今天这一讲有两个内容要讲 ROFESSOR: So there's two things that we need to do in today's lecture.
一是结束义务论的讨论 The first is to finish up our discussion of deontology,
时间有些紧 which was necessarily quite rushed.
我们希望大概一堂课讲康德 We're trying to do Kant in roughly a lecture. But I do want to
今天我就将结束这部分内容 get to the end of that discussion.
第二个内容需要你们使用点击器表达观点 And the second, which will allow you to use your clickers and express your opinions,
也就是讨论朱迪斯•汤姆森的电车问题论文 is to talk through the structure of Judith Thomson's trolley problem paper.
上一讲我简要讲解了康德《道德形而上学基础》的选段 So you recall from last lecture that our goal in
上一讲我简要讲解了康德《道德形而上学基础》的选段 understanding the very brief selection from Kant's
上一讲我简要讲解了康德《道德形而上学基础》的选段 Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals that we read was to
目标是理解第一卷第一章中三大论断 try to make sense of the three claims that he makes in the
目标是理解第一卷第一章中三大论断 first book, first chapter, of that volume.
这些论断我逐一讲过 它们是这样的 And those claims, to which I've now added some underlining, are the following.
第一条论断是 要具有道德价值 行为必须是出于义务的 The first is the claim that in order to have moral worth, an action needs to be done from duty.
康德在这里希望区分开的是遵循义务的行为 And the distinction that Kant is making there is the
康德在这里希望区分开的是遵循义务的行为 distinction between doing something in keeping with duty,
行为仅仅同道德要求相一致是不行的 that is, something that conforms to what morality demands of you,
除了要遵循义务以外 还需要出于义务 and doing something not merely in keeping with, but also from duty.
康德认为 要具有道德价值 And Kant's picture is that the moral worth of an action is
行为仅仅遵循义务是不够的 determined not merely by it being in keeping with duty.
这是必要但非充分条件 That's a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
决定道德价值的是 行为遵循义务 What determines the moral worth of an action is that it be done in keeping with duty
而且是为了遵循义务 也就是出于义务 for the sake of being in keeping with duty, that is, it be done from duty.
康德在《基础》中提出的第二条论断是 The second thing that Kant says, the second proposition
康德在《基础》中提出的第二条论断是 which he seeks to defend in the Groundwork,
第一条论断中讲的"出于义务的行为" is the claim that an action done from duty--
第一条论断中讲的"出于义务的行为" that's the thing we were talking about in the first claim--
其道德价值并不体现在所想取得的目标上 an action done from duty has its moral worth not in the purpose that is to be attained by it,
不体现于古希腊哲人说的telos(目标)上 not in what the Greeks would call its telos, its goal, its aim,
而在于决定行为所依据的格律 but rather in the maxim according to which the action is determined.
也就是说 行为在某种描述下进行 That is, what determines the morality of the action on the Kantian picture
在康德看来 决定行为道德性的是这种描述 is the description under which the action is performed.
上次答疑的时候很多人来找我 Now, a number of you came to office hours yesterday, and we
我们活跃地探讨了怎样确定 had a rather lively discussion of how it is that one goes
某种事物算不算是格律 about determining what things count as maxims.
我鼓励对此问题感兴趣的同学选修一门伦理课 And I encourage those of you who are interested in that question to take an ethics course,
课上你们将更详细地理解康德的作品 where you can work through Kant's writings on this question in more detail.
对于这门课而言 我们只需要了解 For the purpose of our class, all we need to hold on to is
康德在这里感兴趣的简单思想是 某种描述下的行为 the simple idea that what Kant is interested in here are acts under a description,
而这种描述需要能够满足特定类型的测试 and that that description is going to have to satisfy a certain sort of test,
等下我会讲到 as we'll find out in a moment.
这是康德的第二条论断 So that's Kant's second claim.
康德的第三条论断是关于义务 这是义务论的核心概念 Kant's third claim is that duty, which is the central notion to deontology --
义务论deontology中的deon就是义务 deon, duty is at the core of deontology --
义务是"行为遵从法则的必然性" duty is "the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law."
也就是说 不仅行为时需要 And the idea here is that not only do you need to
心中铭记遵循法则这一目标 act with the goal of conforming to the law in mind,
不仅需要让自己的行为符合外部规范 not only do you need to do so in a way
不仅需要让自己的行为符合外部规范 that you articulate your actions as falling under that norm,
还需要行为所遵循的道德法则是在自身内部形成的 but you do so because you take the moral law to be morally binding upon you,
因为你意识到这是理性要求你的 because you recognize that it is what rationality demands of you.
道德法则是支配你行为的法则 The moral law turns out to be the law of governing your behavior
是你为自身作为理性存在所设定的 that you set for yourself as a rational being.
根据康德 你的行为只有这方面 It is the only aspect of your behavior on the Kantian picture
不受到周围世界的偶发因素所决定 that isn't determined by the contingent forces of the world around you.
它决定于你对自己角色的认识 It's determined by your recognition of your role as
即你能够按照自己设定的法则约束自身 somebody capable of binding themselves to a law that they themselves set.
我说过 我们对这三大原则感兴趣是因为 So as I said, the reason we were interested in these three principles
想理解康德关于定言令式的著名概念 was to get to Kant's famous formulation of the categorical imperative.
上一次课结尾 我讲了定言令式的一种形式 And we closed lecture last time by meeting one member of the categorical imperative family
这是对康德如下问题的回答 "何种法则能够决定意志" in response to Kant's question: "What sort of law can it be,
"而不用涉及任何预期效果" the thought of which must determine the will without reference to any
"让意志无条件地具有绝对的善" expected effects so that the will can be called absolutely good without qualification?"
康德将这作为一个吊人胃口的设问 Kant sets himself, as I said, this cliffhanger of a question,
这个问题的答案就是定言令式的第一种形式 and answers it with the first member of the categorical imperative family.
这是意志所对应的"行为及法则本身之间的普遍一致性" It's the will's "universal conformity of its actions to law as such."
康德认为 只有这样人才能自治 而不是他治地行为 Only thereby, says Kant, can one act autonomously and not heteronomously.
自治和他治的区别是什么呢 What does it mean to act autonomously as opposed to heteronomously?
看看这两个词 autonomous和heteronomous Let's look at the words: autonomous, heteronomous.
两者都包含nomos 表示法则 You'll notice that they both have here the word nomos, that is, law.
两者区分了你所服从的法则 And they distinguish the law to which you're subjected by
前者是auto-nomos saying that in one case, it's an auto-nomos,
而后者是hetero-nomos and in the other case, it's a hetero-nomos.
auto-nomos是什么意思 Auto-nomos. What could that be?
想想其它具有auto-前缀的词 Let's think of other words where we have this prefix auto-.
比如automobile(汽车) How about automobile? What's an automobile?
automobile也就是能自我推动的工具 An automobile is something that is self-propelled.
由自己的力量所推动 It is propelled by its own strength.
康德所说的"自治"行为 To act autonomously, on Kant's picture,
也就是在自己设定的法则下行为 is to act on the basis of a law that you yourself have imposed.
你是auto-nomos You are auto-nomos,
服从一个来自自身的法则 subject to a law that comes from within.
相反 hetero-nomos是什么 By contrast, what is it to be hetero-nomos?
想想heterosexual(异性恋) Well, what is it to be heterosexual?
heterosexual表示被不同于自己性别的人所吸引 What it is to be heterosexual is to be attracted sexually to
heterosexual表示被不同于自己性别的人所吸引 individuals that have a different gender than you do.
那hetero-nomos表示什么 So what is it to be hetero-nomos?
它表示服从的法则不来自于你自身 It's to have law given unto you that comes from outside of you,
来自于不同于你的事物 that comes from something different from you.
康德认为 自治 自我法则制定要成为可能 So Kant's picture is that autonomy, self-lawgiving, is possible
只有当行为出于内部 而非外部世界时才能实现 only when the law to which you conform your behavior
只有当行为出于内部 而非外部世界时才能实现 comes not from the contingencies of the world, but comes from within.
这里 康德同爱比克泰德及波伊提乌关心了同一类问题 In this way, Kant is concerned with the same sorts of
这里 康德同爱比克泰德及波伊提乌关心了同一类问题 questions that Epictetus and Boethius are.
他们都关心人类自由如何才能成为可能 Both of them are profoundly concerned with how it is that human freedom is possible,
康德认为 要想让人类自由成为可能 and Kant's picture is that human freedom becomes possible
需要人按照自身所决定要遵循的法则来支配行为 when you govern your actions on the basis
需要人按照自身所决定要遵循的法则来支配行为 of what do you yourself decide to be norms that you want to conform to.
特别地 当你让自己的行为符合定言令式 In particular, when you conform your actions to the categorical imperative,
按照我们最开始看到的那种形式 which says, in the formulation that we see at the beginning of this section, that
你应该 "除非愿意行为格律成为普遍法则" you should "never act [except] in such a way that you cannot also will that your maxim"--
"否则永远不要这样做" there's your maxim again--"should become a universal law."
你按照这种方式行为时 When you act in such a way
不将外部世界的偶然因素考虑进来 that you don't take the contingencies of your situation into consideration--
只将你自己看作在你处境下都会有相同行为的众多存在中的一员 but rather that you think of yourself as one among any number of beings
只将你自己看作在你处境下都会有相同行为的众多存在中的一员 who in your situation would do exactly what you do--
只有此时 你才自由于外界环境的偶然因素 only then do you become free of the contingencies of circumstance.
在这种观念下 超越你经历的偶然因素的界限 So the picture is that in some ways, by stepping beyond the
在这种观念下 超越你经历的偶然因素的界限 bounds of the contingent features of your experience,
超越你自身的界限 by stepping beyond the bounds of yourself,
你由是从周围世界的偶发因素中获得了自由 you thereby gain freedom from the contingencies of the world around you.
康德认为 如果你接受这种观念 And Kant suggests that if you take this on as a picture,
你会发现它同理性规则相一致 you will come to see that it conforms with the rules of rationality.
假设你碰到了一种非常特定的情况 So, he says, suppose you're confronted with a very particular case
你希望在特定格律下进行行为 of an act that you want to perform under a particular maxim.
你给自己设定的格律是 "如果我许了诺言" The maxim you set for yourself is, "when I make a promise and
"但这种诺言很难遵守 那我就会违背诺言" it's going to be a pain in the neck for me to keep that promise, I'll break that promise.
格律也就是 许下撒谎的承诺没有关系 That is, the maxim is, it's OK for me to make lying promises."
康德问 假设在这种描述下 And Kant asks, suppose that you made, under that description,
你许下了一个不想遵守的承诺 a promise that you didn't intend to keep.
这种格律能够被普遍化吗 Can that maxim and be universalized?
他说 假设能 Well, he says, suppose that it were.
假设每个人许诺时 Suppose everybody, when they made promises,
心里都盘算着方便时就守诺 did so only with the thought that they would keep them when convenient
不方便时就不守诺 and not when they were inconvenient.
康德说 如果是这样 那么世界就没有可靠承诺这种事物了 Were that to happen, says Kant, there would be no such thing as reliable promising.
为什么 因为承诺就像阳台 Why? Well, because promises are like balconies.
如果阳台容易坍塌 没人会到阳台上去 We don't step out on a balcony if there's a good chance that
如果阳台容易坍塌 没人会到阳台上去 the balcony will break when we step out on it.
其他人对我们的承诺若是如此 我们也不会去相信 And we don't step out on promises, on commitments that others make to us,
除非我们确定承诺会被遵守 unless we are close to certain that that promise will be preserved.
康德说 如果每个人都许下撒谎的承诺 So, says Kant, since the practice of promising would
承诺这种行为就将土崩瓦解 break down if everybody who found it convenient made lying promises,
因此撒谎的承诺并不是道德法则要求我们做的 it is not in keeping with what the moral law demands of us that we make a lying promise.
而且康德认为 And, Kant suggests,
这种框架能够推广到所有的义务上 this framework can be extended to all the kinds of duties that there are.
康德认为 There are, suggests Kant,
我们具有两类义务 对自己和对他人 two categories of obligation that we have towards ourselves and to others.
我们有对自己的义务和对他人的义务 We have duties to ourself and duties to other people.
另外康德认为 我们有完全义务 即总需要做的 And, in addition, says Kant, we have perfect duties, things that we need always to do,
以及不完全义务 即有时需要做的 and imperfect duties, things that we need sometimes to do.
康德在我们阅读的材料中表示 在所有这四种情况中 In all four of these cases, says Kant in the reading that we did,
定言令式都能指引我们思考 we can see that the categorical imperative gives us guidance
特定格律下的行为是否被允许 as to whether an action under a maxim is permitted.
如果能被普遍化 格律下的行为就是允许的 The action under the maxim is going to be permitted if it can be universalized,
反之行为则是禁止的 and it's going to be prohibited if it can't.
如果我们问 许下撒谎的承诺是否正确 So if we ask this question, is it all right to make lying promises,
我们可以假设每个人都许下撒谎的承诺 and we say to ourself, suppose everybody made lying promises,
我们发现 撒谎的承诺被定言令式所禁止 we discover that the act of lying promises is prohibited by the categorical imperative,
因为它无法普遍化 because it can't be universalized.
假设我们问 Suppose we ask the question,
"对世界感到失望时 自杀是否正确" "is it OK to commit suicide when feeling frustrated with the world?"
康德说 假设任何人都这样 And Kant says, suppose everybody did that.
这个行为 这种论述会土崩瓦解 The practice, the convoluted argument would break down,
因为不会剩下任何能自杀的人 because there would be nobody left to kill themselves.
论述就是如此 So goes the argument.
假设我们问 我们是否有培育自身天赋的义务 Suppose we ask ourselves whether we have a duty to cultivate our talent?
康德说 假设没人培育自身天赋 Kant says: suppose nobody cultivated their talents.
我们所生活的世界将变为没人愿意生活于其中的世界 The world in which we live would be one in which nobody would want to live.
因此 我们有这样做的道德义务 And consequently, we have a moral obligation to do so.
最后的问题是 "我们是否有施舍钱财给需要的人的义务" Finally, he asks, "do we have an obligation to give money to those in need?"
还是假设 如果这是普遍法则 And asks again, what would happen if it were a universal law
没人给需要的人施舍钱财 that nobody gave money to those in need?
这时 我们将再次看到有序世界的瓦解 And again we discover a breakdown of an ordered world in which we want to survive.
当然 这方面存在质疑的余地 Now, there's room for questioning--
实际上 这四种推导都有质疑的余地 in fact, there's room for questioning all four of these derivations,
不过一般认为 撒谎承诺的推导是最有效的一个 though it's generally accepted that the lying promise derivation is the most effective of them.
再看看康德关于这些怎么说 But let's look instead at what Kant says about them,
如果这些推导有效的话 if it were to turn out that these derivations worked.
康德说 "这是很多实际义务中的一些" Kant says, "these are some of the many actual duties whose
"从单一原则的推导非常明显" derivation from the single principle above is clear."
"明显"说得有点夸张 我们看看后面的推导 "It's clear" is a bit of a stretch, but we can see how that derivation would go.
关于道德 这告诉我们什么 What does this tell us about morality?
康德说 这告诉我们 需要确定一个行为是否道德时 Kant says it tells us that when we take an act and try to determine whether it's moral,
我们需要判别 自己是否成为例外 we need to check to see whether we're making an exception for ourselves.
行为时 我们需要确保行为格律能成为普遍法则 When we act, we need to be able to will that a maxim of our actions become a universal law.
违背时 康德认为 我们不愿意我们的格律成为普遍法则 When we transgress, says Kant, we don't will that our maxim should become a universal law,
而愿意格律的对立面维持为普遍法则 but rather that the opposite of this maxim should remain a law universally.
假设你喜欢坐在教室最后两排 So suppose you like to sit in the last two rows of this classroom,
哪怕并不是因为来晚了 even though you arrive not late to class.
你能愿意这成为普遍法则吗 Can you will that this become a universal law,
还是说 只有当其他人愿意往里坐 or is this something that has works for you only if others are willing
甚至坐到台阶上 你才能像这样做 to sit further in so that there's room for people on the stairs?
康德认为 道德法则要求你往里移动 Kant would say that the moral law demands of you that you move inward,
因为你并非迟到但就坐于最后两排 because you're sitting in those last two rows, despite your not late arrival,
依赖于其他人的不同做法 depends on other people doing something different.
盗窃依赖于其他人遵守财产法则 Stealing depends on other people respecting the laws of properly.
你不支付地铁通行费依赖于 Your not paying the toll on the subway depends on other
其他人支付足够的钱来维持地铁运行 people paying the toll so that there's enough money to keep up the subway.
康德认为 当你把自己作为例外时 你就违背了道德法则 When you make an exception for yourself, says Kant, you violate the moral law.
我开始讲政治哲学时还会回到这个问题上 And we'll return to this at the opening of our discussion of political philosophy,
也就是讲囚徒困境的时候 when we talk about prisoner's dilemma.
之前我提到过 Now, I mentioned in passing
你们只碰到了定言令式的一种形式 that you had met one member of the categorical imperative family,
这种形式有时被称为"普遍法则公式" that you had met what's sometimes called the formula of the universal law:
人应该"让行为只遵从愿意使其成为普遍法则的格律" that one should "act only in accordance with that maxim
人应该"让行为只遵从愿意使其成为普遍法则的格律" through which you can, at the same time, will that it become a universal law."
康德以四种方式给出了定言令式 Kant put the categorical imperative four different ways
原因有很多 for a number of reasons.
他说 其中一个原因是 One of which, he says, it that in certain cases, it's easier
在稍有不同的框架中 这让定言令式更容易应用 to see how to apply the categorical imperative if we frame it in a slightly different way.
我还打算介绍一下其它三种形式 主要是因为 And I want to introduce you to the other three, largely because
第二种形式对今天课程后半段的内容很重要 the second of these is going to play a central role in the second half of today's lecture.
康德认为 如下说法是等价的 So Kant claims that it is equivalent to saying that
"除非愿意自己的行为格律成为普遍法则 否则永远不要这样做" "you should act only in such a way that you can will your maxim to be universal"
等价于 "行为中你应当把人性" to say that "you should act so as to treat humanity,
"不管是自己还是其他任何人的 在任何情况下同样当作目的" whether in your own person or that of any other, in every case as an end,
"而不仅仅当作手段" and never merely as a means only."
不要把自己当作实现目的的手段 Do not use yourself as a means to an end,
也不要在交往中仅仅把其他人当作手段 and do not use others in your interactions with them merely as means.
将其他所有人都看成是目的 Treat humanity and all others as ends in themselves.
康德说 等价的还有自治公式 Equivalent to that, says Kant, is the formula of autonomy,
之前我已经简单讲过了 which we've already talked about briefly.
"如此行为 使得通过你的格律 你能成为普遍法则的立法者" "Act so that through your maxims, you could be a legislator of universal laws."
如此行为 使得你能成为自我法则制定者 Act in such a way that you are self-lawgiver
制定的法则符合理性 with respect to rules that reason endorses.
最后是一个复杂的概念 And finally, a rather complicated notion,
有时被称为"目的王国公式" sometimes called the kingdom of ends formulation,
"行为遵循一个为可能目的王国制定普遍法则的成员的格律" "act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws
"行为遵循一个为可能目的王国制定普遍法则的成员的格律" for a possible kingdom of ends,"--
一个和谐社会 其中每个人根据你制定的法则而存在 a harmonious society in which everybody exists according to the laws that you give.
我讲过 康德的内容我只讲大约1小时 As I said, we have only about an hour's worth of Kant,
第三第四两种形式我不会细讲 so we won't focus on the third and the fourth.
不过我希望你们关注"人性目的公式" But I do want to call your attention to the formula of humanity,
因为它对朱迪斯•汤姆森的电车案例分析具有重要意义 because as I said, it's going to play a central roll in Judith Thomson's ultimate diagnosis
因为它对朱迪斯•汤姆森的电车案例分析具有重要意义 of what may be going on in our intuitions about trolley cases.
下面结束对康德的讨论 So let me close the discussion of Kant by trying to connect
并将它同一个相关的内容联系起来 it back to the mini-unit of which it is a part.
记得上周四17日这部分课程开始时 You'll recall that we began this section of the course
记得上周四17日这部分课程开始时 on the seventeenth, that is, last Thursday,
我们考虑了结果主义道德理论 with thinking about consequentialism as a moral theory.
我想问的问题是 And the question that I want to ask is:
这单元开始时我们所关注的两种道德理论有什么共同点 what is there that is common to the two concrete moral theories that we've
这单元开始时我们所关注的两种道德理论有什么共同点 taken a look at at the beginning of this unit?
这之前 我们审视了结果主义和义务论的不同之处 We've looked so far as some of the differences between
这之前 我们审视了结果主义和义务论的不同之处 consequentialism on the one hand and deontology on the other.
不过我认为 在讲到实际应用之前 思考两者的共同点也很重要 But I think it's important, in moving on to some of their practical applications,
不过我认为 在讲到实际应用之前 思考两者的共同点也很重要 to think about what they have in common.
这两种目的论 And what they have in common is that both teleology,
一种是结果主义 我们特别讨论了效用主义 consequentialism, utilitarianism in the particular form that we found it--
另一种是义务论 都禁止第一人称例外论 and deontology prohibit first-person exceptionalism.
康德说 我的愿望要成为意愿行为的基础 Kant says: my desires may serve as bases for willed actions
仅当我能同时一致地愿意其他人 only if I can, at the same, coherently will that others in
在类似环境下按照我所选择的行为行事 similar circumstances would act in a way that I am choosing to act.
只有我假设其他人也被允许这样做时 我才允许自己这样做 I'm only allowed to do things that I'm going to assume other people are also allowed to do.
密尔引述了效用主义始祖边沁的一视同仁原则 And Bentham, quoted in Mill, Bentham, the great grandfather of utilitarianism,
"每个人只算作一 没有人多于一" says, "everyone is to count for one, no one for more than one."
密尔在其最大幸福原则中论及所有人的幸福 Mill, in his greatest happiness principle, speaks of the happiness of all,
而不是个人主观层面的幸福 not the happiness from the subjective perspective.
道德的挑战是 对世界的看法 So the challenge of morality is that of viewing the world
不从将你自身需求作为世界最中心需求这一立场出发 not from the stance of your own needs as the most central set of needs in the world,
而是从将你自身需求 but rather from the perspective of your own needs
处于世界60亿同等有情众生需求之中这一立场出发 as one set of needs among those of six billion equally sentient beings.
道德的问题是 人往第一人称例外论的倾向 Now the problem for morality is that the tendency towards first person exceptionalism,
认为自身需求比任何其他人需求都重要的倾向 the tendency to take one's own needs as more important than the needs of anybody else
这也许是最广泛 最普遍的心理偏见了 is perhaps the most widespread and pervasive psychological bias.
我们在三月假期后进入政治哲学单元时 And when we get to the unit on political philosophy after March break,
会讨论到社会结构构建方式 we'll talk about ways in which social structures are put into place
如何帮我们处理这类问题 to help deal with this sort of tension.
哪怕是在上周四的密尔选段中 Even in the passages from Mill that we read for last Thursday,
密尔也讨论了 应该在个人中培育怎样的态度 Mill talks about what sorts of attitudes it's important to cultivate in individuals
从而让他们开始从道德角度审视世界 so that they begin to view the world from a moral perspective.
在我们阅读的亚里士多德《尼各马可伦理学》卷十中 In the selections that we read from book ten of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics,
亚里士多德问 Aristotle asked,
社会应该如何构建 才能让人们更容易按道德行事 in what way should society be structured to make it easy for people to act morally?
我们课程要回答的最后一个问题 And in some ways, the question with which we're going to close the course--
理性和非理性劝说如何作用 how does rational versus nonrational persuasion work,
关于美好生活的文学而非议论性表现形式具有什么作用 what are the roles of literary as opposed to argumentative representations of the good life--
某些方面而言 这也是这个困境的一个版本 is a version of this dilemma, operationalized.
在认为自身利益比别人重要 How is it, given an inevitable human tendency
这种不可避免的人类倾向前提下 to take one's needs as more important than others,
如何构建社会 才能使所有人的需求得到满足 how is it possible to structure society in such a way that the needs of all are met?
这就是我想经由康德所说的 So that's what I want to say by way of the Kant.
在这一讲的后半段 And in the remainder of lecture, I want to ask you to
我希望你们拿出点击器 享受上课过程 take out your clickers and enjoy the ride.
你们知道 So as you know,
我们这次阅读的论文 the paper which we read for today is a
是哲学家朱迪斯•贾维斯•汤姆森在1980年代中期 great and intricate paper by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson
所写的精妙论文 written in the mid-1980s in
作为对另一位世纪中期女哲学家菲莉帕•傅特更早论文的回应 response to an earlier paper by another mid-century woman philosopher, Philippa Foot.
菲莉帕•傅特和朱迪斯•汤姆森在这些论文中 And what Philippa Foot and Judith Thomson are interested in in these papers
系统性地探索了各种情况 is a systematic exploration of a number of cases
这些情况能激起大多数人关于怎样做正确的强烈直觉 which seem to evoke, in most subjects,
这些情况能激起大多数人关于怎样做正确的强烈直觉 pretty powerful intuitions about what the right thing to do is,
但这些直觉的解释却难于系统化解释 but which seem to adduce intuitions the explanation for which is hard to systematize.
你们都知道 第一种情况 也就是"电车司机"的情况 So as you know well, the first case, which we'll call trolley driver--
这是电车司机 there's the driver-- is this.
这是电车 沿轨道飞驰 这样下去 5个人将毙命 There's a trolley, hurtling down a track, in such a way that going to kill five people.
不过 这里存在另一条轨道 电车可以转向到这条轨道上 But it turns out that there is a second track onto which the trolley could be diverted,
另一条轨道上只有1个人 where there is only one person.
问题是这样的 电车司机开着电车 And the question is this. The trolley driver is driving the trolley.
电车奔向5人 如不采取措施 这5个人都将被撞死 It's heading towards the five people in such a way that he is going to kill the five.
道德是要求 还是禁止 Should he, is he morally required to, morally prohibited from,
还是既不禁止也不要求 而是允许司机 or perhaps neither prohibited nor required but rather just permitted,
让电车改道 只撞向那一个人 to turn the trolley onto the track where there is only the one?
注意到这是一个理想化的问题 Now notice that though this is framed as an idealized problem,
威胁的转向 是做决定者总会面临的问题 the diversion of threat is something that decision-makers face all the time.
假设有一架已经失灵的飞机 Suppose there is an airplane that has become incapacitated,
放任不管 它将坠落到一座大城市 that's falling in such a way that it's going to land on a large city,
驾驶员能够让飞机转向 降落在人口较小的区域 and it would be possible to divert the plane so that it falls on a less populated area instead.
假设某种疾病能够导致很多人死亡 Suppose that there is an illness which is taking the lives of many people,
但如果将患病者都隔离起来 导致一定数量的死亡 but if one quarantines those who are ill, causing that number to die,
剩下的人则都能不受疾病威胁 the rest of the population will be spared.
一种又一种情况中 我们都面临电车问题所类似的困境 In case after case, we face dilemmas with roughly the structure of trolley.
虽然电车困境有些理想化 So though these cases are idealized, in the sense that
我们假设知道确定的后果会是什么 we're granting ourselves that we know with certainty what the outcomes will be,
但这绝不是毫无用处的 it is, I think, not a useless exercise,
哪怕我们所要考虑的是现实世界道德问题 even if our concern is real-world morality, to think
哪怕我们所要考虑的是现实世界道德问题 through what the right thing to do is in these cases.
首先从电车司机的情况开始 So let's start with the case of the trolley driver, driver of the trolley.
电车沿轨道飞驰 The trolley is heading down the track in such a way that
不采取任何行动 5个人将被撞死 the driver will, with the trolley, kill five people if he doesn't turn it.
司机可以选择让电车改道 撞死另一轨道上的1个人 He faces the choice of turning the trolley onto the track where there is the one.
问题 Question.
道德强制要求他改道 偏离5人撞向1人 Is it morally mandatory for him to turn a trolley from the five to the one?
还是说 道德上虽然不强制 但允许他改道 Is it morally permitted, but not morally mandatory, for him to turn the trolley
偏离5人撞向1人 from the five to the one?
还是说 道德禁止他改道 偏离5人撞向1人 Or is it morally prohibited for him to turn the trolley from the five to the one?
好 看看结果如何 OK. So let's see how the numbers come out.
我记一下 后面我还要用到 I'm going to write these down, because we're going to need them for later.
7%的人 很少很少的人 So 7% of you, very, very small number,
认为道德禁止他改道 think that it's morally prohibited for him to turn the trolley.
大多数人 接近2/3的人 The vast majority of you, close to two thirds, think
认为道德允许 但不强制他改道 that it's morally permitted, but not morally mandatory, for him to turn the trolley.
大约30%的人 大概1/3的人认为 And about 30% of you, roughly a third, think that
道德要求他改道 he is morally required to make that turn.
第二种情况 Case number two.
移植 Transplant.
你开了一家医院 You're running a hospital.
5个人来到医院 Five people show up at the hospital,
所有人都要死了 一个人需要肺 一个人需要心 all of them destined to die, because one needs a lung, and one needs a heart,
一个人需要肾 一个人需要肝 一个人需要脑 and one needs a kidney, and one needs a liver, and one needs a brain.
他们都快死了 而你是医生 So they're all going to die, and you are the doctor.
此时医院来了一个完全健康的年轻人 And into the emergency room walks a perfectly healthy young man
他有健康的心 肺 肝 肾 脑 who has a heart and a lung and a liver and a kidney and a really good, active brain.
如果你把这个人肢解 And if you were to chop up that man
把他的内脏移植给这5个病人 and give his parts to the five suffering individuals,
那么你将以1个人的代价救活5个人 you could save the five at the cost of the one.
问题 Question.
A 道德是否强制医生肢解1个健康人以挽救5人 For the doctor, is it A, morally mandatory to chop up the healthy man to save the five,
B 道德允许但非强制肢解这个健康人 B, morally permitted but not morally mandatory to chop up the healthy man,
或C 道德禁止肢解这个健康人 or C, morally prohibited to chop up the healthy man?
看看结果会如何 So let's see how numbers so come out.
85%的人认为 道德禁止肢解1个健康人以挽救5人 So. 85% of you think it is morally prohibited to cut up the one to save the five.
9%认为这是道德上允许的 但不是强制的 9% of you think it is morally permitted, but not morally mandatory.
还有6%的人 医学院可能更适合你们 And 6% of you--off to med school--
认为道德强制肢解这个健康人 think that it is morally mandatory to chop up the healthy man.
这里发生了什么 So what's going on here?
菲莉帕•傅特是最初提出这个问题的人 So Philippa Foot, who was the person who initially presented this juxtaposition,
她有一个这样的假说 has a hypothesis. And her hypothesis is this.
在电车司机情况中 司机所面临的问题是 That in the trolley driver case, the choice that the driver faces
是杀死1人 还是杀死5人 is between killing one and killing five.
而在移植情况中 医生所面临的选择是 Whereas in the transplant case, the choice that the doctor faces
是杀死1人 还是让5人死亡 is between killing one and letting five die.
我们可以把这画在一个"坏值表"上 And if we were to graph these on what I'll call the bad-o-meter,
读数越高 行为越坏 which tells us how bad things are, we would discover
让5人死亡是坏的 that letting five die is bad,
但杀死1人更坏 杀死5人还要更坏 but killing one is worse, and killing five is even worse.
貌似这能给出我们答案 因为杀死5人比杀死1人坏 And so this seems to give us the answer that since killing five is worse than killing one,
所以在电车司机情况中 改道是没有问题的 then in the trolley driver case, it's OK for him to turn the trolley,
但因为杀死1人比让5人死坏 but since killing one is worse than letting five die,
所以医生情况中 肢解1人是不行的 then in the doctor case, it's not OK to chop up the one man.
医生情况中 需要杀死1个健康人以挽救5人 Because in the doctor case, you have to kill once to save five,
而在电车情况中 司机需要杀死1人 来避免杀死5人 whereas in the trolley case, the driver has to kill one in order not to kill five.
这同你们的直觉非常一致 And that seems to accord pretty well with your intuitions.
93%的人 在电车情况下 认为道德允许改道 93% of you think it's permitted, in the trolley case, to turn the trolley,
而只有14%的人认为道德允许医生肢解1人 whereas only 14% of you think it's permitted in the doctor's case to kill the one.
这个坏值表能帮助理解 你们的直觉为什么会是这样 So it looks like this bad-o-meter is pretty well
这个坏值表能帮助理解 你们的直觉为什么会是这样 capturing the intuition of those of you in this classroom.
实际上 有人对世界上成千上万的人做过实证研究 And in fact, empirical studies that have been done on
实际上 有人对世界上成千上万的人做过实证研究 thousands and thousands of people throughout the world
结果显示 你们的直觉同大多数人非常类似 suggest that your intuitions are pretty much in line with the intuitions of most.
不过这里有个问题 But there's a problem.
情况三 电车旁观者 Case number three, trolley bystander.
这是吉姆 可怜的吉姆 运气真糟糕 Here's Jim. Poor Jim. Really bad luck.
首先他到拉美小城 被要求射杀印第安人 First he shows up in this Latin American town, and he's supposed to shoot some Indians.
现在又是他 看到电车正飞驰 会撞死5个人 Now here he is, next to a trolley which is hurtling down a track, about to kill five people.
而在轨道中间有一个改道装置 But here there is, in the middle of the track, a switch
吉姆用它改变电车轨道 电车则只会撞死1人 that if Jim turns will cause the trolley to kill the one.
问题 旁观者吉姆 道德是强制他改变电车轨道 Question. For Jim, the bystander, is it morally mandatory for him to turn the trolley
让电车不撞死5人 而是撞死1人 so that instead of the trolley hitting the five, it hits the one?
还是道德允许但不强制他改变电车轨道 Is it morally permitted, but not morally mandatory for him to turn the trolley?
这是答案二 That's answer two.
还是道德禁止他改变电车轨道 Or is it morally prohibited for him to turn the trolley?
看看结果会如何 See how those numbers come out.
这是你们的投票结果 15% 70% 15% OK. And here are your numbers. 15, 70, 15.
这同司机情况的答案分布非常类似 These are very, very similar to the distribution of answers that you gave in the driver case.
司机情况中 63%的人认为道德允许 In the driver case, 63% of you thought it was morally permitted,
而这里70%的人认为道德允许 whereas here 70% of you think it's morally permitted.
司机情况中 30%的人认为道德强制 In the driver case, 30% of you thought it was morally mandatory.
而这里略少的人认为道德强制 15% Here slightly fewer of you think it's morally mandatory, 15%.
司机情况中 7%的人认为道德禁止 And in the driver case, 7% of you thought it was prohibited.
这里 15%的人认为道德禁止 Here 15% of you think it's morally prohibited.
有点变化 但变化不大 So there's a little change, but not a lot of change.
问题就在这里 Here's the problem.
记得傅特的分析吧 Remember that in Foot's analysis of the case,
我们知道 让5人死亡有点坏 we knew that letting five die was a little bit bad,
杀死1人更坏 杀死5人还要更坏 that killing one was worse, and that killing five was worse than that.
电车司机面临的选择是杀1人还是杀5人 Trolley driver faced the choice of killing one versus killing five.
而移植情况下 医生的选择是杀1人还是让5人死亡 In transplant, you face the choice of killing ones versus letting five die.
但旁观者的情况作何解释呢 But what's going on in the bystander case?
旁观者吉姆 运气很糟糕的吉姆 Well, in the bystander case, Jim, Jim of the bad luck,
面临的选择 选项一是改变电车轨道 faces a choice between killing one, diverting the trolley
这样他就杀死了1个人 onto the track in such a way that Jim kills that guy--
选项二则是让5人死亡 or letting five die.
让电车撞向5人 见死不救 Letting the trolley hit the five that it's going to hit inevitably.
这同医生情况结构完全一样 But in contrast to the doctor case,
但医生情况中 85%的人 where 85% of you thought it was prohibited
认为杀死1人以挽救5人是道德上禁止的 to kill the one in order to save the five who would otherwise die,
而这种情况中 in this case,
85%的人认为道德至少允许杀死1人来挽救5人 85% of you think it's at least permitted to kill the one in order to let the five die.
再来一次 Let me do that again for you.
85%的人 在坏值表上 认为这是反过来的 85% of you--watch the bad-o-meter--think that it goes the other way.
这是怎么回事 我们原以为知道了问题的答案 Now what's going on? We thought we had a solution to the problem.
以为区分移植和电车司机情况的 The solution to the problem that differentiated transplant
是杀人和让人死亡之间的差异 from trolley driver was the distinction between killing and letting die.
但突然间 就有很多人认为 旁观者 And all of a sudden, there's a whole bunch of you who seem to be saying about bystander
让5人死比杀1人更坏 that letting five die is worse than killing one.
你们必然这样认为 或者说认为道德至少允许他改变电车轨道 You must think that, or you wouldn't think that it's
你们必然这样认为 或者说认为道德至少允许他改变电车轨道 morally, at least, permitted for him to turn the trolley.
这还没完 情况还会更糟 Moreover, stuff gets even worse.
假设医院情况是这样的 Suppose that the hospital case comes about as follows.
5个健康人来到医院 Five healthy individuals show up at the hospitals,
医生 可能是因为太累 或希望获得保险金 and a doctor--either because he's tired or because he wants to get the insurance benefits
医院来很多病人 保险公司就会给他很多赔偿金 of which he is a beneficiary if there are a lot of sick patients in his hospital--
他向5个人下毒 poisons the five who show up, in
导致一人需要肝 一人需要肾 such a way that one of them needs a liver, one of them needs a kidney,
一人需要肺 一人需要心 一人需要脑 one of them needs lungs, one of them needs a heart, and one of them needs a brain.
由于医生的这种做法 这5个人将会死亡 And so as a result of what that man has done, these five individuals will die.
几小时后 医生想 "哦" And it's a few hours later, and he thinks, "Oh!
"我忘了定言令式 糟糕" I forgot about the categorical imperative! Shoot!
"我该怎么做" What am I going to do?"
这时来了一个健康人 And up shows a healthy individual,
医生想 "哦 老天 有办法了 把他肢解掉" and he thinks, "Oh, God, I've got a solution, here, I can chop him up.
"心 肺 肾 肝 脑 这就能挽救5个人了 好" Heart, lung, kidneys, liver, brain, and I can save the five. OK."
问题 这个向5人下毒的医生面临是否杀死1人挽救5人的选择 Question. For the doctor who has poisoned the five individuals
问题 这个向5人下毒的医生面临是否杀死1人挽救5人的选择 who earlier showed up at the hospital, who now faces the
问题 这个向5人下毒的医生面临是否杀死1人挽救5人的选择 option of saving their lives by killing the one,
A 道德强制肢解这个健康人 is it A, morally mandatory to chop up the healthy man,
B 道德允许但不强制肢解这个健康人 B, morally permitted, but not morally mandatory, to chop up the healthy man,
C 道德禁止肢解这个健康人 or C, morally prohibited to chop up the healthy man?
看看结果会如何 And let's see how the numbers come out.
好 82% 11% 7% All right. So. 82%, 11%, 7%.
投票结果同最初的医生情况几乎相同 So your numbers here are almost identical to what they were in the original doctor case.
之前是6% 9% 85% 现在是7% 11% 82% There it was 6, 9, 85, here it's 7, 11, 82.
几乎没有区别 Almost no difference.
我们还是回到坏值表 But let's go back to our bad-o-meter.
先不看杀人相对让人死亡的问题 We are going to set aside the killing and letting die question,
只看杀1人相对杀5人 and just look at the kill one versus kill five.
我们从电车司机的情况中知道 杀死1人很坏 So we know from trolley driver that killing one is pretty bad.
但根据你们大多数人 根据93%的人 But according to most of you, according to you 93% of you,
杀死5人比杀死1人更坏 killing five is worse than killing one.
再看毒药医生 OK. Poison doctor.
这是医生面临的选择 So here's what choice the doctor faces.
他可以杀死5人 对吧 He can kill five--right?
他给他们下毒 他们将会死亡 He's poisoned them, and now they're going to die.
他也可以杀死刚来的那个健康人 Or he can kill just one--that one healthy guy who just showed up.
这样之前5个人就不会死了 And then the other five won't die.
82%的人告诉我 杀死5人比杀死1人要好 82% of you told me that it was better for him to kill five than to kill one.
我到坏值表上重新展示下 Let me show you this again, on the bad-o-meter.
85%的人认为 杀死5人比杀死1人要好 85% of you thought that it was better for him to kill five than to kill one.
之前我们有两种非常了不起的原则 So we have these two super-duper, excellent principles
看起来似乎能够解释电车情况是怎么回事 that seem to explain what was going on in the trolley case.
一方面 杀死1人比让5人死更坏 On the one hand, that killing one was worse than letting five die,
突然 旁观者情况让我们想 不对 直觉并非如此 and then all of a sudden, bystander made us think, oh no, we don't have that intuition.
此时我们的直觉是 至少杀死1人比杀死5人好 And then we have the intuition that at least killing one was better than killing five,
结果毒药情况让我们连这一点也要重新考虑 and the poison case made us rethink that as well.
有一个明显的问题可能导致了这里的道德差异 Now, there's an obvious issue that maybe making the moral difference here.
杀死1人和杀死5人之间的发生时间具有差异 There's a temporal difference between the killing of the one
杀死1人和杀死5人之间的发生时间具有差异 and the killing of the five happened.
汤姆森说 也许这能解释医生情况时我们的直觉 And perhaps, says Thomson, perhaps that's what explains our intuition in the doctor case.
也许这是因为杀死5人 由于时间原因 变成了让5人死亡 Perhaps it is because the killing of the five has become
也许这是因为杀死5人 由于时间原因 变成了让5人死亡 a letting die, as the result of time,
杀1人相对杀5人用来描述这种情况有些误导 that it's misleading to describe this as a kill one versus kill five case.
但时间差异不能解释移植相对旁观者的情况 But the temporal is not going to help us with the transplant versus bystander case.
两种情况的结构都非常明显是 Those seem pretty clearly to be both cases where one faces
在杀1人和让5人死亡之间选择 the choice between killing one and letting five die.
但结果大多数人认为 And whereas it seemed pretty clear to most of you in
移植情况中杀1人比让5人死亡更坏 transplant that killing one was worse than letting five die,
而旁观者的情况中 大多数人的想法却恰恰相反 it seems pretty clear that for most of you in bystander, it's the other way around.
电车问题是由这些舞动的箭头所引出的问题 So the trolley problem is the problem raised by these dancing arrows.
我们关于杀人和让人死的直觉在不同情况下如此不同 How is it that we systematize our intuitions about killing and letting die,
我们应该如何系统化解释呢 given that they appear to come apart in these cases?
汤姆森认为 移植情况虽然同旁观者情况 So Thomson suggests that whereas the transplant case
都是杀1人和让5人死之间的选择 gives us a choice between killing one and letting five die, as does bystander,
但两者之间存在潜在的相关差异 there is a potentially relevant difference between them.
也就是 在移植情况中 你使用1个人作为手段 And that is that in the case of transplant, you are using the one as a means.
你使用1个人作为手段 以获得挽救5人的结果 You're using the one as a way to achieve the outcome of saving the other five.
而在旁观者的情况中 Whereas in bystander,
你让电车改道到只有1个人的轨道 when you're diverting the trolley onto the track where that one individual is,
你没有使用这个人作为手段 you're not using that individual as a means, and--
我说我会回头讲康德 现在就是了 oh my goodness, I told you we'd get back to Kant, and we have!
康德的人性公式怎么说 该人性公式这样说 What did Kant's formula of humanity say? Kant's formula of humanity said,
"行为中你应当把人性 不管是自己还是其他任何人的" "so act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of any other,
"在任何情况下 同样当作目的 而不仅仅当作手段" in every case as an end, and never merely as a means only."
也许这就是答案 So maybe that's our solution.
也许旁观者情况的问题在于 Maybe the problem in bystander
由于没有把1个人当作手段 杀死他是可以的 is that since you're not treating him as a means, it's OK to kill the one.
而移植情况中 由于把1个人当作手段 Whereas in transplant, since you are treating him as a means,
杀死他是不可以的 因此 it's not OK to kill the one, and consequently,
道德让你觉得应该让5人死亡 you're morally obliged to what the five die.
不过汤姆森认为 这并不正确 Well, says Thomson, that can't be quite right.
假设你是吉姆 站在电车旁 Suppose that you're Jim, standing next to the trolley.
电车还是会撞死5人 Trolley's on its usual path to kill the five.
但此时 另一个轨道并不是直线朝向1人 But here, instead of the straight track on which the one sits,
这里有一个环路 1个人站在另一条轨道中央 there's a looped track, and the one is in the middle of the track
如果你让电车改道 它将撞向1人 从而挽救5人 in such a way that if you divert the trolley, it will hit him, thereby saving the five.
问题 汤姆森把这个情况叫"环路" Question. In the case that Thomson calls "loop,"
A 道德强制改变电车轨道 这是一 is it A, morally mandatory to turn the trolley, that's one.
B 道德允许但不强制 还是C 道德禁止 B, morally permitted, but not morally mandatory, or C, morally prohibited?
记住 电车正朝5个人飞驰而去 So remember, trolley's heading down the track towards the five.
你是吉姆 电车将撞死5人 You're Jim. The trolley's going to hit the five,
而你可以让电车改道从而撞向1人 or you can divert the trolley onto the track with the one,
由于有这个人挡住 电车会停止下来 and because the one is there, you will cause the trolley to stop.
好 看看这次结果会如何 OK? So let's see how the numbers come out on this.
好 68% 18% 14% OK. So 68, 18, 14.
差别不算很大 Not a lot of difference.
环路的情况下 你们的答案几乎相同于 You've answered bystander in loop in almost the same way
其它几种电车情况 that you've answered all our other trolley cases.
一般旁观者情况的分布是15% 70% 15% Generally the distribution has been 15, 70, 15. That was bystander.
而这里是14% 68% 18% Here it's 14, 68, 18.
但注意 这种情况下 你将环路上的人当作手段了 But notice that in this case, you were using the guy on the loop track as a means!
当作实现目的的手段 You're using him as a means to your end.
你试图用他的身体作为让电车停止的手段 You're trying to stop the trolley by using his body.
康德的理论帮不上忙了 Kant didn't help us enough!
重新思考 汤姆森说 Restock. Let's take stock again, says Thomson.
也许 这部分是因为权利的概念 Perhaps some of the work is being done by some notion of rights.
也许移植情况 之所以你们 Perhaps what's going on in the transplant case, the one where
不认为医生应该肢解那个健康人 you guys are not going to let the doctor chop up the healthy man,
是因为你们认为这侵犯了此人的权利 is that you would be violating that man's rights.
可能确实是"权利大于效用" And perhaps it's true that "rights trump utility."
也就是说 人具有身体完整的权利 That is, that when somebody has a right to bodily integrity,
重要性优于多个人的需要 that takes precedence over the needs of the many.
优于5个人被拯救的效用 The utilities of the five that are going to saved.
这一讲最后 我将给出另一种情况 And we'll close this lecture with the final example,
用以检验这一假设 one that's meant to test that hypothesis.
下一讲开始 我们将讨论 And we'll begin next lecture like by talking about
人们会得到这种反应的原因 some of the reasons that people tend to give this response.
假设现在不是环路 而是有一座桥 So suppose now that instead of the looping track, there's a bridge.
假设桥上有一位大块头的男士 And suppose that on that bridge is our fairly large gentleman.
假设你碰到如下选择 And you are now faced with the following dilemma.
电车沿轨道飞驰 会撞死5个人 The trolley's heading down the track. It's about to kill the five.
旁观者吉姆可以像这样让电车停止 And here's how Jim the bystander could stop it.
他可以把这个胖子推下桥 He could push the fat man off the bridge,
从而导致电车由于胖子的阻力停止 and thereby cause the trolley to be stopped in its tracks by his weight.
问题 旁观者推胖子的情况中 Question. For the bystander in fat man,
道德强制推下胖子 is it morally mandatory to push the fat man,
道德允许但不强制 还是道德禁止推下胖子 morally permitted but not morally mandatory, or morally prohibited to push the fat man?
看看你们的反应如何 And let's take responses, and
结果出来后就下课 下一讲再来分析 I'll leave you with those numbers and a remark about them as our close.
看看推胖子的情况中 是否有任何改变 So let's see whether we get any shift in the fat man case.
天啊 差别非常大 到底是怎么回事 My goodness! That looks awfully different. What is going on?
记得吧 我们的经典分布是 中间大概有70% So remember, our classic distribution is that we have roughly 70% here,
选禁止的人不超过10% and no more than 10% in the prohibited.
突然间 就有78%的人认为这是禁止的 All of a sudden, 78% of you think it's prohibited.
到底是怎么回事 留个悬念 周二再讲 What's going on? Cliffhanger! We'll talk about it on Tuesday.