哈佛大学公开课《公正该如何做是好》全五课英文字幕.docx
- 文档编号:8099359
- 上传时间:2023-01-28
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:201
- 大小:90.14KB
哈佛大学公开课《公正该如何做是好》全五课英文字幕.docx
《哈佛大学公开课《公正该如何做是好》全五课英文字幕.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《哈佛大学公开课《公正该如何做是好》全五课英文字幕.docx(201页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
哈佛大学公开课《公正该如何做是好》全五课英文字幕
THEMORALSIDEOFMURDER
Thisisacourseaboutjustice
andwebeginwithastory.
Supposeyou'rethedriver
ofatrolleycar,
andyourtrolleycar
ishurtlingdownthetrack
at60milesanhour.
Andattheendofthetrack
younoticefiveworkers
workingonthetrack.
Youtrytostop
butyoucan't,
yourbrakesdon'twork.
Youfeeldesperate
becauseyouknow
thatifyoucrash
intothesefiveworkers,
theywillalldie.
Let'sassume
youknowthatforsure.
Andsoyoufeelhelpless
untilyounotice
thatthereis,
offtotheright,
asidetrackandattheend
ofthattrack,
thereisoneworker
workingonthetrack.
Yoursteeringwheelworks,
soyoucanturnthetrolleycar,
ifyouwantto,
ontothesidetrack
killingtheonebutsparingthefive.
Here'sourfirstquestion:
what'stherightthingtodo?
Whatwouldyoudo?
Let'stakeapoll.
Howmanywouldturn
thetrolleycar
ontothesidetrack?
Raiseyourhands.
Howmanywouldn't?
Howmanywouldgostraightahead?
Keepyourhandsupthoseofyou
whowouldgostraightahead.
Ahandfulofpeoplewould,
thevastmajoritywouldturn.
Let'shearfirst,
nowweneedtobegin
toinvestigatethereasons
whyyouthink
it'stherightthingtodo.
Let'sbeginwiththoseinthemajority
whowouldturntogo
ontothesidetrack.
Whywouldyoudoit?
Whatwouldbeyourreason?
Who'swillingtovolunteerareason?
Goahead.Standup.
Becauseitcan'tberight
tokillfivepeople
whenyoucanonly
killonepersoninstead.
Itwouldn'tberight
tokillfiveifyoucouldkill
onepersoninstead.
That'sagoodreason.
That'sagoodreason.
Whoelse?
Doeseverybodyagree
withthatreason?
Goahead.
WellIwasthinkingit'sthesamereason
on9/11withregard
tothepeoplewhoflewtheplane
intothePennsylvaniafield
asheroesbecausetheychose
tokillthepeopleontheplane
andnotkillmorepeople
inbigbuildings.
Sotheprinciplethere
wasthesameon9/11.
It'satragiccircumstance
butbettertokillone
sothatfivecanlive,
isthatthereason
mostofyouhad,
thoseofyou
whowouldturn?
Yes?
Let'shearnow
fromthoseintheminority,
thosewhowouldn'tturn.Yes.
Well,Ithinkthat's
thesametypeofmentality
thatjustifiesgenocide
andtotalitarianism.
Inordertosave
onetypeofrace,
youwipeouttheother.
Sowhatwouldyoudo
inthiscase?
Youwould,toavoid
thehorrorsofgenocide,
youwouldcrash
intothefiveandkillthem?
Presumably,yes.
Youwould?
-Yeah.
Okay.Whoelse?
That'sabraveanswer.
Thankyou.
Let'sconsider
anothertrolleycarcase
andseewhetherthoseofyou
inthemajority
wanttoadhere
totheprinciple
"betterthatoneshoulddie
sothatfiveshouldlive."
Thistimeyou'renotthedriver
ofthetrolleycar,
you'reanonlooker.
You'restandingonabridge
overlookingatrolleycartrack.
Anddownthetrackcomes
atrolleycar,
attheendofthetrack
arefiveworkers,
thebrakesdon'twork,
thetrolleycar
isabouttocareen
intothefiveandkillthem.
Andnow,you'renotthedriver,
youreallyfeelhelpless
untilyounotice
standingnexttoyou,
leaningoverthebridge
isaveryfatman.
Andyoucould
givehimashove.
Hewouldfalloverthebridge
ontothetrackrightintheway
ofthetrolleycar.
Hewoulddie
buthewouldsparethefive.
Now,howmanywouldpush
thefatmanoverthebridge?
Raiseyourhand.
Howmanywouldn't?
Mostpeoplewouldn't.
Here'stheobviousquestion.
Whatbecameoftheprinciple
"bettertosavefivelives
evenifitmeanssacrificingone?
"
Whatbecameoftheprinciple
thatalmosteveryoneendorsed
inthefirstcase?
Ineedtohearfromsomeone
whowasinthemajority
inbothcases.
Howdoyouexplain
thedifferencebetweenthetwo?
Yes.
Thesecondone,Iguess,
involvesanactivechoice
ofpushingapersondown
whichIguessthatpersonhimself
wouldotherwisenothavebeen
involvedinthesituationatall.
Andsotochooseonhisbehalf,
Iguess,toinvolvehim
insomethingthathe
otherwisewouldhaveescapedis,
Iguess,morethanwhat
youhaveinthefirstcase
wherethethreeparties,
thedriverandthetwosetsofworkers,
arealready,Iguess,
inthesituation.
Buttheguyworking,
theoneonthetrack
offtotheside,
hedidn'tchoose
tosacrificehislifeanymore
thanthefatmandid,didhe?
That'strue,buthewas
onthetracksand...
Thisguywasonthebridge.
Goahead,youcancomeback
ifyouwant.Allright.
It'sahardquestion.Youdidwell.
Youdidverywell.
It'sahardquestion.
Whoelsecanfindaway
ofreconcilingthereaction
ofthemajority
inthesetwocases?
Yes.
Well,Iguessinthefirstcase
whereyouhavetheoneworker
andthefive,
it'sachoicebetweenthosetwo
andyouhavetomake
acertainchoiceandpeople
aregoingtodie
becauseofthetrolleycar,
notnecessarilybecause
ofyourdirectactions.
Thetrolleycarisarunawaything
andyou'remakingasplitsecondchoice.
Whereaspushingthefatmanover
isanactualact
ofmurderonyourpart.
Youhavecontroloverthat
whereasyoumaynothavecontrol
overthetrolleycar.
SoIthinkit'saslightly
differentsituation.
Allright,whohasareply?
That'sgood.Whohasaway?
Whowantstoreply?
Isthatawayoutofthis?
Idon'tthinkthat's
averygoodreason
becauseyouchooseto-
eitherwayyouhavetochoose
whodiesbecauseyoueither
choosetoturnandkilltheperson,
whichisanact
ofconsciousthoughttoturn,
oryouchoosetopush
thefatmanover
whichisalsoanactive,
consciousaction.
Soeitherway,
you'remakingachoice.
Doyouwanttoreply?
I'mnotreallysure
thatthat'sthecase.
Itjuststillseems
kindofdifferent.
Theactofactuallypushing
someoneoverontothetracks
andkillinghim,
youareactuallykillinghimyourself.
You'repushinghim
withyourownhands.
You'repushinghim
andthat'sdifferent
thansteeringsomething
thatisgoingtocause
deathintoanother.
Youknow,itdoesn'treallysoundright
sayingitnow.
No,no.It'sgood.It'sgood.
What'syourname?
Andrew.
Andrew.
Letmeaskyouthisquestion,Andrew.
Yes.
Supposestandingonthebridge
nexttothefatman,
Ididn'thavetopushhim,
supposehewasstandingover
atrapdoorthatIcouldopen
byturningasteeringwheellikethat.
Wouldyouturn?
Forsomereason,
thatstilljustseemsmorewrong.
Right?
Imean,maybeifyouaccidentally
likeleanedintothesteeringwheel
orsomethinglikethat.
But...Orsaythat
thecarishurtling
towardsaswitch
thatwilldropthetrap.
ThenIcouldagreewiththat.
That'sallright.Fairenough.
Itstillseemswronginaway
thatitdoesn'tseemwrong
inthefirstcasetoturn,yousay.
Andinanotherway,Imean,
inthefirstsituation
you'reinvolveddirectly
withthesituation.
Inthesecondone,
you'reanonlookeraswell.
Allright.-Soyouhavethechoice
ofbecominginvolvedornot
bypushingthefatman.
Allright.Let'sforgetforthemoment
aboutthiscase.
That'sgood.
Let'simagineadifferentcase.
Thistimeyou'readoctor
inanemergencyroom
andsixpatients
cometoyou.
They'vebeeninaterrible
trolleycarwreck.
Fiveofthem
sustainmoderateinjuries,
oneisseverelyinjured,
youcouldspendallday
caringfortheone
severelyinjuredvictim
butinthattime,
thefivewoulddie.
Oryoucouldlookafterthefive,
restorethemtohealth
butduringthattime,
theoneseverelyinjuredperson
woulddie.
Howmanywouldsavethefive?
Nowasthedoctor,
howmanywouldsavetheone?
Veryfewpeople,
justahandfulofpeople.
Samereason,Iassume.
Onelifeversusfive?
Nowconsideranotherdoctorcase.
Thistime,you'reatransplantsurgeon
andyouhavefivepatients,
eachindesperateneed
ofanorgantransplant
inordertosurvive.
Oneneedsaheart,
onealung,oneakidney,
onealiver,
andthefifthapancreas.
Andyouhavenoorgandonors.
Youareabouttoseethemdie.
Andthenitoccurstoyou
thatinthenextroom
there'sahealthyguy
whocameinforacheck-up.
Andhe's–youlikethat–
andhe'stakinganap,
youcouldgoinveryquietly,
yankoutthefiveorgans,
thatpersonwoulddie,
butyoucouldsavethefive.
Howmanywoulddoit?
Anyone?
Howmany?
Putyourhandsup
ifyouwoulddoit.
Anyoneinthebalcony?
Iwould.
Youwould?
Becareful,
don'tleanovertoomuch.
Howmanywouldn't?
Allright.Whatdoyousay?
Speakupinthebalcony,
youwhowouldyankout
theorgans.Why?
I'dactuallyliketoexplorea
slightlyalternatepossibility
ofjusttakingtheone
ofthefivewhoneedsanorgan
whodiesfirstandusing
theirfourhealthyorgans
tosavetheotherfour.
That'saprettygoodidea.
That'sagreatidea
exceptforthefact
thatyoujustwrecked
thephilosophicalpoint.
Let'sstepbackfromthesestories
andthesearguments
tonoticeacoupleofthings
aboutthewaythearguments
havebeguntounfold.
Certainmoralprinciples
havealreadybeguntoemerge
fromthediscussionswe'vehad.
Andlet'sconsider
whatthosemoralprincipleslooklike.
Thefirstmoralprinciple
thatemergedinthediscussion
saidtherightthingtodo,
themoralthingtodo
dependsontheconsequences
thatwillresultfromyouraction.
Attheendoftheday,
betterthatfiveshouldlive
evenifonemustdie.
That'sanexample
ofconsequentialistmoralreasoning.
Consequentialistmoralreasoning
locatesmorality
intheconsequencesofanact,
inthestateoftheworld
thatwillresultfromthethingyoudo.
Butthenwewentalittlefurther,
weconsideredthoseothercases
andpeopleweren'tsosure
aboutconsequentialistmoralreasoning.
Whenpeoplehesitated
to
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 公正该如何做是好 哈佛大学 公开 公正 如何 做是好 全五课 英文 字幕