迪烏拉語翻譯
Michael Sandel: Do you want to reply?
Student G: I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate possibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first, using their four healthy organs to save the other four.
Student F: Umm, I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose to, it's, either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill the person which is an active conscious thought to turn, or you choose to push the fat man over翻譯社 which is an active conscious action. So, either way you're making a choice.
Student E: Well I guess, umm翻譯社 in the first case, where you have the one worker and the five. It's a choice between those two, and you have to make a certain choice and people are going to die because of the trolley car翻譯社 not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is a runaway thing and you're making a split-second choice, whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part. You have control over that whereas you may not have control over the trolley car, so I think it's a slightly different situation.
Student D: That's true翻譯社 but he was on the tracks and you…
Michael Sandel: But the guy working, the one on the track off to the side, he didn't choose to sacrifice his life anymore than the fat man did, did he?
Student D: The second one, I guess, involves an active choice of pushing a person down, which, I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in this situation at all, and so to choose on his behalf翻譯社 I guess, to ah翻譯社 to involve him in something he otherwise would have escaped is, I guess翻譯社 more than what you have in the first case where the three parties, the driver and the two sets of workers are already, I guess, in the situation.
Michael Sandel: You would?
Student C: Yea.
Michael Sandel: OK. Who else? That's a brave answer. Thank you. Let's consider another trolley car case, and see whether those of you in the majority want to adhere to the principle. Better that one should die so that five should live. This time you're not the driver of the trolley car翻譯社 you're an onlooker. You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track, and down the track comes a trolley car, at the end of the track are five workers. The breaks don't work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them, and now, you're not the driver翻譯社 you really feel helpless, until you notice翻譯社 standing next to you, leaning over the bridge is a very fat man. And you could give him a shove, he would fall over the bridge, onto the track翻譯社 right in the way of the trolley car, he would die, but he would spare the five. Now翻譯社 how many would push the fat man over the bridge? Raise your hand. How many wouldn't? Most people wouldn't. Here's the obvious question, what became of the principle? Better to save five lives, even if it means sacrificing one, what became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed翻譯社 in the first case. I need to hear from somebody who was in the majority in both cases. How do you explain the difference between the two? Yes?
Michael Sandel: So what would you do in this case? You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide; you would crash into the five and kill them?
Student C: Well I think that is the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism, in order to save one type of race you wipe out the other.
Student E: You're pushing him and that's different than steering something that is going to cause death into another, you know, it doesn't really sound right saying it now…
Student B: Umm, well I was thinking it was the same reason on 9/11翻譯社 we regard the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people on the plane翻譯社 and not kill more people in big buildings.
Michael Sandel: No翻譯社 no翻譯社 it's good.
Michael Sandel: It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead. That's a good reason. That's a good reason. Who else? Does everybody agree with that reason? Go ahead.
Student E: when I'm up here.
Andrew: And then in another way, I mean翻譯社 in the first situation翻譯社 you're involved directly with the situation. In the second one you're an onlooker as well. So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man.
Michael Sandel: Alright. Let's、let's, let's forget for the moment about this case. That's good. Ah, let's imagine a different case. This time you're a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you. Ah, they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck. Five of them sustained moderate injuries, one is severely injured, you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim, but in that time the five would die, or you look after the five翻譯社 restore them to health翻譯社 but during that time the one severely injured person would 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翻譯社 one life versus five? Now consider another doctor case翻譯社 this time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients, each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive. One needs a heart, one a lung翻譯社 one a kidney, one a liver and the fifth a pancreas. And you have no organ donors. You are about to see them die, and then翻譯社 it occurs to you that in the next room there is a healthy guy who came in for a checkup, and he's… You like that? And he's, he's taking a nap. You could go in very quietly翻譯社 yank out the five organs, that person would die, but you could save the five. How many would do it? Anyone? How many? Put your hands up if you would do it. Anyone in the balcony?
Student E: Andrew.
Michael Sandel: It's good. What's your name?
Michael Sandel: You would? Be careful翻譯社 don't lean over too… What, ah, how many wouldn't? Alright. What do you say翻譯社 speak up in the balcony. You who would yank out the organs翻譯社 why?
Student: I would.
Michael Sandel: You're pushing him with your own hands.
Michael Sandel: That's a pretty good idea. That's a great idea, except for the fact that you just wrecked the philosophical point. Well let's, let's step back from these stories and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold. Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions we've had, and let's consider what those moral principles look like. The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion said翻譯社 the right thing to do翻譯社 the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action. At the end of the day翻譯社 better that five should live, even if one must die. That's an example of consequentialist moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further, we considered those other cases, and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning. When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge, or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient翻譯社 people gestured toward reasons having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, consequences be what they may. People were reluctant. People thought it was just wrong, categorically wrong, to kill a person翻譯社 an innocent person翻譯社 even for the sake of saving five lives. At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered. So, this points to a second categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come, the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles. The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism翻譯社 a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher. The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning, assess them, and also consider others. If you look at the syllabus you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books. Books by Aristotle翻譯社 John Locke.Immanuel Kant翻譯社 John Stuart Mill and others. You'll notice too翻譯社 from the syllabus that we don't only read these books, we also take up contemporary, political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions. We will debate equality and inequality翻譯社 affirmative action翻譯社 free speech versus hate speech, same sex marriage, military conscription a range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books, but to make clear, to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives翻譯社 including our political lives for philosophy. And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other. This may sound appealing enough, but here, I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this翻譯社 to read these books in this way, as an exercise in self-knowledge, to read them in this way carries certain risks. Risks that are both personal and political. Risks that every student of political philosophy has known. These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know. There's an irony. The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings and making it strange. That's how those examples work, worked. They hypotheticals with which we began with their nicks of playfulness and sobriety. It's also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information翻譯社 but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing. But, and here's the risk翻譯社 once the familiar turns strange翻譯社 it's never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling, you find it. It can never be unthought or unknown. What makes this enterprise difficult but also riveting, is that moral and political philosophy is a story, and you don't 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 the political risks? One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you, that by reading these books and debating these issues you will become a better, more responsible citizen. You will examine the presuppositions of public policy翻譯社 you will hone you political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs, but this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy, for the most part翻譯社 hasn't worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one, or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one. And that's because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating activity. And you see this going back to Socrates翻譯社 there's a dialogue, "the Gorgias," in which one of Socrates' friends, Callicles翻譯社 tries to talk him out of philosophizing. Callicles tells Socrates, philosophy is a pretty toy翻譯社 if one indulges it in moderation at the right time of life, but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin. Take my advice, Callicles says翻譯社 abandon argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life. Take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles翻譯社 but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings. So Callicles is really saying to Socrates, quit philosophizing, get real翻譯社 go to business school. And Callicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions翻譯社 from established assumptions and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks, personal and political. And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism. It's the idea, well it goes something like this, we didn't resolve, once and for all, either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began. And if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all these years, who are we to think that we, here in Sanders Theater over the course of a semester can resolve them. And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about it翻譯社 no way of reasoning. That's the evasion, the evasion of skepticism翻譯社 to which I would offer the following reply: It's true, these questions have been debated for a very long time, but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted may suggest that翻譯社 though they're impossible in one sense, they're unavoidable in another. And the reason they're unavoidable翻譯社 the reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions ever day. So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution. Emanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote, "Skepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote翻譯社 "Can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason." I've tried to suggest, through these stories and these arguments, some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilities, I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason翻譯社 and to see where it might lead. Thank you very much.
第一堂課殺人的道德兩難The Moral Side of Murder英文完整字幕
Michael Sandel: This is a course about justice翻譯社 and we begin with a story. Suppose you are the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour, and at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track. Student A: Umm, because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead.
Michael Sandel: So the principle there was the same on 9/11. It's a tragic circumstance, but better to kill one and so that five can live. Is that the reason most of you had, those of you that would turn? Yes? Let's hear now from those in the minority. Those who wouldn't turn. Yes.
Student C: Presumably, yes.
Michael Sandel: This guy was on the bridge. Go ahead. You can come back if you want. Alright翻譯社 it's a hard question. Alright, you did well. You did very well. It's a hard question. Umm, who else can find a way of reconciling the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes?
Michael Sandel: Alright翻譯社 who has a reply? Is that翻譯社 no, that's good. Who has a way? Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this?
Andrew: Yes.
Michael Sandel: Andrew. Let me ask you this question Andrew…
Michael Sandel: Suppose, standing on the bridge next to the fat man, I didn't have to push him, suppose he was standing over a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that? Would you turn?
Andrew: For, for some reason, that still just seems more wrong. Right? I mean, maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that翻譯社 but ah翻譯社 or say that the car is, is hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap, umm, then I could agree with that.
Michael Sandel: Fair enough. It still seems wrong in a way that is doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn you say.
以下內文出自: http://blog.roodo.com/arslonga/archives/16071257.html有關各國語文翻譯公證的問題歡迎諮詢華頓翻譯公司02-77260932
留言列表
