哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-36

康德不能容忍善意的谎言，但也许他能接受Now Kant could not endorse a white lie but perhaps he could endorse一个误导的真话a misleading truth.假如 某个人送给你一条领带 作为一份礼物。你打开了那个盒子Supposed someone gives you a tie, as a gift, and you open the box那个领带难看的不得了，你会说什么？ 谢谢and it's just awful. What do you say? Thank you.你可以说谢谢你You could say thank you.但他们等着你能说说 你觉得这条领带怎样，或者 他们就直接问你But they're waiting to see what you think of it or they ask you“你觉得它怎么样？”what do you think of it?你可以说一个善意的谎言，说 它很好看You could tell a white lie and say it's beautiful.但从康德看来，这是不允许的But that wouldn't be permissible from Kant's point of view.你可以不说善意的谎言，而说 误导的真话Could you say not a white lie but a misleading truth,你打开盒子说，“我从没见过 这样的领带”you open the box and you say, "I've never seen a tie like that before.“谢谢” 你应该没这样说过吧Thank you." You shouldn't have.好That's good.你们能举一个当代政治领导人.....你吗？Can you think of a contemporary political leader who engaged...you can?你想到了谁？Who are you thinking of?还记得 克林顿的莱温斯基丑闻案件中，那些否认的措辞么？You remember the whole carefully worded denials in the Monica Lewinsky affair of Bill Clinton.那些否认的措辞 成为了弹劾听证会上Now, those denials actually became the subject of very explicit debate双方辩论的主题in argument during the impeachment hearings.我们来看一下 克林顿总统的下面这段摘录Take a look at the following excerpts from Bill Clinton.谎言 与 经过谨慎推敲后的、误导的真话，Is there something do you think morally at stake in the distinction是否在道德上有区别？between a lie and a misleading carefully couched truth?“我想对美国人民 说一件事情I want to say one thing to the American people.我想让你听我说。我要再次声明I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again.我和那位莱温斯基小姐之间，并没有建立起性关系I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky.我没有让任何人去撒谎，一次也没有。这些指控是假的。”I never told anybody to lie not a single time, never. These allegations are false.“当他说，他没有和那个女人做爱，他对美国人民撒谎了么？”Did he lie to the American people when he said I never had sex with that woman?你要知道，他不认为他有，是因为...You know, he doesn't believe he did and because of the …可是他没有解释Well he didn't explain it.他解释了，议员阁下。他的确解释了He did explain that, explain congressman.他告诉美国人民，他没有建立起性关系What he said was, to the American people, that he did not have sexual relations议员阁下，我知道你不会喜欢我这么说and I understand you're not going to like this congressman因为你会把它看成是 一个微不足道的、回避性的回答。because you will see it as a hair-splitting evasive answer.但在他的心里，他的定义是不...But in his own mind his definition was not...好吧，我明白了这一论点。 好吧。Okay, I understand that argument. -Okay.好的。以上就是这个争论All right, so there you have the exchange .你可能觉得，这只是 一名弹劾克林顿的共和党Now at the time, you may have thought this was just a legalistic hair-splitting exchange与 克林顿的辩护律师之间，对一些法律上的细节 的一场争论between a Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton and a lawyer who is trying to defend him.但根据康德，你觉得But now in the light of Kant, do you think there is something谎言和托词（让人误导的真话）之间，在道德上有什么区别吗？morally at stake in the distinction between a lie and an evasion , a true but misleading statement?我想听听 康德维护者 I'd like to hear from defenders of Kant.那些认为有区别的。准备好为康德辩护了吗？People who think there is a distinction. Are you ready to defend Kant?我认为，当你尝试说 撒谎和误导性的真话是同一个的东西时Well I think when you try to say that lying and misleading truths are the same thing;你是立足于结果主义的论点，即两者的结果都是一样的you're basing it on consequentialist argument which is that they achieve the same thing.但关键点在于，如果你说的是（误导性的）真话But the fact to the matter is you told the truth你预想大家都会相信你说的话（它也确实是真的）and you intended that people would believe what you are saying, which was the truth,这和 说谎话，然后which means it is not morally the same想大家都会相信这些话是真的（但事实上是假的），两者是在道德上是不同的as telling a lie and intending that they believe it is the truth even though it is not true.好的。你叫什么名字？ -Diana。Good. What's your name? -Diana.Diana说，康德 提到一点So Diana says that Kant has a point here and这一点可能还能帮到 克林顿....大家怎么看？it's a point that might even come to the aid of Bill Clinton and that is … well what about that?那里有人想发表意见There's someone over here.对于康德，动机是关键。因此，如果你捐东西给其他人For Kant motivation is key, so if you give to someone是为了 让你觉得自己是好人because primarily you want to feel good about yourself康德会说，这没有道德的价值。而这里，动机是一样的。Kant would say that has no moral worth. Well with this, the motivation is the same.讲 误导性的真话，你是为了欺骗，想让其他人不知道。It's to sort of mislead someone, it's to lie, it's to sort of throw them off the track动机是一样的。因此，两者没有什么区别。and the motivation is the same. So there should be no difference.好。因此，Diana，这里的动机是不同的？Okay, good. So here isn't the motive the same Diana?你是怎么看：两种情况下的动机都是一样的What do you say to this argument that well the motive is the same in both cases他企图或至少希望 追杀者会被误导？there is the attempt or at least the hope that one's pursuer will be misled?你是可以去那样想。但我认为事实是Well that – you could look it that way but I think that the fact is你的直接动机是，想让他们相信你。that your immediate motive is that they should believe you.这最终结果是，他们可能被欺骗The ultimate consequence of that is that they might be deceived而找不出 发生了什么事。and not find out what was going on.但你的直接动机是，他们应该相信你But that your immediate motive is that they should believe you因为你说的是实话because you're telling the truth.我可以帮一下？ 当然可以。May I help a little? -Sure.帮你和康德。你为什么不说...抱歉，你叫什么名字？You and Kant. Why don't you say... and what's your name, I'm sorry?Wesley。Wesley.你为什么不告诉Wesley，Why don't you say to Wesley你说两种情况下的动机都是误导，其实并不完全是这样子的。it's not exactly the case that the motive in both cases is to mislead?他们希望，他们希望别人会被误导They're hoping, they're hoping that the person will be misled by the statement“我不知道他们在哪” 或 “我从未有过性关系。”"I don't know where they are" or "I never had sexual relations."你希望他们会被误导，You're hoping that they will be misled当在你说实话时，你的动机是误导but in the case where you're telling the truth, you're motive is to mislead但同时 你是在说真话，在遵循着 道德法则while at the same time telling the truth and honoring the moral law没有逾越 定言命令and staying within the bounds of the categorical imperative.我认为，康德的答案会是.......I think Kant's answer would be.... Diana, yes? -Yes.你赞成？是的You like that? -I do.好的。我认为康德的答案是，不同于谬误Okay. So I think Kant's answer would be unlike a falsehood,不同于谎言，误导的真相 遵守了 责任unlike a lie, a misleading truth pays a certain homage to duty.因为它忠于责任，所以 哪怕它是托词，也让它变得合理化And the homage it pays to duty is what justifies that the work of, even the work of the evasion.Diana，你赞同吗？好Diana, yes you like? Okay.所以，谨慎的托词 也尊重了 道德法则的尊严And so there is something, some element of respect for the dignity of the moral law in the careful evasion因为克林顿可以直接撒谎，但他却没有。because Clinton could have told an outright lie but he didn't.所以，康德对此的看法是，谨慎的措辞，但得是真实的托词And so I think Kant's insight here is in the carefully couched but true evasion.对道德法则 尊严 的尊重，在谎言 那里是没有的There is a kind of homage to the dignity of the moral law that is not present in the outright lieWesley，对道德法则尊严的尊重 是动机的一部分。它是动机的一部分。and that, Wesley, is part of the motive. It's part of the motive.是的，我是希望他会被误导。Yes, I hope he will be misled.我是希望杀手走出马路 或者去商场 找我的朋友I hope the murderer will run down the road or go to the mall looking for my friend而不是在衣柜里。我是希望起到这样的效果instead at the closet. I hope that will be the effect.我无法控制（凶手会这样做）。我无法控制它的后果。I can't control that. I can't control the consequences.我可以控制的是，站在一边，光耀着我追求的目的But what I can control is standing by and honoring however I pursue the ends,我希望会事情发展的结果 与尊重道德法则相符I hope will unfold to do so in a way that is consistent with respect for the moral law.我觉得 Wesley没有完全被说服。但至少这引出了...Wesley, I don't think, is entirely persuaded but at least this brings out,这次的讨论引出了一些重要的this discussion brings out some of what it's at stake,康德的定言命令的一些关键点what's morally at stake in Kant's notion of the categorical imperative.“自由，只有为了自由才能被限制” ---- John Rawls上次，我们谈到了 康德的定言命令Last time we talked about Kant's categorical imperative我们认为，我们思考了 怎么用定言命令来解释 说谎的例子and we considered the way he applied the idea of the categorical imperative to the case of lying.我想简略地谈一下，康德的道德理论的其他应用I want to turn briefly to one other application of Kant's moral theory这就是他的政治理论。and that's his political theory.康德说，公正的法律产生于某种社会契约Now Kant says that just laws arise from a certain kind of social contract.但是，他所说的契约，是一个很特别的、自然存在的契约But this contract he tells us is of an exceptional nature.这个契约的特别之处在于，它不是一个真正的契约What makes the contract exceptional is that it is not an actual contract它不用 把大家聚集在一起，试图讨论出 它里面应该有什么条文that happens when people come together and try to figure out what the constitution should be.康德指出，这个能 引申出正义的契约Kant points out that the contract that generates justice是一个理性的想法is what he calls an idea of reason.它不是真的一群男人和女人举在一起，讨论里面的条文It's not an actual contract among actual men and women gathered in a constitutional convention.为什么不呢？Why not?康德的原因是，举在一起、讨论条文的男人和女人I think Kant's reason is that actual men and women gathered in real constitutional convention会有不同的利益、价值观、目标，would have different interests, values, aims,不同的谈判势力and it would also be differences of bargaining power不同的知识差异and differences of knowledge among them.所以，他们商议出来的法律And so the laws that would result from their deliberations不一定是公正的，不一定符合公正的原则wouldn't necessarily be just, wouldn't necessarily conform to principles of right而只是反映了不同的谈判势力，不同的利益， but would simply reflect the differences a bargaining power, the special interests对法律或政治的不同了解the fact that some might know more than others about law or about politics.所以康德说，“引申出公正的原则的契约，只是理性的一个想法So Kant says, "A contract that generates principles of right is merely an idea of reason但它有勿庸置疑的可行性。因为它可以迫使but it has undoubted practical reality because it can oblige每一个立法者在这样一个框架，使得制定的法律every legislator to frame his laws in such a way that能代表全民族的意志“they could have been produced by the united will of the whole nation."因此，康德是一个契约论者，So Kant is a contractarian,但他不把 法律的起源或公正，追溯到任何一份实际的社会契约。but he doesn't trace the origin or the rightness of law to any actual social contract.这引出了一个明显的问题。This contrives to an obvious question.这个假定的契约，一个从来没有的契约，其道德力量是什么?What is the moral force of a hypothetical contract, a contract that never happened?这就是我们今天的问题。而为了研究这个问题That's the question we take up today but in order to investigate it,我们需要转向一位现代哲学家 John Rawls，他在他的《正义论》一书中，we need to turn to a modern philosopher, John Rawls, who worked out in his book, A Theory of Justice,非常详细的解释了，作为公正的基础的 一个假定的协议in great detail and account of a hypothetical agreement as the basis for justice.Rawls的正义理论 和康德的理论，有两个重要方面是一致的。Rawls' theory of justice in broad outline is parallel to Kant's in two important respects.像康德，Rawls 是一个功利主义的批评者。Like Kant, Rawls was a critic of utilitarianism.“每个人拥有 公正基础上的 不可侵犯性 ”"Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice, "Rawls写道：“即使是整个社会福利，也不能凌驾于它的上面。Rawls' writes, "that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.我们的权利受公正保护，不屈从于政治谈判The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining