留下身躯，勉励世人one's physical presence in order to inspire future generations of thinkers.你想看看，边沁是什么样子的吗？You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed?下面是他的模样。Here is what he looks like.这就是他There he is.如果仔细地观察，你会发现Now, if you look closely, you will notice that the embalming他的头部，没有成功防腐of his actual head was not a success,所以，人们改用了蜡头像，更为逼真，so they substituted a waxed head and at the bottom, for verisimilitude,在底部，你可以在一个盘上看到他实际的头像。you can actually see his actual head on a plate.你看到了吗？在那儿。You see it? Right there.那么，这个故事的道德准则是什么？So, what's the moral of the story?这个故事的道德准则，顺带说一下The moral of the story - and by the way,在伦敦大学学院，董事会开会时，将他带出去，they bring him out during meetings of the board他的这份记录at University College London and the minutes record him呈上了，但没有表决。as present but not voting.这就是一个哲学家的一生Here is a philosopher in life and in death一生坚守着自己的哲学原则who adhered to the principles of his philosophy.下一次，我们将继续讨论权利。We'll continue with rights next time.千万不要错过，网上和其他观众交流的机会Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice.一起加入讨论，参加在线的投票Join the conversation, take a pop quiz,回看你已经错过了的演讲，从中学习watch lectures you've missed, and learn a lot more.justiceharvard.org。It's at justiceharvard.org. It's the right thing to do.英文字幕：http://forum-network.orgxiaolai中文字幕：何_何欢迎继续观看其他专辑【情人节动画专辑】香水有味【大众心理学】我是催眠师?1阿基米德曾说“给我一个支点，我能撬起整个地球”如果你有好的研究想法希望别人推你一把“一五一十” 资助行动也许能帮到你详情可留意www.aprilseason.com你需要的也许就是这个支点选择的自由Free to Choose欲观看、下载高清视频，可移步www.AprilSeason.com我们上次结尾的时候When we finished last time,我们讨论到，约翰密尔we were looking at John Stuart Mill's尝试对批判边沁的功利主义的人，作出回应。attempt to reply to the critics of Bentham's Utilitarianism.在他的《功利主义》一书中，密尔试图告诉那些批评者In his book Utilitarianism Mill tries to show that critics在功利主义的框架下，我们可以to the contrary it is possible within the utilitarian framework区分出高级和低级的快乐to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.对价值作出的定性区分是可能的It is possible to make qualitative distinctions of worth and we tested我们用Simpsons和莎士比亚的例子来检验了这一点。that idea with the Simpsons and the Shakespeare excerpts.而我们检验的结果，似乎质疑了密尔这种区分And the results of our experiment seem to call into question因为你们之中许多人都更喜欢Mill's distinction because a great many of you reported that you prefer看Simpsons动画，尽管你认为莎士比亚the Simpsons but that you still consider Shakespeare to be是更高级、更有价值的乐趣。the higher or the worthier pleasure.这就是我们给密尔所提出的困境。That's the dilemma with which our experiment confronts Mill.在《功利主义》的第5章，密尔试图解释What about Mill's attempt to account for the especially weighty character个人权利和正义的一些特别重要的特征of individual rights and justice in chapter five of Utilitarianism.他想说，个人权利是值得特别考虑的。He wants to say that individual rights are worthy of special respect.事实上，他甚至说，正义是In fact, he goes so far as to say that justice is最神圣的部分，也是最不可比拟的the most sacred part and the most incomparably binding part道德约束of morality.但用同样逻辑就可以攻击密尔的这一辩护But the same challenge could be put to this part of Mill's defense.为什么正义是主要组成部分，是最具道德约束力的？Why is justice the chief part and the most binding part of our morality?好吧，他说，因为从长远来看，Well, he says because in the long run,如果我们遵循正义，如果我们尊重权利，if we do justice and if we respect rights,从长远来说，整个社会的生活会有所改善society as a whole will be better off in the long run.那么，又会怎么样呢？Well, what about that?但如果在某种情况下，我们破例地What if we have a case where making an exception and侵犯个人权利，却从长远来看violating individual rights actually will make people better off让人们过得更好？in the long run?那么，这是否正确呢？Is it all right then to use people?这可以进一步的反对And there is a further objection that could be raised密尔关于正义和权利的论述。against Mill's case for justice and rights.假设，从长远来算Suppose the utilitarian calculus in the long run功利主义计算出，如果尊重个人的权利works out as he says it will such that respecting people's rights从长远来看，能使大家过得更好，is a way of making everybody better off in the long run.功利主义的这个解释是真正的原因吗？Is that the right reason?这是尊重个人的唯一理由吗？Is that the only reason to respect people?如果一个健康的家伙去检查身体（第一节的案例）If the doctor goes in and yanks the organs from医生把这个人的器官取出来the healthy patient who came in for a checkup去救活其他5条生命（站在功利主义的角度是合理的）to save five lives,但长远来看，会有不利影响there would be adverse effects in the long run.人们最终会知道这件事Eventually, people would learn about this and以后也不去做身体检查了（怕自己的器官被取出来）would stop going in for checkups.所以，功利主义的理由是真正的原因吗？Is it the right reason?这是你作为一个医生，不会从健康人身上Is the only reason that you as a doctor won't yank the organs取走器官的唯一理由吗out of the healthy patient that you think, well,如果我采用功利主义的逻辑，长远来看反而会失去更多的生命？if I use him in this way, in the long run more lives would be lost?还是另有其因Or is there another reason having to do with intrinsic respect要尊重个人？for the person as an individual?如果这个原因十分重要，但我们暂时还不是那么清楚And if that reason matters and it's not so clear即使密尔的功利主义考虑到这点that even Mill's utilitarianism can take account of it,充分研究这两个忧虑或反对的意见fully to examine these two worries or objections,我们需要更深一层来考虑。to Mill's defense we need to push further.我们要问，对于那些更高级、更有价值的乐趣And we need to ask in the case of higher or worthier pleasures是否有一些理论能够提供一个独立的are there theories of the good life that can provide关于快乐的道德判断标准？independent moral standards for the worth of pleasure?如果是能，是什么标准？这是个问题。If so, what do they look like? That's one question.关于正义和人权，如果我们怀疑密尔是否是In the case of justice and rights, if we suspect that Mill隐性地倾向于推崇高贵is implicitly leaning on notions of human dignity或者是尊重那些，不是严格意义上的功利主义者or respect for person that are not strictly speaking utilitarian,我们需要看看，是否有一些更有力的理论we need to look to see whether there are some stronger theories可以解释，密尔所直觉地认为的of rights that can explain the intuition which even Mill shares,尊重个人的原因the intuition that the reason for respecting individuals以及即使从长期来算效用更大，也不能过度地利用个人and not using them goes beyond even utility in the long run.今天，我们要谈谈关于正义的一个有力理论Today, we turn to one of those strong theories of rights.这个理论认为，每个人都很重要，不是因为Strong theories of right say individuals matter not just as个人是谋求社会更大利益的工具instruments to be used for a larger social purpose或者是为了达到效用的最大化or for the sake of maximizing utility,个人是值得尊重的、有各自生活的独立个体individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.因此，根据这一理论And so it's a mistake, according to strong theories只是把大家的偏好、价值观叠加起来or rights, it's a mistake to think about justice来决定是否正义，是错误的or law by just adding up preferences and values.我们今天要讨论的这个理论就是The strong rights theory we turn to today is自由主义。libertarianism.自由主义认真地考虑个人权利。Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.之所以称为自由主义，因为它说：It's called libertarianism because it says个人的基本权利是自由the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty正因为我们是独立的个体。precisely because we are separate individual beings.我们不会用来充当We're not available to any use that the society社会意愿、设想的工具，这恰恰是因为我们是might desire or devise precisely because we are独立的个体。individual separate human beings.我们有基本的自由权利，We have a fundamental right to liberty,这意味着我们有权自由选择，and that means a right to choose freely,过我们想要的生活，to live our lives as we please只要我们同时尊重到其他人的权利provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.这是自由主义的基本想法。That's the fundamental idea.Robert Nozick，自由主义的哲学家之一Robert Nozick, one of the libertarian philosophers认为we read for this course, puts it this way:个人拥有权利。Individuals have rights.个人权利是如此强烈和深远So strong and far reaching are these rights that they它们决定什么是国家要做的，如果有的话raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.那么，自由主义是怎么论述政府扮演的角色So what does libertarianism say about the role of government或国家的角色？or of the state?大多数现代国家会做三件事Well, there are three things that most modern states do自由主义却认为是that on the libertarian theory of rights are非法的或不公正的。illegitimate or unjust.其中之一就是家长式立法。One of them is paternalist legislation.也就是通过立法来保护民众That's passing laws that protect people from themselves,例如，安全带、摩托车头盔的立法。seatbelt laws, for example, or motorcycle helmet laws.自由主义说，如果人们系好安全带The libertarian says it may be a good thing这可能是件好事if people wear seatbelts但这应该由他们自己来决定but that should be up to them and the state,国家、政府无权强迫我们the government, has no business coercing them,