今天这一讲的主题 如标题所示 是自由 PROFESSOR: So the topic of today's lecture, as you can see from the title, is liberty.
要理解今天这个主题 最好的方式莫过于 And the best way to get a sense of the project in which we will find ourselves engaged today
对比罗尔斯《正义论》的开篇部分 is to contrast the opening pages of Rawls' Theory of Justice
和诺齐克《无政府 国家与乌托邦》的开篇部分 with the opening pages of Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
你们应该记得 我讲罗尔斯时… So you'll recall that when we were reading the Rawls--
不知什么原因 遥控无法工作 不过现在好了 for some reason the remote is not working, that's a pity but there we go--
你们应该记得 我讲罗尔斯时讲过 you'll recall that when we were reading the Rawls, Rawls
罗尔斯开头就说正义是社会制度第一美德 began his text by speaking of justice as the first virtue of social institutions.
正义是社会制度的第一美德 It plays the role with regard to the legitimacy of an institution
正如真理是思想体系的第一美德 that truth plays with regard to the legitimacy of a system of thought.
罗尔斯认为 "根据正义 每个人都具有不可侵犯性" Each person, says Rawls, "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."
"因此" 罗尔斯在开篇的著名论断中说 For this reason, says Rawls famously in these opening pages,
"正义不能容忍以某人自由的牺牲为代价" "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"
罗尔斯关心正义概念基础上人的不可侵犯性 So Rawls is concerned with an inviolability of humanity based on a notion of justice.
诺齐克也关心这类不可侵犯性 Nozick is also concerned with a kind of inviolability.
但他认为这种不可侵犯性的核心不在于某种正义概念上 But rather than seeing the core of that inviolability as lying in some notion of justice
而在于权利概念上 he sees it as lying in a notion of rights.
他在前言最开始的地方 也就是你们阅读材料的第一句中写道 So he says in the opening of the preface, the first sentence which you read for today.
"个人具有权利" "Individuals have rights
"有些事是任何人或群体都不能对他们做的 否则会侵犯这些权利" and there are things that no person or group may do to them without violating those rights."
他继续道 "国家职能只能限制在" And he goes on to say that "the minimal state
"保护人民免受暴力 盗窃 诈骗 以及契约的强制执行等" limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud,
"保护人民免受暴力 盗窃 诈骗 以及契约的强制执行等" the enforcement of contracts and so on
"职能超过这个范围的国家没有正当性" is the most extensive state that can be justified.
"任何职能超过这种最小国家定义的国家 都在侵犯人民的权利" Any state more extensive than the minimal state violates people's rights."
这两个作品之间的比较非常有意思 So there's something extraordinarily interesting going on in this pair of works.
两者都关心一个基本问题 Both of them are concerned with the fundamental question
这个问题霍布斯也提到过 which we first encountered in the context of Hobbes:
即 怎样的国家才具有正当性 how could it be that it's legitimate to have a state?
罗尔斯和诺齐克都关注 国家该如何构建 Both of them are concerned with structuring the state in such a way
才能不侵犯他们各自认为的不可侵犯的核心事物 that it doesn't violate that which is perceived as being on their picture as inviolable.
结果 他俩在怎样的国家具有正当性这一问题上 产生了严重分歧 But they differ profoundly in what sort of state they end up calling legitimate.
也许这是因为 罗尔斯思想的核心在于正义的概念 Perhaps because at the core of Rawls's picture lies the notion of justice,
而诺齐克思想的核心在于权利的概念 whereas at the core of Nozick's picture lies the notion of rights.
今天的这一讲 我将对比其中一些内容 So what I want to do in today's lecture is to contrast some of the themes,
将上次课我们在罗尔斯《正义论》中碰到的内容 which we encountered last lecture in the context of Rawls' Theory of Justice
同他同事罗伯特•诺齐克的《无政府 国家与乌托邦》进行比较 by looking at a particular famous chapter of his colleague Robert Nozick's work,
同他同事罗伯特•诺齐克的《无政府 国家与乌托邦》进行比较 Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
仅从你们所读的两部分简短文字 Even from the brief selections that you read from these two works,
你们就能发现两者之间的显著差异 the differences between them should have been evident to you.
两本书成书时间只相差三年 They were written a mere three years apart.
罗尔斯的《正义论》出版于1971年 Rawls' Theory of Justice was published in 1971.
诺齐克的《无政府 国家与乌托邦》出版于1974年 Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia three years later in 1974.
罗尔斯和诺齐克都在哈佛任教 办公室相隔不远 Rawls and Nozick at the time had offices down the hall from one another.
但你们可以感觉到 罗尔斯的作品是某主要哲学项目的一部分 But Rawls' work, as you will feel, is part of a major philosophical project.
展示出厚重的自我思考 It's extraordinarily self reflective.
罗尔斯写书时正处于中年 Rawls is in his middle age when he writes it.
书中沉淀了他数十年的思考 And he's been thinking about these questions for decades.
而诺齐克的书则是对罗尔斯见解的反应 Nozick's book is an extraordinarily insightful response to Rawls,
见地很深且思想具有积极意义 as well as being a positive formulation of a view.
但它不及《正义论》庄重 But it's not a work with the gravitas of Theory of Justice.
成书时诺齐克还很年轻 It was written when Nozick was quite young.
他当时只有30岁出头 He was in his early 30s.
需要意识到的是 这两本著作虽然 And it's important to know that although these works are
经常在哲学课上成对出现… typically paired in philosophy courses--
如果你选修政治的道德基础 (If you took-- or are taking-- Moral Foundations of Politics
或其它政治理论入门课程 or an introductory political theory course,
你将同时用到这两本书 you will get these two books paired together.),--
但《正义论》 根据引用数量 Theory of Justice is, if you look at its citation index,
影响力是《无政府 国家与乌托邦》的三倍 more than three times more influential, if that's the
影响力是《无政府 国家与乌托邦》的三倍 measure, than Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
《正义论》在谷歌学术上的引用量大概是3万 So Theory of Justice Google Scholar citation is roughly 30,000
而《无政府 国家与乌托邦》则只有大概1万 whereas Anarchy, State, and Utopia is roughly 10,000.
这在哲学上已经非常高了 These are extraordinarily high numbers in philosophy.
你们在其它哲学领域中可能碰到的其它书籍 Those of you who have encountered works in other domains of philosophy,
比如成书时间大致相同的克里普克的《命名与必然性》 for example Kripke's Naming and Necessity, written at about this time,
引用量大致只有《无政府 国家与乌托邦》的一半 即5千左右 its citation numbers are about half that of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, about 5,000.
我在这里希望你们记住的是 So what I want you to take home from this is the idea
这些都是影响巨大的作品 that these are enormously influential works with
影响远远超过了哲学学术范围 consequences far beyond academic philosophy,
但它们观点不同 but that they differ in their tone.
《无政府 国家与乌托邦》试图 So Anarchy, State, and Utopia is an attempt to defend the
从两个方面捍卫最小国家的概念 minimal state from two different kinds of objections.
作品第一部分总 诺齐克认为国家要优于无政府状态 In the first part of the work, Nozick defends the state against the position of anarchy.
他认为最小国家具有正当性 He argues that a minimal state is justified,
但不能在侵犯人民权利的基础上 that it's not the case that it's a violation of people's rights to have
强制实施法律 治安等基础规则 basic enforcement of laws, police and the sort of fundamental things
以此来摆脱霍布斯所说的自然状态 实现稳定 that are required for the basic stability of getting out of Hobbes's state of nature.
我们阅读相关的书中第二部分 The second part of the book, with which our reading was concerned,
认为最小国家优于最大主义观点下的国家 defends the minimal state against a more maximalist picture.
在书的这部分中 And in that part of the book,
诺齐克在两个领域捍卫人民的自由权利 Nozick defends the rights of people to liberty in two kinds of domains.
第一个是 他认为人民有权签署任何自己想签署的契约 The first is that he defends people's rights to enter into
第一个是 他认为人民有权签署任何自己想签署的契约 almost any sort of contract that they would like.
他认为 人们甚至有权在特定条件下签订卖身契 He defends, for example, the right of people under certain
他认为 人们甚至有权在特定条件下签订卖身契 conditions to contract themselves into slavery.
他认为 在某些情况下 人们有权签署可强制执行的勒索契约 He defends, in other contexts, the right to have an enforceable blackmail contract.
这些内容不在我们读的选段中 That's not the part of the book which we read excerpts from.
我们所读的选段 The part of the book that we read excerpts from, and
只涉及课程关心的内容 to which the remainder of lecture will be devoted,
也就是诺齐克关于财产权的讨论 is Nozick's discussion of our relation to property.
诺齐克在著名的《无政府 国家与乌托邦》第七章中 So what Nozick tries to do in the famous seventh chapter of Anarchy, State, and Utopia
试图阐述一种所有权正义的概念 is to articulate a notion of justice in holdings--
也就是关于财产的正义 that is, justice with respect to property--
这为个人拥有特定财产是否具有正当性这一问题的三方面 that provides a principled explanation of the relation
这为个人拥有特定财产是否具有正当性这一问题的三方面 among the three different kinds of concerns that one has
提供了原则性的解释 in asking about whether it's legitimate for a person to own a piece of property.
首先是关于获取正义的问题 The first is the question of justice in acquisition.
在什么条件下… 当我最初获取某物 比如番茄 Under what conditions-- when I initially come to acquire something, say a tomato--
在什么条件下获取让我具有物品的所有权 且满足正义条件 is my acquisition of it such that my ownership of the
在什么条件下获取让我具有物品的所有权 且满足正义条件 object is in keeping with the conditions of justice?
等下我们会考虑诺齐克关于获取正义的讨论 And we'll talk about Nozick's views on justice in acquisition in a minute.
然后是诺齐克关于转让正义的讨论 The second question that Nozick is concerned with here is the question of justice in transfer.
即 如果我有一个物品 So he's concerned with the question, if I have an object
我希望把其所有权转让给你 and I wish to transfer possession of that object to you,
什么条件下 这种转让坚持了正义 under what conditions is that transfer justice-preserving?
最后是诺齐克关于非正义矫正的讨论 And finally, Nozick is concerned with the question of rectification of injustice.
假设我拥有某物 你不正当地从我这里拿走 So suppose I own something which you illegitimately take from me,
什么条件下我能重申我的所有权 以及如何重申 under what conditions and how do I reclaim possession of that object?
诺齐克认为 任何关于所有权正义的讨论 Nozick's argument is that we can say everything that needs
诺齐克认为 任何关于所有权正义的讨论 to be said about justice in holdings --
任何关于不侵犯人民权利的社会财产分布的讨论 everything that needs to be said about the distribution of
任何关于不侵犯人民权利的社会财产分布的讨论 property in a society that doesn't violate people's rights --
都可以基于如下的归纳定义 by appeal to an inductive definition that runs as follows.
他说 "如果一个人获得某物时符合获取正义原则" He says, "If a person acquires a holding in keeping with the principle of justice in acquisition,
"这个人P具有此物的所有权" the person, p, is entitled to the holding."
如果我获取某物时正当合法 So, if I come to own something in a way that is legitimate, rule-following,
我对该物的拥有符合获取正义原则 my owning of that object is in keeping with the rules of justice.
第二个条件是归纳条件 The second clause is an induction clause.
"如果一个人P获取某物 是按照转让正义原则" "If a person acquires a holding, in keeping with the principle of justice in transfer,
"从具有所有权的人那里获取" from somebody who was entitled--
不管这个人是通过转让还是原始获取拥有所有权 either as a result of a transfer or as the result of an initial acquisition--
不管这个人是通过转让还是原始获取拥有所有权 to hold that object,
"那么P具有此物的所有权" then the person is entitled to hold that object."
最后 诺齐克给出归纳结论 And finally, Nozick has a closure clause.
"除非属于(1)和(2)两种情况之一 否则没人拥有所有权" "No one is entitled to a holding except by repeated applications of one and two."
学过数学的人肯定很熟悉这类定义 Now those of you who have taken mathematics are familiar with this sort of definition.
如果我想给出自然数的归纳定义 If I wanted to provide an inductive definition of the natural numbers,
我可以说 "1是一个自然数" I might begin by saying "one is a member fo the set of natural numbers."
这是基础条件 That's my base clause.
然后我加上 "如果任意数是自然数" I then add, "if anything is a member of the set of natural numbers,
"那么加上1后仍然是自然数" then that plus one is a member of the set of natural numbers."
然后我可以归纳说 And then I put in place some sort of closure condition
"自然数是且仅包括所有满足条件一和条件二的数" such that "the natural numbers," for example,
"自然数是且仅包括所有满足条件一和条件二的数" "are all and only those things that satisfy the first and second clause."
诺齐克这里也是如此 So the picture that Nozick is providing us with here
他为我们提供了一个封闭系统 is one that gives us a certain kind of closed system.
看看这在特定情况下如何体现 So let's see how it works in a particular case.
诺齐克指出 要运用他这里提出的原则 Nozick stresses that when you make use of the principles that he's articulated here,
关键在于过程 而不是结果 what matters is the process not the outcome.
假设我拥有一个番茄 So suppose I come to possess a tomato.
根据诺齐克的观点 我的拥有是否正当取决于我拥有番茄的过程 It makes all the difference in the world, on Nozick's view
根据诺齐克的观点 我的拥有是否正当取决于我拥有番茄的过程 what the actual process by which I came to possess that object is.
比如 路边有一个不属于我的果园 If, for example, there was a garden down the road from me, which I didn't own,
我看到漂亮的番茄 于是在没人允许的情况下摘走了番茄 where a beautiful tomato sat, and I took that tomato without permission,
我对番茄的拥有就是不正当的 my possession of that tomato is illegitimate.
哪怕如果我不偷走番茄的话 Hmm. Even if there is an alternative process-- a hypothetical one--
我本可以正当地得到这个番茄 which I didn't in fact engage in whereby I could have come to have that tomato legitimately.
诺齐克说 如果小偷偷走了你的财产 If a thief takes your property, says Nozick, it
他对你财产的拥有是不正当的 doesn't make his possession of your property legitimate even
哪怕你本来就打算把东西自愿送给他 if you could have voluntarily given it to him.
而且 诺齐克说 Moreover, says Nozick,
如果我不正当地拥有某物 然后转让给你 if I come to possess something illegitimately and I transfer it to you--
哪怕转让手段正当 你的拥有仍然保留了不正当性 even by legitimate means-- it retains its illegitimate status.
因此 诺齐克认为所有权具有如下特征 So the picture that Nozick is presenting in his discussion of holdings
因此 诺齐克认为所有权具有如下特征 is one with the following characteristics.
所有权正义… 这对他对罗尔斯的批判很重要 Justice in holdings-- and this will be important for his critique of Rawls--
所有权正义具有历史性 justice in holdings is historical.
它取决于发生了什么 It depends on what actually happened.
特别地 如果某物的拥有是非正义获取的结果 In particular, if something is owned as result of an unjust acquisition,
这种拥有就是非正义的 it produces an unjust holding.
如果某物的拥有是非正义获取加正义转让的结果 If something is owned as a result of an unjust acquisition plus a just transfer,
这种拥有仍然是非正义的 it still produces an unjust holding.
如果某物的拥有是正义获取加非正义转让的结果 If something is owned as the results of a just acquisition and an unjust transfer,
这种拥有是非正义的 it produces an unjust holding.
如果某物的拥有是非正义获取加非正义转让的结果 And if something is owned as a result of an unjust acquisition and an unjust transfer,
这两种非正义无法相互抵消 it's not that these two injustices cancel one another out.
这种拥有仍然是非正义的 Rather we have, again, an unjust holding.
根据诺齐克 只有两个条件同时满足 拥有才正义 It's under two conditions that holdings are just on Nozick's picture.
第一是直截了当的正义获取 The first is if it's a straightforward just acquisition.
第二是正义获取随后的一次或多次正义转让 And the second is if there's a just acquisition followed by one or more just transfers.
目前为止 这还不能算是对罗尔斯的批判 So far this isn't getting Nozick very far in terms of a critique of Rawls.
不过下一步中你们将会看到 这种财产权正义的概念 But the next step will allow you to see how this notion of justice in property
会将诺齐克引往何处 does work on the Nozick picture.
诺齐克继续说 一个人的拥有是正义的 What Nozick goes on to say is that the holdings of a person are just
如果拥有是获取正义及转让正义的结果 if he's entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer
或者在不完美情况下 通过矫正原则得到 or in imperfect situations by the principle of rectification.
也就是说 以上这两步是所有权正义的必要条件 That is, it is a necessary condition on justice in holding
也就是说 以上这两步是所有权正义的必要条件 that they have been acquired through one of these two steps.
同时也是充分条件 But it is also a sufficient condition.
如果每个人的所有权都正义 If each person's holdings are just then there are no more
所有权的总和自然也没有问题 questions to be asked about the aggregation of holdings.
如果每个人的所有权正义 那么所有物的分配也正义 If each person's holdings are just, then the distribution of holdings is just.
讲转让正义时我们会看到 这种概念 So we'll see when we get to justice in transfer how it is that this notion,
既包括历史性质作为确定正义的相关条件 both of taking historical properties as the relevant ones in determining justice
也包括归纳财产权特征作为所有权正义的充要条件 and in taking the inductive property holding characterization as
也包括归纳财产权特征作为所有权正义的充要条件 necessary and sufficient for justice in holdings,
这一对事物是如何为诺齐克提供支撑 how it is that those pair of things provides Nozick with the leverage
让他能够批判罗尔斯的无知之幕观念 to criticize the outlook to which all of you from behind the veil of ignorance last class--
上一堂课 你们大多数人似乎都认可无知之幕是正义所要求的 or the majority of you from behind the veil of ignorance last class--
上一堂课 你们大多数人似乎都认可无知之幕是正义所要求的 seems to think was what justice mandated.
也就是说 诺齐克从一个非常简单的论点出发 That is, Nozick takes from this very simple picture an argument, which
得到结论 即任何形式的资源集中分配都是不正当的 from his perspective renders illegitimate any sort of centralized redistribution of resources.
为了评估诺齐克的归纳定义 So you remember, in order to evaluate Nozick's inductive definition
我们需要知道他所说的获取正义包括什么 that we need to know what it is that he thinks justice in acquisition involves.
以及他所说的转让正义包括什么 And what it is that he thinks justice in transfer involves.
关于获取正义的那部分阅读比较复杂 So the discussion of justice in acquisition is a rather
关于获取正义的那部分阅读比较复杂 complicated portion of the text that I had you read for today's class.
诺齐克引用了十七世纪哲学家约翰•洛克的观点 What Nozick does is to make appeal to the work of the 17th century philosopher John Locke,
洛克的著作《第二政府论》是这样讨论财产权的 whose Second Treatise on Government begins its discussion of property as follows.
洛克写道 "虽然尘世和所有下等生物为全人类所共有" Locke writes, "Though the Earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men,
"但每个人都有属于自己的财产" yet every man has a property in his own person.
"这些财产除他以外没人有权拥有" This nobody has any right to but himself.
"身体的劳作 双手之劳动 我们可以说 这些财产是属于他的" The labor of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his."
洛克认为在自然状态下 具有一个不被拥有的外部世界 So on Locke's picture of the state of nature there's a world out there unowned.
我们这里可以把前半句撇开不谈 We're setting aside a set of concerns about whether this picture--
不管尘世和所有下等生物是否在任何意义上属于全人类 that the Earth and all inferior creatures belong in any principled sense to human beings--
只考虑 and rather looking at
洛克关于获取正义论述的后半句 what it is that Locke's argument for the justice in acquisition clause involves.
洛克认为 外部世界不属于任何个人 So Locke says, the world out there of objects doesn't belong to anybody.
但每个人具有对自己身体的权利 But what each person does have is the rights to his or her own body
特别是对自己的劳动具有所有权 and, in particular, possession, ownership rights over his labor.
于是 洛克说 So, says Locke,
"不管他从自然提供的资源中移除了什么 原有的东西剩下了什么" "Whatsoever he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left in it
"通过混入自己的劳动 他加入他自己的东西" he hath mixed his labor with and joined it to something that is his own and
"从而使之变成他的财产" thereby makes it his property."
结论 "他将事物移出了自然的共有状态" Concluding, "It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in,
"他的劳动混入事物中 这就排除了其他人的共有权利" it hath by this labor something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men.
"因为此劳动是劳动者毋庸置疑的财产" For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer,
"劳动加入后 除了劳动者 没有人对事物具有权利" no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to,
"至少在有足够的同样好的共有事物留给他人这一前提下" at least when there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."
诺齐克从洛克的讨论中继承了两点 So Nozick takes from this discussion of Locke two things.
第一点是 他也认为获取正义包含 The first thing he takes is the idea that what justice in acquisition involves
人所拥有的自身劳动混合到 is a certain kind of mixing of what is one's own, one's labor,
之前自然状态中不被任何人拥有的事物中 with something that is previously unowned -- potential property in the state of nature.
不过 诺齐克批判这一特征描述缺乏清晰 And although Nozick has all sorts of criticisms about the unclarity of this characterization.
比如他说 "如果我去火星 清扫了火星的一部分" He says, for example, "If I go to Mars and sweep off a portion of the planet,
"我因此声明了这部分的所有权" have I thereby claimed just that portion?
"还是声明了整个火星的所有权" Have I claimed the entire planet of Mars?
"还是声明了它之外所有星球的所有权" Have I claimed all of the planets that lie beyond it?"
他还提出质疑 为什么混入劳动后 He also asks why it is that mixing one's labor with
就能获得物体的所有权 而不是失去劳动本身 something should lead to possession of the object rather than the losing of one's labor.
不过最终 他愿意接受类似洛克的观点作为其获取正义的基石 But ultimately he's willing to accept that something like the
不过最终 他愿意接受类似洛克的观点作为其获取正义的基石 Lockean picture is going to underlie justice in acquisition.
你们昨晚读的选段中 他大部分时间 What worries him,
你们昨晚读的选段中 他大部分时间 and what he devotes the bulk of the selection that you read for last night to,
都是在关注他所说的"洛克但书" is this concern about whether what he calls the Lockean Proviso,
也就是 为了让获取具有正当性 the idea that in order for acquisition to be legitimate there needs
需要有足够的同样好的共有事物留给他人 to be enough and as good left in common for others.
考虑但书是否经常被违反 Whether Proviso is frequently violated.
如果但书经常被违反 那么获取正义 Because if that Proviso were frequently violated then justice in acquisitions
就没有诺齐克所希望的那样简单直接 wouldn't be simple and straightforward in the way that Nozick wants it to be.
你们所读材料的基本论述结构… So the basic structure of the argument that you read--
等下我还将详细讲解 and I'll run through it in more detail in a minute--
诺齐克关于洛克的讨论 其基本论述结构如下 the basic structure of the argument that you read in the
诺齐克关于洛克的讨论 其基本论述结构如下 context of Nozick's discussion of Locke runs as follows.
洛克关于财产获取包含什么具有一些合理的观点 Locke has a reasonable picture of what acquisition of property involves.
诺齐克认为 其中有些内容有待商榷 但我不打算深究 We need to fuss with it around the edges but I'm not going to worry about that, says Nozick.
我只打算考虑一个概念 What I am going to worry about is whether this notion of
即"足够的同样好的共有事物留给他人" there being "enough and as good left in common for others"
是否会削弱洛克的整个理论 is going to undercut the whole Lockean picture.
这种观念是怎样的呢 So what's the idea look like?
假设有四个人来到一块地上 发现有一些没有被声明所有权的奶牛 Suppose that four of us come upon a field of previously unclaimed cows.
于是一个人领走了4头牛 And that one of us claims four of the cows.
第二个人领走了6头牛 第三个人领走了剩下的6头牛 And then a second of us claims six of the cows and a third of us claims the remaining six cows.
洛克但书有没有被违反 Has the Lockean Proviso been violated?
诺齐克首先有一种"拉链拉开"式的担忧 Nozick's first worry, which he calls the unzipping worry, is
可能并不只有领走6头牛的蓝色者违反了洛克但书 that perhaps it's not just the blue character who took the
可能并不只有领走6头牛的蓝色者违反了洛克但书 last six cows who's violated the Lockean Proviso.
也许黄色者 在限制蓝色者时 也违背了 Perhaps the yellow character, in limiting the blue character, has violated it
而红色者 在限制黄色者 进而限制蓝色者时 and the red character, in limiting the yellow character by limiting the blue character,
可能也违背了洛克但书 has somehow violated the Lockean Proviso.
诺齐克说不是这样 Nozick says no.
红色者的行为限制了黄色者的行为 The fact that the red character's activities limited the yellow character's activities,
如果我们考虑进蓝色者的行为 if we took into consideration the blue character's activities,
说红色和黄色者违反了洛克但书并不充分 is not sufficient to render red or yellow in violation of the Lockean Proviso.
这是第一步 So that's step one.
不过我们仍然要考虑 蓝色者有没有违反洛克但书 But we still might wonder whether the blue character has violated the Lockean Proviso.
毕竟 他没有把足够的同样好的东西留给粉色者 After all, how could he have left as much and as good for our fourth character--
粉色者在这里没能得到任何奶牛 pink over here-- if pink isn't in a position to get any cows?
诺齐克的答案是 在获得物品所有权并混入个人劳动后 Nozick's answer is that in taking on ownership of objects and mixing one's labor with them,
劳动主体会为所有人增加这些物品的价值 typically what the subject does is to increase the value of those objects for all.
红色者 从4头牛中 可能可以生产1加仑牛奶 So red, from his four cows, might produce one gallon of milk.
而黄色者也许生产2加仑 蓝色者也许生产3加仑 And yellow might produce two and blue might produce three.
结果 粉色者虽然没有奶牛 但他也变得更富裕了 As a result, pink-- though he doesn't have access to the cows-- is better off.
因此诺齐克说 洛克但书没有被违反 And, says Nozick, the Lockean Proviso has not been violated.
诺齐克特别关注的问题是 So what Nozick says in particular,
人们在再没有未被声明所有权的物品可以占用时 is he asks whether the situation of persons who are unable to appropriate--
人们在再没有未被声明所有权的物品可以占用时 there being no more acceptable and unowned objects--
处境是否因为允许占用和私有财产的体系而变糟 is their situation worsened by a system of allowing appropriation and private property?
他响亮地给出了答案 不是 And the answer he gives is a resounding no.
原因同我们所熟悉的霍布斯情况很类似 For exactly the sort of reasons that we're familiar with from our Hobbes case --
也就是说存在一种社会契约的签署 the idea that there is a kind of social contract that kicks
能让每个人都受益 in that allows everybody to benefit.
而且 由于诺齐克坚信 And also because Nozick firmly believes that individual
个人所有权能带来特别的效率 ownership brings with it a particular kind of efficiency.
诺齐克担忧的是 洛克但书是否会推翻我的理论 So Nozick's worry, which was: is the Lockean Proviso going to knock my theory out of the water
让我归纳论证的基础条件无法实现 such that I can't get the base clause of my inductive argument going?
诺齐克的结论是 私有财产的占用 Nozick's conclusion is that appropriation of private property
满足"足够的同样好的事物留给他人"这一但书背后的意图 satisfies the intent behind the "enough and as good left over" Proviso.
但是 他谨慎地指出 这并非基于效用主义推理 But, he is careful to point out, this is not based on utilitarian reasoning.
不是基于效用主义财产正当性理由 It's not based on a utilitarian justification of property.
诺齐克 和罗尔斯一样 Nozick-- like Rawls--
希望给出一种基于权利的理论 is concerned with articulating a rights based theory.
他和罗尔斯一样 不允许权利和效用的交换 And so, like Rawls, doesn't allow trade-offs of rights for utilities.
他关于财产原始获取的论述如下 So the argument about the original acquisition of property runs as follows.
我有权做任何不伤害他人的事 Nozick says, I have the right to do everything that doesn't harm others
且仅有权做不伤害他人的事 and the right to do only what doesn't harm others.
我的权利始于且终于某些限制和允许 My rights begin and end in their restrictions and permissions
考虑什么会给他人造成伤害 with consideration of what brings harm to others.
如果违反洛克但书 我的行为将 Violating the Lockean Proviso, if I managed to do that, would leave
让他人处境更差 进而会伤害到他们 others worse off than they would have been otherwise and consequently would harm them.
因此 我无权违反洛克但书 As a consequence, says Nozick, I don't have the right to violate the Lockean Proviso.
如果我的原始财产获取 If, as a matter of fact, my original acquisition of property
没有为他人留下足够且同样好的事物 doesn't leave as much and as good for others,
那么我的原始获取就不属于正义财产所有权范畴 then my original acquisition was not an instance of just property ownership.
但是 诺齐克说 除了在极少数情况下 But, says Nozick, except in very rare cases--
也就是他所说的大灾难或荒岛限制条件下 he calls them conditions of catastrophe or desert island limitations--
获取财产不违反洛克但书 也不伤害他人 acquiring property doesn't violate the Lockean Proviso or harm others.
对这个副条款的论述 这个副论述 是基于效用的论述 And the argument for this sub-clause, this sub-argument, is a utility-based argument.
在效用基础上我获得前提 It's on the grounds of utility that I get the premise that
除了在极少数情况下 获取财产不违反洛克但书 except in rare cases acquiring property doesn't violate the Lockean Proviso.
但基本论述 我有且仅有权做不伤害他人的事 But the fundamental argument, I have the right to do all and only what doesn't harm others.
除了在极少数情况下 获得财产 Except in very rare cases acquiring property does not
不违反洛克但书 不伤害他人 violate the Lockean Proviso and harm others.
一加四足以给出结论 That one, plus four, is sufficient to give us the conclusion
除了极少数情况 我有权获取财产 that except in very rare cases I have the right to acquire property.
以上就是我要讲的内容 So that is, by way of exposition,
我认为这部分内容在阅读任务中比较难理解 of what I understand to have been a fairly difficult part of the assigned text.
下面进入材料中较简单的一个部分 So let's move now to an easier segment of the text.
我们注意到 诺齐克对基础条件的辩护 So as we noted, Nozick provides his defense of the base clause
是通过洛克的原始财产获取概念 by appeal to Locke's notion of original acquisition of property
针对潜在的对洛克但书的反对意见 进行了辩护 and defends that against the potential objection-- the Lockean Proviso objection--
提供了更清晰的概念 in providing a clearer sense of what that amounts to.
很多方面来讲 文字最著名的部分 In many ways the most famous part of the text comes in
来自于诺齐克对归纳条件的辩护 Nozick's defense of the induction clause.
归纳条件也就是说 So in defending the induction clause -- which, remember, says that
如果P获取H 是在遵循转让正义的原则下 if P acquires H, in keeping with the principle of justice in transfer,
从所有权正当者那里获取 那么P的所有权就是正当的 from somebody already entitled, that P is entitled to H --
诺齐克关注转让正义的概念 Nozick is concerned with what justice in transfer amounts to.
一开始 他区分出了一种事物 So he begins by distinguishing something that should be familiar to all of you
这和你们所熟悉的密尔和康德理论相关 from your readings of Mill and Kant earlier this semester.
他区分了历史性原则… He distinguishes between principles that are historical--
历史性原则是说 分配是否正义取决于物品经历了什么过程 that is that tell us that whether a distribution is just depends upon how it came about.
也就是说 我们所关注的正义是一个过程性问题 That is, what we are concerned with when we are concerned
也就是说 我们所关注的正义是一个过程性问题 about justice is a question of process.
他将此同目的-结果原则进行了对照 And he contrasts those with what he calls end-result principles
目的-结果原则也就是 分配是否正义取决于分配方式 where, whether a distribution is just depends upon how things are distributed.
康德确定一种行为是否道德 或是否在道德上值得称赞时 So you'll remember that when we were reading Kant and
康德确定一种行为是否道德 或是否在道德上值得称赞时 trying to determine whether an action counted as moral or morally praiseworthy,
关注的是行为施行的过程 Kant was concerned about the process by which that action was carried out.
而密尔则相反 只关注结果 Mill, by contrast, was concerned with outcome.
诺齐克在第七章开头部分 Nozick goes on, in the opening parts of chapter seven that we read,
为历史性原则提出辩护 to provide a defense of historical principles
并论证说 仅仅通过考察分配方式 and to argue that one consequence of that will be that we can never
我们永远无法判断社会的正义性 judge the justice of a society by looking at how its goods are distributed.
他指出 正义理论中人们一般都喜欢明确提出 So, he points out, it has been typical in the articulation of theories of justice,
只有分配是根据某种可明确的独立标准 社会才是正义的 to claim that a society is just if goods are distributed
只有分配是根据某种可明确的独立标准 社会才是正义的 according to some sort of independently specifiable criterion.
比如 根据道德功绩的标准来分配 For example, distribute goods according to the moral merit of those who receive them,
根据智力知识的标准来分配 or according to the intelligence of those who receive them
根据个人努力程度的标准来分配 or according to the effort that individuals put in,
根据需求的标准来分配等等 or according to their need for the objects that you distribute.
诺齐克指出 人们希望自己的社会看起来正义 Nozick points out that people want their society to look just.
也希望自己的社会确实正义 And they also want their society to be just.
但在让社会看起来正义时 But in asking their society to look just,
诺齐克认为人们容易犯错 Nozick thinks they make a mistake
他们容易将模式当作确定结果正当性的方式 if they take pattern as a way of determining legitimate outcome.
诺齐克问道 正义的形式应该存在于可独立明确的结果模式 Must the look of justice, asks Nozick, reside in a resulting pattern,
诺齐克问道 正义的形式应该存在于可独立明确的结果模式 which we can specify independently and in advance
而非存在于根本的产生原则吗 rather than in the underlying generating principles?
要思考这个问题 我们可以考虑一下 And to think about this, it's helpful to help ourselves to a three-way distinction
约翰•罗尔斯在《正义论》中的三分法 that John Rawls makes in the context of Theory of Justice.
罗尔斯区分出了三种程序正义 Rawls distinguishes between three kinds of procedural justice there.
第一种他称之为完美程序正义 The first is a notion of what he calls perfect procedural justice.
这种情况中 存在一个独立标准 This is a case where we have an independent criterion for
明确行为的正确结果应该如何 what the right result of our act will be
然后还存在一个肯定能得到这种结果的程序 and a procedure that is certain to give us that result.
比如 如果我想分一个蛋糕 每个人都想要一块 So, for example, if I'm trying to divide a cake, of which all of us want pieces,
对于正确结果 有一个独立标准 there's an independent criterion for the right result.
也就是 每个人获得相同大小的一块 Namely each of us gets a piece of exactly the same size.
存在一个肯定的程序能得到这个结果 And there's a sure procedure for arriving at that result.
我让一个人去切 What I do is I allow one person to slice
这个人最后选择他的那块 and that is the person who chooses his piece last.
只要这个人的刀法精准 So long as he's in a position to make precise cuts,
程序的结果将总能给出 the result of this procedure will always give us
独立标准所给出的结果 what it is that we independently specified as the outcome we sought.
我们希望等分 我们有明确这一正确结果的独立标准 We want equal slices, we have an independent criterion for the right result,
还有确保实现的程序 and we have a sure procedure.
切的人最后选 He who slices chooses last.
相比之下 大多数情况下 我们所处的情况 By contrast, in most situations, what we find ourselves in
只能算作罗尔斯所说的非完美程序正义 is a condition where our only choice is what Rawls calls imperfect procedural justice.
我们有明确正确结果的独立标准 Where we have an independent criterion for the right result
但通向结果的程序并不完美 but the procedure that we have for achieving that result is imperfect.
比如 法律体系中 我们希望宣告且仅宣告犯罪者有罪 So for example, in the legal system we have a goal of
比如 法律体系中 我们希望宣告且仅宣告犯罪者有罪 convicting all and only those who are guilty of a crime.
我们很明确正确结果应该如何 We have a clear sense of what the right result will be.
但程序决定了 有时犯罪者可能逍遥法外 But though we have a procedure which presumably does a good deal better than chance,
但程序决定了 有时犯罪者可能逍遥法外 it is undeniable that on occasion the guilty go free.
也有时 无辜者被定罪 And likewise undeniable that on occasion the innocent are convicted.
第三种程序正义是罗尔斯所说的纯粹程序正义 The third kind of procedural justice is what Rawls calls pure procedural justice.
这种情况下 我们没有独立方式明确结果 This is a case where we have no independent way of specifying the result.
我们所采用的程序只能在 And what we do is we adopt a procedure by which we will
实时的现实中 贯彻某种分配 carry out in real time, in actuality, some sort of distribution.
由于遵循了这一程序 什么分配都是公平的 And as the result of having followed that procedure, whichever distribution arises is fair.
赌博就是此类结构 So gambling has this structure.
规则就是 所有人付钱 然后碰运气 There is a rule that we have. We all pays our money and then we takes our chances.
结果不管怎么分配都是正当的 And whatever distribution of outcomes results from that is legitimate.
诺齐克主张 社会中的财产分配 Nozick's claim is that the distribution of property in a society
不应该被认作属于完美或非完美程序正义 ought to be understood as subject, not to some sort of perfect or imperfect procedural justice.
也就是说 关于如何分配 这里没有独立标准 That is, there's no independent criterion for how
也就是说 关于如何分配 这里没有独立标准 it is that goods ought to be distributed across people.
我们只能在历史过程中 Rather, it's simply a matter of living historically through a process
通过事物获取和转让方式的正义性 whereby things are required in just fashion and transferred in just fashion,
审视分配的正义性 and seeing how it is that things distribute themselves.
这同马克思等人的模式观点不同 So in contrast to some sort of pattern picture, Marx has this idea,
马克思认为应各尽所能 按需分配 from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.
这里马克思认为存在关于分配的独立标准 That's an idea that there's an independent criterion of how things should be distributed.
诺齐克不这么认为 他的描述更为复杂 Nozick provides, in contrast, this rather complicated articulation:
即"各尽所择" 大致"按择分配" "from each according to what he chooses to do and roughly to each as they are chosen."
也就是 不管事物如何分配 That is, however things distribute themselves,
只要过程公平 结果就是公平的 as long as the process is fair, will end up being fair.
这就引出了诺齐克的著名论断 自由颠覆模式 And this gives rise to Nozick's famous argument that liberty upsets patterns.
诺齐克要我们想象一个世界 So Nozick asks us to imagine a world
其中所有来自无知之幕后的人 in which all of our friends from behind the veil of ignorance
都获得均等公平的分配 are given whatever equal share you give them in your fair distribution.
每个人获得一个合适大小的存钱罐 So each of them ends up with a piggy bank of the appropriate size.
但所有人都是篮球迷 But all of them, says Nozick, are basketball fans
他们都把自己四分之一的钱 and they choose to take a quarter of their own money
存到威尔特•张伯伦银行帐户下 and to deposit it in the bank account of Wilt Chamberlain.
他们的朋友也如此 还有朋友的朋友 朋友的朋友的朋友 And so do their friends and so do their friends and so do their friends
人们自由进行正当财产转让 until, as a result of people freely doing what a legitimate transfer permits,
结果导致张伯伦的存钱罐里充满了钱 Wilt Chamberlain comes to have so much money that his piggy bank gets blurry on the slide.
他变得非常富有 He's that extraordinarily wealthy.
诺齐克讲张伯伦的例子有两个意义 Now Nozick takes the Wilt Chamberlain example to have two implications.
第一个是描述性意义 The first is a descriptive implication.
一般而言 张伯伦的例子可以用来证明 The general point, he says, illustrated by the Wilt Chamberlain example
没有正义的目的状态原则或分配模式原则 is that no end-state principle or distribution pattern principle of justice
能够在没有人类持续干预的前提下一直实现下去 can be continuously realized without continuous interference in people's lives.
原则所偏好的模式都会转变为原则所不喜欢的模式 Any favored pattern will be transformed into an unfavored pattern by the principle --
原则所偏好的模式赋予人们对物品所有的正当性 by people exchanging goods and services with other people or giving things to other people,
但人们之间物品的交换赠予却让这种模式无法维持 things that the transferers are entitled to under the favored distribution pattern.
要维持一种模式 必须人为干预转让过程 To maintain a pattern, one must either interfere with the process of transferring resources,
或夺走人们正当转让的物品然后进行再分配 or interfere in such a way that one takes away from somebody who has
或夺走人们正当转让的物品然后进行再分配 legitimately acquired their pile of quarters and redistribute that.
要维持一种模式 诺齐克说 To maintain a pattern, says Nozick, one must either
必须人为干预 让人们不要随意转让资源 interfere to stop people from transferring resources as they wish to.
或者从人们那里夺走其他人希望转让给他们的资源 Or interfere to take from them resources that others chose to transfer to them.
这就是张伯伦例子中的描述性意义 So that's the descriptive implication of the Wilt Chamberlain example.
张伯伦的例子中还有一个规范性意义 There's also a normative implication of the Wilt Chamberlain example.
诺齐克说 假设D1是根据无知之幕而来的原始分配 Nozick says this, look if D1, the initial distribution where
诺齐克说 假设D1是根据无知之幕而来的原始分配 each of our characters from behind the veil of ignorance
每人一个存钱罐 如果D1是正义的 had their piggy bank, D1 was a just distribution.
而人们自愿从D1移往D2 And people voluntarily moved from D1 to D2, the one where
让张伯伦得到大量的钱 Wilt Chamberlain ended up with the large amount of quarters.
将自己在D1下正当获取的份额转让 得到的D2难道不正义吗 Transferring parts of their shares that they were given under D1, isn't D2 also just?
如果说D1下人们对资源具有正当的处置权 If the people were entitled to dispose of the resources to which they were entitled under D1,
难道他们没有权将其转让给张伯伦吗 didn't this include their being entitled to give to, or exchange it with Wilt Chamberlain?
有人能在正义基础上对此提出非议吗 Can anyone else complain on grounds of justice?
诺齐克认为 其他每个人在D1下都已经分得了自己应有的份额 Each other person, says Nozick, already has his legitimate share under D1
某人将部分份额转让给张伯伦 他们的份额不会改变 and after someone transfers something to Wilt Chamberlain, their shares are not changed.
描述性主张是 自由必然颠覆模式 So the descriptive claim is that liberty will inevitably upset patterns.
而规范性主张是 这样做的话 没有出现不正义 And the normative claim is that in so doing, no injustice has occurred.
我将给出两个人们可能想到的理由 I'm going to close with two reasons that one might think
其实这个论述并非像诺齐克想的那样明晰 that this argument doesn't work as cleanly as Nozick would think.
第一个我们已经碰到过 即很多情况下 The first we've encountered already, which is that many more situations
公地悲剧的问题可能比任何人想象的都要严重 have the structure of the problem of the commons than one might antecedently realize.
而且两方之间的交易并非总能不影响到第三方 And it's not always the case that individual transactions between pairs of people
而且两方之间的交易并非总能不影响到第三方 don't carry with them third-party consequences.
第二个理由则是 The second is that it is sometimes the case that
有时人之间资源分配的不平等 distributions of resources across individuals in unequal ways
会侵犯诺齐克希望捍卫的自由 produces violations of the sorts of freedoms that Nozick wants to defend.
假设一开始有两组人 So suppose we start out with two groups of people, each of
每一组都有几乎一样的钱 whom have roughly similar amounts of money.
他们将子女送到学校 老师也是相同的 And they send their children to school with one another and share the same set of teachers.
假设其中一组 通过正当转让从D1到D2 Suppose that one of those groups, through legitimate transfers from D1 to D2,
拥有了更多的钱 comes to possess a much larger amount of money
创立了另一所学校供子女读书 and create another school where they send their children
而且把最优秀的老师都招募了过去 and where they hire the teachers who were the most gifted.
通过正当转让而变得富有的人 其行为可能会导致 It may become the case that simply as the result of people having engaged in behavior
通过正当转让而变得富有的人 其行为可能会导致 that involved a series of independently legitimate transfers,
另外一群孩子获得优质教育的自由受到阻碍 the situation that results may impede the freedom of these children
这些人的权利本来也是诺齐克希望捍卫的 to become citizens of the sort whose rights Nozick wishes to defend.
已经11:20了 So it's 11:20 now.
今天的课就讲到这里 And we'll finish up today's lecture here.
下一讲 我们将结束诺齐克对所有权正义的讨论 And move next lecture to finish up with Nozick's discussion of justice in holdings
开始考虑一些社会心理学内容 and to think about that in the context of some work in social psychology.