哈佛公开课给生命一个价格标签（幽默的哈佛大学公开课-）

Last time, we argued about the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens, the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea. And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind, let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.，我来为大家科普一下关于哈佛公开课给生命一个价格标签?下面希望有你要的答案，我们一起来看看吧!

哈佛公开课给生命一个价格标签

Last time, we argued about the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens, the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea. And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind, let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.

上节课我们讨论了女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案，即救生艇的案例，海上食人惨案。带着对救生艇上发生事件的讨论，即对达德利和斯蒂芬斯的行为赞同与否的讨论，我们再回归杰里米·边沁的功利主义哲学。

Bentham was born in England in 1748. At the age of 12, he went to Oxford. At 15, he went to law school. He was admitted to the Bar at age 19 but he never practiced law.

边沁1748年生于英格兰。他12岁进入牛津大学。他15岁入读法学院。他19岁取得律师资格，但从没当过律师。

Instead, he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy. Last time, we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism.

而是将毕生精力献给了法学和道德哲学。上节课，我们开始思考边沁的功利主义。

The main idea is simply stated and it's this: The highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality, is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness, or the overall balance of pleasure over pain; in a phrase, maximize utility. Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning: We're all governed by pain and pleasure, they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system has to take account of them.

他的主要观点简单明确，就是：道德的最高准则，无论是个人道德还是政治道德，都是最大化公共福祉，或者说集体幸福，或快乐痛苦之差额；一句话，效用最大化。边沁是这样论证这一原则的：我们都受到痛苦和快乐的支配，苦乐是我们至高无上的主宰，因此任何道德体系都应考虑到它们。

How best to take account? By maximizing. And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.

怎样最好的考虑呢？通过最大化。从而引出"为最多数人谋求最大幸福"这一原则。

What exactly should we maximize? Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely, utility, maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators.

我们到底该最大化什么呢？边沁说应最大化幸福，或更精确来说，最大化效用，效用最大化原则不只针对个人也适用于集体及立法者。

"What, after all, is a community?" Bentham asks. It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it.

边沁问：“到底什么是集体。”集体是包含的个体的集合。

And that's why in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the law should be, in deciding what's just, citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question if we add up all of the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs, the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering. That's what it means to maximize utility.

所以在制定最优政策，制定法律，决定何谓公正时，公民和立法者应扪心自问这个问题，当用政策带来的总效益减去总成本，正确的选择应该是减去苦难后，幸福最大化的那一个。这就是所谓效用最大化。

Now, today, I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it, and it often goes, this utilitarian logic, under the name of cost-benefit analysis, which is used by companies and by governments all the time. And what it involves is placing a value, usually a dollar value, to stand for utility on the costs and the benefits of various proposals.

今天我想听听你们是否赞同这点，功利主义的逻辑通常被称作成本效益分析，企业和政府一直在使用。其做法是，计算各种方案的成本和收益，估出价值，通常为金钱上的价值，来代表效用。

Recently, in the Czech Republic, there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris, the tobacco company, does huge business in the Czech Republic. They commissioned a study, a cost-benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic, and what their cost-benefit analysis found was the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke.

最近，捷克共和国有一个增加香烟消费税的提案。烟草公司菲利普·莫里斯公司在捷克共和国的生意做得很大。他们委托了一项研究，在捷克进行吸烟的成本效益分析，分析结果显示，让捷克人民吸烟能让政府获利。

Now, how do they gain? It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking-related diseases.

那政府如何获利呢？确实捷克政府的公共财政会遭受负面影响，因为与吸烟相关的疾病会增加医疗支出。

On the other hand, there were positive effects and those were added up on the other side of the ledger. The positive effects included, for the most part, various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products, but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early, pension savings, you don't have to pay pensions for as long and also, savings in housing costs for the elderly.

但另一方面，也有正面影响，记在了账目的另一侧。正面影响主要来自销售香烟为政府带来的各项税收，但还包括人们早逝为政府节省的医疗支出，免去的养老金，政府不需要继续支付养老金，还省去了老年人的住房开支。

And when all of the costs and benefits were added up, the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147,000,000, and given the savings in housing, in health care, and pension costs, the government enjoys savings of over $1,200 for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking. Cost-benefit analysis.

把所有的成本和收益加总，菲利普·莫里斯公司的研究表明，捷克共和国公共财政将获得一亿四千七百万美元的净收益，算上住房，医疗，养老金方面节省的开支，政府从每个因吸烟早逝的人身上赚得超过1200美元。成本效益分析。

Now, those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test. Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation.

在座支持功利主义的同学中可能会觉得这个研究不公。菲利普·莫里斯公司遭到媒体谴责，他们为这项冷血的计算公开道歉。

You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate, namely the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer. What about the value of life?

你也许会说，研究无疑忽略了功利主义可以纳入考虑的部分，即那些死于肺癌的患者本身，加上其家属的价值。怎么能忽略生命的价值呢？

Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life. One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case.

有些成本效益分析确实计算了生命的价值。其中最著名的是福特平托的案例。

Did any of you read about that? This was back in the 1970s. Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car? Anybody? It was a small car, subcompact car, very popular, but it had one problem, which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions, the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured.

有人读过吗？当时是二十世纪七十年代。还有人知道福特平托是什么车吗？它是一种小型、次紧凑型车，风靡一时。但它有一个缺陷，油箱装在车的尾部，发生追尾时，油箱就会爆炸，造成了严重伤亡。

Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue. And in the court case, it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding.

受害者一纸诉状将福特告上了法庭。案件审理中发现福特早就知道油箱的缺陷，还进行了成本效益分析，来决定是否值得装上一面特殊的隔板，以保护油箱，防止油箱爆炸。

They did a cost-benefit analysis. The cost per part to increase the safety of the Pinto, they calculated at $11.00 per part.

他们做了成本效益分析。增加平托安全性的隔板，每块成本是11美元。

And here's. . . This was the cost-benefit analysis that emerged in the trial. Eleven dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to a total cost of $137 million to improve the safety.

这就是审判时发现的成本效益分析。给1250万辆轿车和卡车配上11美元的隔板提高安全性，共需花费一亿三千七百万美元。

But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car and they counted 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value, $200,000 per death, 180 injuries, $67,000, and then the costs to repair, the replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles, it would be destroyed without the safety device $700 per vehicle. So the benefits turned out to be only $49.5 million and so they didn't install the device.

但接着又算出花这些钱提高安全性能带来的收益，预计可减少180例死亡，估算每条人命20万美元；可减少180例伤残，每例67000美元。加上车辆维修费，无此安全装置车会完全损毁，所以需算上2000辆汽车的重置成本，每辆700美元。收益最后只有4950万，因此他们没有安装该装置。

Needless to say, when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came out in the trial, it appalled the jurors, who awarded a huge settlement. Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?

不用说，福特汽车公司的这份成本效益分析备忘录在审理时公之于众，陪审团大为震怒，判定巨额赔偿。这算是功利主义计算思路的反例吗？

Because Ford included a measure of the value of life. Now, who here wants to defend cost-benefit analysis from this apparent counter example?

因为福特计算了生命的价值。现在，就这个明显的反例，有谁想为成本效益分析辩护？

Who has a defense? Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus?

有谁辩护？还是你们认为它完全推翻了功利主义的演算？

Yes? Well, I think that once again, they've made the same mistake the previous case did, that they assigned a dollar value to human life, and once again, they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families. I mean, families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one and that is more valued than $200,000.

请说。我觉得他们犯了与前面案例相同的错误，量化了生命的价值，同样的，他们没有考虑受害者家人承受的痛苦和精神损失。他们不但家庭收入受损，还丧失了亲人，那损失远不止20万美元。

Right and. . . Wait, wait, wait, that's good. What's your name? Julie Roteau.

没错，等等，说得好，你叫什么名字？朱莉·罗托。

So if $200,000, Julie, is too— too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life, what would be what do you think would be a more accurate number? I don't believe I could give a number. I think that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to issues of human life.

朱莉，要是20万美金不够，因为没有算丧失亲人和生命的损失，那你认为什么数目更合适？我无法给出数目。我觉得这种分析不应该用在人的生命这个问题上。

I think it can't be used monetarily. So they didn't just put too low a number, Julie says.

人命不能用金钱衡量。所以朱莉认为他们不是定价太低。

They were wrong to try to put any number at all. - All right, let's hear someone who. . . - You have to adjust for inflation.

他们压根就不该定价。- 那好，让我们听听别人……- 你必须考虑通货膨胀。

You have to adjust for inflation. All right, fair enough.

你必须考虑通货膨胀。行啊，有道理。

So what would the number be now? This was—this was 35 years ago.

那如今应该是多少？那是35年前。

Two million dollars. Two million dollars? You would put two million?

两百万美元。两百万美元？你会定价两百万吗？

And what's your name? Voytek

你叫什么名字？佛伊泰克。

Voytek says we have to allow for inflation. We should be more generous.

佛伊泰克说我们必须考虑到通胀。应该更慷慨些。

Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of thinking about the question? I guess, unfortunately, it is for. . . there needs to be a number put somewhere, like, I'm not sure what that number would be, but I do agree that there could possibly be a number put on the human life.

这样你就满意了吗，这样思考这个问题就可以了吗？我觉得，不幸的是……有时确实需要标价，不过我不确定具体数字，但我确实认同，人的生命也许可以标价。

All right, so Voytek says, and here, he disagrees with Julie. Julie says we can't put a number on human life for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis. Voytek says we have to because we have to make decisions somehow.

很好，所以佛伊泰克不同意朱莉的看法。朱莉认为我们不该为了成本效益分析给人的生命标价。佛伊泰克认为我们别无选择，因为不管怎样，我们必须做出决定。

What do other people think about this? Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit analysis here as accurate as desirable? Yes? Go ahead. I think that if Ford and other car companies didn't use cost-benefit analysis, they'd eventually go out of business, because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs, to put food on the table, to feed their children.

别的人怎么看？有没人来赞同成本效益分析的，认为它精确合宜吗？你说。我觉得要是福特和其他汽车公司不使用成本效益分析的话，他们最后就会倒闭，因为他们无法盈利，这样就会有数百万人无法开车上班，没法赚钱、养不起小孩。

- So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed, the greater good is sacrificed, in this case. - All right, let me add. What's your name? Raul.

- 所以我认为此种情况下，如果不用成本效益分析，会牺牲更多人的利益。- 很好，我加一句。你叫什么名字？劳尔。

Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by a driver when people are driving a car, and there was a debate whether that should be banned. And the figure was that some 2,000 people die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones.

劳尔，最近有一项关于司机开车时使用手机的研究，关于是否应该禁止此行为有一场争论。数据显示，每年有2000人左右因开车时使用手机而死于车祸。

And yet, the cost-benefit analysis which was done by the center for Risk Analysis at Harvard found that if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use and you put some value on the life, it comes out about the same, because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on while they're driving. Doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?

然而，哈佛风险分析中心作出的成本效益分析表明，如果考虑使用手机带来的效益，并与生命的价值做比较，就会得出同样的结论。因为这样做经济效益巨大，可以使人们更有效地利用时间，不浪费时间，边开车边谈生意，边和朋友聊天等。这不就表明用金钱衡量人的生命大错特错了吗？

Well, I think that if the great majority of people try to derive maximum utility out of a service, like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide, that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur. You're an outright utilitarian.

我觉得如果绝大多数人想要从某项服务中获得最大功利，比如使用手机、享受手机所带来的便利，那么为了满足需求，这种牺牲就是必要的。你是个彻底的功利主义者嘛。

Yes. Okay. - All right then, one last question, Raul. - Okay.

是的。可以这么说。- 好，那么最后一个问题，劳尔。- 好。

And I put this to Voytek, what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones? Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure, I mean, right now. I think that. . .

我也问过佛伊泰克，在决定是否禁止使用手机这件事上，人命应该如何定价？我不想武断地算出一个数字，我是指马上就算出，我觉得……

You want to take it under advisement? - Yeah, I'll take it under advisement. - But what, roughly speaking, would it be? You got 2,300 deaths. - Okay. - You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want to prevent those deaths by banning the use of cell phones in cars. - Okay.

你想要深思熟虑之后再决定？- 对，我会深思熟虑。- 但大概有多少？- 会死2300人。 - 没错。- 你必须用金钱来衡量，是否需要禁止司机使用手机来避免此类事件发生。 - 是的。

So what would your hunch be? How much? A million? - Two million? Two million was Voytek's figure. - Yeah.

那你感觉是多少钱，一百万？- 两百万？佛伊泰克觉得是两百万。 - 差不多吧。

- Is that about right? - Maybe a million. - A million? - Yeah.

- 这么多可以吗？ - 也许一百万吧。- 一百万？ - 对。

You know, that's good. Thank you. So, these are some of the controversies that arise these days from cost-benefit analysis, especially those that involve placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.

很好，谢谢。以上即为近来成本效益分析引发的一些争论，尤其是其中那些认为可用金钱衡量一切的观点。

Well, now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections not necessarily to cost-benefit analysis specifically, because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today, but to the theory as a whole, to the idea that the right thing to do, the just basis for policy and law is to maximize utility. How many disagree with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good? How many agree with it?

现在我想听听反对意见，不一定仅仅针对成本效益分析，因为那只是如今对功利主义逻辑的一种应用。你可以针对整个功利主义理论，针对那些认为政策法律的公正基础就是，正确之举就是效用最大化的观点。有多少人不同意功利主义在法律及公共利益方面的做法？有多少人同意？

So more agree than disagree. So let's hear from the critics. Yes?

看来多数表示同意。我们来听听批判声吧，请说。

My main issue with it is that I feel like you can't say that just because someone's in the minority, what they want and need is less valuable than someone who's in the majority. So I guess I have an issue with the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number is okay. Because there are still. . . What about people who are in the lesser number? Like, it's not fair to them. They didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.

我对此的异议是，我觉得不能因为一些人占少数，就断定他们的需要和欲望不如多数人的重要。所以我反对"为最多的人谋求最大的幸福"这一观点。因为还有，占少数的人怎么办呢？这对他们不公平。他们对此没有发言权。

All right. That's an interesting objection. You're worried about the effect on the minority. Yes.

很好，这是个有趣的异议。你担心其对少数人的影响。是的。

What's your name, by the way? Anna.

顺便问一句，你叫什么名字？安娜。

Who has an answer to Anna's worry about the effect on the minority? What do you say to Anna?

谁能回答安娜对于少数人影响的担心？你怎么回答安娜？

Um, she said that the minority is valued less. I don't think that's the case because individually, the minority's value is just the same as the individual of the majority. It's just that the numbers outweigh the minority. - And I mean, at a certain point, you have to make a decision and I'm sorry for the minority, but sometimes, it's for the general, for the greater good. - For the greater good. Anna, what do you say? What's your name?

她说少数人的价值被低估了。我认为事实并非如此，因为少数人每个个体的价值和多数人的个体价值是一样的。只不过多数在数量上胜过少数。- 有时你必须做出选择，我对少数表示遗憾。但有时这是牺牲小我，成全大我。- 成全大我，安娜你怎么看？你叫什么名字？

Yang-Da. What do you say to Yang-Da?

杨达。你怎么反驳杨达？

Yang-Da says you just have to add up people's preferences and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed. Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about when you say you're worried about utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?

杨达说，必须总体考虑人们的偏好，而其中少数人的偏好其实也被衡量过了。你说担心功利主义缺少对少数的关心和尊重，能举个担心的那类事的例子吗？

- Give an example. - Okay. So, well, with any of the cases that we've talked about, like for the shipwreck one, I think the boy who was eaten still had as much of a right to live as the other people. And just because he was the minority in that case, the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living, that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live.

- 举个例子。- 我就举一个我们讨论过的案例，比如海上食人惨案中，我认为被吃的男孩仍然与其他人享有相等的生存权，仅仅因为他是少数，他存活的机率可能最小，并不意味着其他人就自然而然有权利吃他，就为了让多数人有存活的机会。

So there may be certain rights that the minority members have that the individual has that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility? - Yes. - Yes, Anna? You know, this would be a test for you.

所以可能少数人或个体的某些权利不该为了效用最大化而被牺牲？- 是的。- 是吗，安娜？下面这个例子我来考考杨达。

Back in Ancient Rome, they threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. If you think how the utilitarian calculus would go, yes, the Christian thrown to the lions suffers enormous excruciating pain.

在古罗马，基督徒被扔去斗兽场与狮子搏斗。如果以功利主义方式演算，没错，丢给狮子的基督徒确实经历了撕心裂肺的剧痛。

But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans! Yang-Da.

但看看那么多罗马人是多么享受啊！杨达。

Well, in that time, I don't. . . if in modern day of time, to value the, to give a number to the happiness given to the people watching, I don't think any policymaker would say the pain of one person, of the suffering of one person is much, much. . . is, I mean, in comparison to the happiness gained, it's. . . No, but you have to admit that if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness, it would outweigh even the most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion.

在那个时代，我不... 要是如今，衡量观众获得的快乐，我觉得没有任何政策制定者会认为，一个人的痛苦煎熬会比众人因之获得的快感更...不，但你必须承认要是有足够多的罗马人对这种快感足够狂热，那就会胜过少数几个被丢给狮子的基督徒承受的极端剧痛。

So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism. One has to do with whether utilitarianism adequately respects individual rights or minority rights, and the other has to do with the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values.

因此我们确实对功利主义有两点异议。一点是关于功利主义是否充分尊重个体或少数的权利，另一点是加总效用或偏好或价值这一观点。

Is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms? There was, in the 1930s, a psychologist who tried to address this second question. He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes, that it is possible to translate all goods, all values, all human concerns into a single uniform measure.

我们真的有可能把所有的价值都加起来，然后用金钱衡量吗？二十世纪三十年代，有位心理学家试图解决第二个问题。他试图证明功利主义者的假设，所有的利益、价值、人类的心声都可以统一衡量。

And he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief, this was in the 1930s, and he asked them, he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them, "How much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences?" and he kept track. For example, how much would you have to be paid to have one upper front tooth pulled out? Or how much would you have to be paid to have one little toe cut off?

他试图证明此点，便对年轻的救济金领取者做了调查，当时是二十世纪三十年代，他给了他们一张不愉快经历的清单，问他们：“给你多少钱，你就愿意忍受以下经历？”并作了记录。比如，给你多少钱你才愿意拔掉自己的一颗门牙，或者给你多少钱你才愿意砍掉一根小脚趾？

Or to eat a live earthworm six inches long? Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas?

或者吃一条六英寸长的蚯蚓？或者后半生居住在堪萨斯农场？(堪萨斯：位于美国西部平原上世纪三十年代遭受重大自然灾害)

Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands? Now, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list?

或者亲手掐死一只流浪猫？你们觉得清单里的哪一项最贵？

Kansas? You're right, it was Kansas.

堪萨斯？没错，是堪萨斯。

For her. . . For Kansas, people said they'd have to pay them they have to be paid $300,000. What do you think was the next most expensive?

他们认为余生都住堪萨斯农场至少得给他们30万美元。你们觉得第二贵的是什么？

Not the cat. Not the tooth.

不是猫。也不是门牙。

Not the toe. The worm!

也不是脚趾。是蚯蚓！

People said you'd have to pay them $100,000 to eat the worm. What do you think was the least expensive item?

他们说给10万美元才肯吃蚯蚓。你们觉得最便宜的是哪项？

Not the cat. The tooth.

不是猫。是门牙。

During the Depression, people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4,500. What?

大萧条时期，人们愿意为了区区4500美元拔掉自己的牙。什么？

Now, here's what Thorndike concluded from his study. Any want or a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount and is therefore measurable.

桑代克得出了这样的结论。任何需求或满足都有个价钱，因此能用金钱衡量。

The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken consists of appetites, cravings, desires, and their gratifications. So does the life of human beings, though the appetites and desires are more complicated.

狗、猫、小鸡的生命都充斥着各类嗜好、渴望、欲望以及满足感。人亦如此，只是人的嗜好和欲望更加复杂罢了。

But what about Thorndike's study? Does it support Bentham's idea that all goods, all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value?

但桑代克的研究说明了什么呢？它是不是支持了边沁的观点，认为所有利益、所有价值都可以用统一的方式衡量？

Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list suggest the opposite conclusion that maybe, whether we're talking about life or Kansas or the worm, maybe the things we value and cherish can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value? And if they can't, what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality?

抑或清单上那些荒谬的项目恰恰揭示了相反的结论，也许不论是生命、堪萨斯、蚯蚓，还是我们重视珍爱的东西都是不能用统一方式衡量的?如果不能，那么功利主义道德理论意义何在？

That's a question we'll continue with next time.

我们下次将会继续探讨这一问题。

,