close
卡累利阿語翻譯翻譯社
Michael Sandel: So the principle there was the same on 9/11. It's a tragic circumstance, but better to kill one and so that five can live. Is that the reason most of you had, those of you that would turn? Yes? Let's hear now from those in the minority. Those who wouldn't turn. Yes.
Michael Sandel: No翻譯社 no, it's good.
Student C: Well I think that is the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism翻譯社 in order to save one type of race you wipe out the other.
Student C: Yea.
Michael Sandel: OK. Who else? That's a brave answer. Thank you. Let's consider another trolley car case, and see whether those of you in the majority want to adhere to the principle. Better that one should die so that five should live. This time you're not the driver of the trolley car翻譯社 you're an onlooker. You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track翻譯社 and down the track comes a trolley car, at the end of the track are five workers. The breaks don't work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them, and now, you're not the driver, you really feel helpless翻譯社 until you notice, standing next to you, leaning over the bridge is a very fat man. And you could give him a shove翻譯社 he would fall over the bridge, onto the track, right in the way of the trolley car, he would die, but he would spare the five. Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge? Raise your hand. How many wouldn't? Most people wouldn't. Here's the obvious question, what became of the principle? Better to save five lives翻譯社 even if it means sacrificing one, what became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed, in the first case. I need to hear from somebody who was in the majority in both cases. How do you explain the difference between the two? Yes?
Andrew: And then in another way, I mean翻譯社 in the first situation, you're involved directly with the situation. In the second one you're an onlooker as well. So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man.
第一堂課殺人的道德兩難The Moral Side of Murder英文完整字幕
Michael Sandel: This is a course about justice"65306", {});
You try to stop but you can't. Your breaks don't work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. Let's assume you know that for sure. And so you feel helpless until you notice that there is, off to the right, a sidetrack. And at the end of that track, there is one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works so you can turn the trolley car if you want to翻譯社 onto the side track翻譯社 killing the one, but sparing the five. Here's our first question: What's the right thing to do? What would you do? Let's take a poll. How many would turn the trolley car onto the sidetrack? Raise your hands. How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead? Keep your hands up, those of you who would go straight ahead. A handful of people would. The vast majority would turn. Let's hear first, now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think it's the right thing to do. Let's begin with those in the majority, who would turn to go onto the sidetrack. Why would you do it? What would be your reason? Who is willing to volunteer a reason? Go ahead, stand up.
Student B: Umm, well I was thinking it was the same reason on 9/11翻譯社 we regard the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people on the plane, and not kill more people in big buildings.
Michael Sandel: Alright. Let's、let's翻譯社 let's forget for the moment about this case. That's good. Ah, let's imagine a different case. This time you're a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you. Ah, they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck. Five of them sustained moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim翻譯社 but in that time the five would die, or you look after the five翻譯社 restore them to health, but during that time the one severely injured person would die. How many would save the five? Now as the doctor, how many would save the one? Very few people. Just a handful of people. Same reason I assume, one life versus five? Now consider another doctor case翻譯社 this time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients, each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive. One needs a heart翻譯社 one a lung翻譯社 one a kidney翻譯社 one a liver and the fifth a pancreas. And you have no organ donors. You are about to see them die, and then, it occurs to you that in the next room there is a healthy guy who came in for a checkup, and he's… You like that? And he's, he's taking a nap. You could go in very quietly, yank out the five organs, that person would die, but you could save the five. How many would do it? Anyone? How many? Put your hands up if you would do it. Anyone in the balcony?
Michael Sandel: But the guy working翻譯社 the one on the track off to the side, he didn't choose to sacrifice his life anymore than the fat man did, did he?
Michael Sandel: Suppose, standing on the bridge next to the fat man, I didn't have to push him, suppose he was standing over a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that? Would you turn?
Michael Sandel: You would?
Michael Sandel: Alright, who has a reply? Is that, no, that's good. Who has a way? Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this?
Michael Sandel: Do you want to reply?
Student E: Andrew.
Student A: Umm, because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead.
Student E: when I'm up here.
Michael Sandel: This guy was on the bridge. Go ahead. You can come back if you want. Alright, it's a hard question. Alright, you did well. You did very well. It's a hard question. Umm, who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes?
Student: I would.
Student F: Umm, I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose to翻譯社 it's翻譯社 either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the person which is an active conscious thought to turn翻譯社 or you choose to push the fat man over, which is an active conscious action. So, either way you're making a choice.
Michael Sandel: You're pushing him with your own hands.
Michael Sandel: So what would you do in this case? You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide; you would crash into the five and kill them?
Student D: The second one翻譯社 I guess, involves an active choice of pushing a person down, which, I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in this situation at all翻譯社 and so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to ah, to involve him in something he otherwise would have escaped is, I guess, more than what you have in the first case where the three parties翻譯社 the driver and the two sets of workers are already翻譯社 I guess, in the situation.
Michael Sandel: It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead. That's a good reason. That's a good reason. Who else? Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead.
Student G: I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first, using their four healthy organs to save the other four.
Michael Sandel: That's a pretty good idea. That's a great idea翻譯社 except for the fact that you just wrecked the philosophical point. Well let's翻譯社 let's step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold. Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions we've had, and let's consider what those moral principles look like. The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion said, the right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action. At the end of the day, better that five should live, even if one must die. That's an example of consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further翻譯社 we considered those other cases翻譯社 and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge翻譯社 or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient翻譯社 people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences be what they may. People were reluctant. People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong, to kill a person翻譯社 an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives. At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered. So翻譯社 this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come, the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles. The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher. The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning翻譯社 assess them翻譯社 and also consider others. If you look at the syllabus you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books. Books by Aristotle, John Locke.Immanuel Kant翻譯社 John Stuart Mill and others. You'll notice too, from the syllabus that we don't only read these books, we also take up contemporary翻譯社 political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions. We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech翻譯社 same sex marriage, military conscription a range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books, but to make clear, to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives翻譯社 including our political lives for philosophy. And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other. This may sound appealing enough, but here, I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this, to read these books in this way, as an exercise in self-knowledge翻譯社 to read them in this way carries certain risks. Risks that are both personal and political. Risks that every student of political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know. There's an irony. The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange. That's how those examples work翻譯社 worked. They hypotheticals with which we began with their nicks of playfulness and sobriety. It's also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information, but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing. But, and here's the risk, once the familiar turns strange, it's never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling翻譯社 you find it. It can never be unthought or unknown. What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting, is that moral and political philosophy is a story翻譯社 and you don't know where the story will lead, but what you do know is that the story is about you. Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks? One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you, that by reading these books and debating these issues you will become a better, more responsible citizen. You will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone you political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs, but this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy, for the most part, hasn't worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one翻譯社 or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one. And that's because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating activity. And you see this going back to Socrates翻譯社 there's a dialogue, "the Gorgias," in which one of Socrates' friends翻譯社 Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing. Callicles tells Socrates, philosophy is a pretty toy翻譯社 if one indulges it in moderation at the right time of life, but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin. Take my advice, Callicles says, abandon argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life. Take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles翻譯社 but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings. So Callicles is really saying to Socrates, quit philosophizing, get real, go to business school. And Callicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks, personal and political. And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism. It's the idea翻譯社 well it goes something like this翻譯社 we didn't resolve, once and for all, either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began. And if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all these years, who are we to think that we翻譯社 here in Sanders Theater over the course of a semester can resolve them. And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. That's the evasion, the evasion of skepticism, to which I would offer the following reply: It's true翻譯社 these questions have been debated for a very long time, but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted may suggest that翻譯社 though they're impossible in one sense, they're unavoidable in another. And the reason they're unavoidable, the reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions ever day. So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution. Emanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote, "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings翻譯社 but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote, "Can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason." I've tried to suggest, through these stories and these arguments, some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities, I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason, and to see where it might lead. Thank you very much.
Student B: Umm, well I was thinking it was the same reason on 9/11翻譯社 we regard the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people on the plane, and not kill more people in big buildings.
Michael Sandel: Alright. Let's、let's翻譯社 let's forget for the moment about this case. That's good. Ah, let's imagine a different case. This time you're a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you. Ah, they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck. Five of them sustained moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim翻譯社 but in that time the five would die, or you look after the five翻譯社 restore them to health, but during that time the one severely injured person would die. How many would save the five? Now as the doctor, how many would save the one? Very few people. Just a handful of people. Same reason I assume, one life versus five? Now consider another doctor case翻譯社 this time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients, each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive. One needs a heart翻譯社 one a lung翻譯社 one a kidney翻譯社 one a liver and the fifth a pancreas. And you have no organ donors. You are about to see them die, and then, it occurs to you that in the next room there is a healthy guy who came in for a checkup, and he's… You like that? And he's, he's taking a nap. You could go in very quietly, yank out the five organs, that person would die, but you could save the five. How many would do it? Anyone? How many? Put your hands up if you would do it. Anyone in the balcony?
Michael Sandel: But the guy working翻譯社 the one on the track off to the side, he didn't choose to sacrifice his life anymore than the fat man did, did he?
Michael Sandel: Suppose, standing on the bridge next to the fat man, I didn't have to push him, suppose he was standing over a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that? Would you turn?
Michael Sandel: You would?
Michael Sandel: Alright, who has a reply? Is that, no, that's good. Who has a way? Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this?
Michael Sandel: Do you want to reply?
Student E: Andrew.
Student A: Umm, because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead.
Student E: when I'm up here.
Michael Sandel: This guy was on the bridge. Go ahead. You can come back if you want. Alright, it's a hard question. Alright, you did well. You did very well. It's a hard question. Umm, who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes?
Student: I would.
Student F: Umm, I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose to翻譯社 it's翻譯社 either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the person which is an active conscious thought to turn翻譯社 or you choose to push the fat man over, which is an active conscious action. So, either way you're making a choice.
Michael Sandel: You're pushing him with your own hands.
Michael Sandel: So what would you do in this case? You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide; you would crash into the five and kill them?
Student D: The second one翻譯社 I guess, involves an active choice of pushing a person down, which, I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in this situation at all翻譯社 and so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to ah, to involve him in something he otherwise would have escaped is, I guess, more than what you have in the first case where the three parties翻譯社 the driver and the two sets of workers are already翻譯社 I guess, in the situation.
Michael Sandel: It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead. That's a good reason. That's a good reason. Who else? Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead.
Student G: I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first, using their four healthy organs to save the other four.
Michael Sandel: That's a pretty good idea. That's a great idea翻譯社 except for the fact that you just wrecked the philosophical point. Well let's翻譯社 let's step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold. Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions we've had, and let's consider what those moral principles look like. The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion said, the right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action. At the end of the day, better that five should live, even if one must die. That's an example of consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further翻譯社 we considered those other cases翻譯社 and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge翻譯社 or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient翻譯社 people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences be what they may. People were reluctant. People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong, to kill a person翻譯社 an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives. At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered. So翻譯社 this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come, the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles. The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher. The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning翻譯社 assess them翻譯社 and also consider others. If you look at the syllabus you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books. Books by Aristotle, John Locke.Immanuel Kant翻譯社 John Stuart Mill and others. You'll notice too, from the syllabus that we don't only read these books, we also take up contemporary翻譯社 political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions. We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, free speech versus hate speech翻譯社 same sex marriage, military conscription a range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books, but to make clear, to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives翻譯社 including our political lives for philosophy. And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other. This may sound appealing enough, but here, I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this, to read these books in this way, as an exercise in self-knowledge翻譯社 to read them in this way carries certain risks. Risks that are both personal and political. Risks that every student of political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know. There's an irony. The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange. That's how those examples work翻譯社 worked. They hypotheticals with which we began with their nicks of playfulness and sobriety. It's also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information, but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing. But, and here's the risk, once the familiar turns strange, it's never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling翻譯社 you find it. It can never be unthought or unknown. What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting, is that moral and political philosophy is a story翻譯社 and you don't know where the story will lead, but what you do know is that the story is about you. Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks? One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you, that by reading these books and debating these issues you will become a better, more responsible citizen. You will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone you political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs, but this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy, for the most part, hasn't worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one翻譯社 or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one. And that's because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating activity. And you see this going back to Socrates翻譯社 there's a dialogue, "the Gorgias," in which one of Socrates' friends翻譯社 Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophizing. Callicles tells Socrates, philosophy is a pretty toy翻譯社 if one indulges it in moderation at the right time of life, but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin. Take my advice, Callicles says, abandon argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life. Take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles翻譯社 but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings. So Callicles is really saying to Socrates, quit philosophizing, get real, go to business school. And Callicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks, personal and political. And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism. It's the idea翻譯社 well it goes something like this翻譯社 we didn't resolve, once and for all, either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began. And if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all these years, who are we to think that we翻譯社 here in Sanders Theater over the course of a semester can resolve them. And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. That's the evasion, the evasion of skepticism, to which I would offer the following reply: It's true翻譯社 these questions have been debated for a very long time, but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted may suggest that翻譯社 though they're impossible in one sense, they're unavoidable in another. And the reason they're unavoidable, the reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions ever day. So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution. Emanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote, "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings翻譯社 but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote, "Can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason." I've tried to suggest, through these stories and these arguments, some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities, I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason, and to see where it might lead. Thank you very much.
Student E: Well I guess, umm翻譯社 in the first case, where you have the one worker and the five. It's a choice between those two, and you have to make a certain choice and people are going to die because of the trolley car, not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is a runaway thing and you're making a split-second choice翻譯社 whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part. You have control over that whereas you may not have control over the trolley car翻譯社 so I think it's a slightly different situation.
Student D: That's true, but he was on the tracks and you…
Student E: You're pushing him and that's different than steering something that is going to cause death into another, you know翻譯社 it doesn't really sound right saying it now…
Andrew: Yes.
Michael Sandel: Fair enough. It still seems wrong in a way that is doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.
Student E: Well I'm翻譯社 I'm not really sure that's the case. It just still seems kind of different, the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him. You are actually killing him yourself.
Michael Sandel: You would? Be careful, don't lean over too… What翻譯社 ah翻譯社 how many wouldn't? Alright. What do you say翻譯社 speak up in the balcony. You who would yank out the organs, why?
Andrew: For翻譯社 for some reason, that still just seems more wrong. Right? I mean翻譯社 maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that翻譯社 but ah, or say that the car is, is hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap翻譯社 umm, then I could agree with that.
Student C: Presumably, yes.
Michael Sandel: It's good. What's your name?
Michael Sandel: Andrew. Let me ask you this question Andrew…
本文引用自: http://blog.roodo.com/arslonga/archives/16071257.html有關各國語文翻譯公證的問題歡迎諮詢萬國翻譯公司02-23690931
Student D: That's true, but he was on the tracks and you…
Student E: You're pushing him and that's different than steering something that is going to cause death into another, you know翻譯社 it doesn't really sound right saying it now…
Andrew: Yes.
Michael Sandel: Fair enough. It still seems wrong in a way that is doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.
Student E: Well I'm翻譯社 I'm not really sure that's the case. It just still seems kind of different, the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him. You are actually killing him yourself.
Michael Sandel: You would? Be careful, don't lean over too… What翻譯社 ah翻譯社 how many wouldn't? Alright. What do you say翻譯社 speak up in the balcony. You who would yank out the organs, why?
Andrew: For翻譯社 for some reason, that still just seems more wrong. Right? I mean翻譯社 maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that翻譯社 but ah, or say that the car is, is hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap翻譯社 umm, then I could agree with that.
Student C: Presumably, yes.
Michael Sandel: It's good. What's your name?
Michael Sandel: Andrew. Let me ask you this question Andrew…
本文引用自: http://blog.roodo.com/arslonga/archives/16071257.html有關各國語文翻譯公證的問題歡迎諮詢萬國翻譯公司02-23690931
文章標籤
全站熱搜
留言列表
