哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-4

So on the 19th day, Dudley the captain suggested他们都来一次抽签they should all have a lottery that they should draw a lot来决定谁先死，以救活其余的人to see who would die to save the restBrooks拒绝。他不喜欢抽签这种做法Brooks refused. He didn't like the lottery idea我们不知道这是否是We dont't know whether this was因为他不想冒这个险because he didn't like to take the chance或者是因为他相信，存在着绝对的道德原则or because he believed in the categorical moral principle不管怎样，最后没有进行抽签but in any case, no lots were drawn接着的那天，还是有看不到任何船舶经过The next day, there's still no ships in sight因此Dudley叫Brooks转移目光So Dudley told Brooks to advert his gaze他还怂恿了Stevenand he motioned to Steven说，只好牺牲Parkerthat the boy Parker had better be killedDudley做了个祷告。他告诉Parker他的日子不多了Dudley offered a prayer. He told the boy his time had come他用小刀杀死他，刺伤了他的颈内静脉and he killed him with a penknife, stabbing him in a jugular vein尽管良心上反抗着，Brooks享用着Parker对他们的“恩赐”Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty后来的4天，他们3个吃着这位男孩的肉和血For four days, the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy这是真实的故事。最后，他们被获救True story. And then they're rescuedDudley在他的日记写道Dudley described their rescue in his diary他委婉地描述道，With staggering euphemism, quoted on the 24th day24日 当我们正在吃着我们的早餐时，一艘船出现了as we were having our breakfast, a ship appeared at last这三个人被一艘德国船救起The three survivors were picked up by a German ship他们被送回英国，接着被逮捕和审判They were taken back to England where they were arrested and triedBrooks作为公诉方证人Brooks turned state witnessDudley和Steven被受审Dudley and Steven went to trial他们没有否认他们所做的行为They didn't dispute the facts他们声称，他们是出于需要They claimed they acted out of necessity这就是他们的辩护。他们认为That was their defense. They argued in a fact牺牲一人，救活三人是对的Better that one should die so that three could survive公诉人反驳了他们的论点The prosecutor wasn't convince by their argument他说：“谋杀就是谋杀”He said, "Murder is murder"因此，该案要继续审判。现在，想像你是陪审团So the case went to trial. Now imagine you're the jury为了简化我们的讨论In just to simplify the discussion我们先撇开法律问题Put asside the question of the law现在假设你是陪审团Let's assume that you're the jury我们要决定，他们的行为，在道义上是不是允许的Our charge is deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not多少人会投无罪释放，认为他们所做是道德上容许的How many would vote not guilty that what they did was morally permissible有多少投 有罪，认为他们所做的一切在道义上是错误的And how many would vote guilty that what they did was morally wrong大部分人都偏向了一方A pretty size of majority让我们看看大家的原因Let's see what people's reasons are让我先听听那些少数派Let me begin with those who are in the minority让我们来听听来自辩护方的意见Let's hear first from the defense为什么你会在道义上赦免他们呢？你有什么原因？Why would you morally exonerate them? What are your reasons?我认为，在道德上，他们虽然应该受到谴责I think it's morally reprehensible但道德上应受谴责和but there's a distingtion between morally reprehensible and是否要负法律责任是有区别的what makes some legally accountable换言之，就像法官说的，In other words, as the judge said,道德上不允许的，并不一定就是违法的what was always moral isn't necessarily against the law我不认为，说这也是情非得已就为盗窃、谋杀或任何非法行为来辩护I don't think necessity justifies theft and murder or any illegal act在某些时候，环境让你不得不这样做At some point, you're degree of necessity does in effect却是能为你开罪exonerate you from any guilt很好。其他的辩护有没有什么想说OK. Good. Other defenders. Other voices for the defense在道义上，解释他们所做的Moral justification for what they did我只是觉得，这是在绝望的情况下I just feel like in this situation of desperate你不得不做你需要做的，为了生存下来You've to do you've to do to survive`你不得不做你需要做的，为了生存下来。You've to do you've to do. Pretty much如果你已经19天没食物吃If you've been going 19 days without any food有人就必须牺牲，来救其他人Someone just has to take the sacrifice and people can survive而且，再说了，他们存活下来之后Furthurmore, from that, let say they survive他们可能会为社会作出贡献成员and they become productive members of a society他们回家之后，可能建立一个百万富翁慈善机构who go home and start a millionaire charity organization然后他们使所有人受益and then they benefit everybody我的意思是，我不知道他们之后会怎样I mean I don't know they did afterward.他们可能也会杀死更多的人They might kill more people, whatever如果他们回家了，变成一个刺客呢？What if they went home and turned out to be a assassin你是那个知道他们是刺客的人You're the one who know they assassinate是的That's fair好的。很好。你叫什么名字？All right. That's good. What's your name?Markies我们听完辩护的。We've heard the defense. Couple voices from the defense现在，我们需要听听控方Now we need to hear from the prosecution大多数人认为他们的做法是错误的。为什么？Most people think what they did was wrong. Why?第一，我的想法是One of the first thing that I was thinking was他们已经很久没吃过东西了they haven't been eating for a long time这影响到他们的心智they're mentally, like affected and so这样也许就能为他们的行为辩护so then that could be used as a defense possible argument他们的精神状态不佳they were not in a proper state of mind他们当时所做的决定，可能是他们不想的they weren't making decision they might otherwise they made如果这是一个吸引人的论点If that's a appealing argument你的心理状态发生了改变，于是做出这样的行为you've to be altered mindset to do something like that这可能是个挺有说服力的论点suggest that people who find that argument convincing持这种观点的人可能会认为他们的行为是不道德的do think they're acting immorally但我只想知道你的想法But I just want to know what you think我不认为他们的行为，在道德上是正确的I don't think they act in a morally appropriate way为什么呢？Why not? What do you say, here's Markies刚才 Markies就替他们辩护过了He just defended them他说，你必须这样做，在这样的情况下He said, You've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that面对Markies你会怎么说？What do you say to Markies?无论在什么环境下，人们也不能够There's no situation that would allow human beings to take把其他人的生命掌控在自己手中the idea of fate, or the other people's lives in their own hands我们没有这种权力We don't have that kind of power好的。谢谢您。你叫什么名字？Ok. Thank you. What's your name?Redd还有谁？你是怎么想的？Who else? What do you say?我想知道，如果Dudley和Steven在Richard奄奄一息时I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven had asked for Richard's consent in dying得到了他的同意，是否可以赦免他们的谋杀行为would that exonerate them from an act of murder如果在这种情形下，它在道义上是合理的If so, there's still morally justifiable很有趣。你叫什么名字？That's interesting. Consent. What's your name?CatharineCatharine，假设现在的情形就像刚才说描述的Catharine, suppose they've acted what they're now they look like现在，Duley在那里，拿着一把小刀So in this story, Duley is there. Penknife in hand不同的是，在Dudley为Parker死前祷告之前But instead of the prayer or before the prayer他说，Parker，你介意He said,Parker would you mind我们极度的饥饿We're desperately hungryParker感同身受As Parker empathized我们极度饥饿。你不能活多久了We're desperately hungry. You're not gonna to last long anyhow我可以做一回杀手吗？Parker你认为如何？Would you be a murder? How about it Parker?你觉得呢？现在是否符合道义呢？What do you think? Would it be morally justified then?假设Parker一半争着他那昏迷的眼睛，说好吧Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor eyes, said Ok我不认为这在道德上是合理的I don't think it would be morally justifiable即使这样也不是Even then it wouldn't be不是No你觉得即使取得对方同意，在道义上还是不合理You don't think even with consent it would be morally justified有没有人谁想接着Catharine说下去呢？Are there people who want to take up Catharine's consent idea?有谁认为这样做是符合道德的And who think they would make it morally justified举高你的手，如果你是这样认为Raise your hand if you think it would非常有趣。That's very interesting.为什么会取得对方同意，就会产生这样的区别？Why would consent make a moral difference?我认为，如果一开始是Parker提出这样的做法的I think if he's just making his original idea而且也是他提出来的and it's his idea to start with这将是唯一的情况，我能接受的that would be the only situation in which这将是唯一的情况，我能接受的I see it being appropriate anyway因为这样，你就不能说because that way you couldn't make the argument that是大家逼他这样说的，因为是3比1he was pressured, three to one如果是他作出决定，牺牲自己的生命If he's making the decision to give his lifeDudley他们只是充当了中间人and he took on the agency to sacrifice himself有些人可能会觉得Parker的奉献精神是值得称赞的which somebody would see it as admiralbe其他人可能不同意other people might disagree with that decision因此，如果他想出这个主意So if he came up with the idea这是唯一情况，我们肯定它是符合道德的That's the only kind of consent we could have confidence in morally那么就行了。Then it would be OK.否则，其他情形都视作是胁迫的情况Otherwise, it would kind of coerce consent under the circumstance有谁以为，即使取得Parker同意If there anyone who thinks that even the consent of Parker也不能为他们开罪，谁是这样认为？would not justify their killing him. Who thinks that?我认为，Parker是带着一种希望死去的I think Parker would be killed with the hope that他心中是想着，其他船员将会获救the other crew members would be rescued