我们如果把所有因素考虑进去We've add it all up它不是仅仅数三对一So it's not just numbers of three against one这还包括在家里的所有人It's also all of those people at home事实上，那时伦敦报纸In fact, the London newspaper at the Time和大众的意见也同情他们，Dudley和Stevenand popular opinions sympathize with them, Dudley and Steven而报纸说，如果他们不是And the paper said if they won't motivated因为牵挂这他们家里的爱人by affection and concern for their loved one at home和他们的家人，他们当然不会这样做and their dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this那些角落里的人，和其他人有什么区别吗？How's there any difference from people on the corner我看不出什么差别I don't see any difference我认为在任何情况下，如果我杀了你来提高自己I think in any case if I murder you to advance my status这就是谋杀。That is murder.我认为，我们应该用同样的目光看他们I think we should look at them in the same light是否就能允许某些犯罪活动Is that criminal allows certain activities作出某些不道德的暴力和野蛮行为and makes certain things immoral violent and savage在同一案件时，都是同样的行为When in the same case, it's all the same act如果一位凶手为了养活他的家人就可以去杀人If mentality that goes in the murder, the assassin need to feed his family假设现在是不是3个。假设现在是30Suppose it weren't three. Suppose it were thirtyThree hundred一个生命来拯救300One life to save three hundred或者是战时，3000or in war time, three thousand假设是更大的比数Suppose the stakes was even bigger我认为，这是同一件事I think it's the same deal那么你认为 边沁是错误的。You think Bentham is wrong.正确的做法就是增加了集体的幸福To say the right thing to do is to add up the collectively happiness你认为 他的想法是错误的You think it's wrong about that我不认为这是错的I don't think it's wrong我认为谋杀是在任何情况下都是谋杀I think murder is murder in any case如果是这样，边沁就是错的If then, Bentham has to be wrong如果你是对的，他就是错的If you're right, he's wrong好吧，他错了OK, he's wrong谢谢你。你做得很好Thank you. Well done好的。让我们暂时先不讨论下去All right. Let's step back from this discussion看看，我们已经听了多少种反对的意见and notice how many objections have we heard to what they did我们听到一些人为他们辩护We heard some defense of what they did他们辩护这是在严峻的情况下的不情之举The defense had to do with necessity, the dire circumstances他们辩护这是在严峻的情况下的不情之举and implicitly as least此外，人数也会影响我们的决定the idea that number matters不仅数量问题，而且这些人所牵涉的影响也是个问题And not only number matters, but the wider effect matters他们的家庭。他们的家人Their family back home. Their dependentsParker是个孤儿。没有人会想念他Parker is an orphan. No one would miss him所以，如果你这样算起来，So if you add up,如果您尝试计算幸福和痛苦的平衡点if you try to calculate the balance of happiness and suffering你可能认为，他们是正确的you might have a case for saying what they did it's the right thing然后，我们听到了至少有三个不同类型的反对意见Then we heard at least three different types of objections我们听到有人反对说We've heard objection that said他们的所作所为是绝对的错误What they did is categorically wrong谋杀就是谋杀。Murder is murder.它永远是错的，哪怕它能增加社会的所有幸福It's always wrong even if it increases your all happiness of society无条件的反对A categorical objection但是，我们仍然需要研究，为什么谋杀就是绝对的不对？But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong?是否是因为即使是那个男孩也有他基本的权利？Is is because even cabin boy had certain fundermental rights?如果是这样，这些权利来自哪里？If that's the reason, where those rights come from?这些权利如果不是来自追求最大的效用或快乐If not from some ideas of larger welfare or utility or happiness这是第一个问题Question #1其他人表示，是否抽签会产生差别Other said a lottery will makes a difference或者是像Matt说的，一个公平的程序，A fair procedure, Matt said这样，有些人开始动摇And some people were swayed by that这就不符合绝对主义That's not a categorical objection exactly它说，每个人都被视为平等的It's saying everybody has to be counted as an equal即使在一天结束的时候even though at the end of the day牺牲一个人，换取大众的福利one can be sacrificed for the general welfare我还有另一个问题，我们要研究That leaves us with another question to investigate为什么同意以一定的程序，公平的程序Why does agreement to a certain procedure, even a fair procedure就可以为他们的行为辩护justify whatever result flows from the operation of that procedure这是第二个问题Question #2问题3 关于同意的基本思想And Question #3：the basic idea of consent.Catharine带我们想到了这一点Catharine got us on to this如果安格男孩自己同意If the cabin boy had agreed himself,而不是在他休息的时候，杀死他and not under the rest as was acted那么我们就可以牺牲他的生命来救活其他人了then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest更多的人偏向了这一想法Even more people side on that idea但是，这引出第三个哲学问题But that raise a third philosophical question在道德的层面上，同意为什么会带来不同？What is the moral work that the consent does?为什么一个同意的行为，产生这些道德上的区别？Why does an act of consent makes such a moral difference?不经过同意就杀死一个人是不对的that an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent但，经过同意后杀死一个人就变成是允许的is morally permissible with consent为了思考这三个问题，To investigate those three questions,我们将会阅读某些哲学家的作品we're gonna to read some philoshophers从下次开始，我们还将要阅读边沁和约翰 密尔的作品and starting next time, we're gonna to read Bentham and John Mill这些功利主义哲学家Utilitarian philosophers想听下一节课，并参与讨论www.justiceharvard.org中英文字幕： 何_何www.aprilseason.com鸣谢：感谢 COPSY心理学的支持www.COPSY.org心理学视频库http://u.youku.com/aprilseason ?1感谢大家对这门课的支持上一节视频发布后，单月播放了900，000次欲观看、下载高清视频，可移步www.AprilSeason.com给生命贴上价格Putting a price tag on life上一次，我们讨论了Last time, we argued about英国女王与Dudley和Stephens案件the case of The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens,一个发生在救生艇上，人吃人的案件。the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea.我们讨论了发生在救生艇上的一些争论And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind,关于支持还是反对Dudley和Stephens的做法的争论the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,让我们回到哲学，边沁的功利主义哲学。let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.1748年，边沁生于在英国。在12岁时，他去了牛津大学。Bentham was born in England in 1748. At the age of 12, he went to Oxford.15岁时去了法学院。19岁时就拿到律师资格At 15, he went to law school. He was admitted to the Bar at age 19但他从来没有从事法律。but he never practiced law.相反，他毕生致力于法学和道德哲学。Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.上一次，我们开始谈到了边沁的功利主义。Last time, we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.其主要思想可以表达为：The main idea is simply stated and it's this:不论是个人或政治道德，道德的最高原则，The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality,就是为了将大众福利、集体的幸福最大化is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness,或在快乐和痛苦之间找到平衡点;or the overall balance of pleasure over pain;一句话，效用最大化。in a phrase, maximize utility.边沁是经过以下的推理，得出这个原则：Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning:我们都是受痛苦和快乐支配，We're all governed by pain and pleasure,他们就像统治我们的君主，所以任何道德体系they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system都要把它们考虑进去。has to take account of them.怎么才能最优地把这两者都考虑到？通过最大化。How best to take account? By maximizing.这也就引出了：追求最多数人的最大利益的原则。And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.那么我们应该把什么最大化呢？What exactly should we maximize?边沁告诉我们，是幸福，或者更准确，效用 -Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility -将效用最大化，不仅是对个人maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals还有集体，及立法者。but also for communities and for legislators.“那什么是集体？”边沁问道。"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks.那就是组成这个集体的所有个人的总和。It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.这就是为什么，在决定什么是最好的政策时，And that's why in deciding the best policy,在决定法律应该怎么制定，在决定什么是公正时，in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just,公民和立法者应该问自己一个的问题citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question如果我们把这一政策的所有好处加起来if we add up all of the benefits of this policy再减去所有的成本and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do我们要做的就是平衡幸福和苦难后，找到最大值。is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.这就是效用最大化的意思。That's what it means to maximize utility.今天，我想看看你是否同意这个观点，Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it,功利主义的逻辑常常是and it often goes, this utilitarian logic,建立在成本和效益分析，under the name of cost-benefit analysis,企业和政府一直也是这么做which is used by companies and by governments all the time.它涉及到给所有东西赋予一个价值，And what it involves is placing a value,通常是用美元来表示usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on the costs成本和各种的收益。and the benefits of various proposals.最近，在捷克共和国，有人提议Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal增加吸烟的消费税。一家叫Philip Morris的烟草公司to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris, the tobacco company,在捷克拥有庞大的生意does huge business in the Czech Republic.他们委托做了个研究，进行成本效益分析