(完整word版)哈佛大學(xué)公開(kāi)課《公平與正義》第2集中英文字幕

Fundingforthisprogramisprovidedby:本節(jié)目的贊助來(lái)自......Additionalfundingprovidedby:另外的贊助來(lái)自......Lasttime,wearguedabout上次,我們談到thecaseofTheQueenv.Dudley&Stephens,女王訴Dudley和Stephens案件,thelifeboatcase,thecaseofcannibalismatsea.,.Andwiththeargumentsaboutthelifeboatinmind,帶著針對(duì)這個(gè)案件所展開(kāi)的一些討論theargumentsforandagainstwhatDudleyandStephensdidinmind,帶著支持和反對(duì)Dudley和Stephens所做的吃人行為的討論,let'sturnbacktothephilosophy,theutilitarianphilosophyofJeremyBentham.讓我們回頭來(lái)看看Bentham的功利主義哲學(xué).BenthamwasborninEnglandin1748.Attheageof12,hewenttoOxford.Bentham于1748年出生于英國(guó).12歲那年,他去了牛津大學(xué).At15,hewenttolawschool.HewasadmittedtotheBaratage1915歲時(shí),他去了法學(xué)院.19歲就取得了律師資格butheneverpracticedlaw.但他沒(méi)有從事于律師行業(yè).Instead,hedevotedhislifetojurisprudenceandmoralphilosophy.相反,他畢生致力于法理學(xué)和道德哲學(xué).Lasttime,webegantoconsiderBentham'sversionofutilitarianism.上一次,我們開(kāi)始考慮Bentham版本的功利主義.Themainideaissimplystatedandit'sthis:簡(jiǎn)單來(lái)說(shuō)其主要思想就是：Thehighestprincipleofmorality,whetherpersonalorpoliticalmorality,道德的最高原則,無(wú)論個(gè)人或政治道德,istomaximizethegeneralwelfare,orthecollectivehappiness,就是將公共福利,或集體的幸福最大化,ortheoverallbalanceofpleasureoverpain;或在快樂(lè)與痛苦的平衡中傾向快樂(lè);inaphrase,maximizeutility.簡(jiǎn)而言之就是,功利最大化.Benthamarrivesatthisprinciplebythefollowinglineofreasoning:Bentham是由如下推理來(lái)得出這個(gè)原則的：We'reallgovernedbypainandpleasure,我們都被痛苦和快樂(lè)所控制,theyareoursovereignmasters,andsoanymoralsystem他們是我們的主宰,所以任何道德體系hastotakeaccountofthem.都要考慮到這點(diǎn).Howbesttotakeaccount?Bymaximizing.如何能最好地考慮這一點(diǎn)?通過(guò)最大化.Andthisleadstotheprincipleofthegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber.從此引出的的原則就是將最大利益給最多數(shù)的人的.Whatexactlyshouldwemaximize?我們究竟該如何最大化?Benthamtellsushappiness,ormoreprecisely,utility-Bentham告訴我們幸福,或者更準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō),實(shí)用-maximizingutilityasaprinciplenotonlyforindividuals最大化效用作為一個(gè)原則不僅適用于個(gè)人butalsoforcommunitiesandforlegislators.而且還適用于社區(qū)及立法者."What,afterall,isacommunity?"Benthamasks.“畢竟,什么是社區(qū)?”Bentham問(wèn)道.It'sthesumoftheindividualswhocompriseit.它是構(gòu)成這個(gè)社區(qū)的所有個(gè)體的總和.Andthat'swhyindecidingthebestpolicy,這就是為什么在決定最好的政策,indecidingwhatthelawshouldbe,indecidingwhat'sjust,在決定法律應(yīng)該是什么樣,在決定什么是公正時(shí),citizensandlegislatorsshouldaskthemselvesthequestion公民和立法者應(yīng)該問(wèn)自己的問(wèn)題ifweaddupallofthebenefitsofthispolicy如果我們把這項(xiàng)政策所能得到的所有利益andsubtractallofthecosts,therightthingtodo,正確的做法istheonethatmaximizesthebalanceofhappinessoversuffering.就是將幸福與痛苦之間的平衡最大化地傾向幸福.That'swhatitmeanstomaximizeutility.這就是效用最大化.Now,today,Iwanttoseewhetheryouagreeordisagreewithit,現(xiàn)在,我想看看你們是否同意它,anditoftengoes,thisutilitarianlogic,往往有云：功利主義的邏輯,underthenameofcost-benefitanalysis,名為成本效益分析,whichisusedbycompaniesandbygovernmentsallthetime.也是被公司以及各國(guó)政府所常常使用的.Andwhatitinvolvesisplacingavalue,它的內(nèi)涵是用一個(gè)價(jià)值usuallyadollarvalue,tostandforutilityonthecosts通常是由美元,來(lái)代表不同提案的效用andthebenefitsofvariousproposals.這效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recently,intheCzechRepublic,therewasaproposal最近,在捷克共和國(guó),有一個(gè)提案toincreasetheexcisetaxonsmoking.PhilipMorris,thetobaccocompany,對(duì)吸煙增加貨物稅.PhilipMorris煙草公司,doeshugebusinessintheCzechRepublic.該公司在捷克共和國(guó)有著大筆生意.Theycommissionedastudy,acost-benefitanalysis他們委托了一個(gè)研究,ofsmokingintheCzechRepublic,andwhattheircost-benefit關(guān)于吸煙在捷克共和國(guó)的成本效益分析.analysisfoundwasthegovernmentgainsbyhavingCzechcitizenssmoke.他們的分析發(fā)現(xiàn),捷克政府將會(huì)因公民吸煙而收益.Now,howdotheygain?現(xiàn)在,他們?nèi)绾问找?It'struethattherearenegativeeffectstothepublicfinance確實(shí),捷克政府的公共財(cái)政體系oftheCzechgovernmentbecausethereareincreasedhealthcare會(huì)因?yàn)槲鼰熑巳核l(fā)的相關(guān)疾病而增加的醫(yī)療保健開(kāi)支,costsforpeoplewhodevelopsmoking-relateddiseases..Ontheotherhand,therewerepositiveeffects,這也有積極效應(yīng)andthosewereaddedupontheothersideoftheledger.并且這些積極效益累加到了賬簿的另一面Thepositiveeffectsincluded,forthemostpart,積極效益包括,在大多數(shù)情況下,varioustaxrevenuesthatthegovernmentderivesfromthesale政府通過(guò)卷煙產(chǎn)品而獲得的各種稅收收入,ofcigaretteproducts,butitalsoincluded但也包括healthcaresavingstothegovernmentwhenpeopledieearly,政府因?yàn)槲鼰熑巳哼^(guò)早死亡而省下的醫(yī)療儲(chǔ)蓄,例如pensionsavings--youdon'thavetopaypensionsforaslong-養(yǎng)老金儲(chǔ)蓄-不必支付退休金了-andalso,savingsinhousingcostsfortheelderly.還有,老年人住房費(fèi)用.Andwhenallofthecostsandbenefitswereaddedup,當(dāng)把所有的成本和效益都分別加起來(lái),thePhilipMorrisstudyfoundthatthereisanetpublicfinancegainPhilipMorris公司的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),捷克共和國(guó)會(huì)有一個(gè)intheCzechRepublicof$147,000,000,$147,000,000的公共財(cái)政凈增益,andgiventhesavingsinhousing,inhealthcare,andpensioncosts,并鑒于節(jié)省了住房費(fèi)用,醫(yī)療保健費(fèi)用,養(yǎng)老金費(fèi)用,thegovernmentenjoyssavingsofover$1,200foreachpersonwhodiesprematurelyduetosmoking.每個(gè)因吸煙而過(guò)早死亡的人都為政府節(jié)省了$1,200.Cost-benefitanalysis.成本效益分析.Now,thoseamongyouwhoaredefendersofutilitarianism現(xiàn)在,你們中間,那些功利主義的捍衛(wèi)者maythinkthatthisisanunfairtest.可能認(rèn)為這是一種不公平的測(cè)試.PhilipMorriswaspilloriedinthepressPhilipMorris公司在新聞界遭到了嘲笑andtheyissuedanapologyforthisheartlesscalculation.他們也因?yàn)檫@個(gè)無(wú)情的計(jì)算而發(fā)表了道歉.Youmaysaythatwhat'smissinghereissomethingthattheutilitarian你可能會(huì)說(shuō),功利主義在這里可以輕易彌補(bǔ)一個(gè)疏漏caneasilyincorporate,namelythevaluetotheperson它沒(méi)有正確評(píng)估人的價(jià)值andtothefamiliesofthosewhodiefromlungcancer.以及那些因?yàn)榉伟┒劳龅娜说募覍俚膿p失.Whataboutthevalueoflife?如何評(píng)估生命價(jià)值?Somecost-benefitanalysesincorporateameasureforthevalueoflife.一些成本效益分析的確納入了對(duì)生命價(jià)值的評(píng)估.OneofthemostfamousoftheseinvolvedtheFordPintocase.其中最有名的要數(shù)FordPinto案件.Didanyofyoureadaboutthat?你們有沒(méi)有閱讀過(guò)這個(gè)案件?Thiswasbackinthe1970s.那是發(fā)生在20世紀(jì)70年代.DoyourememberwhattheFordPintowas,你還記得FordPinto是,akindofcar?Anybody?什么樣的車么?誰(shuí)能記得?Itwasasmallsubcompactvery那是一種小型車,超小型車,很受歡迎,butithadoneproblem,whichisthefueltank但它也有問(wèn)題,車后座的油箱wasatthebackofthecarandinrearcollisions,少數(shù)情況下,碰撞會(huì)導(dǎo)致thefueltankexplodedandsomepeoplewerekilled油箱爆炸并且有些人會(huì)因此死去andsomeseverelyinjured.還有人因此嚴(yán)重受傷.VictimsoftheseinjuriestookFordtocourttosue.Andinthecourtcase,itturnedoutthatFord而在訴訟案件,人們發(fā)現(xiàn)福特原來(lái)hadlongsinceknownaboutthevulnerablefueltank早已知道油箱的脆弱andhaddoneacost-benefitanalysistodeterminewhetheritwouldbe并且已做了成本效益分析,以確定是否worthittoputinaspecialshieldthatwould值得來(lái)放入一個(gè)特殊的盾牌protectthefueltankandpreventitfromexploding.用來(lái)保護(hù)油箱并防止它爆炸.Theydidacost-benefitanalysis.他們做了成本效益分析.ThecostperparttoincreasethesafetyofthePinto,FordPinto,theycalculatedat$11.00perpart.他們算出,要每部件$11.00.Andhere's--thiswasthecost-benefitanalysisthatemergedinthetrial.這里-這就是當(dāng)時(shí)審判中出示的成本效益分析.Elevendollarsperpartat12.5millioncarsandtrucks每件11美元,乘以12.5萬(wàn)輛轎車和卡車cametoatotalcostof$137milliontoimprovethesafety.得到一個(gè)總成本,需要13700萬(wàn)美元來(lái)改善安全性.Butthentheycalculatedthebenefitsofspendingallthismoney不過(guò),他們隨后計(jì)算了一下花這筆錢來(lái)改善安全性的收益率onasafercarandtheycounted180deaths(如果不花這筆錢來(lái)改善安全,)假設(shè)會(huì)導(dǎo)致180人死亡andtheyassignedadollarvalue,$200,000perdeath,他們對(duì)此用美元價(jià)值來(lái)代替,每個(gè)死去的人賠償$200,000180injuries,$67,000,andthenthecoststorepair,180人受傷的賠償為每人$67,000,然后是維修受損車的費(fèi)用,thereplacementcostfor2,000vehicles,2000輛車,itwouldbedestroyedwithoutthesafetydevice$700pervehicle.由于沒(méi)有安裝安全設(shè)施,每輛車將會(huì)需要$700來(lái)維修.Sothebenefitsturnedouttobeonly$49.5million結(jié)論是總效益只有$49.5million(相對(duì)于修復(fù)安全隱患總成本需要$137million)andsotheydidn'tinstallthedevice.因此他們沒(méi)有安裝那個(gè)安全設(shè)備.Needlesstosay,whenthismemoofthe毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),福特汽車公司的這個(gè)成本效益分析備忘錄FordMotorCompany'scost-benefitanalysiscameoutinthetrial,在審判中出現(xiàn)時(shí),itappalledthejurors,whoawardedahugesettlement.震驚了陪審團(tuán),也因此裁定了福特公司巨大的賠償金額.Isthisacounterexampletotheutilitarianideaofcalculating?這是一個(gè)功利主義計(jì)算的反例么?BecauseFordincludedameasureofthevalueoflife.因?yàn)楦Ｌ匾肓藢?duì)生命價(jià)值的評(píng)估.Now,whoherewantstodefendcost-benefitanalysis好,這里有誰(shuí)想針對(duì)這一明顯反例fromthisapparentcounterexample?來(lái)捍衛(wèi)成本效益分析?Whohasadefense?誰(shuí)來(lái)辯護(hù)?Ordoyouthinkthiscompletelydestroysthewhole或者你認(rèn)為這一反例已經(jīng)完全摧毀了utilitariancalculus?Yes?功利主義計(jì)算?你來(lái)Well,Ithinkthatonceagain,they'vemadethesamemistake嗯,我想再次指出,他們犯了同樣的錯(cuò)誤thepreviouscasedid,thattheyassignedadollarvalue和以前的情況一樣,他們對(duì)人的生命賦予tohumanlife,andonceagain,一個(gè)美元為單位的價(jià)值,同樣的,theyfailedtotakeaccountthingslikesuffering他們沒(méi)有考慮到家屬的痛苦和損失andemotionallossesbythefamilies.諸如此類的因素.Imean,familieslostearningsbuttheyalsolostalovedone我的意思是,家庭損失了收入來(lái)源,但他們也失去了愛(ài)人andthatismorevaluedthan$200,000.這些的價(jià)值遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)$200,000的.Rightand--wait,wait,wait,that'sgood.What'syourname?好的-等等,等等,等等,很好.你叫什么名字?JulieRoteau.JulieRoteau.Soif$200,000,Julie,istoolowafigure因此,Julie,如果$200,000是個(gè)太低的金額,becauseitdoesn'tincludethelossofalovedone因?yàn)樗话ㄊ?ài)人andthelossofthoseyearsoflife,whatwouldbe-以及那些在沒(méi)有親人的歲月里的損失,你認(rèn)為whatdoyouthinkwouldbeamoreaccuratenumber?更準(zhǔn)確的金額是多少?Idon'tbelieveIcouldgiveanumber.Ithinkthatthissortofanalysis我不認(rèn)為,我可以對(duì)此給出一個(gè)金額.我認(rèn)為這類分析shouldn'tbeappliedtoissuesofhumanlife.不適用于人類生命相關(guān)的問(wèn)題.Ithinkitcan'tbeusedmonetarily.我認(rèn)為不能用金錢來(lái)衡量.Sotheydidn'tjustputtoolowanumber,Juliesays.因此,Julie認(rèn)為,他們不只是金額定的太低.Theywerewrongtotrytoputanynumberatall.他們壓根就不應(yīng)該用金額來(lái)衡量.Allright,let'shearsomeonewho-Youhavetoadjustforinflation.好吧,讓我們聽(tīng)聽(tīng)還有誰(shuí)-Youhavetoadjustforinflation.(這個(gè)金額)要根據(jù)通貨膨脹進(jìn)行調(diào)整.Allright,fairenough.好吧,很公平.Sowhatwouldthenumberbenow?那么現(xiàn)在這個(gè)金額將是?Thiswas35yearsago.這發(fā)生在35年前.Twomilliondollars.兩百萬(wàn)美元.Twomilliondollars?Youwouldputtwomillion?200?200萬(wàn)Andwhat'syourname?你的名字是?VoytekVoytekVoyteksayswehavetoallowforinflation.Voytek說(shuō),我們必須允許通貨膨脹.Weshouldbemoregenerous.我們應(yīng)該更慷慨些.Thenwouldyoubesatisfiedthatthisistherightwayof然后,你認(rèn)為這就是考慮這個(gè)問(wèn)題的thinkingaboutthequestion?正確的方式么?Iguess,unfortunately,itisfor-我想,不幸的是,現(xiàn)在-thereneedstobeanumberputsomewhere,like,I'mnotsure我們需要有一個(gè)金額,我不確定whatthatnumberwouldbe,butIdoagreethat合適的金額是多少,但我同意therecouldpossiblybeanumberputonthehumanlife.對(duì)人類生命定一個(gè)金額是可行的.Allright,soVoyteksays,andhere,hedisagreeswithJulie.好的,Voytek說(shuō),他不同意Julie.Juliesayswecan'tputanumberonhumanlife朱莉認(rèn)為,我們不能在成本效益分析中forthepurposeofacost-benefitanalysis.Voyteksayswehavetobecausewehavetomakedecisionssomehow.Voytek認(rèn)為,我們必須這樣做因?yàn)槲覀儫o(wú)論如何需要作出某種決定.Whatdootherpeoplethinkaboutthis?其他人覺(jué)得呢?Isthereanyonepreparedtodefendcost-benefitanalysis這里有人打算為能足夠準(zhǔn)確的成本效益分析辯護(hù)么?hereasaccurateasdesirable?Yes?Goahead.好?請(qǐng)繼續(xù).IthinkthatifFordandothercarcompanies我認(rèn)為,如果福特和其他汽車公司didn'tusecost-benefitanalysis,they'deventuallygooutofbusiness沒(méi)有使用成本效益分析,他們會(huì)最終歇業(yè)becausetheywouldn'tbeabletobeprofitableandmillionsofpeople因?yàn)樗麄儗o(wú)法盈利,(從而導(dǎo)致)數(shù)百萬(wàn)的人wouldn'tbeabletousetheircarstogettojobs,將無(wú)法使用這些汽車去上班,toputfoodonthetable,tofeedtheirchildren.(沒(méi)錢)購(gòu)買餐桌上的食物,(沒(méi)錢)來(lái)喂養(yǎng)孩子.SoIthinkthatifcost-benefitanalysisisn'temployed,因此,我認(rèn)為,如果不利用成本效益分析,thegreatergoodissacrificed,inthiscase.在這種情況下,(我們將會(huì))犧牲更大的利益.Allright,letmeadd.What'syourname?好吧,讓我來(lái)補(bǔ)充.你叫什么名字?Raul.Raul.Raul,therewasrecentlyastudydoneaboutcellphoneusebyadriverRaul,最近有一項(xiàng)研究表明,關(guān)于開(kāi)車時(shí)駕駛者使用手機(jī)whenpeoplearedrivingacar,andtherewasadebate有一場(chǎng)辯論,關(guān)于這種行為whetherthatshouldbebanned.是否應(yīng)被禁止.Yeah.是啊。Andthefigurewasthatsome2,000peopledieasaresult結(jié)論是每年大約有2000人ofaccidentseachyearusingcellphones.因此而死亡.Andyet,thecost-benefitanalysiswhichwasdonebythe然而,哈佛風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析中心CenterforRiskAnalysisatHarvardfoundthat(針對(duì)此事)所做的成本效益分析發(fā)現(xiàn)ifyoulookatthebenefitsofthecellphoneuse如果你看看使用手機(jī)所得到的好處andyouputsomevalueonthelife,itcomesoutaboutthesame如果你將生命設(shè)定一個(gè)金額,結(jié)論也是相同的.becauseofthee