some point认为他们的生命比他的生命更重要their lives are more important than his我的意思是对任何罪行为的基础是I mean that's the basis for any crime觉得，我的需要、我的愿望比你的更重要My needs, my desire are more important than yours如果他们已经做了抽签，每个人都同意If they've done a lottery where everyone consented有人必须要牺牲that someone should die这就像是偶然性让他牺牲了来救活其他人It's like the odds sacrifices himself to save the rest这样就变成可以接受的Then it would be all right听起来有点怪，但在道义上允许的A little grotesque but morally permissible你叫什么名字？What's your name?Matt那么困扰你的，不是人吃人So what bother you is not the cannibalism而是缺乏应有的程序but the lack of due process我想你可以这么说，I guess you could say that有谁同意用Matt的观点，再补充一点Can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more为什么抽签使得这变成是道德允许的about why a lottery would make it morally permissible我的理解是，The way I understood it originally was that整体的问题是that's a whole issue就是从来没有征询那个男孩的意见The cabin boy was never consulted it about不论将会有什么事情发生在他身上whether or not something was gonna to happen to him即使原来抽签even with the originally lottery他是否会参与了其中whether or not he would be part of that大家就这样决定了，他就是那个要牺牲的It was just decided that he was the one who's gonna to die现实情况就是这样的况That's what happened in the actual case但是，如果有抽奖，他们同意了这个程序But if there's a lottery, and they agree to the procedure你认为这是合理的you think that would be OK是的。因为每个人都知道有人将会死去Right. Because everyone know there's gonna to be a death但那个男孩不知道whereas the cabin boy didn't know大家就这样决定了the discussion was even happening提前没有让他知道There's no fore warning for him to know that他就是那个可能会死亡的I may be the one that's dying好的。假设每个人都同意的抽签All right. Suppose everyone agrees to the lottery他们已经抽签。那个男孩抽中那个签They've the lottery. The cabin boy lose it他改变了主意And he changes his mind但您已经决定。这就像一个口头合同You've already decided. It's like a verbal contract你不能改回去了You cann't go back on that你已经决定了You decided. The decision was made如果你知道你将为他人死去If you know you're dying如果你知道你将为他人死去for the reason for others to live如果是其他人死去if someone else have died你知道你会吃他们的肉you know you would consume them好的。然后，我知道，但我输了Right. Then he could take, I know, but I lost我只是认为，整个道德问题在于I just think that's the whole moral issue有没有征询那个男孩there's no consulting of the cabin boy最可怕的就是，That's what make it the most horrible is that他不知道，将会发生什么事he had no idea what was even going on如果他知道这是怎么回事If he known what's going on就变得更容易接受了it would be more understandable好的。现在我想听听All right. Good. Now I want to hear所以，有些人认为这是道德上允许的so there're some who think it's morally permissible但只有约20％，Markies是其代表but only about 20%, led by Markies还有一些说Then there're some who say,真正的问题是缺乏获得他人同意the real problem here is lack of consent是否抽签决定，是否经过一个公平的程序，whether the lack of consent to a lottery, to a fair procedure,或者像Catharine所说在他死的那一刻没有征询同意or Catharine's idea lack of consent at the moment of death如果多了同意，更多的人会赞成and if we add consent then more people are willing牺牲他人的生命在道德上是允许的to consider the sacrifice morally justified最后，我想听听I want to hear now finally那些认为，即使获得了同意from those of you who think even with consent即使有抽签，even with a lottery,即使Parker最后同意了even with a final murmur of consent by Parker在最后一刻at the very last moment它仍然是错误的it would still be wrong而且为什么是错误的？这就是我想听到And why would it be wrong? That's what I wanna to hear由始至终，我一直倾向于The whole time I've been leaning towards绝对主义的道德推理the categorical moral reasoning我认为有一个可能我会同意I think that there're a possibility I'll be OK那就是抽签的做法with the idea of lottery中签的人只是自己杀死自己and the loser taking into his own hands to kill themselves这样就不算是谋杀行为so they won't be an act of murder但我仍然认为，即使这样，它还算是被迫的but I still think that even that way it's coerce此外，我不认为Dudley的日记里带有悔改之意Also I don't think there's any remorse in Dudley's diary“我们正在吃我们的早餐”We're eating our breakfast看起来，他只是It seems that he just reflected the whole idea of他不珍惜他人生命的一个反映not valuing someone else life这让我觉得我必须采纳绝对主义That makes me be feel like I have to take the categorical你想，把我们的教科书扔给他看看You want to throw the book at him当他在放松时还要想着道德When he relaxed with morals反思自己是否做了错事and sense of having done anything wrong是的Right好的。有没有人要辩护So. All right. Any other defenders谁认为这是错误的，绝对的错误，无论是否征得同意who said it's categorically wrong whether it's without consent我们的社会说：“谋杀就是谋杀”The society say, "Murder is murder"以各种方式谋杀Murder is murder in every way在我看来，大家好像觉得这和其他谋杀是不一样In our sight, it looks as a murder don't in the same way我认为，谋杀在任何情况下都没有任何差别I don't think any difference in any case让我问你一个问题Let me ask you a question3比1，3个危在旦夕的人呢There were three lives at stake versus one对 一个船上侍者，一个男孩。The one the cabin boy.他没有家庭。他没有亲人He had no family. He had no dependents其他3人在英国有他们的家庭These other three had families back home in England他们的家人。他们有妻子和子女They had dependents. They've wives and children回想一下 边沁Think back the Bentham边沁说，我们要考虑福利，Bentham said we'd to consider the welfare,最大的效用，大家的福祉the utility, the happiness of everybody