They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis分析吸烟为捷克的成本与效益of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit分析发现，如果允许公民吸烟，政府将收益。analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.他们怎么获益？Now, how do they gain?虽然这对捷克的公共财政有负面的影响It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance因为吸烟者增多，患病人随之增多of the Czech government because there are increased health care对医疗问题的投入也要增多costs for people who develop smoking-related diseases.另一方面，也有积极影响On the other hand, there were positive effects这些积极的作用累积在账本的另一边and those were added up on the other side of the ledger.这些积极作用，主要包括，The positive effects included, for the most part,从销售卷烟产品中收取的各种税收various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale而且还包括of cigarette products, but it also included人们因病早死节省下来的医疗储蓄health care savings to the government when people die early,以及养老金储蓄（他们过早地死去，你就不用支付养老金）pension savings -- you don't have to pay pensions for as long -同时，节省了老人住房的费用。and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.而当成本和收益都加起来，And when all of the costs and benefits were added up,Philip Morris公司的研究发现，捷克政府的公共财政the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain将有1.47亿美元的净增益in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000,如果考虑到在住房、医疗、养老上的节省and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs,对于那些因吸烟而早死的，政府能在他们每个人身上the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person节省超过1,200元who dies prematurely due to smoking.成本效益分析。Cost-benefit analysis.现在，你们谁是支持功利主义的Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism你可以认为这是一种不公平的测试。may think that this is an unfair test.报刊新闻攻击Philip MorrisPhilip Morris was pilloried in the press他们为这一无情的数字而道歉。and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.你可能会说，功利主义缺少了一些东西You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian也就是人的价值can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person以及这些死于肺癌的人所在的家庭。and to the families of those who die from lung cancer.如果把人的生命价值也考虑进去会怎样？What about the value of life?一些成本效益分析纳入了对生命价值的考量。Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life.其中一起是有名的Ford Pinto案件。One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.你们之中有没有人读过这个案件？Did any of you read about that?这是早在20世纪70年代。This was back in the 1970s.你还记得Ford Pinto是什么？Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was,是一种的车吗？有没有人知道a kind of car? Anybody?这是一种小型车，超小的车，很受欢迎It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular,但它也有问题，问题出在它的油箱but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank因为油箱设在汽车的背部，与后方碰撞，was at the back of the car and in rear collisions,油箱爆炸，炸死了一些人the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed不少人严重受伤。and some severely injured.这些受害者把福特告到法院。Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue.而到了法庭上，结果是And in the court case, it turned out that Ford福特早就知道油箱有问题had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank并且已做了成本效益分析，以确定是否应该and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be要把它设在一个特殊的挡板里worth it to put in a special shield that would保护油箱，来防止爆炸。protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.他们做了成本效益分析。They did a cost-benefit analysis.计算每增加一个零件的成本The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto,他们算出来，每个零件要11.00美金。they calculated at $11.00 per part.在法庭上，福特呈上了成本效益分析And here's -- this was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial.12.5万辆轿车和卡车，每辆车多花11美元Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks加起来一共要1.37亿美元的成本，来使其更安全。came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.不过，他们还计算了，用这笔钱来But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money做出一辆更安全的汽车，计算得出会有少死180人on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths如果每个死者分到20万元and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death,180个死者，每人6万，然后维修的费用，180 injuries, $67,000, and then the costs to repair,更换2000辆车的费用，the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles,这些无安全装置的车将被销毁，每辆700元。it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle.因此，收益变成只有四千九百五十万So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million所以他们没有安装该设备。and so they didn't install the device.不用说，当福特的这个备忘录Needless to say, when this memo of the在开庭审理时呈上时，Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial,让陪审团感到震惊，这些陪审员都获得了巨额的补偿金。it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement.这是功利主义的一个反面例子吗？Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?因为福特公司在计算的时候把生命价值也包括在内。Because Ford included a measure of the value of life.现在，谁来为这个成本效益分析作辩护？Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis这是一个明显的反例from this apparent counterexample?谁要为其辩解？Who has a defense?或者，你是否认为这完全违背了Or do you think this completely destroys the whole整个功利主义的计算（原则）？utilitarian calculus? Yes?嗯，我想，他们又一次犯了同样的错误Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake跟以前的情况一样，他们为每条性命赋予了the previous case did, that they assigned a dollar value一美元的价值单位to human life, and once again,他们再次忽略了死伤者的家庭they failed to take account things like suffering所遭受的痛苦。and emotional losses by the families.我的意思是，他们不仅失去了家庭的收入来源，而且还失去了亲人I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one这些不是20万美元能衡量。and that is more valued than $200,000.对 - 等一下。你说得不错。你叫什么名字？Right and -- wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name?Julie RoteauJulie Roteau .Julie，如果20万美元是一个偏小的数字So if $200,000, Julie, is too low a figure因为它没有考虑到失去亲人的损失because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one以及这些年死去的生命and the loss of those years of life, what would be -你认为，多少才算是一个比较准确的数值？what do you think would be a more accurate number?我不认为我可以给一个明确的数字。我认为这种分析I don't believe I could give a number. I think that this sort of analysis不能应用于与生命有关的问题。shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.我认为不能用金钱来（解决）。I think it can't be used monetarily.因此，Julie说，他们不只是给的数值太小So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.而是，用数字来计算本身就是错的。They were wrong to try to put any number at all.好吧，让我们听听其他人All right, let's hear someone who -你还要考虑到通货膨胀。You have to adjust for inflation.你还要考虑到通货膨胀。You have to adjust for inflation.好的，很好。All right, fair enough.那么，现在这个数目应该是？So what would the number be now?这是35年前。This was 35 years ago.200万美元。Two million dollars.200万美元？你觉得要200万美元？Two million dollars? You would put two million?你叫什么名字？And what's your name?VoytekVoytekVoytek说，我们把通胀考虑进来。Voytek says we have to allow for inflation.我们要更慷慨一点。We should be more generous.那么，你对这样思考关于正义的问题Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of满意吗？thinking about the question?我想，不幸的是，现在I guess, unfortunately, it is for -需要给出一个数字，我不肯定there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, I'm not sure这个数字应该是多少，但我同意what that number would be, but I do agree that用数值来衡量生命也是有可能的。there could possibly be a number put on the human life.好的，在这里，Voytek不同意Julie的想法All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie.Julie说，我们不能用数值来衡量生命Julie says we can't put a number on human life来做一个成本效益分析for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.Voytek说，我们不得不这么做，因为我们必须作出某种决定。Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.其他人怎么想呢？What do other people think about this?有没有人准备为这个成本效益分析辩护的？Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis是不是数字越准确越好？是吗？请继续。here as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead.我认为，如果福特和其他汽车公司I think that if Ford and other car companies没有使用成本效益分析，他们最终会歇业didn't use cost-benefit analysis, they'd eventually go out of business因为他们无法实现盈利because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people数百万人将无法开车上班，wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs,赚钱养活孩子。to put food on the table, to feed their children.因此，我认为，如果不用成本效益分析，So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed,在这种情况下，会损害大部人的利益。the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.好的，让我补充一下。你叫什么名字？All right, let me add. What's your name?Raul。Raul.劳尔，最近有项研究，关于开车时Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by a driver是否使用手机，并且引起一场争论when people are driving a car, and there was a debate争论是否应被禁止开车使用手机。whether that should be banned.是啊。Yeah.因开车使用手机而死去的人And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result每年约有2000人of accidents each year using cell phones.然而，哈佛的风险分析中心And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the做了成本效益分析，发现Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that如果你看一下允许使用手机所带来的效益if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use和因此而失去的性命，它们的价值差不多and you put some value on the life, it comes out about the same由于，允许人们使用手机能带来巨大的经济利益because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people