如你们所知 我们已经开始讨论 PROFESSOR: OK, so as you know, we've moved in our discussion
已知人性如此 怎样的社会结构 to the question of what sort of social structures are
既正当 又能对人类康乐有所贡献 这一问题 either legitimate or contributory to the well being of humans, given our nature.
上一讲 我们通过博弈论的方式 And we ended last lecture by having a game theoretic
提出了协作红利的概念 representation of what I called the cooperation dividend,
其中包含两个个人 which you'll recall involves the case of two individuals who,
他们害怕对方会攻击自己 fearful that the other will attack their resources,
花精力保卫自己的物品 expend a certain amount of energy walling off their goods.
如果他们能够相互协作 相互信任 Where if they were somehow to find themselves in a situation
如果他们能够相互协作 相互信任 where they could cooperate and trust themselves to cooperate,
这些保卫物品的精力将能够被腾出 their energy could be devoted, instead of to the protection of their goods,
生产更多的其它产品 to the production of other sorts of goods.
根据霍布斯的说法 这是"舒适生活"所必须的 Those required, as Hobbes says, "for commodious living" and for things like navigation.
生产出的产品让两人都更富裕 Goods that would allow both of them to be better off.
前两堂课 我们学习了托马斯•霍布斯的作品《利维坦》 And in the last two lectures we looked at the writings of Thomas Hobbes
前两堂课 我们学习了托马斯•霍布斯的作品《利维坦》 in the context of his work, Leviathan which
探索了为什么说 协作红利会对双方都有好处 explored both why it is that the cooperation dividend is
探索了为什么说 协作红利会对双方都有好处 expected to be to the advantage of all and also why
以及为什么说 要实现协作 it is that in order to hold cooperation in place,
需要特定类型的外部强制执行机制 certain sorts of external enforcement mechanisms--
霍布斯在《利维坦》中给出的君主就具有这种绝对权威 in Hobbes's mind, a Leviathan, a monarch or leader who has absolute power--
要维持协作 这是必需的 is required to hold this sort of cooperation in place.
今天及周四的课 我们将转向 What we're going to turn to in the lectures today and Thursday
该问题的一个当代版本 我们将思考 is a contemporary version of this question, which asks us to think about--
如果不只是考虑两个人之间是否有协作 if we are considering not merely the cooperation or lack of cooperation between two people,
还考虑更大范围内权利及责任的分配 but rather the distribution of goods and responsibilities across a larger community--
按照霍布斯类似的观念 how it is that such a society should be structured if we
我们应该如何构建社会 take as our basic picture something similar to Hobbes.
霍布斯认为 协作对所有人有好处 而竞争没有 Namely the idea that cooperation is beneficial to all in a way that competition isn't,
但这种协作要想稳定持久 需要特定的激励机制 but that stably promoting cooperation requires certain sorts of incentivizing.
今天我们所要讨论的 And so what we'll look in particular today is
是二十世纪哲学家约翰•罗尔斯的观点 discussion by the 20th-century philosopher John Rawls who
罗尔斯(1921年-2002年) 一直在哈佛任教 lived from 1921 to 2002 and who taught at Harvard throughout his career.
很早的时候我们就碰到过罗尔斯的论文 We encountered Rawls writings already in a very early paper,
我们读了他1955年关于惩罚的论文 the 1955 paper on punishment that we looked at where he
其中他引入了惩罚的二层次理论 introduced the idea of a two-level justification of punishment.
今天我们将要考察的是 And what we'll be looking at in today's lecture is Rawls'
罗尔斯1971年著作《正义论》中所讨论的内容 discussion in his enormously influential 1971 book, A Theory of Justice.
罗尔斯的《正义论》在很多方面 So Rawls' Theory of Justice, which in many ways brought
将上至柏拉图时期的古代思想重新引入到当代哲学讨论中 back into contemporary philosophical discussion
将上至柏拉图时期的古代思想重新引入到当代哲学讨论中 consideration of a set of questions which we traced all the way back to Plato's Republic --
考虑为什么参与社会结构符合人们的自身利益 why is it in people's self interest to participate in a societal structure --
他将这类问题重新引入到公共讨论之中 and brought it back in a way that entered the public discourse.
《正义论》这本书在法律案件中都会被引用 A Theory of Justice is the kind of book that you'll see cited in legal cases.
其内容不仅在学术期刊上 You'll see it discussed not merely in academic journals,
还在关于社会正当性的知识对话中被广泛讨论 but also in intellectually grounded conversations about the legitimacy of the society.
《正义论》以著名文字开头 And A Theory of Justice begins with these famous words.
在介绍完书的目的后 罗尔斯说 Rawls says, after saying what he hopes to do in the book,
"正义是社会制度的第一美德 就像真理之于思想体系" that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of systems of thought."
他说 "作为理论 不管多么精美 经济" He says, "Just as a theory, however elegant and economical,
"若非真实 必然会被否定或修缮" must be rejected or revised if it's untrue,
"法律和制度亦是如此 不管多么高效 有序" so, too laws and institutions, no matter how efficient or well arranged,
"若不正义 必将被改革或废除" must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust."
这就是罗尔斯对政府正当性的核心观点 This is an articulation of what Rawls sees as the central
这就是罗尔斯对政府正当性的核心观点 commitment of a certain outlook of the legitimacy of government.
根据这种西方 甚至更一般的观念 A Western picture-- and perhaps more general picture-- according to which,
人民生活所处社会结构以及基本制度的布署 a social structure, an arrangement of fundamental institutions by which lives are governed,
当且仅当这种制度是正义时才具有正当性 is legitimate if and only if the institutions which it supports are just.
就像虚假理论不管多么精美都会被否定一样 So just as a theory which is extraordinarily elegant but false
就像虚假理论不管多么精美都会被否定一样 should be rejected on the grounds that it's untrue,
罗尔斯认为 社会结构不管多么精美 若不正义 必然被废除 so too, says Rawls, should a societal structure which is elegant but unjust be rejected.
之后 他继续鉴别了这种观点中的一些基本问题 He goes on to identify what he sees as some fundamental commitments of this sort of picture.
比如 他写道 "根据正义 每个人都具有不可侵犯性" He writes, for example, that "each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice
"哪怕出于整个社会考虑 这也是不可践踏的" that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.
"因此 正义不能容忍以某人自由的牺牲为代价" For this reason, justice denies that the loss of freedom for some
"来换取更广泛群体的更大受益" is made right by a greater good shared by others."
我们曾考虑过个人之间利益取舍这个问题 Now we thought about this question--
我们曾考虑过个人之间利益取舍这个问题 the question of the trade-off of goods across individuals--
一方面放在结果主义范畴中讨论过 in the context of our discussion of consequentialism on the one hand
另一方面放在义务论 美德理论等其它道德理论中讨论过 and other moral theories, deontology and virtue theory on the other.
而罗尔斯 What Rawls gives voice to--
在《正义论》的第5和26节中 both here and in sections 5 and 26 of Theory of Justice, which I had you read --
给出的理由相关于伯纳德•威廉姆斯提到的理由 is another reason related to the reason that we read about in Bernard Williams,
即尊严的概念 this idea of dignity.
这是根本上否定结果主义人类责任的另一个理由 Another reason for rejecting as a fundamental way of making sense of human responsibility,
这是根本上否定结果主义人类责任的另一个理由 consequentialism as its grounding basis.
不过在电车问题这样的情况中 But what might not have been apparent to you
你们可能还没有完全弄明白如下两者之间的关联 when we were reading things like The Trolley Problem, was the connection of the outlook--
一是"根据正义 每个人都具有不可侵犯性" this idea that "each person possesses an inviolability
"哪怕出于整个社会考虑 这也是不可践踏的" founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override," --
一是立国文献中的基本思想 and one of the foundational documents of this nation.
在托马斯•杰斐逊所认为的"不言自明"真理中 So among the truths that Thomas Jefferson thought we hold "to be self evident,"
"所有人生来就是平等的" is that "all men are created equal
"造物主赋予每个人不可剥夺的权利" and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
"其中" 哪怕为了整个社会的效用都不可剥夺的 And that among these," -- these rights such that
"其中" 哪怕为了整个社会的效用都不可剥夺的 even the utility of society as a whole is not sufficient to override them--
"包括生命 自由 以及对幸福的追求" "are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
这些内容可以在立国文献中找到 Moreover, you'll see in this founding document--
我说的显然是《独立宣言》 this is of course the Declaration of Independence--
然后是一些支持契约的观点 that there is voice given to exactly the contract-carrying picture
这种观点 我们首先在《理想国》人物格劳孔那里了解到最初形式 that we first recognize in its inchoate form
这种观点 我们首先在《理想国》人物格劳孔那里了解到最初形式 in Glaucon's discussion of the role of justice in Plato's Republic
之后又在霍布斯作品中得到了更清晰的认识 and much more clearly in the work of Hobbes.
看看立国文献后面是怎么说的 So listen to what comes next.
"为了确保这些权利 政府在人之中建立起来" "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men
"经由被治理者的同意 得到正义的权力" deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
也就是说 人们之间建立社会契约 The idea that entering into a social contract with one another --
以此确保生命 自由 以及对幸福追求的权利 whereby as a way securing the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
我们臣服于自己认为具有正当性的法律规则 we subject ourselves to a rule of law, which we thereby take to be legitimate --
这对于霍布斯及其后继者 is central, both to the social contract tradition as
洛克 卢梭 康德的社会契约观非常核心 articulated in Hobbes and his successors, Locke and Rousseau and Kant,
对于我们所熟知的立国文献显然也是如此 and to this document, which all of us have presumably encountered previously.
立国文献继续道 Moreover, continues this document,
"无论何时 只要政府开始背离这些目的" "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,
"人民拥有权利改变或废除该政府 并创立新政府" it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government."
怎样的新政府 杰斐逊的答案是什么 What kind of new government? What's Jefferson's answer?
新政府的"根基需要遵循原则" A new government, where "laying its foundation on such
"权力组织需要有序" principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them
"让人民在安全和幸福上最大程度获益" shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness."
人民在自身利益得以促进的前提下所认可的政府才具有正当性 So the idea that we set out to create a government that gains
人民在自身利益得以促进的前提下所认可的政府才具有正当性 its legitimacy through our recognition that thereby our self-interest is advanced
这是美国政治传统中的核心观念 is a central notion to the American political tradition.
这在我们今天所讨论的文字中又如何表现出来呢 So how does it manifest itself in the particular text that we're thinking about today?
约翰•罗尔斯在1970年代的书中 How does John Rawls, in this book from the 1970s,
试图对这个问题给出当代的解释 attempt to give contemporary voice to this set of concerns
延续200年前托马斯•杰弗逊所提出的观点 that 200 years prior to him were given voice to by Thomas Jefferson
延续再150年前托马斯•霍布斯提出的观点 and 150 years prior to that were given voice to by Thomas Hobbes?
罗尔斯首先考虑的是 社会应该如何 So Rawls begins by saying what it is that he takes society to be.
社会 我们希望鉴别出它的一些特征 Society, that which we're trying to identify a set of characteristics for,
它是 "或多或少自足的人的集合" is "a more or less self-sufficient association of persons,
"其中的人们由于相互关系 承认特定约束性行为规则" who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding"
"并在大多数时候遵循这些规则" and who, "for the most part, act in accordance with them."
记得上周囚徒困境的最后部分 You'll recall that at the end of the Prisoners' Dilemma lecture last week
以及上周四的那次阅读中 and also in our readings for last Thursday, we
我们考虑了霍布斯在强制执行社会契约中所没有考虑的一些机制 looked at mechanisms other than the ones that Hobbes identified for enforcing social contract.
霍布斯认为最有效的施行方式是引入绝对权威 Hobbes thought the most effective way was the imposition of a sovereign,
其惩罚威慑力会将人们的行为规范在特定范围中 whose threat of penalty and punishment would hold people to behave in certain ways.
但实际上除此之外 But it turns out that in addition to that,
通过道德心或者遵守规范所形成的特定习惯 the taking on implicitly through conscience or habit of certain kinds of norms of interaction
也能让社会平稳运行 这样的效果甚至可能更大 ends up playing as great if not larger a role in allowing societies to function smoothly.
周二的阅读材料中我们将会看到 And in next Tuesday's readings we'll look at some social
直接解决这一问题的心理学作品 psychological work that directly addresses that question.
罗尔斯告诉我们 他讨论中的社会是怎样的 So Rawls has told us what it is that he thinks a society is for the purposes of discussion.
社会是"或多或少自足的人的集合" It's "a more or less self-sufficient association of persons,
"其中的人们由于相互关系 承认特定约束性行为规则" who in their relations to one another recognize" something--
"其中的人们由于相互关系 承认特定约束性行为规则" that is "certain rules of conduct-- as binding"
"并在大多数时候" 但不总是 and, "for the most part" -- not always,
我知道你们有些人开车时打手机 I know some of you talk on your cell phone while you drive --
"遵循这些规则" "act in accordance with them."
这些规则"明确了一个为"什么"而设计的协作体系" These rules "specify a system of cooperation that's designed" to do what?
为托马斯•杰斐逊在宪法中所讲的事物而设计 It's designed to do the thing that Thomas Jefferson was talking about in the Constitution.
为托马斯•霍布斯在《利维坦》中所讲的事物而设计 It's designed to do the thing that Thomas Hobbes was talking about in Leviathan.
为格劳孔回答苏格拉底时所讲的事物而设计 It's designed to do the thing that Glaucon was talking about in his challenge to Socrates.
明确了一个"为其中成员利益得到促进而设计的协作体系" They specify "a system of cooperation that is designed
明确了一个"为其中成员利益得到促进而设计的协作体系" to advance the good of those taking part of it." The
这种思想中 政府正当性来自于 legitimacy of government on this picture derives from the
其中成员的利益是否得到促进 fact that it is to the advantage of those who participate in it.
但是… 也正是这种复杂特性使得 However-- and this is the perplexing feature that makes political
政治哲学成为知识界深感兴趣的学科 philosophy a discipline of great intellectual interest--
"虽然社会是一个互利的协作性事业" "although a society is a cooperative venture for mutual advantage,"
但罗尔斯认为它不可否认地 it is, says Rawls, undeniably
"同时表现出利益的冲突和一致" typically "marked by conflict as well as identity of interests." Why is this?
这是因为虽然利益具有一致性… It's because while there is an identity of interests--
因为社会协作让人们比独自努力更加富裕 because social cooperation makes possible a better life
因为社会协作让人们比独自努力更加富裕 for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts.
也就是说 我们从无需花精力保卫自己免受其他人威胁而获得红利 That is, we get dividends as the result of not having to
也就是说 我们从无需花精力保卫自己免受其他人威胁而获得红利 expend our energy on protecting ourselves from the threat of others' harm.
根据前面两堂课的内容 Each of us-- as we know from the last two lectures--
能指望其他人都协作时 我们每个人都会更富裕 is better off when we can count on others to be cooperative.
但是 任何社会中还会存在利益冲突 It is nonetheless the case that there is a conflict of interest in any society
因为"人们不会不关心" since "persons are not indifferent
"协作后利益应如何分配的问题" as to how the greater benefits of their collaboration are distributed."
大致说来 比起较少份额 每个人都偏爱更多 Roughly speaking, each prefers a larger to a lesser share.
如果存在协作红利 If there are cooperation dividends,
这显然能为协作提供很好的理由 that is good and produces a reason for cooperation.
但有协作红利的时候 显然每个人 But when there are cooperation dividends, each of us-- reasonably enough--
都希望获得尽可能多的红利 wants as many of the dividends as we can get.
这样的结果就是 And the consequence of that
"虽然社会是一个互利的协作性事业" is that although "society is a cooperative venture for mutual advantage,"
"但它同时表现出利益的冲突和一致" it's typically "marked by conflict as well as identity of interests."
这就产生了下一层问题 So this gives rise to the next level question.
阅读霍布斯作品时 我们只读了他开篇关于社会契约的部分 When we read Hobbes we read only the very beginning of his discussion of the social contract,
这是第一卷末和第二卷初的内容 just a bit from the end of book one and the very beginning of book two.
罗尔斯现在超越了此问题 Rawls is now turning to a question beyond that.
即 既然存在冲突这一事实 我们应该采取怎样的原则 Namely, what set of principles ought we to adopt, given the fact of conflict?
这里我们假定 人们希望协作 So we're taking it as a given that we want cooperation,
希望某种社会结构 we want some sort of societal structure.
结果人们得到比没有协作时的更多产品 As a result we're going to end up with more stuff than we
结果人们得到比没有协作时的更多产品 would have had if we hadn't been cooperating.
这些产品 有些有形 有些无形 应该如何分配呢 How should that stuff, how should those goods--
这些产品 有些有形 有些无形 应该如何分配呢 some tangible, some intangible-- be distributed?
罗尔斯指出 决定利益分配必须要有一系列的原则 So Rawls points out that a set of principles is required for choosing
罗尔斯指出 决定利益分配必须要有一系列的原则 among the various social arrangements, which determine this distribution of advantages.
这些原则 These principles
"提供社会基本制度中权利和义务的分配方式" "provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society."
比如法律体系该如何 Things like what the legal system looks like.
经济体系该如何 Things like what the economic system looks like.
公民的基本权利和义务该如何 Things like what the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizens look like.
这些定义了社会协作中利益和负担的合理分配方式 And what they do is to define an appropriate distribution of
这些定义了社会协作中利益和负担的合理分配方式 benefits and burdens of social cooperation.
因为我们已经知道 社会协作能带来不可否认的利益 Because, as we've already noted, social cooperation brings with it undeniable benefits
但它同时也会带来各种负担 but it also brings with it several kinds of burdens.
在协作体系中 你的自由在特定方式上受限 Your freedom is restricted in certain ways in a cooperative system.
也有可能社会体系所带来的好处 And it may well be the case that the benefits that accrue to the social system
都落到了别人身上 go to someone else.
现在我想指出的是 So we're now at a point where I will give voice to what
罗尔斯的正义论主要思想 Rawls calls the main idea of the theory of justice.
然后我会解释这同他的无知之幕概念有何联系 And then I'm going to explain to you how that fits with his notion of the veil of ignorance.
考虑到你们的注意力状态 我将引入一些点击器问题 And then just as your attention is beginning to flag, we're going to do some clickers.
坚持住 再讲一点 就有乐子了 So hold up, a little more fact and then some fun.
正义论主要思想 我已经给你们指出过 So the main idea of The Theory of Justice is, as I've pointed out to you already,
这是一种社会契约观念 something that is part of the social contract tradition.
罗尔斯在这次阅读材料的第一个脚注中明确指出 Rawls explicitly says in the first footnote of the text that we read for today
他主要是站在洛克 卢梭 康德的社会契约角度 that he's working primarily from the social contact picture as
他主要是站在洛克 卢梭 康德的社会契约角度 articulated in Locke, Rousseau and Kant,
不过他也考虑了霍布斯的思想 but that he is harkening back to Hobbes in it.
也就是如下思想 And this, as you know, is the following idea,
我们每个人都能意识到 生活在不总有威胁的社会中 that each of us recognizes that there's a certain advantage to living in
我们能够获得一定好处 a society where we're not constantly under threat,
意识到能够实现没有威胁的状态 that each recognizes that non-threat can be achieved--
也就是不总处在全面冷战的风险之中 this idea that you're not constantly at risk in this cold war of all against all.
但非威胁状态只能在一般协作中实现 But non-threat can be achieved only under general cooperation.
一般协作只有在隐性或显性的强制执行体系中才能实现 And that general cooperation can be achieved only under
一般协作只有在隐性或显性的强制执行体系中才能实现 some sort of implicit or explicit enforcement system.
罗尔斯考虑到社会契约框架 So Rawls, with that social contract framework in mind,
继续问道 如果是为了每个成员好 强制执行体系应该是怎样的 goes on to ask, what would it take to get a clear picture of
继续问道 如果是为了每个成员好 强制执行体系应该是怎样的 what that enforcement system ought to look like if, as we
继续问道 如果是为了每个成员好 强制执行体系应该是怎样的 recall, it's meant to be something, which is for the good of each of its participants?
他是这样回答的 And here is what he says.
他说 社会基本结构的"正义原则" He says, "The principles of justice," of the basic structure of society,
"是自由和理性的人们 为了促进自身利益" "are those that free and rational person concerned to further their self-interest
"在最初的平等位置上所接受的" would accept in an original position of equality
"定义他们之间关系基本性质的原则" as defining the fundamental terms of their association"
这种观点下有四个基本概念 That is there are four fundamental ideas that underlie this picture.
支配社会的规则 The rules that govern your society,
支配你所签订契约的正当社会的规则 the rules that govern a legitimate society, into which you ought to contract,
是你在自由 理性 自利时所接受的规则 are rules that you would accept if you were free, rational, self-interested
接受规则时 你同其他所有自由 理性 自利 and in a position of equality with respect to all of the other
签订社会契约的人处于平等位置 free, rational and self-interested individuals who are also contracting into this society.
这如何才能实现呢 How can we possibly get there?
如何确定自由 理性 自利 平等的个人会赞同什么 How can we possibly determine what free, rational,
如何确定自由 理性 自利 平等的个人会赞同什么 self-interested and equal individuals would agree to, given that--
况且 人并非完全平等的 as a matter of fact-- we're not all equal?
出生时 有些人富裕 有些人贫穷 Some of us were born into families of wealth and some of
出生时 有些人富裕 有些人贫穷 us were born into families of poverty.
每个人具有不同的天赋 Some of us were born with certain sets of natural
每个人具有不同的天赋 talents; others were born with other sets.
成长过程中 不同人对美好生活产生不同观念 Some of us were born with certain sorts of conceptions--
成长过程中 不同人对美好生活产生不同观念 or some of us were raised to have certain sorts of conceptions-- of the good life.
成长过程中 不同人对美好生活产生不同观念 Others of us were raised to have others.
罗尔斯给出的想法是这样的 Rawls' idea is this:
阐述社会结构正当性的原则 the principles that articulate the legitimate structure of society
是你不知道自己会成为怎样的人时 所愿意接受的原则 are those to which you would agree if you did not know which person you were going to be.
他要你假想 自己处在所谓的"无知之幕"后方 So he asks you to imagine that you sit behind what's he called a "veil of ignorance,"
没人知道自己在社会中所处的位置或地位 where no one knows his place in society, his class position, his social status,
没人知道自己的天赋 财富 智力 力量 或关于美好的观念 his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence,
没人知道自己的天赋 财富 智力 力量 或关于美好的观念 his strength or his conception of the good.
从不知道自己会是怎样的人这个角度来看 From this position, where you don't know which person you are going to be,
你就获得了四个条件中的第四个 you get the fourth of our four requirements.
平等 You get equality.
因为你自身利益中的特性不再会发挥作用 Because nothing in particular about your self-interest will play a role.
你将自己放在一种假想位置 And having put yourself in this imaginary position,
这种假想的无知 where ignorance brings with it
让你有能力清楚地思考问题 a certain kind of ability to think clearly about the question,
然后 每一方能够自由地在理性自利基础上决定… each party then freely determines on the basis of rational self-interest.
这给了我们自由 理性和自利三点… So that gives us freedom, rationality and self-interest.
他们所认为的最佳框架 The framework that they think would be best.
也就是这样 So the idea is this:
一群不知道自己在社会中扮演什么角色的人 a bunch of people who don't know what role they will play in society
处在无知之幕后思考 sit behind the veil of ignorance and think,
我希望社会如何构建 how would I want society to be structured
如果我不知道我会成为牧人 if I didn't know whether I was going to end up as a shepherd
还是资本家 还是医生 还是建筑工人 还是警察 or a capitalist or a doctor or a construction worker or a police officer
还是同警察作对的人 or someone who has difficulties with the authority of police officers
还是残疾人 还是耶鲁橄榄球运动员 or somebody who's differently abled or perhaps even as a Yale football player?
从无知之幕后面 And from behind this veil of ignorance,
意识到任意一种身份 recognizing that any one of these identities
都有可能成为他们自己最终的身份 could end up being the one that they would have,
这些个人构想出社会的结构框架 these individuals come up with a framework for how it is that society would be structured.
意识到他们可能异常富有 So recognizing that they might be extraordinarily wealthy,
他们会认同 they may take into consideration what it would
特定条件下 人的繁荣是允许的 take for society to allow individuals to flourish under those conditions.
同时他们也会意识到 But they might recognize at the same time that they might
自己还有可能最终是建筑工人 end up as one of the construction workers.
可能是医生 Perhaps they would end up as a doctor.
也许自己具有残疾等等 Perhaps the set of abilities that they had would differ
也许自己具有残疾等等 from those of the majority of the society and so on.
可见 为了思考这些问题引入的无知之幕这一描述 So what you have in the articulation of the veil of
可见 为了思考这些问题引入的无知之幕这一描述 ignorance as a way of thinking about this question,
其实就是我们课程中反复提到的主题的罗尔斯版见解 is Rawls' version of a theme that we have seen over and over and over again in this course.
霍布斯说 考虑政治结构时 Hobbes says to you: When you think about political structures,
不要认为自己同他人有所不同 think about yourself as not being different from everyone else.
霍布斯说 "你需要同其他人一样 愿意放弃部分权利" Be willing, he says, "to lay down your rights to the extent
霍布斯说 "你需要同其他人一样 愿意放弃部分权利" that others are willing to do this the same.
"满足于自己损害他人的自由 同他人损害你的自由等量" Content yourself with as much liberty against others as others have against you."
密尔说 "越促进幸福 行为就越正确" Mill says, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
"越违背幸福 行为就越错误" wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
"不是行为主体自身的幸福 而是所有相关者的幸福" Not the agent's own happiness, but the happiness of all concerned."
康德也给出了类似观点 And Kant, again giving voice to this idea: --
你从道德角度考虑时 不应该把自己特殊看待 When you think from the moral perspective do not think of yourself as special. --
他写道 "除非我愿意" writes, "Act only in accordance with that maxim
"我的行为格律成为普遍法则 否则永远不要这样做" through which you can at the same time will that it will become a universal law."
下面拿出你们的点击器 我们将快速考虑三个问题 So if you will take out your clickers, we'll do three quick exercises
看看罗尔斯的策略是否有效 where we look to see whether Rawls's strategy works.
我解释一下这个 So let me explain to you how this goes.
这里你们要决定 三种课程中选择哪个 In this case, you are deciding whether to enroll in one of three sections of a course.
三种情况下课堂都是一样的 So the lectures of the course will be identical in all three cases.
但选项一中 课程有4个优秀讨论课 But in option number one the course has four excellent
这些讨论课的平均学生评分是9/10 sections, sections that earn a 9/10 on average student ratings.
4个讨论课优秀 1个讨论课很糟糕 So four of the sections are excellent and one of the sections is terrible.
你不知道你会被安排在哪个讨论课中 And you don't know which section you're going to end up in.
如果你选择选项一 你会被随机分配到其中一个讨论课中 So in the first option you have the choice of going to the class
如果你选择选项一 你会被随机分配到其中一个讨论课中 and then you're going to be randomly assigned to one of sections.
4个很优秀 1个很糟糕 Four of them are excellent; one of them is terrible.
选项二中 课程的4个讨论课很不错 The second option is that you can take the course and four of the sections are very good--
平均评分是7/10 另1个讨论课很糟糕 they gave a score of 7/10 on average-- and one of the sections in terrible.
你不知道自己会在哪个讨论课中 And you don't know which section you're going to be in.
如果你选这个 你有4/5的几率在很不错的讨论课中 So if you take that, you have a 4/5 chance of being in a very good section,
有1/5的几率在糟糕的讨论课中 but you have a 1/5 chance of being in a terrible one.
选项三中 4个讨论课都很不错 And in the third version of the course, four of the sections are very good.
评分7/10 另1个讨论课很一般 They get a 7/10. And one of the sections is so-so.
问题是 你会选哪个选项 So the question is, which course do you take?
是选一 讨论课4个优秀1个糟糕 Do you sign up for the course that has four excellent and one terrible section?
记住 讨论课是随机安排的 Remember you don't know which section you'll be in.
还是选二 讨论课4个不错1个糟糕 Do you sign up for the course that has four very good and one terrible section?
还是选三 讨论课4个不错1个一般 Or do you sign up for the course that has four very good and one so-so section?
大家都明白问题的结构了吗 So is everybody clear on the structure of the question?
我将开始投票 好 看看结果会怎样 And I'll start the voting. OK. All right, so let's go. Let's see.
好 60%的人… 哇 竟然没有离群值 All right so, 60% percent of you are with-- wow! Where are my outliers?
伙计们 你们懂的 这真是太让人惊喜了 Dudes! Everybody understood! Amazing! We have never--
任何选择题中 我们可从来没有碰到过0%的情况 for those visitors who are here-- we have never in this
任何选择题中 我们可从来没有碰到过0%的情况 class had 0% percent of people choose my obviously irrational choice.
我很高兴能看到这样的结果 太棒了 So I'm glad to see that showing off for non-Bulldog
我很高兴能看到这样的结果 太棒了 days, people are doing a good job.
大概60%的人愿意冒风险 So roughly 60% of you are risk-takers.
愿意有1/5的几率被分配到糟糕的讨论课上 You're willing to take the 1/5 chance of being in the terrible class.
另40%的人是风险规避的 But 40% of you are risk-averse in this context.
再来一次 相同问题 不同情景 Let's try it again. Exact same question, different scenario.
情景是这样的 你碰到一个住房运气问题 So here's the scenario: you are entering a housing lottery
你有三种可选的选项 and you can enter lottery one, lottery two or lottery three.
选项一 房间有4个优秀1个糟糕 Housing lottery one, there are four excellent and one terrible room.
选项二 房间有4个不错1个糟糕 Housing lottery two, there are four very good and one terrible room.
选项三 房间有4个不错1个一般 And housing lottery three, there are four very good and one so-so room.
你还是不知道自己会被分配到哪间房里 Again, you don't know where you will end up.
问题 你是选择选项一 二还是三 Question, do you enter housing lottery one, housing lottery two or housing lottery three?
开始计时 And let's set the timer.
6 5 4 3 2 1 Six, five, four, three, two, one.
看看结果 And let's see what we get.
哈 So, ha!
你们在课程方面很随意 住房方面就很知道规避风险了 You guys don't care about class but you're very risk averse on housing.
当涉及到你们生活基本硬件的好坏时 So when it comes to your well-being in terms of the infrastructure in which you live,
68%的人愿意放弃获得优秀房间的概率 68% of you are willing to forgo the possibility of an excellent room
确保自己不会被分配到一间糟糕的房间 for the certainty that you won't end up in a room that is terrible.
再来一次 So let's try it one more time.
这次考虑医院问题 Now you're going to a hospital.
设置是这样的 And here's the configuration.
医院一 医生4个优秀1个糟糕 Hospital one: four excellent, one terrible doctor.
医院二 医生4个不错1个糟糕 Hospital two, four very good, one terrible doctor.
医院三 医生4个不错1个一般 Hospital three, four very good, one so-so doctor.
你让救护车把你送往医院 You're asking the ambulance to take you to the ER.
你不知道哪个医生值班 你只知道 You don't know which doctor is on duty but you do know
医院一 医生4个优秀1个糟糕 Hospital one has four excellent, one terrible.
医院二 医生4个不错1个糟糕 Hospital two has four very good, one terrible.
医院三 医生4个不错1个一般 Hospital three has four very good, one so-so.
看看你们会怎么选 And let's see how the numbers come out on this.
4 3 2 1 So, four, three, two, one.
看看你们怎么选的 And let's see where you placed yourselves.
碰到高赌注医疗决策时 So when it comes to high-stakes medical decisions,
你们比住房问题时 显得更规避风险 you are even more risk averse than you were with housing.
比这些局部决策更重要的是全局决策 How much more important than any of these local decisions is the global decision,
如果你不知道自己会扮演什么角色 what sort of societal framework do you want around you
你会怎样选择你周围的社会框架 if you don't know what role you will play in it?
罗尔斯关于选择怎样的社会这一问题 So Rawls's question, which society do you choose, is
也就是我刚讲的那三个问题的另一个版本 meant to be a version of those three questions, which I just posed to you.
如果你不知道自己会是怎样的人 你会选择怎样的医疗体系 Which medical system do you choose if you don't know what
如果你不知道自己会是怎样的人 你会选择怎样的医疗体系 kind of individual you're going to be?
你们的答案是 最好条件不错 最差条件一般的医疗体系 And the answer was, you chose one that topped out at very good but bottomed out at so-so.
还有选择怎样的住房体系 What housing system so you choose?
选择怎样的教育体系 What education system do you choose?
这些都是罗尔斯问题的特例 Those were special cases of the question Rawls is asking.
你在无知之幕后 会选择怎样的社会 What society do you choose from behind the veil of ignorance?
罗尔斯很清楚 你要选的社会具有两大基本承诺 And Rawls is very clear that the society that you choose has two basic commitments.
首先 当我们在某社会框架中签署契约时 The first is that when we are contracting into a social framework
这会支配我们生活的所有侧面 第一个条件是 that will govern all aspects of our lives, the very first condition
在这个框架中 每个人 is that within that framework each person is to have an "equal right
"在能让他人拥有类似自由的情况下" to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties
"都平等地拥有最大范围的自由" that is compatible with a similar system of liberty for all."
也就是说 我们每个人具有平等的投票权 任公职权 That is, that each of us is to have equal rights to vote, rights to hold public office,
言论自由 集会自由 宗教信仰自由 思想自由 freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of thought,
人身自由 财产权 freedom of person, right to hold property
在法律范围内被平等对待的自由 and freedom to be treated equally with respect to the rule of law.
这些在罗尔斯看来是不可转让的 These, says Rawls, are non-negotiable and they're
也就是说 如果我们从无知之幕后为你提供 non-negotiable in the sense that if we offered you, from behind the veil of ignorance,
用这其中某些权利换取效用的可能性 the possibility of trading off some of these goods for the sake of utility,
如果你不知道自己在社会中会扮演什么角色 if you did not know which individual you were going to be in that society
你不会进行这个交易 you would not make that trade.
这就是罗尔斯推导出这些不可侵犯原则的方式 This is the way in which Rawls attempts to derive those inviolable principles,
我们在《独立宣言》开头部分也看到过这些原则 which we saw at the beginning of The Declaration of Independence,
这些原则下 自由 理性 自利 平等的各方都会签署契约 from the idea that these are lines in the sand that would be drawn in any social
这些原则下 自由 理性 自利 平等的各方都会签署契约 framework to which free, rational, self-interested, equal parties would sign on.
这是罗尔斯对选择哪一个社会的第一个答案 So that's Rawls's first answer to the question, which society do you choose?
你会选择具有不可转让底线的社会 在基本自由上 You choose one that has a non-negotiable baseline right at the level of so-so or better,
其水平处在一般或较好 with respect to these fundamental liberties.
这些是不能同任何事物进行交易的 These are things that don't get traded off for anything.
另外 更有争议的是 In addition-- and somewhat more controversially--
罗尔斯认为 在无知之幕后 says Rawls, you would, behind the veil of ignorance,
你会选择的社会结构中 subscribe to a societal structure where the
社会和经济不平等性具有一定约束条件 distribution of social and economic inequalities followed a certain set of constraints.
第一条是 社会和经济不平等性若在社会中产生 The first is, to the extent that social and economic inequalities arise in that society,
它们需要附属于位置和职务 但这些位置和职务 they need to be attached to positions and offices that are open to all
需要向所有人机会平等的开放 under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
如果说进入一家杰出教育机构 If attending an outstanding educational institution will
能增加你获得好工作的几率 increase the likelihood that you can go on to have a job,
进而让你赚取不成比例份额的社会资源 whereby you gain fulfillment and earn a disproportionate share of society's resources,
那么 罗尔斯认为 这些位置和职务 这些机会 then it needs to be the case, says Rawls, that those positions, those opportunities,
应该对所有人平等开放 而与外部偶发因素无关 are open to all regardless of contingencies of
外部偶发因素不应该左右人们利用机会的可能性 circumstance that are irrelevant to the possibility of their making use of them.
特别地 如果你家里很有钱 In particular, your family's financial resources shouldn't
这不应该影响到你获取这些机会的能力 play a role in your ability to access these opportunities.
罗尔斯认为 公平平等机会是 So fair equality of opportunity is the first condition that Rawls thinks needs to hold
让社会和经济不平等性被接受的第一个条件 in order for social and economic inequalities to be acceptable
前提是人们从无知之幕后来看 不知道自己将会扮演什么角色 to you from behind the veil of ignorance when you do not know who you will be.
另外 争议性更大的是 罗尔斯认为 In addition, and even more controversially, Rawls thinks
在无知之幕后 that behind the veil of ignorance
各方接受社会和经济不平等性的另一个条件是 it would be agreed by the parties that social and economic inequalities
各方接受社会和经济不平等性的另一个条件是 would be accepted as legitimate
这些不平等性符合所有人的利益 only to the extent that those inequalities are to the advantage of all.
特别是要符合生活最窘迫的那部分人的利益 And, in particular, to the advantage of those who are least well off.
罗尔斯没有否认 涨潮会让所有船的位置提高 So Rawls does not deny that a rising tide lifts all boats,
也就是说 允许一定的收入 资源 教育机会 健康医疗差异 that there may well be cases where allowing discrepancies
也就是说 允许一定的收入 资源 教育机会 健康医疗差异 in income or resources or educational opportunities or the quality of health care would--
会让所有人的生活都变得更好 as a matter of fact-- lead everybody to be better off.
某些人也许无法到一些研究型医院就诊 Perhaps the fact that there are research hospitals is of great value,
但这些医院的研究成果能让所有人受益 even to those who don't have direct access to those hospitals.
总之罗尔斯认为 只有不平等性让生活最窘迫的人也能获利时 Nonetheless, it is because, and only because, those
总之罗尔斯认为 只有不平等性让生活最窘迫的人也能获利时 inequalities benefit the least well off that Rawls thinks
人们才会在无知之幕后赞同这种不平等性 they would be agreed to behind the veil of ignorance.
而且 罗尔斯认为我刚讲的这些原则 Moreover, Rawls thinks that these principles, which I've articulated--
第一原则 平等自由原则 the first principle, the equal liberty principle, and the
以及第二原则 也就是不平等性正当条件原则 second principle, which tells us the conditions under which inequality is legitimate--
具有"词典顺序" 效用主义交换是不被允许的 are what he calls "lexically ordered" so that no utilitarian trade-offs are permitted.
特别地 不能用自由交换效用 In particular, there is no trading freedom for utility.
虽然种族定性能减少犯罪率 对社会整体有利 If it would be advantageous to society as a whole
虽然种族定性能减少犯罪率 对社会整体有利 to engage in a certain sort of racial profiling, for example, to reduce crime
但这样做会威胁特定群体的自由 but in so doing the liberties of a certain group would be impinged upon,
这种效用考虑是不充足的 罗尔斯认为 that utility consideration is not sufficient, says Rawls.
而且 我还指出过 罗尔斯认为 More over, as I've pointed out, on Rawls's picture,
不平等只能在最窘迫者也能受益时才会被允许 inequality is permitted only when the advantage goes to the least well off.
课程最后三四分钟时间里 我想再进行两次投票 So in the last three, four minutes of class, I want to do two more polls with you.
拿出点击器 我想看看你们对这个的想法 So if your clickers are available, I want to see what your thoughts are on this.
如果你们的想法同罗尔斯不同 And if your thoughts diverge from Rawls, I'm going to give
我将提供四种不同点所在的可能位置 you four places to identify the locus of disagreement.
首先从这个开始 你们要选择一个社会 So let's start with this. You're trying to choose among societies.
社会一 平均收入是10万美元 Society one has an average income of $100,000
而且85%的公民有权投票 and 85% of its citizens have the right to vote
有宗教信仰自由等等 and have freedom of conscience and religion and the like.
另15%的人缺乏公民权 That is, this is a society in which 15% of people lack basic
但平均收入是10万美元 civil rights but the average income is $100,000.
社会二 平均收入是7万美元 15%的人缺乏基本权利 Society number two has an average income of $70,000 and 15% of the people lack basic rights.
社会三 平均收入是7万美元 Society number three has an average income of $70,000 but
但100%的人具有基本自由 你在无知之幕后 100% of the people have basic freedoms. You're behind the veil of ignorance.
如果选社会1或2 你不知道自己是不是那15%的人 You do not know whether you will be among the 15% in society one or two.
按照自由 平等 自利 理性 你会选哪个社会 As a matter of free, equal, self-interested rationality, which society do you choose?
一 二还是三 One, two, or three.
看看结果如何 And let's see how these numbers come out.
第一原则对第二原则的词典顺序优先性 It looks like the lexical priority of the first principle over the second
似乎没有太大争议 is one over which there isn't a great deal of controversy.
再看一个不同的情况 Let's try the difference principle.
三个社会 你处在无知之幕后 Three societies. You don't know who you will be.
社会一 平均收入10万美元 最低收入1万美元 Society one: average income of $100,000. Lowest income: $10,000.
社会二 平均收入7万美元 最低收入1万美元 Society number two: average income $70,000, lowest income, $10,000.
社会三 平均收入7万美元 最低收入2万美元 Society number three: average income is $70,000, lowest income, $20,000.
你不知道自己收入会落在哪里 You do not know who you will be.
你会选择哪个社会 Which society do you choose?
看看不同情况中结果会如何 And let's see how the numbers come out on the difference principle.
还是那样 同我预计的相差不大 OK. So, still, huh. Not as much difference as I had expected.
很有趣 你们绝大多数都是平等主义者 Interesting to see, that most of you-- even here-- are egalitarian.
反对以最窘迫者为代价获得平均上的好处 Averse to an increase in the average if is at the cost to the least advantage.
对于这里27%的人 So for those of you who are in the 27% here
对于不接受罗尔斯框架的人 and for those of you more generally who aren't accepting the Rawlsian framework,
我想指出四种你可能不赞同他的可能原因 I want to point out four different places where you might be stepping away from him.
第一是 你可能不赞同他的无知之幕观点 The first is that you may disagree with him about what
第一是 你可能不赞同他的无知之幕观点 sorts of principles would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.
在第26节他说 无知之幕后 人们是风险规避的 You might think that maximin reasoning--
在第26节他说 无知之幕后 人们是风险规避的 remember in section 26 he says, behind the veil of ignorance, people would be risk-averse.
制定的分配方式能让最窘迫者获益 They would distribute goods in such a way that they benefited the least well off.
你可能不赞同的就是 So you might deny that behind the veil of ignorance the
罗尔斯认为原则应该在无知之幕后制定的说法 principles that Rawls says would be chosen would be chosen.
你可能并不赞同在无知之幕后作出的选择 You might deny that it's the choice that one make behind the veil of ignorance that
能代表自由 平等 理性 自利的人所接受的 represents what free, equal, rational and self-interested persons would accept as
基本社会关系形式 fundamental terms of their association.
也就是说 你可能认为无知之幕的设置并不能 That is, you might think the veil of ignorance is not an effective device of representation
有效回答罗尔斯所试图回答的问题 for answering the question which Rawls sets out to answer.
你也可能认为 自由 平等 理性 自利的人 Or you might think that what free, rational, self-interested equal persons
可能会接受无知之幕后作出的选择 would accept as fundamental terms of association is what the veil of ignorance gives you,
但这并不能决定什么是正义的 but that doesn't determine what's just.
你也可能认为… 我们将在周四的课上考虑这个的答案… Or you might think-- and we'll consider this answer in our lecture on Thursday--
社会制度第一美德并非就是正义 that it's not the case that the first virtue of social institutions is justice.
还有其它更根本的价值 But rather that there are other values even more fundamental
位于政治正当性的中心 that lie at the center of political legitimacy.
周四我们将继续讨论这一问题 And we'll turn to that question in our lecture on Thursday.