怪物被杀最奇葩的原因（绝对震撼你神经的哈佛大学公开课-）

Like, in a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do?，我来为大家科普一下关于怪物被杀最奇葩的原因?以下内容希望对你有帮助!

怪物被杀最奇葩的原因

Like, in a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do?

在那样的绝境之下为了生存，你不得不那样做。不得不那样做？

You got to do what you got to do, pretty much. If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice. Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.

差不多吧，不得已而为之。如果你已经19天没吃过东西，那么总得有人要作出牺牲。有了一个人的牺牲，其他人才能活下来。

AlRight, that's good. What's your name? - Marcus. - Marcus, what do you say to Marcus?

很好，你叫什么名字？- 马库斯。- 你有什么话要对马库斯说吗？

. . . . . . Last time, we started out last time with some stories, with some moral dilemmas about trolley cars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims of organ transplantation.

上一次，我们以几个故事开头，几个在道德上两难的例子，有电车事故的例子，也有健康病人可能成为器官移植病例受害者的例子。在讨论中我们注意到两点，一点与我们的讨论方式有关。

We noticed two things about the arguments we had, one had to do with the way we were arguing. We began with our judgments in particular cases.

我们首先在特定情况下作出判断。我们试图阐明作出这些判断的理由或原则。

We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments. And then confronted with a new case, we found ourselves reexamining those principles, revising each in the light of the other.

我们面临新情况时，又重新检验这些原则，加以修正避免前后矛盾。然后又发现对于具体事件，遵循反复修订的原则做出相一致的判断，其间蕴含着不小难度。

And we noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring into alignment our judgments about particular cases and the principles we would endorse on reflection. We also noticed something about the substance of the arguments that emerged from the discussion.

我们也注意到了这些争论的本质已经初见端倪。我们发现有时，我们倾向于依据行为所产生的后果，对外界的影响判断其是否道德。

We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences, in the results, in the state of the world that it brought about. And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning.

我们称之为结果主义道德推理。同时注意到，在某些情况下，会使我们动摇的不只行为的结果。

But we also noticed that, in some cases, we weren't swayed only by the result. Sometimes, many of us felt, that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act matters morally.

有时，我们中许多人认为行为的结果固然重要，但行为的本质或是特性在道德上也同样重要。有些人认为某些行为就是绝对错误的，即便该行为产生了好的结果，即便能牺牲一人挽救五人性命。

Some people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong even if they bring about a good result, even if they saved five people at the cost of one life. So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones.

所以我们对比了结果主义道德原则与绝对主义道德原则。从今天到接下来的几天里，我们将要剖析最具影响的一种结果主义道德原则。

Today and in the next few days, we will begin to examine one of the most influential versions of consequentialist moral theory. And that's the philosophy of utilitarianism.

即功利主义哲学。18世纪英国政治哲学家杰里米·边沁首次对功利主义道德论做出了系统的定义。

Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher gave first, the first clear systematic expression to the utilitarian moral theory. And Bentham's idea, his essential idea, is a very simple one.

边沁的核心观点非常简单。充满了道德上的直观感染力，其观点如下：正确的选择，公正的选择就是最大化效用。

With a lot of morally intuitive appeal, Bentham's idea is the following, the right thing to do, the just thing to do is to maximize utility. What did he mean by utility?

"效用"是什么意思呢？他认为效用便是快乐减去痛苦，幸福减去苦难。

He meant by utility the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering. Here's how he arrived at the principle of maximizing utility.

在此基础上他提出了效用最大化的原则。边沁通过观察得出，所有人类均受两大至高无上的因素所支配：痛苦与快乐。

He started out by observing that all of us, all human beings are governed by two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. We human beings like pleasure and dislike pain.

人的本性就是趋乐避苦。所以我们应以道德为基准，不管是在考虑个人行为时，还是作为立法者，或普通公民考虑如何立法时。

And so we should base morality, whether we're thinking about what to do in our own lives or whether as legislators or citizens, we're thinking about what the laws should be. The right thing to do individually or collectively is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness.

于公于私，正确的选择应该最大限度提高整体的幸福水平。边沁的功利主义有时总结为一句口号：“为最多的人谋求最大的幸福。”

Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan "The greatest good for the greatest number." With this basic principle of utility on hand, let's begin to test it and to examine it by turning to another case, another story, but this time, not a hypothetical story, a real life story, the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens.

有了这条功利主义的基本原则，我们来检验一下这条原则是否适用于另一案例，而这一次，就不再是假定的事件了，而是个真实的故事，英女皇诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案。这是19世纪英国的一则法律案例，也是众多法学院争论不休的著名案例。

This was a 19th century British law case that's famous and much debated in law schools. Here's what happened in the case.

这则案例是这样的。我先概述一下，然后假设你们就是陪审团，会怎么来裁定。

I'll summarize the story then I want to hear how you would rule, imagining that you were the jury. A newspaper account of the time described the background.

当时的报纸这么描述事件背景。"木犀草号"幸存者的骇人经历堪称史上最惨绝人寰的海难。

A sadder story of disaster at sea was never told than that of the survivors of the yacht, Mignonette. The ship floundered in the South Atlantic, 1300 miles from the Cape.

他们的船在南大西洋，距好望角1300英里处沉没了。全体船员一行四人，达德利是船长，斯蒂芬斯是大副，布鲁克斯是水手都是品德高尚的人，至少报上是这么说的。

There were four in the crew, Dudley was the captain, Stevens was the first mate, Brooks was a sailor, all men of excellent character or so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew member was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, 17 years old.

第四名船员是船上的侍者，理查德·派克，17岁。他是孤儿，没有家人，这是他首次出海远航。

He was an orphan, he had no family, and he was on his first long voyage at sea. He went, the news account tells us, rather against the advice of his friends.

据报道，他不顾朋友的反对坚持出海。带着充满希望的野心，憧憬此次征程能将他铸造成为男人。

He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition, thinking the journey would make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.

然而事与愿违。这则案例的实际情况毫无争议。

The facts of the case were not in dispute. A wave hit the ship, and Mignonette went down.

大浪导致翻船，"木犀草号"沉没。四人逃上了救生艇。

The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat. The only food they had were two cans of preserved turnips, no fresh water.

仅有的食物就是两罐腌萝卜，没有淡水。头三天，他们什么也没吃。

For the first three days, they ate nothing. On the fourth day, they opened one of the cans of turnips and ate it.

第四天，他们开了一罐腌萝卜来吃。第五天，他们抓到了一只海龟。

The next day they caught a turtle. Together with the other can of turnips, the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days. And then for eight days, they had nothing.

就着另一罐腌萝卜，这只海龟让他们又撑了几天。随后的八天内，他们什么也没有。没有食物和饮用水。

No food. No water. Imagine yourself in a situation like that, what would you do?

想象一下如果你是当事人，你会怎么做？他们是这样做的。

Here's what they did. By now the cabin boy, Parker, is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in the corner because he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others and he had become ill and he appeared to be dying.

现在派克正蜷缩在救生艇的角落，因为他不顾众人劝阻饮用了海水，他生病了，而且似乎快死了。在第19天，船长达德利建议大家应该抽签，通过抽签决定谁牺牲，来救其他的人。

So on the 19th day, Dudley, the captain, suggested that they should all have a lottery, that they should draw lots to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused. He didn't like the lottery idea.

布鲁克斯拒绝了，他不赞成抽签。不知道他是因为不愿意冒这个险呢，还是因为他信奉绝对主义道德原则。

We don't know whether this was because he didn't want to take the chance or because he believed in categorical moral principles. But in any case, no lots were drawn.

反正最终没有进行抽签。又过了一天，依然没有船只的影子，于是达德利叫布鲁克斯转过头去，并示意斯蒂芬斯最好杀掉派克。

The next day there was still no ship in sight so Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and he motioned to Stevens that the boy, Parker, had better be killed. Dudley offered a prayer, he told the boy his time had come, and he killed him with a pen knife, stabbing him in the jugular vein.

达德利为派克做了祷告，并告诉派克他的时辰到了，然后就用小刀割破他的颈静脉，杀死了他。虽然良心上极力拒绝，但布鲁克斯最终还是加入了这骇人的"盛宴"。

Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty. For four days, the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy.

整整四天，他们三个以派克的尸体和血液为食。真实的故事，最后他们得救了。

True story. And then they were rescued. Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism.

达德利日记里描述当时他们获救的情形，委婉得让人震惊。他写道：“第24天，我们正在吃早餐，终于有船来了。”

Quote "On the 24th day, as we were having our breakfast, a ship appeared at last." The three survivors were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back to Falmouth in England where they were arrested and tried.

一艘德国船搭救了这三名幸存者。他们乘船回到了英国的法尔茅斯，并在那被捕，接受审判。布鲁克斯成了目击证人，达德利和斯蒂芬斯则成了被告。

Brooks turned state's witness. Dudley and Stevens went to trial. They didn't dispute the facts.

他们对事实供认不讳。但他们声称此行为是迫不得已，他们这样辩护。

They claimed they had acted out of necessity; that was their defense. They argued in effect better that one should die so that three could survive.

辩称“牺牲一人保全三人”是更好的结果。但控方并不为之所动。

The prosecutor wasn't swayed by that argument. He said murder is murder, and so the case went to trial. Now imagine you are the jury.

他认为谋杀就是谋杀，所以此案上了法庭。现在假设你们就是陪审团。为了简化讨论过程，撇开法律问题不谈，假设你们作为陪审团，只需裁定他们的所作所为在道德上是否允许。

And just to simplify the discussion, put aside the question of law, let's assume that you as the jury are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not. How many would vote 'not guilty', that what they did was morally permissible?

有多少会投"无罪"，认为道德上是允许的？多少会投"有罪"，认为道德上是不允许的？

And how many would vote 'guilty', what they did was morally wrong? A pretty sizeable majority.

绝大多数认为有罪。现在来听听大家的理由，先从少数派开始。

Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with those who are in the minority. Let's hear first from the defense of Dudley and Stevens.

先听听为达德利和斯蒂芬斯作出的辩护。你为什么会在道德上赦免他们？

Why would you morally exonerate them? What are your reasons?

理由是什么？你来。

Yes. I think it's—I think it is morally reprehensible but I think that there is a distinction between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone legally accountable.

我认为此行为应该受到道德上的谴责，但我认为道德上应该受到谴责并不等同于法律上应当承担责任。- 换言之，正如法官常说的情有可原，未必不可法外容情，当然我不认为，一句情有可原就能为盗窃、谋杀以及其他违法行为正名，但有时情有可原的程度确实可能法外容情，赦免你的罪行。- 很好其他人呢，还有谁来辩护。

- In other words, you know, as the judge said, what's always moral isn't necessarily against the law and while I don't think that necessity justifies theft or murder or any illegal act, at some point your degree of necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt. - Okay. Good. Other defenders. Other voices for the defense. Moral justifications for what they did.

为他们的行为来点道德辩护。你来。

Yes. Thank you. I just feel like in the situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive.

谢谢。我只是认为在那样的绝境下，为了生存你不得不那样做。不得不那样做。

You have to do what you have to do. Yeah, you've got to do what you've got to do. Pretty much. If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive.

对，差不多吧，你只能这么做。如果你已经19天没有进食，那么总得有人要作出牺牲，必须有人牺牲，其他人才能活下来。此外，假定他们活了下来，回家以后成为对社会更加有益的公民，比如创建了无数的慈善机构或者诸如此类的。

And furthermore from that, let's say they survive and then they become productive members of society who go home and start like a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that. - I mean they benefited everybody in the end. So. . . - Yeah.

- 最终他们造福了所有人。所以…… - 对。当然我不知道接下来的情况，他们也可能回去杀了更多人，我不知道。

I mean I don't know what they did afterwards, they might have gone and like killed more people, I don't know. - Whatever but. . . - What?

- 谁知道呢？- 什么？也许他们成了杀手。

Maybe they were assassins. What if they went home and they turned out to be assassins?

那万一他们回家后，结果成了杀手呢？- 那万一回家成为杀手的话，这个问题……- 你肯定想知道他们要杀谁。

- What if they went home and turned out to be assassins? Well. . . - You do want to know who they assassinated. That's true too. That's fair. That's fair.

那倒是的，确实是这样。- 说完了？- 我的确会想知道他们要杀谁。- 好的，你回答得不错，你叫什么名字？

- Okay? - I would want to know who they assassinated. - All right. That's good. What's your name? - Marcus. - Marcus. All right.

- 马库斯。- 马库斯。好了。我们已经听了多种版本的辩护了。

We've heard a defense, a couple of voices for the defense. Now we need to hear from the prosecution.

现在要听听控方的说法。大多数人都认为他们的行为是错误的，为什么？

Most people think what they did was wrong. Why? Yes.

你来。首先我想的就是，他们已经很长时间没吃东西了，也许已经影响到他们的精神状况，可以借此作为辩护，辩称他们当时精神状况不太正常，所以他们的决定可能并非出于本意。

One of the first things that I was thinking was they haven't been eating for a really long time maybe they're mentally like affected and so then that could be used as a defense, a possible argument that they weren't in the proper state of mind, they weren't making decisions they might otherwise be making. - And if that's an appealing argument that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that, it suggests that people who find that argument convincing do think that they were acting immorally. - But what do you—I want to know what you think. You defend them. I'm sorry, you vote to convict, right? - Yeah, I don't think that they acted in a morally appropriate way.

- 而如果只能用这样的辩词，认为只有人精神状况不正常才会干出那种事，这也就意味着，人们觉得该论证有说服力，其实已经认为他们的行为是不道德的了。- 但我想知道的是你是怎么想的，才会为他们辩护。不好意思，你是投的"有罪"，是吧？- 对，我认为他们的行为在道德上不算正当。为什么？你会怎么辩护？

And why not? What do you say? Here's Marcus, he just defended them.

比如马库斯，他就为他们辩护。他说的你也听到了。

He said. . . You heard what he said. - Yes. Yes. - That, that. . . That you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that.

- 对。没错。- 那……在那种情况下，你只能这样做。- 对。- 你怎么反驳马库斯呢？

- Yeah. - What do you say to Marcus? That there's no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate or the other people's lives in their own hands, that we don't have that kind of power.

世上没有任何情况允许人类来主宰别人的命运，或决断他人的生死，我们没有那样的权力。很好，谢谢。你叫什么名字？

Good. Okay. Thank you. And what's your name? Britt.

布丽特。- 布丽特，好的，还有谁？- 是。

- Britt. Okay. Who else? - Yes. What do you say? Stand up.

你有何看法？站起来说。我想知道达德利和斯蒂芬斯是否征得过派克的同意，同意取他的性命，是否那样就能赦免他们的谋杀罪名，是否这样道德上就是正当的？

I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven had asked for Richard Parker's consent in you know, dying, if that would exonerate them from an act of murder and if so, is that still morally justifiable? That's interesting. All right. Consent. Wait wait, hang on. What's your name?

非常有趣，好的，征得同意。等等，你叫什么名字？凯思琳。

Kathleen. Kathleen says suppose they had that, what would that scenario look like?

凯思琳说假设他们那样做了，那该是什么样的情形呢？故事里达德利手拿小刀没有做祷告，或是在做祷告前他说：“派克，介意我们杀你吗？”

So in the story Dudley is there, pen knife in hand, but instead of the prayer or before the prayer, he says "Parker, would you mind?" "We're desperately hungry," as Marcus empathizes with, "we're desperately hungry. You're not going to last long anyhow."

“我们实在太饿了。”马库斯对此感同身受，“我们实在太饿了，反正你也活不久了。”“对，你就牺牲下自己吧。”

"Yeah. You can be a martyr." "Would you be a martyr? How about it Parker?"

“你就牺牲下自己吧，怎么样，派克？”这样的话你会怎么想，这在道德上是正当的吗？假设派克在半昏迷状态下说了，“好的。”

Then what do you think? Would it be morally justified then? Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says "Okay." - I don't think it would be morally justifiable but I'm wondering if. . . - Even then, even then it wouldn't be? - No.

- 我认为这在道德上是不正当的，但我在想……- 即使那样也不正当？- 对。你认为即便派克同意了，这在道德上也不正当？

You don't think that even with consent it would be morally justified? Are there people who think who want to take up Kathleen's consent idea and who think that that would make it morally justified? Raise your hand if it would, if you think it would.

有没人赞同凯思琳这个"征得同意"的观点，有谁认为如果派克同意，道德上就正当了？如果你认为正当，请举起手来。非常有趣。

That's very interesting. Why would consent make a moral difference?

为什么派克同意了，在道德上就会不同呢？为什么呢？你来。

Why would it? Yes. - Well, I just think that if he was making his own original idea and it was his idea to start with, then that would be the only situation in which I would see it being appropriate anyway because that way you couldn't make the argument that he was pressured, you know it's three-to-one or whatever the ratio was. - Right. - And I think that if he was making a decision to give his life and he took on the agency to sacrifice himself which some people might see as admirable and other people might disagree with that decision.

- 我只是认为，如果这就是他的本意，也是他一开始提出来的，只有在这种情况下我才认为是恰当的，因为那样的话，就不能说派克是被迫的，毕竟当时三对一，无论几对一都是如此。- 对。- 我认为如果是他自己决定献出生命，请达德利代他动手，也许有人会赞颂这种行为，而其他人也许会反对这个决定。所以如果是他自己提出的，也只有在这种情况，我们才能确信说道德上没问题。

So if he came up with the idea, that's the only kind of consent we could have confidence in morally then it would be okay Otherwise, it would be kind of coerced consent under the circumstances, you think.

否则，考虑到当时情况，他可能是被迫同意的。有没有人认为，即便是派克同意了，也不能为他们的谋杀行径正名？

Is there anyone who thinks that even the consent of Parker would not justify their killing him? Who thinks that? Yes.

有人这么想吗？你来。站起来告诉我们理由。

Tell us why. Stand up. I think that Parker would be killed with the hope that the other crew members would be rescued so there's no definite reason that he should be killed because you don't know when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him, it's killing him in vain, do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued and then you're left with no one because someone's going to die eventually?

我认为派克之所以牺牲，是希望其他人可以获救。那么派克的牺牲其实没有确定的理由，因为根本不知道何时会得救。所以即使杀了他，也无济于事。在得救之前岂不是必须一直杀人？反正总得有人死，到头来一个也不剩了。这情形的道德逻辑似乎是这样，就是他们一直拣软柿子捏逐个杀掉，直至获救。而在本案中，他们比较幸运，获救时起码还有三个是活着的。

Well, the moral logic of the situation seems to be that, that they would keep on picking off the weakest maybe, one by one, until they were rescued. And in this case, luckily, they were rescued when three at least were still alive. Now, if Parker did give his consent, would it be all right, do you think or not?

那如果派克的确同意了，你觉得杀他是正当的吗？- 不，还是错误的。- 还不行。告诉我们为什么是错的。

- No, it still wouldn't be right. - No. And tell us why it wouldn't be all right. First of all, cannibalism, I believe, is morally incorrect so you shouldn't be eating human anyway.

首先，我认为食人有违伦理，不管怎样都不该吃人。这么说来食人在道德上是不能容忍的，即便是在这种只能坐以待毙的情况下，依然是不能容忍的。

So cannibalism is morally objectionable as such so then, even on the scenario of waiting until someone died, still it would be objectionable. Yes, to me personally.

对，就我个人来讲。- 我觉得这完全取决于个人的道德标准，不是我们在这坐着说得清楚的，当然这只是我的看法，其他人肯定会反对，但是……- 这个到时再说，先看他们的反对意见是什么，再来看他们的理由是否能说服你。

- I feel like it all depends on one's personal morals and like we can't sit here and just, like this is just my opinion, of course other people are going to disagree, but. . . - Well we'll see, let's see what their disagreements are and then we'll see if they have reasons that can persuade you or not. Let's try that. All right.

我们来试试，好吧。认为派克同意就属正当的，有没人能解释一下为什么派克同意了，在道德上就有所不同呢？

Let's. . . Now, is there someone who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent, can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference? What about the lottery idea? Does that count as consent? Remember at the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery, suppose that they had agreed to a lottery, then how many would then say it was all right?

那抽签那个主意呢，能被视作为同意吗？还记得一开始时，达德利曾提议抽签吗？假设他们都同意了抽签，有多少人认为，这样就可以接受？假设抽签抽到了派克，接下来的故事一样展开，有多少人认为这样在道德上就是允许的？

Suppose there were a lottery, cabin boy lost, and the rest of the story unfolded, then how many people would say it was morally permissible? So the numbers are rising if we had a lottery. Let's hear from one of you for whom the lottery would make a moral difference.

认为抽签了就能视为无罪的人数上升了。我们来听听支持抽签会在道德上有所不同的人是怎么说的。为什么？

Why would it? I think the essential element, in my mind, that makes it a crime is the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his, and that, I mean, that's kind of the basis for really any crime.

我觉得最重要的一点是，之所以说他们构成犯罪，是因为某种情况下判定自己的命比派克更重要，而这正构成了一切犯罪的基础。就好比是，我的需求比你的更重要，所以要优先考虑我。

Right? It's like my needs, my desires are more important than yours and mine take precedence. And if they had done a lottery where everyone consented that someone should die and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves to save the rest.

但如果他们每人都同意抽签决定谁应该牺牲，就像是所有的人都同意牺牲自己来救其他人。这样就可以接受是吗？

Then it would be all right? A little grotesque but. . .

是有点怪异，但……但在道德上就是可以接受的？

But morally permissible? Yes.

对。你叫什么名字？

And what's your name? Matt.

马特。马特，如此说来真正困扰你的不是食人，而是缺乏正当的程序。

- So Matt, for you, what bothers you is not the cannibalism but the lack of due process. I guess you could say that.

这样说也行。对吧？有没有谁同意马特的说法，再来说说为什么通过抽签让你觉得在道德上可以接受。

Right? And can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more about why a lottery would make it, in your view, morally permissible. Go ahead.

你说。- 就我的理解，从始至终一直困扰我们的争端就是，从没有人去征求派克的意见，没人告诉他即将有什么遭遇，就连最初提出的抽签也没征求他是否要参与，只是决定了要牺牲他。- 对，就是这么个情况。- 对。- 但如果他们抽签了，他们也都同意这一程序，那你认为就没问题，是吧？

- The way I understood it originally was that that was the whole issue is that the cabin boy was never consulted about whether or not something was going to happen to him, even with the original lottery whether or not he would be a part of that, it was just decided that he was the one that was going to die. - Right, that's what happened in the actual case. - Right. - But if there were a lottery and they'd all agreed to the procedure, you think that would be okay?

- Right, because then everyone knows that there's going to be a death, whereas, you know, the cabin boy didn't know that this discussion was even happening, there was no forewarning for him to know that "Hey, I may be the one that's dying." - All right. Now, suppose everyone agrees to the lottery, they have the lottery, the cabin boy loses, and he changes his mind.

- 对，因为这样所有人都知道会有人死，而不是像之前派克完全蒙在鼓里，根本没有人预先警告他，“可能抽到我去牺牲。”- 好吧，假设每个人都赞同抽签，抽签结果是派克输了，但他改主意了。你既然已经做了决定，就相当于是口头契约。你就不能反悔了，因为你已经决定了。

You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract. You can't go back on that, you've decided, the decision was made. You know, If you know that you're dying for, you know, the reason of others to live. You would. . .

抽签前你就知道，你可能抽到牺牲自己救别人。如果是别人抽到了，那别人也得去死。所以……

If someone else had died, you know that you would consume them so. . . Right. But then you could say, "I know, but I lost."

对，但你可能会说："我知道，但我输了。"我只是觉得最大的道德问题就是，根本没人征求过派克的意见，最可怕的是他当时完全蒙在鼓里。

I just think that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy and that's what makes it the most horrible is that he had no idea what was even going on. - That had he known what was going on, it would be a bit more understandable. - All right. Good. Now I want to hear. . .

- 如果他知道是怎么回事，至少会让人稍微可以理解一点。- 很好，我现在想听的是……现在有人认为这行为道德上是允许的，但只有20%的人，以马库斯为代表。

So there are some who think it's morally permissible but only about 20%, led by Marcus. Then there are some who say the real problem here is the lack of consent, whether the lack of consent to a lottery, to a fair procedure or, Kathleen's idea, lack of consent at the moment of death.

还有人认为真正的问题在于没有征得同意，不管是没有征得同意抽签，用公平程序进行，或者是凯思琳所说，没有征得派克的同意杀他。如果有征得同意，更多的人就愿意认为这在道德上是正当的。

And if we add consent, then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice morally justified. I want to hear now, finally, from those of you who think even with consent, even with a lottery, even with a final murmur of consent by Parker, at the very last moment, it would still be wrong.

我现在想听听，是否有人认为即便征得了同意，即便有了抽签，即便派克最终还是气若游丝地答应了，即使在最后一刻动手，杀死派克依然还是错误的。为什么是错误的？我想听听理由。

And why would it be wrong? That's what I want to hear. Yes.

你来。我从始至终，一直比较倾向绝对主义道德推理，我想我有可能会同意抽签的观点，输家自己亲手结束自己的性命，这样就避免出现谋杀行为，但我认为即便是那样，还是带有强迫性的。而且，我不认为达德利有丝毫悔意，既然他可以写出"我们正在吃早餐"这样的日记，说明他似乎根本没有把别人的生命当回事儿。

Well, the whole time I've been leaning off towards the categorical moral reasoning and I think that there's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea of a lottery and then the loser taking into their own hands to kill themselves so there wouldn't be an act of murder, but I still think that even that way, it's coerced. And also, I don't think that there is any remorse, like in Dudley's diary, "We're eating our breakfast," it seems as though he's just sort of like, you know, the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life. - So that makes me feel like I have to take the categorical stand. - You want to throw the book at him when he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong.

- 让我觉得必须得坚持绝对主义。- 你想严惩他是吗？因为他毫无悔意或者不认为自己做错事。对。

Right. So, all right. Good. Are there any other defenders who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent? Yes. Stand up. Why?

很好，有没其他人要辩护的，谁认为就是绝对错的，不管有没征得同意？你来，站起来，原因是什么？我认为毫无疑问，社会早已下过定论，谋杀就是谋杀。

I think undoubtedly the way our society is shaped murder is murder. Murder is murder in every way and our society looks at murder down on the same light and I don't think it's any different in any case.

不论怎么解释，谋杀依然是谋杀，社会对待谋杀是一视同仁的，任何情况下都没什么不同。很好，我来问你一个问题。

Good. Let me ask you a question. There were three lives at stake versus one.

有三条生命危在旦夕，三比一。好吧。

Okay. The one, the cabin boy, he had no family, he had no dependents, these other three had families back home in England; they had dependents; they had wives and children.

一方是派克，没有家庭，没有亲人，而另外那三个人在英国有自己的家庭，有亲人，有妻儿。想想边沁的理论。

Think back to Bentham. Bentham says we have to consider the welfare, the utility, the happiness of everybody.

边沁说我们必须得考虑大众的福祉，效用，大家的幸福。得把这些加起来考虑，所以就不只是三个还是一个这些数字，还要加上这三人的家人。

We have to add it all up so it's not just numbers, three against one; it's also all of those people at home. - In fact, the London newspaper at that time and popular opinion sympathized with them, Dudley and Stevens, and the paper said if they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones at home and their dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this.

- Yeah and how is that any different from people on a corner trying, with the same desire to feed their family. I don't think it's any different. I think in any case, if I'm murdering you to advance my status, that's murder, and I think that we should look at all that in the same light instead of criminalizing certain activities and making certain things seem more violently savage when in the same case, it's all the same, it's all the same act and mentality that goes into murder, necessity to feed your family so. . .

- 事实上，当时伦敦的报纸以及舆论是很同情达德利和斯蒂芬斯的，报纸上说，要不是因为他们对家人的爱和关心，他们肯定不会这么做的。- 但这跟绝境中铤而走险的人，有何不同呢？那些人同样是为了养家糊口。我没看出有何不同，我认为无论如何为改善自身现状而杀人，那就是谋杀。我们应该一视同仁，而不是说某些行为是犯罪，而不是明明没什么区别，却描述成更凶残的行为。只要是谋杀，性质都是一样的，无论是行为还是心态，都是谋杀，都是为了要养家糊口，所以……假设不是三个人，而是三十个，三百个呢？

Suppose it weren't three, suppose it were 30? 300? One life to save 300?

牺牲一人救三百个人呢？或打仗时，拯救三千个呢？

Or in wartime? 3000? Suppose the stakes are even bigger.

假设能救更多人。假设能救更多人？

Suppose the stakes are even bigger? I think it's still the same deal.

我觉得还是一样的。你认为边沁是错的吗？他说正确之举就是增加总体幸福是错的吗？

You think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collective happiness? You think he's wrong about that?

你认为他错了吗？- 我不认为他是错的，但谋杀就是谋杀，不管任何情况。- 那边沁就得是错的。如果你是对的，那他就是错的。

- I don't think he's wrong but I think murder is murder in any case. - Well, then Bentham has to be wrong. If you're right, he's wrong. - Okay, then he's wrong. I'm right. - All right. Thank you. Well done.

- 好吧，他是错的，我才是正确的。- 那行。谢谢，非常好。我们先暂停讨论，回想下对他们行为提了多少反对意见？

All right. Let's step back from this discussion and notice how many objections have we heard to what they did? We heard some defenses of what they did.

先说说几种对他们的辩护。辩护他们不得已而为之，考虑到当时情形很极端，此外还认为，至少是隐晦地认为，人数很重要。

The defenses had to do with necessity, their dire circumstance, and, implicitly at least, the idea that numbers matter. And not only numbers matter but the wider effects matter; their families back home, their dependents.

不仅人数重要，更广泛的影响也很重要，他们在国内有家庭，有亲人。而派克只是个孤儿，没人会想念他。

Parker was an orphan, no one would miss him. So if you add up, if you try to calculate the balance of happiness and suffering, you might have a case for saying what they did was the right thing.

如果合计来看，计算一下幸福与痛苦之差，你也许会认为，他们的所作所为是正确的。然后我们至少听到了三种反对意见。

Then we heard at least three different types of objections. We heard an objection that said what they did was categorically wrong, like here at the end, categorically wrong, murder is murder, it's always wrong even if it increases the overall happiness of society, a categorical objection.

其中之一是说他们的所作所为，是绝对错误的，正如后排这位所言，绝对错误，谋杀就是谋杀，总归是错的，即便能增加社会总幸福，属于绝对主义的反对。但我们仍需研究，为什么谋杀就是绝对错误的。

But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong. Is it because even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights?

是因为即便是船上的侍者也有基本权利吗？如果是那个原因，既然不是为了更大的福祉、效用、幸福，那这些权利又是从何而来的呢？此为问题一。

And if that's the reason, where do those rights come from if not from some idea of the larger welfare or utility or happiness? Question number one. Others said a lottery would make a difference, a fair procedure, Matt said, and some people were swayed by that.

其他人说抽签会有所不同，马特说的要有公平的程序，一些人产生了动摇。确切说，这不算绝对的否定。

That's not a categorical objection exactly. It's saying everybody has to be counted as an equal even though at the end of the day, one can be sacrificed for the general welfare.

基本观点是，众生皆平等，虽然不得已之时为了大众的福祉，个体还是可以被牺牲的。这又引发了另外一个问题。

That leaves us with another question to investigate. Why does agreement to a certain procedure, even a fair procedure, justify whatever result flows from the operation of that procedure?

为什么只要经过了特定程序，公平的程序，不管任何结果都可以视为正当呢？此为问题二。

Question number two. And question number three, the basic idea of consent. Kathleen got us on to this.

至于问题三就是征得同意的观点，凯思琳提到的。如果派克是自己同意的，正如这位补充，不是被迫的，那么用他的生命去救其他人就没问题，甚至更多同学赞同这一观点。

If the cabin boy had agreed himself, and not under duress, as was added, then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest and even more people signed on to that idea. But that raises a third philosophical question: What is the moral work that consent does?

但这样又引发了第三个哲学问题：征得同意道德上有何作用？为什么征得了同意，就能在道德上如此不同呢？没有征得同意杀人道德上不允许，征得同意就允许了吗？

Why does an act of consent make such a moral difference, that an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent, is morally permissible with consent? To investigate those three questions, we're going to have to read some philosophers.

为了研究这三个问题，我们将要阅读几位哲学家的著作。下讲开始，我们将开始阅读边沁，约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒等功利主义哲学家的著作。

And starting next time, we're going to read Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers.

,