《《公正》哈佛大学公开课程英文字幕.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《《公正》哈佛大学公开课程英文字幕.pdf（42页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、Justice 01Whats the Right Thing to Do?This is a course about justice and we begin with a story.Suppose youre the driver of a trolley car,and yourtrolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles anhour.And at the end of the track you notice five workersworking on the track.You try to stop but you c
2、ant,your brakes dont work.You feel desperate because you know that if you crashinto these five workers,they will all die.Lets assume you know that for sure.And so you feel helpless until you notice that thereis,off to the right,a side track and at the end ofthat track,there is one worker working on
3、the track.Your steering wheel works,so you can turn the trolleycar,if you want to,onto the side track killing theone but sparing the five.Heres our first question:whats the right thing todo?What would you do?Lets take a poll.How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track?Raise your hands.Ho
4、w many wouldnt?How many would go straight ahead?Keep your hands up those of you who would go straightahead.A handful of people would,the vast majority would turn.Lets hear first,now we need to begin to investigatethe reasons why you think its the right thing to do.Lets begin with those in the majori
5、ty who would turnto go onto the side track.Why would you do it?What would be your reason?Whos willing to volunteera reason?Go ahead.Stand up.Because it cant be right to kill five people when youcan only kill one person instead.It wouldnt be right to kill five if you could kill oneperson instead.That
6、s a good reason.Thats a good reason.Who else?Does everybody agree with that reason?Go ahead.Well I was thinking its the same reason on 9/11 withregard to the people who flew the plane into thePennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to killthe people on the plane and not kill more people in b
7、igbuildings.So the principle there was the same on 9/11.Its a tragic circumstance but better to kill one sothat five can live,is that the reason most of you had,those of you who would turn?Yes?Lets hear now from those in the minority,those whowouldnt turn.Yes.Well,I think thats the same type of ment
8、ality thatjustifies genocide and totalitarianism.In order to save one type of race,you wipe out the other.So what would you do in this case?You would,to avoid the horrors of genocide,you wouldcrash into the five and kill them?Presumably,yes.You would?-Yeah.Okay.Who else?Thats a brave answer.Thank yo
9、u.Lets consider another trolley car case and see whetherthose of you in the majority want to adhere to theprinciple better that one should die so that fiveshould live.This time youre not the driver of the trolley car,youreanonlooker.Yourestandingonabridgeoverlooking a trolley car track.And down the
10、track comes a trolley car,at the end ofthe track are five workers,the brakes dont work,thetrolley car is about to careen into the five and killthem.And now,youre not the driver,you really feel helplessuntil you notice standing next to you,leaning over thebridge is a very fat man.And you could give h
11、im a shove.He would fall over the bridge onto the track right inthe way of the trolley car.He would die but he wouldspare the five.Now,how many would push the fat man over the bridge?Raise your hand.How many wouldnt?Most people wouldnt.Heres the obvious question.What became of the principle better t
12、o save five liveseven if it means sacrificing one?What became of the principle that almost everyoneendorsed in the first case?I need to hear from someone who was in the majority inboth cases.How do you explain the difference between the two?Yes.The second one,I guess,involves an active choice ofpush
13、ing a person down which I guess that person himselfwould otherwise not have been involved in the situationat all.And so to choose on his behalf,I guess,to involve himin something that he otherwise would have escaped is,I guess,more than what you have in the first case wherethe three parties,the driv
14、er and the two sets ofworkers,are already,I guess,in the situation.But the guy working,the one on the track off to theside,he didnt choose to sacrifice his life any morethan the fat man did,did he?Thats true,but he was on the tracks and.This guy was on the bridge.Go ahead,you can come back if you wa
15、nt.All right.Its a hard question.You did well.You did very well.Its a hard question.Who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction ofthe majority in these two cases?Yes.Well,I guess in the first case where you have the oneworker and the five,its a choice between those twoand you have to make a
16、certain choice and people aregoing to die because of the trolley car,not necessarilybecause of your direct actions.The trolley car is a runaway thing and youre makinga split second choice.Whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act ofmurder on your part.You have control over that whereas you m
17、ay not havecontrol over the trolley car.So I think its a slightly different situation.All right,who has a reply?Thats good.Who has a way?Who wants to reply?Is that a way out of this?I dont think thats a very good reason because youchoose toeither way you have to choose who dies becauseyou either cho
18、ose to turn and kill the person,whichis an act of conscious thought to turn,or you chooseto push the fat man over which is also an active,conscious action.So either way,youre making a choice.Do you want to reply?Im not really sure that thats the case.It just still seems kind of different.The act of
19、actually pushing someone over onto the tracksand killing him,you are actually killing him yourself.Youre pushing him with your own hands.Youre pushing him and thats different than steeringsomething that is going to cause death into another.You know,it doesnt really sound right saying it now.No,no.It
20、s good.Its good.Whats your name?Andrew.Andrew.Let me ask you this question,Andrew.Yes.Suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man,Ididnt have to push him,suppose he was standing overa trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheellike that.Would you turn?For some reason,that still ju
21、st seems more wrong.Right?I mean,maybe if you accidentally like leaned into thesteering wheel or something like that.But.Or say that the car is hurtling towards a switchthat will drop the trap.Then I could agree with that.Thats all right.Fair enough.It still seems wrong in a way that it doesnt seem
22、wrongin the first case to turn,you say.And in another way,I mean,in the first situationyoure involved directly with the situation.In the second one,youre an onlooker as well.All right.-So you have the choice of becoming involvedor not by pushing the fat man.All right.Lets forget for the moment about
23、 this case.Thats good.Lets imagine a different case.This time youre a doctor in an emergency room and sixpatients come to you.Theyve been in a terrible trolley car wreck.Five of them sustain moderate injuries,one is severelyinjured,you could spend all day caring for the oneseverely injured victim bu
24、t in that time,the five woulddie.Or you could look after the five,restore them to healthbut during that time,the one severely injured personwould 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 vers
25、us five?Now consider another doctor case.This time,youre a transplant surgeon and you have fivepatients,each in desperate need of an organ transplantin order to survive.One needs a heart,one a lung,one a kidney,one a liver,and the fifth a pancreas.And you have no organ donors.You are about to see th
26、em die.And then it occurs to you that in the next room theresa healthy guy who came in for a check-up.And hes-you like that-and hes taking a nap,youcould go in very quietly,yank out the five organs,thatperson would die,but you could save the five.How many would do it?Anyone?How many?Put your hands u
27、p if you would do it.Anyone in the balcony?I would.You would?Be careful,dont lean over too much.How many wouldnt?All right.What do you say?Speak up in the balcony,you who would yank out theorgans.Why?Id actually like to explore a slightly alternatepossibility of just taking the one of the five who n
28、eedsan organ who dies first and using their four healthyorgans to save the other four.Thats a pretty good idea.Thats a great idea except for the fact that you justwrecked the philosophical point.Lets step back from these stories and these argumentsto notice a couple of things about the way the argum
29、entshave begun to unfold.Certain moral principles have already begun to emergefrom the discussions weve had.And lets consider what those moral principles looklike.Thefirstmoralprinciplethatemergedinthediscussion said the right thing to do,the moral thingto do depends on the consequences that will re
30、sult fromyour action.At the end of the day,better that five should live evenif one must die.Thats an example of consequentialist moral reasoning.Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality inthe consequences of an act,in the state of the worldthat will result from the thing you do.But then we
31、went a little further,we considered thoseothercasesandpeoplewerentsosureaboutconsequentialist moral reasoning.When people hesitated to push the fat man over thebridge or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient,people gestured toward reasons having to do with theintrinsic quality of the act it
32、self,consequences bewhat they may.People were reluctant.People thought it was just wrong,categorically wrong,to kill a person,an innocent person,even for the sakeof saving five lives.At least people thought that in the second version ofeach story we considered.So this points to a second categorical
33、way of thinkingabout moral reasoning.Categoricalmoralreasoninglocatesmoralityincertainabsolutemoralrequirements,certaincategoricaldutiesandrights,regardlessoftheconsequences.Were going to explore in the days and weeks to comethe contrast between consequentialist and categoricalmoral principles.The m
34、ost influential example of consequential moralreasoning is utilitarianism,a doctrine invented byJeremy Bentham,English political philosopher.The most important philosopher of categorical moralreasoning German philosopher Immanuel Kant.So we will look at those two different modes of moralreasoning,as
35、sess them,and also consider others.If you look at the syllabus,youll notice that we reada number of great and famous books,books by Aristotle,John Locke,Immanuel Kant,John Stewart Mill,andothers.Youll notice too from the syllabus that we dont onlyreadthesebooks;wealsotakeupcontemporary,political,and
36、legalcontroversiesthatraisephilosophical questions.We will debate equality and inequality,affirmativeaction,free speech versus hate speech,same sexmarriage,military conscription,a range of practicalquestions.Why?Not just to enliven these abstract and distant booksbut to make clear,to bring out whats
37、 at stake in oureveryday lives,including our political lives,forphilosophy.And so we will read these books and we will debate theseissues,and well see how each informs and illuminatesthe other.This may sound appealing enough,but here I have toissue a warning.And the warning is this,to read these boo
38、ks in thisway as an exercise in self knowledge,to read them inthis way carries certain risks,risks that are bothpersonal and political,risks that every student ofpolitical philosophy has known.These risks spring from the fact that philosophyteaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with whatwe a
39、lready know.Theres an irony.The difficulty of this course consists in the fact thatit teaches what you already know.Itworksbytakingwhatweknowfromfamiliarunquestioned settings and making it strange.Thats how those examples worked,the hypotheticalswith which we began,with their mix of playfulness ands
40、obriety.Its also how these philosophical books work.Philosophy estranges us from the familiar,not bysupplying new information but by inviting and provokinga new way of seeing but,and heres the risk,once thefamiliar turns strange,its never quite the same again.Selfknowledgeislikelostinnocence,however
41、unsettling you find it;it can never be un-thought orun-known.What makes this enterprise difficult but also rivetingis that moral and political philosophy is a story andyou dont 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
42、 the political risks?One way of introducing a course like this would be topromise you that by reading these books and debatingtheseissues,youwillbecomeabetter,moreresponsiblecitizen;youwillexaminethepresuppositions of public policy,you will hone yourpolitical judgment,you will become a more effectiv
43、eparticipant in public affairs.But this would be a partial and misleading promise.Political philosophy,for the most part,hasnt workedthat way.You have to allow for the possibility that politicalphilosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than abetter one or at least a worse citizen before it make
44、syou a better one,and thats because philosophy is adistancing,even debilitating,activity.And you seethis,going back to Socrates,theres a dialogue,theGorgias,in which one of Socrates friends,Callicles,tries to talk him out of philosophizing.Callicles tells Socrates Philosophy is a pretty toyif one in
45、dulges in it with moderation at the right timeof 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 yourmodels not those people who spend their time on thesepetty quibbles but those w
46、ho have a good livelihood andreputation and many other blessings.SoCalliclesisreallysayingtoSocratesQuitphilosophizing,get real,go to business school.AndCallicles did have a point.He had a point because philosophy distances us fromconventions,from established assumptions,and fromsettled beliefs.Thos
47、e are the risks,personal and political.Andinthefaceoftheserisks,thereisacharacteristic evasion.The name of the evasion is skepticism,its the idea-well,it goes something like this-we didntresolve once and for all either the cases or theprincipleswewerearguingwhenwebeganandifAristotle and Locke and Ka
48、nt and Mill havent solvedthese questions after all of these years,who are weto think that we,here in Sanders Theatre,over thecourse of a semester,can resolve them?And so,maybe its just a matter of each person havinghis or her own principles and theres nothing more tobe said about it,no way of reason
49、ing.Thats the evasion,the evasion of skepticism,to whichI would offer the following reply.Its true,these questions have been debated for a verylong time but the very fact that they have recurred andpersisted may suggest that though theyre impossiblein one sense,theyre unavoidable in another.And the
50、reason theyre unavoidable,the reason theyreinescapable is that we live some answer to thesequestions every day.So skepticism,just throwing up your hands and givingup on moral reflection is no solution.Immanuel Kant described very well the problem withskepticism when he wrote Skepticism is a resting