拔掉一颗牙来换取4,500元。tooth pulled for only $4,500.什么？What?下面是桑代克(著名的心理学家）从这个研究得出的结论Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study.任何一种欲望只要存在，就必须以一定的程度存在着Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount因此，它们都是可以衡量的。and is therefore measurable.狗、猫或一只鸡的生命The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken consists of appetites,由食欲、渴望、欲望、满足来组成。cravings, desires, and their gratifications.人类也是如此，虽然人类的食欲So does the life of human beings, though the appetites和欲望更加复杂。and desires are more complicated.你怎么看桑代克的研究？But what about Thorndike's study?它是否支持边沁的理论，Does it support Bentham's idea that all goods,所有的商品、价值都用一个统一的价值来衡量？all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value?抑或是，这个列着各式荒诞行为的清单Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list提出了相反的结论，suggest the opposite conclusion that maybe,不论是生命、堪萨斯或蠕虫时，whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm,也许很多我们珍视的事情是不能maybe the things we value and cherish can't be captured用某种统一的价值来换取？according to a single uniform measure of value?如果是不能的话，结果是怎样And if they can't, what are the consequences功利主义的道德理论，结果会是怎样？for the utilitarian theory of morality?我们将在下一次继续讨论这个问题。That's a question we'll continue with next time.上一次，我们开始考虑一些Last time, we began to consider some objections to反对边沁的功利主义的意见。Jeremy Bentham's version of utilitarianism.人们提出了两种反对意见。People raised two objections in the discussion we had.首先是反对，功利主义The first was the objection, the claim that utilitarianism,只考虑最大多数人的最大效益by concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,没有充分尊重个人的权利。fails adequately to respect individual rights.今天，我们讨论有关酷刑和恐怖主义。Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.假设一个恐怖嫌疑人，在9月10日被捕Suppose a suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th你有理由相信，从疑犯身上能得到关于and you had reason to believe that the suspect had crucial information一起将会让3000人遇害的恐怖袭击的重要信息about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3,000 people但你现在还得不到这些信息。and you couldn't extract the information.为了获取信息，用酷刑来折磨嫌疑人是否合理Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information或者你会说不可以，我们绝对要or do you say no, there is a categorical moral duty尊重个人的权利？of respect for individual rights?从某种意义上说，我们又回到我们一开始的问题In a way, we're back to the questions we started with关于Charlie Carson的器官移植。about Charlie Carson organ transplant.这是第一个问题。So that's the first issue.而且你们还记得，我们考虑了一些And you remember, we considered some examples成本效益分析的例子，但很多人对这样做不满of cost-benefit analysis, but a lot of people were unhappy当它用金钱with cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing来衡量人们的生命。a dollar value on human life.因此，这引出了第二种反对的意见。And so that led us to the second objection.我们质疑：是否有可能将所有东西都转化成It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values into一个统一的价值尺度。a single uniform measure of value.换句话说，它要求所有的东西是可度量、相称的。It asks, in other words, whether all values are commensurable.让我再举另外一个例子。Let me give you one other example of an experience.这实际上是一个真实的故事。This actually is a true story.它来源于个人的经历It comes from personal experience that raises a question它让我们思考，是否能无损失地将所有东西at least about whether all values can be translated without loss完全转换成功利主义里所说的效益。into utilitarian terms.几年前，当我还是一名研究生，Some years ago, when I was a graduate student,我当时在英国牛津，我们有男子和女子学院。I was at Oxford in England and they had men's and women's colleges.男女还是分开，而女子学院They weren't yet mixed and the women's colleges规定不准男生夜访。had rules against overnight male guests.到了70年代，这些规定很少得到执行By the 1970s, these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated,而且很轻易就违反了，有人这样告诉我or so I was told.到70年代末，当我在那里学习时By the late 1970s, when I was there,大家放松了这些规定，这些规定也成为了争论的话题pressure grew to relax these rules and it became the subject of debate在St. Anne's学院的教师当中，among the faculty at St. Anne's College,St. Anne's学院也是一所女子学院which was one of these all-women's colleges.学院里年级较大的老师都比较传统The older women on the faculty were traditionalists.他们反对改变传统。They were opposed to change unconventional moral grounds.然而时代变了，他们也给不出一个合理的But times have changed and they were embarrassed反对的理由，所以他们to give the true grounds for their objection and so they translated用功利主义的论述来作为他们的论点。their arguments into utilitarian terms.“如果男生在女生宿舍过夜”，他们称"If men stay overnight", they argued,“学院的支出将会增加。”"the costs to the college will increase."“怎么个增加法？”你可能想知道。"How?" you might wonder.“嗯，他们要洗澡"Well, they'll want to take baths而且会消耗很多热水，“他们说。and that'll use up hot water," they said.此外，他们认为，Furthermore, they argued,“我们将不得不，更加频繁地更换床垫。”"We'll have to replace the mattresses more often."支持改革的人，作出回应The reformers met these arguments by adopting the following compromise.每个女生每周，最多只能让男生夜访3次Each woman could have a maximum of three overnight male guests each week.他们没有明说，是同一个人或三个不同的人They didn't say whether it had to be the same one or three different这是支持改革者作出的妥协，provided, and this was the compromise,访客得为大学支付50便士的费用。provided the guest paid 50 pence to defray the cost to the college.第二天，全国的报纸头条就写着The next day, the national headline in the national newspaper read,“St. Anne女生，50便士一晚。”"St. Anne's Girls, 50 Pence A Night."将所有东西换算成价值的困难之处Another illustration of the difficulty of translating all values,在这种情况下，凭借某种方法，来转换成功利主义的效益。in this case, a certain idea of virtue, into utilitarian terms.这些都阐述了，第二种反对功利主义的意见So, that's all to illustrate the second objection to utilitarianism,至少说明了一部分。关于功利主义at least the part of that objection, that questions whether utilitarianism是否能将所有东西的价值统一化的假设is right to assume that we can assume the uniformity of value,将所有价值、道德因素都同等地the commensurability of all values and translate all moral considerations转换成美元或金钱。into dollars or money.但这也有另外一个顾虑But there is a second aspect to this worry about怎么将价值叠加起来aggregating values and preferences.为什么我们要把所有人的利益叠加起来Why should we weigh all preferences that people have without assessing而没有考量到，哪些是好的，哪些是坏的？whether they're good preferences or bad preferences?我们是否应该区分较高层次的快乐，和低级快乐？Shouldn't we distinguish between higher pleasures and lower pleasures?现在，其中一个考虑点是，Now, part of the appeal of not making any qualitative distinctions是否不应区分开，人们价值好坏的问题，about the worth of people's preferences,另外一点是，它是公正和平等的part of the appeal is that it is nonjudgmental and egalitarian.边沁的功利主义认为，每个人的喜好都要考虑The Benthamite utilitarian says everybody's preferences count不管它们是什么，and they count regardless of what people want,不管是什么让不同的人快乐起来。regardless of what makes different people happy.对于边沁来说，所有的事情For Bentham, all that matters, you'll remember,都只是快乐或痛苦的强度大小、持续时间长短问题are the intensity and the duration of a pleasure or pain.所谓的“更高级的快乐，或更崇高的美德”The so-called "higher pleasures or nobler virtues"对于边沁来说are simply those, according to Bentham,都只是更强、更持久的快乐而已that produce stronger, longer pleasure.用一个很有名短语来形容就是Yet a famous phrase to express this idea,快乐不分多少，图钉跟诗一样好。the quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.图钉是什么？What was pushpin?图钉是孩子玩的一种游戏，如tiddlywinks。It was some kind of a child's game, like tiddlywinks.“图钉跟诗一样好”，边沁说。"Pushpin is as good as poetry", Bentham says.我认为这种想法的背后，And lying behind this idea, I think, is the claim, the intuition,它是一个假定，判断谁的快乐that it's a presumption to judge whose pleasures在本质上是更高级、更有价值，或更好。are intrinsically higher or worthier or better.有趣的是，如果你拒绝去做这一区分And there is something attractive in this refusal to judge.有些人喜欢莫扎特，有些人喜欢麦当娜After all, some people like Mozart, others Madonna.有些人喜欢芭蕾，其他人喜欢保龄球Some people like ballet, others bowling.边沁也许争辩说，Who's to say, a Benthamite might argue,谁敢说，这些快乐中，有些人的快乐更高级who is to say which of these pleasures, whose pleasures are higher,更有价值的，更高尚呢？worthier, nobler than others?但拒绝做定性的区分，是否就是正确的呢？But is that right, this refusal to make qualitative distinctions?我们能否完全不考虑Can we altogether dispense with the idea that我们在某些事情上的快乐，比其他更好或更有价值呢？certain things we take pleasure in are better or worthier than others?回想起之前在罗马斗兽场的例子。Think back to the case of the Romans in the Colosseum.这一做法困扰人们的地方在于One thing that troubled people about that practice is that it seemed它似乎侵犯了这些基督教徒的权利。to violate the rights of the Christian.另一个反对这一做法的Another way of objection to what's going on there就是这些罗马人在这场血腥中获得的快乐is that the pleasure that the Romans take in this bloody spectacle,这种快乐，是可耻的、堕落的、有辱人格的快乐should that pleasure, which is abased, kind of corrupt, degrading pleasure,是否应该，对某些快乐加以评价和权衡should that even be valorized or weighed in deciding在决定什么是大众的利益时？what the general welfare is?这是反对边沁的功利主义的一些意见So here are the objections to Bentham's utilitarianism现在，我们来看看，试图回应这些反对意见的人and now, we turn to someone who tried to respond to those objections,近代的功利主义者，约翰·密尔。a latter-day utilitarian, John Stuart Mill.现在，我们要看看约翰·密尔So what we need to examine now is whether John Stuart Mill给出什么令人信服的辩解。had a convincing reply to these objections to utilitarianism.约翰·密尔出生于1806年。John Stuart Mill was born in 1806.他的父亲，詹姆斯·密尔是边沁的徒弟