哈佛课程 公正：该如何做是好 中英双语-66

where people had different moral and religious convictions.我们制定法律的时候And so we should try to make law in the framework of rights,应该在 不同的道德观和宗教价值之间，保持中立。neutral with respect to these competing moral and religious views.有趣的是，有些人Now, it's interesting that others, some others,他们赞成保持中立who favor the idea of neutrality他们说，他们既不支持将 婚姻限定在男女之间，argued, not in favor of restricting marriage to a man and a woman,也不支持同性婚姻，nor in favor of permitting same sex marriage,他们以 中立为口号，they argued in the name of neutrality,要求有 第三种做法，for a third possibility.那就是 政府不再插手 婚姻这件事Which is that government get out of the business政府无需承认 任何种类的婚姻。of recognizing any kind of marriage.这是第三种可能。That was the third possibility.后来，Andrea Mayrose 提出了一个有意思的观点，Now, Andrea Mayrose had an interesting contribution to this debate.她反驳了 那些中立主义者。She had a rejoinder to people who argue for neutrality.Andrea 你在哪里？Where is Andrea?好的，Andrea，你愿意...Alright, Andrea, would you be willing...和我们分享一下你的观点。 给她一个麦克风。Share with us the view. If we can get you a microphone.请说。Share with us your view.为什么你认为Why do you think that国家想要 在道德、甚至宗教问题上，it's a mistake for the state to try to be neutral比如同性恋婚姻这个问题上， 保持中立是错误的？moral and even religious questions like same sex marriage?我不知道 国家是否可以做到 保持中立，I don't know that it is possible因为人们的生活 同他们的世界观 密不可分。because people's lives are completely embedded in how they view the world.也许 我只是同意亚里斯多德的观点，And maybe I just agree with Aristotle that即 政府的角色是帮助人们活得...the role of the government is helping people live in a sort of...对 什么是错的、什么是对的 能有一种共识。Having a collective understanding what is wrong and what is right.像同性恋婚姻 这个问题一样，Is it possible, and one could ask the same question of abortion,我们也可以问 关于堕胎的问题that we've been asking of same sex marriage.你是否认为，我们可以决定Do you think it's possible堕胎 应不应该得到 准许或禁止to decide whether abortion should be permitted or prohibited而不需要对 堕胎是否符合道德without taking a stand or making a judgment这个问题上 做出评价和判断？about the moral permissibility of abortion?不，我不认为有这样的可能。我认为，这个问题存在 如此大的争议No, I don't think it is and I think that's why it's such a controversy正是因为 人们对 一个胎儿是不是一条生命because people are so deeply committed to,这一看法 深深的影响着他们的判断。their fundamental beliefs about whether a fetus is a life or if it isn't.如果我相信 一个胎儿有生命，If I believe that, a fetus is a living being and有生存的基本权利，has rights and has fundamentally the right to live,那么对我而言，我很难说得出口：then it's very hard for me to say,“我可以置之度外，你去做 你想做的事情吧”"But I can put that aside and let you do what you want,"因为 这相当于在说：because that's like me saying,“不管我的信仰是什么，你去做 在我看来是谋杀的事情 吧。”"well, despite my beliefs, I'm going to let you commit what to me is murder."所以，我认为，So, I mean, that's just one...好的，同性婚姻 同样也是这个道理，Alright, and the analogy in the same sex marriage case is,你说，你是支持 同性婚姻。 是的。you said, you're a defender of same sex marriage. - Yes.你得出这个观点But you only came to that view只是因为 你在基本的道德问题上 被说服了once you were persuaded on the underlying moral question.好的，我认为，在美国，Right, well, I think particularly, in the US有许多人的信念 是被他们的宗教信仰所驱动的，so many people's beliefs are driven by their religious beliefs就像那天发言的Mark，我也是一个基督教徒，我也是个天主教徒，and like Mark the other day, I'm a Christian, I'm Catholic,我不得不做 很多思考，and I had to decide for myself on a lot of thought,做很多祈祷，同其他人进行了大量的交谈，a lot of prayer, a lot of conversations with other people最好得出结论说，我不同意天主教的论点that I disagreed with the Catholic standpoint我不认为 同性恋是一桩罪恶。that homosexuality itself isn't a sin.一旦 我最后得出 那样的结论.....And once I came to that, sort of conclusion, in my personal relationship with god,这看起来有点夸张，是吧？这就像是有点，oh，宗教狂的味道。I mean, that's sounds hokey, right? That's like, oh, religious!但是有许多人是信教的，But a lot of people are religious and他们的信念和他们的观点 都是来源于宗教that's where they draw theif beliefs and their views from.我赞同国家 做出决定That's when I could say, yeah, I'm down with the state saying,“同性恋婚姻合法化！”"Go same sex marriage!"因为我认为，这在道德上没有问题。because I'm okay with that and I think that's morally okay.好的，谢谢你。Good, thank you.好的，谁想回应一下？Now, who would like to reply?如果可以的话，在那里稍等一会。If you can, perhaps, hang on there for a moment.谁想回应 Andrea的发言？Who would like to reply to Andrea's idea她说，为了决定 同性恋婚姻合法化的问题that in order to decide the question of same sex marriage,我们有必要先解决it's necessary to sort out the question about the同性恋 是否道德这个问题，moral status of homosexuality还要找出婚姻的目的何在。and figuring out the purpose, the telos, the proper end, of marriage.谁不同意Andrea的观点？Who disagrees with Andrea on that point?好的。Yes.我想，你完全可以 将你的道德观点，以及Well, I think you absolutely can separate your moral opinion你对法律应该怎样制定， 把这两者区分开来。and what you think the law should be.比方说，我认为堕胎是For example, I think abortion is在道德上是 完全错误的。unequivocally morally wrong.但我不认为，将堕胎非法化 能杜绝这个现象。But I do not believe that illegalizing abortion makes it go away.我不认为，将堕胎非法化 能中止这种行为。I don't believe illegalizing abortion stops it.因此，我赞同堕胎合法化。我相信，妇女应该有这样的权利And, therefore, I am pro choice and I do believe the woman should have the choice这样就使堕胎更为安全，（注：这句翻译可能不太正确）as it gives it more safety just as,可能，我不想同一个男人结婚，maybe, morally, I don't want to get married to a man,但我也不会but I'm not going try to,阻止其他人 在法律范围内 做自己想要做事情。impede someone else's freedom to do what they wish to do in terms of the law.Andrea，你怎么看？Andrea?无论法律是把它定为 合法或非法，Whether the law makes something legal or illegal,它都是在隐含地 赞成或不赞成某些事情。it's implicitly approving or disapproving something.所以，如果让堕胎合法化的话，我们就是在说堕胎是无可争议的So if you say, by making abortion legal, we're saying it's okay.作为一个社会整体，我们相当于在说，在我们的社会中As a society, collectively, we're saying it's okay with us in our society把一个胎儿打掉 并没有什么不妥。to abort a fetus.如果我们宣布它非法，那等于是说 我们的社会认为If we make it illegal, then we're saying collectively as a society这么做是有问题的。这就是为什么社会有不同的信仰。it's not okay, and that's why societies have different beliefs.请告诉我们你的名字 我的名字是Daniel。Tell us your name before you...- My name is Daniel.Daniel，你怎么说？Daniel, what do you say?这是不是等于说 我们集体上同意 堕胎没问题？Are we saying collectively that it's okay?还是说，我们不希望Or are we saying that collectively we don't want那些 打算要做堕胎手术 的妇女women who are going to have an aboration anyway要去一些坊间的小诊所to go to clinics in the side alleys在不安全的条件下 堕胎呢？and have unsafe conditions?好的，让我们回到 同性婚姻 这个话题上来Alright, bring it to the same sex marriage case.为什么你不得不 在是否赞成 把同性婚姻合法化 这个问题上Why don't you have to decide that which position you're in favor of确定你的立场，Daniel ？same sex marriage, Daniel, being legally permitted?我认为，同性婚姻 应该毫无疑问 得到准许I think it absolutely should be legally permitted因为 这并不是说....because it's not something telling me that I need to have...我非得娶一个男人不可。I need to marry a man.如果两个大男人 自愿的想要结婚，I absolutely don't, I don't see, if two men are consenting adults and want to get married,我想不出 我有什么理由去反对它。I don't see how I could even object to that.好的，这没什么坏处。Alright, there's no harm. There's no harm done.我们两者都没什么坏处。There's no harm done either way,即使我认为， 这种做法在道德上是错的even if it is morally wrong according to me.好的，让我们看看 马萨诸塞州法庭的判决，Alright, let me turn to the way the Massachusetts court,他们在同性婚姻案子上 做出了一个标志性的判决who made this landmark ruling in the same sex marriage case,刚才Andrea和Dan 讨论的这个问题grappled with the very issue that Andrea and Dan had been discussing here.非常谢谢你们两位。Thanks to both of you very much.法庭 是怎么说的呢？What did the court say?在Goodridge一案中，This was in the Goodridge case which要求马萨诸塞州required the state of Massachusetts承认 同性恋婚姻。to extend marriage to same sex couples.法庭的意见是这么说的... 法官内部也意见不一，The court started out, well, the court was conflicted.如果你仔细读过他们的判决，你会发现，If you read that opinion carefully,法院也在 我们刚讨论过的两种意见中 徘徊。the court was conflicted as between the two positions we've just been hearing,即 Andrea和Dan的意见。defended by Andrea and by Dan.Margaret Marshall大法官的意见是这样的，The court begins, and this is Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's opinion,我们应该持 中立的态度it begins with an attempt at liberal neutrality.许多人都有很深的 宗教、道德和伦理观念Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions认为婚姻应该局限在 一男一女之间，that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman,同性恋行为 是不道德的。and that homosexual conduct is immoral.另外，也有许多人 同样有很深的 宗教、道德和伦理观念Many hold equally strong religous, moral, and ehtical convictions认为同性恋者 也有权结婚，that same sex souples are entitled to be married,同性恋应该得到 无差别的对待that homosexual persons should be treated no differently就像他们的异性恋者一样，得到公平对待。than their heterosexual neighbors. This is the court.这两种观点都并没有回答 我们的问题。Neither view answers the question before us.关键点在于 “在法律下，尊重个人的自主和平等”What is at stake is "respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."关键的是 一个个体自由选择另外一个人，At stake is an individual freely choosing the person with whom为其作出专一的承诺（婚姻）。to share an exclusive commitment.换句话说，问题不在于 这一做法是否符合道德In other words, the issue is not the moral worth of the choice而在于 个体是否有权利 作出这样的选择。but the right of the individual to make it.