哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-63

中文字幕：noodles0203 欢颜 蓬云道意校对：何_何欢迎加入 译言网InPsy 翻译组http://pro.yeeyan.org/InPsy?1对同性婚姻的争论Debating Same-Sex Marriage上次结课时，我们讲到了 关于“叙事性自我”的概念。We ended last time talking aboutthe narrative conception of the self.而且，我们还 检验了这个概念We were testing the narrative conception of the self以及 团体或成员义务的概念and the idea of obligations of solidarity or membership这种义务 并不是来自于团体或成员的同意，that did not flow from consent,这种义务 与契约或协议无关that claimed us for reasons unrelated to a contract or an agreement也与 我们可能做出的选择无关or a choice we may have made.我们内部当中也有争议：And we were debating among ourselves是否真的存在 这种义务whether there are any obligations of this kind或者说，所有这些 涉及到团体和成员的 显而易见的义务or whether all apparent obligations of solidarity and membership是否可以解读为 是一种协议，或对等互利的关系can be translated into consent or reciprocity或者说，是我们作为个体，所应当承担的普遍责任。or universal duty that we owe persons qua persons.后来，就有人提出了 关于忠诚和爱国的观点。And then there were those who defended the idea of loyalty and of patriotism.关于 忠诚、团结和成员的观念So the idea of loyalty and of solidarity and of membership在我们的讨论中，成为了一种道德力量。gathered a certain kind of intuitive moral force in our discussion.接着，正如我们总结的，And then, as we concluded,我们考虑到了 一个似乎很有力的反例。we considered what seems to be a pretty powerful counter example to that idea.也就是，20世纪50年代 有关南方 种族隔离主义者的电影。Namely, the film of those southern segregationists in the 1950s.他们谈论到 他们的传统、And they talked all about their traditions,他们的历史、他们的身份，在他们一生中 是如何紧密相连。their history, the way in which their identities were bound up with their life history.你们还记得这些吗？Do you remember that?从那段历史，从那些 南方种族隔离主义者身上，对自己身份的认同感，我们能得出什么？And what flowed from that history, from that narrative sense of identity for those southern segregationists?他们说：我们不得不 保护我们的生活方式。They said we have to defend our way of life.这是否算是一个 重大或决定性的Is this a fatal or a decisive objection to对“叙述性自我”概念 的反驳？the idea of the narrative conception of the self?这就是我们上次 留下的问题。That’s the question we were left with.我今天要做的就是What I would like to do today继续深入讨论，看看从中能得出什么观点。is to advance an argument and see what you make of it.让我来告诉大家 论题是什么。And let me tell you what that argument is.我打算为I would like to defend“叙述性自我” 辩护，the narrative conception of the person来反对 唯意志论。as against the voluntarist conception.我打算为I would like to defend“团体或成员义务”的观点 来辩护the idea that there are obligations of solidarity or membership.我想说Then, I want to suggest当我们说到正义，that there being such obligations确实存在着 这样的义务，支持这样一个观点：lends force to the idea, when we turn to justice,即 当我们谈论 正义的问题时justice can’t be detached,不能脱离 “善”的问题。that arguments about cannot be detached after all, from questions of the good.但我想区分开 两种不同的方式But I wanted to distinguish two different ways正义可能以 这两种方式，与“善” 联系在一起。in which justice might be tied to the good然后，我们讨论其中的一种方式。and argue for one of them.康德和Rawls 关于 唯意志论的理念Now, the voluntarist conception of the person of Kant and Rawls是多么的有力 和具有解放性。we saw was powerful and liberating.他们的理论 另一个更吸引人的地方，是它的普遍愿景。A further appeal is its universal aspiration.即 不带偏见，不带歧视，The idea of treating persons as persons把“人” 当做 “人” 看待，without prejudice, without discrimination,我认为，这恰恰可能使得 一些人争论说，and I think that’s what led some among us to argue that,“好吧，也许是存在着 成员义务，但他们是在次要的。”okay, maybe there are obligations of membership but they are always subordinate.成员义务 必须永远处在次要地位，They must always be subordinate相比 我们作为人本身的 普遍义务，成员义务是次要的to the duties that we have to human beings as such, the universal duties.但 是这样子 吗？But is that right?如果 忠诚 必须永远 优先于If our encompassing loyalty should always take precedence其他特定的义务over more particular ones,那么，朋友和陌生人之间的区别then the distinction between friends and strangers就理应 不存在了。should ideally be overcome.这种对朋友利益的特殊关照，将成为一种偏见，A special concern for the welfare of friends would be a kind of prejudice,它将成为 衡量人与人之间的距离的 一种尺度。a measure of our distance from universal human concern但 假如你仔细地思考一下 这个观点，But if you look closely at that idea,它把我们引向的，将会是怎样一个道德世界，what kind of a moral universe, what kind of moral imagination,怎样一种道德构想？would that lead you to?由 孟德斯鸠 引发的启蒙运动The enlightenment flows from Montesquieu也许给出了一个最有力的.....我认为...gives perhaps the most powerful, and I think,最终极的、最诚实的解释the ultimately, the most honest account它解释了 这种无情的、普遍化的做法of where this relentless universalizing tendency将会把我们 引向一个怎样的道德构想世界。leads the moral imagination.下面是孟德斯鸠的表述。Here’s how Montesquieu put it.他说：“一个真正有道德的人 会帮助He said, "A truly virtuous man would come to the aid最疏远的陌生人，就像帮助 他的朋友一样。”of the most distant stranger as quickly as to his own friend."他还接着说，And then he adds, listen to this,“如果人们是完全高尚的，他们就不会有朋友。”"If men were perfectly virtuous, they wouldn't have friends."不过，很难想象这样一个世界But it’s difficult to imagine a world里面的人们 是如此有道德，以致于他们没有朋友，in which persons were so virtuous that they had no friends,而只剩下 对所有人都友好的倾向。only a universal disposition to friendliness.问题不单单是说，这样一个世界The problem isn’t simply that such a world是难以实现的、是不现实的，would be difficult to bring about, that it's unrealistic.更深层的问题是：这样一个世界The deeper problem is that such a world将难以被当成是 一个人类世界。would be difficult to recognize as a human world.人之博爱 是一种高尚的情操，The love of humanity is a noble sentiment但大多数时候，我们是依靠 小范围内的团结 来生活的，but most of the time we live our lives by smaller solidarities.这也许反映了 道德同情心的某种局限性，This may reflect certain limits to the bounds of moral sympathy,但更重要的是，它反映了一个事实，即but more important, it reflects the fact我们学会关爱别人，不是通过普遍意义的爱（博爱）that we learn to love humanity, not in general,而是通过 爱的某种具体形式（e.g.友情）but through its particular expressions.下面列了 一些理由So these are some considerations.它们 并不是 压倒性的定论，They’re not knock-down arguments,道德哲学 也不能提供 压倒性的定论。but moral philosophy can’t offer knock-down arguments,这些理由 是我们but considerations, of the kinds that we've been一直在讨论和争辩的discussing and arguing about all along.我们先假设 它们是正确。Well, suppose that’s right.判断 刚才关于个人与义务的构想One way of assessing whether this picture of the person是否正确，其中一种方法来就是 看看and of obligation is right, is to see它导致的结果 是什么。what are its consequences for justice.下面是列举了 一系列问题，And here is where is confronts a serious problem,我们回到 上次提到的 南方种族隔离主义者。and here we go back to our southern segregationists.他们感受到历史的沉重。They felt the weight of history.我们值得钦佩 这些种族隔离主义者的品德吗？Do we admire their character, these segregationists,这些种族隔离主义者 想保持他们的生活方式。who wanted to preserve their way of life?我们能坚定的说.....Are we committed to saying,如果我们赞成 团体成员义务的观点，if we accept the idea of solidarity and membership,我们能坚定的说，are we committed to saying正义 是绝对的that justice is tied to good in the sense that justice means不管你是处于 哪个特殊群体，不管他们认为 正义应该是怎样的，whatever a particular community or tradition says it means,包括那些 种族隔离主义者。including those southern segregationists.下面，我们得 区分出两种不同方式，Here it’s important to distinguish two different ways正义 可以以这两种方式与 “善” 联系在一起。in which justice can be tied to the good.其中一种方式是 相对的。One is a relativist way.这种方式认为，That’s the way that says,思考权利，思考正义，to think about rights, to think about justice,就要看看 过去所有的群体、所有时代里look to the values that happened to prevail都占主导的 是什么价值标准in any given community at any given time.不能以 某种外部标准来判断，Don’t judge them by some outside standard,而要 把正义看作是but instead conceive justice as a matter of being faithful to所有时代 都一致赞同的看法the shared understandings of a particular tradition.但 这种方式有一个问题。But there’s a problem with this way of tying justice to the good.也就是 它把正义 完全当作是传统。The problem is that it makes justice wholly conventional.把正义 看作是 环境的结果。A product of circumstance,它使得 正义 丧失了它关键的特征。and this deprives justice of its critical character.而 第二种方式But there is a second way in which正义 则与善行相连或相关。justice can be tied with or bound up with the good.第二种方式不是相对的，它把正义与 什么是善 联系起来，On a second non-relativist way of linking justice with conceptions of the good,正义的原则 是否合理，不是依靠principles of justice depend for their justification not on the values恰好在某一特定的时刻或某一特定地点 占主导 的价值标准，that happened to prevail at any given moment in a certain place,而是根据 它是否具有道德价值 或 它的目的是否本质是好的。but instead on the moral worth or the intrinsic good of the ends rights serve.以非相对性的观点，来判断是否 认可某个权利On this non-relativist view the case for recognizing a right就得看看depends on showing that它是否 尊重或促进 某种重要的人类善行。it honors or advances some important human good.第二种方式The second way of tying justice to the good严格地说，并不属于 社群主义的观点，is not strictly speaking, communitarian,这里的社群主义 是指