哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-44

I own myself in the sense that自己是否拥有自我所有权I have a privileged claim取决于自己是否对天赋才能所带来的成功on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents有优先权in a market economy.然后Rawls说 经过再三考虑 我们没有And Rawls says, on reflection, we don't.我们可以捍卫权利We can defend rights.我们可以尊重个性We can respect the individual.我们可以维护尊严We can uphold human dignity.即使在没有自我所有权的条件下Without embracing the idea of self-possession.实际上 这就是他对自由主义质疑的回答That, in effect, is his reply to the libertarian.现在 我将转向讨论他针对I want to turn now, to his reply to精英主义拥护者提出的质疑的回答the defender of a meritocratic conception.他认为努力是道德缺失的根源Who invokes effort as the basis of moral desert.人们认为 只要是以努力工作来提高自己才能的人People who work hard to develop their talents就应该得到用自己的才能去实现的利益deserve the benefits that come from the exercise of their talents.其实 我们已经知道了Rawls对这个问题的Well, we've already seen the beginning of Rawls's answer最初一部分回答to that question.这要回到我们在谈到出生顺序时而做的民意测验And it goes back to that poll we took about birth order.他的第一个解释是His first answer is即使是职业道德 即使是奋斗精神even the work ethic, even the willingness to strive conscientiously,都依靠于不同种类的家庭环境depends on all sorts of family circumstances and和社会因素以及文化因素的偶然性 我们不能妄自称功social and cultural contingencies for which we can claim no credit.你们 你们中的大多数或我们中的大多数You can't claim credit for the fact that you,都不能妄自把最先出生这一结果 归功于自己most of you, most of us, happen to be first in birth order.而从一些复杂的哲学观点和社会原因来看And that for some complex psychological and social reasons那好像有很多方面的因素 比如奋斗that seems to be associated with striving,成功 努力with achieving, with effort.这是他的回答之一That's one answer.还有一个回答There's a second answer.那些把希望寄托于努力的人Those of you who invoke effort,实际上不是真的认为努力与道德缺失有关系you don't really believe that moral desert attaches to effort.以两名建筑工人为例Take two construction workers.其中一位很强壮 不费吹灰之力One is strong and can raise four walls in an hour就能筑高四堵围墙without even breaking a sweat.另外一个建筑工人却又矮又瘦And another construction worker is small and scrawny.得花三天的时间And has to spend three days才能完成同样的任务to do the same amount of work.但没有一个精英制度的拥护者会真的考虑到No defender of meritocracy is going to look at the effort这名可怜的建筑工人所做的努力 并为他辩护说of that weak an scrawny construction worker and say"因此他应该得到更多""Therefore he deserves to make more".所以这并不是真的努力So it isn't really effort.这是对精英制度主张的This is the second reply第二个辩驳to the meritocratic claim.努力 并不是真正的It isn't really effort精英制度的拥护者们所坚信的that the defender of meritocracy believes is the moral basis分配份额的道德基础of distributive shares.真正的基础是贡献It's contribution.你贡献了多少?How much do you contribute?但是贡献又把我们带回了关于But contribution takes us right back to自然分配的天赋和才能的问题上 不仅仅是努力our natural talents and abilities. Not just effort.并且 我们最初能够拥有那些天赋和才能And it's not our doing, how we came into the possession也不是我们的功劳of those talents in the first place.好吧 假设你们接受了以下这些说法Alright, suppose you accepted these arguments,从精英理念的立场来说 努力并不代表一切that effort isn't everything, that contribution matters,贡献才起着决定性作用from the standpoint of the meritocratic conception.努力甚至不是我们所争取的That effort, even, isn't our own doing.那是否意味着 反对是成立的Does that mean, the objection continues,也就是说 根据Rawls的说法does that mean that according to Rawls,道德缺失与分配公平 毫无关系吗?moral desert has nothing to do with distributive justice?是的Well, yes.追求分配公平并不是道德缺失Distributive justice is not about moral desert.关于这点 Rawls向我们介绍了一种Now, here, Rawls introduces an important既重要又狡猾的区分方法and a tricky distinction.用以区别道德应得It's between moral desert, on the one hand,与合法的期望的具体含义and entitlements to legitimate expectations, on the other.道德应得与合法的期望究竟有何区别?What is the difference between moral deserts and entitlements?让我们来看看两种不同的游戏Consider two different games.一个关于机会 一个关于技巧A game of chance and a game of skill.以关于纯粹的机会的游戏为例Take a game of pure chance.假如 我买了马萨诸塞州的彩票Say, I play the Massachusetts state lottery.并且中奖了And my number comes up.我理应得到我的奖金I'm entitled to my winnings.但即使我应该得到奖金But even though I'm entitled to my winnings,也没什么意义 因为这只不过是靠运气there's no sense in which, because it's just a game of luck,更不可能说 我道德上应该得到这笔奖金no sense in which, I morally deserve to win in the first place.这就是合法的预期That's an entitlement.现在让我们来看看另一种与彩票完全不同的游戏Now contrast the lottery with a different kind of game.竞技比赛A game of skill.现在 试想波士顿红袜队(棒球队名)赢了年度冠军联赛Now, imagine the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series.他们既然赢了 当然有资格得到奖杯When they win, they're entitled to the trophy.但当论及竞技比赛时 有一个问题却常被质疑But it can be always asked of a game of skill他们应该获胜吗?did they deserve to win?在原则上 在相同的比赛规则It's always possible, in principle,人们是否有权利获胜to distinguish what someone's entitled to,并且这胜利under the rules,是否应得的 这些都是能区别出来的and whether they deserve to win in the first place.这就是未动标准 即 "道德缺失"That's an antecedent standard. Moral desert.所以 Rawls认为 尽管分配公平是合法预期Now, Rawls says distributive justice is not a matter of但它在其本质上moral desert though it is a matter of并不是"合法期望" 的范畴entitlements to legitimate expectations.他对此做了如下解释Here's where he explains it."一个公平的体系 回答了人们的权利问题"A just scheme answers to what men are entitles to.满足了他们建立在社会制度之上的It satisfies their legitimate expectations as founded upon合法期望social institutions.但是他们有权利得到的东西But what they are entitled to is not proportional to与他们的内在价值并不相称"nor dependent upon their intrinsic worth.""调节社会基本结构和规定个人义务和责任的原则"The principles of justice that regulate the basic structure并不涉及道德应得 分配的份额do not mention moral desert and there is no tendency也不倾向于要与它相称"for distributive shares to correspond to it."Rawls为什么做出了这种区分?Why does make this distinction?什么才是道德上的危机?What, morally, is at stake?其中一个道德危机就是我们已经讨论过的One thing morally at stake is the whole question of effort关于努力的问题that we've already discussed.但是还有第二种是偶然事件 另外一种But there's a second contingency, a second source of道德的武断性 它超越了moral arbitrariness that goes beyond我们之前所谈到的问题 即我们是否应该认为the question of whether it's to my credit得到自然赋予的才能是理所当然的that I have the talents that enable me to get ahead.这只是一种偶然性而已And that has to do with the contingency我只是碰巧生活在推崇我这种天赋的that I live in an society that happens to prize社会中my talents.就好像David LettermanThe fact that David Letterman他只是碰巧生活在一个把很多钱和精力lives in a society that puts a great premium,都投放在某种让人傻笑的节目上的社会puts a great value, on a certain type of smirky joke,他无法选择that's not his doing.他只是很幸运 因为他碰巧生活在这样一个社会He's lucky that he happens to live in such a society.这是第二种偶然性But this is a second contingency.我们不能够选择所生活的环境This isn't something that we can claim credit for.即使我认为我的天赋和我的努力Even if I had sole, unproblematic, claim是应得的 毋庸置疑的to my talents and to my effort.仍然有一个问题需要我去解答It would still be the case, that the benefits I get即我依靠自己的天赋所获的利益from exercising those talents,是建立在道德的武断性上的depend on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.那我的天赋将会从市场经济中得到什么呢What my talents will reap in a market economy.它将基于什么呢?What does that depend on?这个社会的人们又碰巧偏好些什么呢What other people happen to want or like in this society.这取决于供求原则It depends on the law of supply and demand.不是我能够决定的That's not my doing.这当然就不是道德应得的基本原则It's certainly not the basis for moral desert.而贡献 也取决于What counts as contributing这个社会所推崇的种种素质depends on the qualities that this or that society happens to prize.在很大程度上 我们中的大多数人Most of us are fortunate to possess, in large measure,都很幸运地拥有for whatever reason,这个社会碰巧推崇的种种素质the qualities that our society happens to prize.这些素质让我们可以提供The qualities that enable us to provide