哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-57

提到了一点，是我反对sort of brought up what I see as my main objection这种目的论的推论模式的 主要理由。to this teleological mode of reasoning.Michael，我想那是你的名字，对吧？I mean, Michael, I think that's your name, right?Michael认为，行走 是高尔夫的内在部分。Believes that walking is an inherent part of golf.而我自己则认为， 行走 不是其内在部分。Myself, I believe that walking is not an inherent part of golf.我感觉，无论花多长时间，And I feel that no matter how long去争论这一点，we debate this particular point of contention都永远不会 达不成一致的意见。we're never going to reach an accord.我认为，目的论的推论方式The teleological framework of reasoning,I believe,不会真正地 让我们达成 任何一致的意见。doesn't really allow us to come to any sort of agreement.好的，你的名字？Alright,and what's your name?-- 帕特里克。-- 帕特里克，-- Patrick. -- Patrick.让我来试着 回答这些 反对的理由。Alright, let me try to address this set of objections to Aristotle.先从 Patrick的理由开始。Let me start with Patrick's;那是一条 重要的反对理由。it's an important objection.我们争论了 行走是否是 高尔夫的本质，We had a debate about whether walking is essential to golf,就是在 这样一个看上去微不足道的小事中，and even in so seemingly trivial,or at least contained, a case as that,我们都不能够 达成一致的意见。we couldn't agree.那么我们怎么可以期待，How can we possibly hope to agree?在一些更重要的事情上When the stakes are higher例如 政治共同体 的基本目的、最终目的时and when we're debating the fundamental purposes, or ends,达成 一致的意见？of political community.因此，如果我们 不能对And so, if we can't agree in公众生活的 目的 达成一致的意见，what the ends or the goods of our shared public life consist in,那我们怎么能 根据how can we base justice and rights什么是它们的 目标、目的、美德所在，on some notion of what the end,来判读 正义与否呢？or the purpose,or the good consists in?这是一个 重要的反对理由，That's an important objection.以致 当代的政治理论 担心So much so that much modern political theory takes that worry人们会在这些问题出现分歧，about disagreement over the good as its starting point,于是 得出一个结论：正义、权利和宪法and concludes that justice and rights and constitutions不能 依附于 任何一个 善的观念、should not be based on any particular conception of the good或 政治生活的目的上。or the purposes of political life,相反，我们应该 提供一个but should, instead,provide a framework of rights让人们自由选择 他们自己所认为的善that leaves people free to choose their conceptions of the good,选择 他们自己的 生活的目的。their own conceptions of the purposes of life.现在，Mary-Kate说，“如果一个人 非常适合 做某个角色，Now, Mary-Kate said, "What if a person is very well suited to having a certain role,比如，看门人的角色。like the role of being a janitor,但他却想 做其他角色，想达到更高的成就，but wants something else, wants to reach higher,想要选择 另外一种生活，那该他怎么办？”wants to choose another way of life?"所以，这就回到了 关于自由的问题。So, that goes back to this question about freedom.如果我们确定If we take our bearings as persons某些角色 就是适合我们的天性，from roles that are said to fit our nature,那么，这个角色是什么 至少应该由我们自己决定？shouldn't it at least be up to us to decide what those roles are?应该是 由我们自己决定，什么角色 是适合于我们的？In fact, shouldn't it be up to us to define what roles are suitable to us?这就让我们回到了And that's going to take us back亚里士多德to the confrontation between Aristotle on the one hand与 康德、罗尔斯， 这两种观点的对峙。and Kant and Rawls on the other.康德和罗尔斯认为，Patrick讲的 是有道理的。Kant and Rawls think Patrick has a point.他们说，正是因为在一个多元社会中，They say precisely because people disagree in pluralist societies对于 美好生活的本质 这个问题，会有分歧，about the nature of the good life,我们就不应该试图 将正义建立在 任何一种特定的看法，we shouldn't try to base justice on any particular answer to that question.所以，他们 拒绝目的论。So they reject teleology,他们拒绝，将正义 与某个善的概念 联系在一起。they reject the idea of tying justice to some conception of the good.罗尔斯式、康德式的自由主义者们 说What's at stake in the debate about teleology,在讨论 目的论时，其关键之处say Rawlsian and Kantian liberals,如下：is this;如果把正义的判断标准 依附于 某个特定的对善的看法，if you tie justice to a particular conception of the good,如果你把正义看作是，一个人和他/她的角色 之间的匹配的话，if you see justice as a matter of fit between a person and his or her roles,你没有 给自由 留下空间，you don't leave room for freedom,而想要自由 就是要 不依赖于and to be free is to be independent of从我的父母 或者 我所在的社会，所留下来的any particular roles, or traditions, or conventions任何特定的角色、传统、习俗约定。that may be handed down by my parents or my society.为了在 这两大观点 之间做出选择，So, in order to decide as between these two broad traditions,究竟是 亚里士多德是正确的，还是康德和罗尔斯?whether Aristotle is right, or whether Kant and Rawls are right,我们需要 详细研究： 权利是否优先于善？we need to investigate whether the right is prior to the good,这是问题一。question one,我们还需要研究，成为自由人，一个自由的道德主体and we need to investigate what it means to be a free person,意味着什么。a free moral agent.自由是否要求，作为一个选择主体的我，Does freedom require that I stand for toward my roles,就得去坚守 我自身的目的？my ends, and my purposes as an agent of choice?还是说，我得去 寻找发现 我真正的天性？Or as someone trying to discover what my nature really is?这两大问题，我们下次会继续讨论。Two big questions and we'll take them up next time.COPSY 让中国 了解心理www.COPSY.org英文字幕：http://forum-network.orgxiaolai中文字幕：蓬云道意校对：何_何?1社群的观点The Claims of Community今天 我们开始讨论 康德对于亚里士多德的回应Today we turn to Kant’s reply to Aristotle.康德认为，亚里士多德 错了Kant thinks that Aristotle just made a mistake.康德认为，支持 在权利公平的框架下，让人们追求自己的美好生活，是一回事 。It’s one thing, Kant says, to support a fair framework of rights within which people can pursue their own conceptions of the good life.而将法律或者正义的原则，强制地建立在 某种特定的美好生活方式之上，则是另外一回事It’s something else and something that runs the risk of coercion to base law or principles of justice on any particular conception of the good life.你们还记得亚里士多德说过，为了探寻理想的宪法You remember Aristotle says in order to investigate the ideal constitution,我们必须首先 搞清楚，什么是最好的生活方式we have first to figure out the best way to live.康德反对这一看法Kant would reject that idea.他认为宪法和法律He says that constitutions and laws and rights不应当是 体现、支持或者推崇should not embody or affirm or promote任何一种特定的生活方式any particular way of life.那与 自由不一致That’s at odds with freedom.对亚里士多德来说，法律的全部意义For Aristotle the whole point of law,（建立）城邦的目的the purpose of polis就在于塑造公民的性格is to shape character,在于培养公民的美德to cultivate the virtue of citizens,在于 培养公民的卓越品性，让其可以过上美好生活。to inculcate civic excellence, to make possible a good way of life.那就是他在《政治学》一书中告诉我们的That’s what he tells us in the politics.另一方面 对于康德来说For Kant, on the other hand,法律的目的、宪法的意义the purpose of law, the point of a constitutiion并不是 引导或者推崇美德is not to inculcate or to promote virtue.而是建立一种 公平的权利框架It’s to set up a fair framework of rights在此框架下，公民可以自由地追求 他们自己所认为的美好生活within which citizens may be free to pursue their own conceptions of the good for themselves.我们看到了他们的 正义理论的不同之处So we see the difference in their theories of justice.其差别在于 他们对于法律的认识、宪法的作用、政治的意义。We see the difference in their account of law or the role of a constitution, the point of politics,这些差异的背后是， 他们对 作为一个自由的人 究竟意味着什么，这一问题的不同认识and underlying these differences are two different accounts of what it means to be a free person.对于亚里士多德来说， 我们是自由的For Aristotle we are free只要我们有能力 实现我们潜能。insofar as we have the capacity to realize our potential.而这就将我们引到了 关于适合的问题上来And that leads us to the question of fit.人与他扮演的角色 之间的适合度Fit between persons and the roles that are appropriate to them.量体裁衣Figuring out what I’m cut out for.所谓 过自由的生活，就在于使我的潜能 得以实现That’s what it means to lead a free life, to live up to my potential.康德反对这种看法Kant rejects that idea and取而代之的是，他有名的关于自由 的严格定义instead substitutes his famously demanding notion of freedom即 自由是自主行动的能力as the capacity to act autonomously.自由意味着 按照我给自己定下的律令行动Freedom means acting according to a law I give myself.自由即自律Freedom is autonomy.在康德和Rawls眼里，道德的力量 一部分在于Part of the appeal, part of the moral force of the view of Kant and of Rawls consists in人是 自由和独立的自我，the conception of the person as a free and independent self能够选择他或她自己的目标capable of choosing his or her own ends.这种自我的形象 是自由独立的The image of the self is free and independent这给我们提供了 一个强有力的、不受任何束缚的视角offers a, if you think about it, a powerful liberating vision因为它认为， 作为自由的道德主体because what it says is that as free moral persons我们不被任何 并非我们选择的we are not bound by any ties of history历史、传统、 或承袭下来的境况 所束缚or of tradition or of inherited status that we haven’t chosen for ourselves,因此我们在选择之前，不受任何道德纽带 的束缚and so we’re unbound by any moral ties prior to our choosing them.而这意味着And that means that我们是 自由独立的、自主的主体we are free and independent sovereign selves.那些约束我们的责任，是由我们自己制订的We’re the authors of the only obligations that constrain us.那些批评康德和Rawls式的自由主义的、提倡社群主义的人们The communitarian critics of Kantian and Rawlsian liberalism认可这种自由观 的确很有说服力和鼓舞人心acknowledge that there is something powerful and inspiring in that account of freedom,人们可以 自由独立地进行选择the free independent choosing self,但是他们认为， 这一理论 漏掉了一些东西but they argue it misses something.它遗漏了整个道德生活，甚至还有政治生活It misses a whole dimension of moral life and even political life.它没法解释 我们的道德经验It can’t make sense of our moral experience因为它不能说明，我们普遍认可，甚至是推崇的 某些道德和政治义务