Harvard University - Justice Michael Sandel
哈佛大学公开课----公平 迈克尔·桑代尔教授主讲
Your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.
你的电车正以每小时60申请入党的原因英里行驶。
Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think is the right thing to do.
我们还要研究你这样做的原因.
Who is willing to volunteer a reason?
谁愿意说说你的想法？
Better to save five lives even if it means to sacrifice one.
牺牲一个，救活更多人。
What became of the principle that almost everyone endor in the first ca? 杀破狼小说
第一种情况几乎每个人都赞同，原因何在？
Is there a way out of this?
是否有更好的办法？
Let’s just forget a moment about this ca.
让我们暂时搁下这个故事。
Don’t lean over.
不要摔下来哦。
Let’ step back from the stories, the arguments.
让我们回过头来看这些故事和争论。
Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from discussion we had.
我们的谈论已经涉及到了一些道德的原则.
Conquentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the conquences of an act in the state of the rule that we resolve from the thing you do.
结果主义的道德推理取决于道德行为的后果,它取决于我们最后的结果。
So this point to a cond categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning,…
这是另外一种道德推理的原则,…
Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain duties and rights, regardless the conquences.
绝对主义的道德推理认为，道德有其绝对的道德推理原则,有明确的职责，明确的权利，不论后果怎样。
We’re gonna to explore in the day and next weeks to come the contrast between conquentialist and categorical moral principles.
我们会在今天和未来几周来讨论结果主义和绝对主义的异同。
We also take up contemporary political and legal controversy the rai philosophical questions.
我们还讨论当代的政治和法律争议的诱惑,讨论它们背后的哲学问题。
We’ll debate equality and inequality，狩猎工具affirmative action, free speech vs hate speech，same x marriage, military conscription, a range of practical questions.
我们将讨论，何为平等和不平等,平权运动，言论自由，攻击性言论,同性婚姻，征兵，一系列实际问题。
Not just to enlive the abstract and distant books, but to make clear to bring out what’s at stake in our daily lives, including our political lives, for philosophy.
因为我们不仅要真实地感受这样抽象的、古老的书籍斑马英语怎么说,还要认真地讨论我们日常生活中的一些问题，包括我们的政治生活。
We’ll e how each informs and illuminates the others.
我们将看到它们之间的联系。
The risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unttles us by confronting us with what we’ve already known.
这些风险根源于一个事实，哲学会教化我们，扰动我们，让我们面对已经知道的。汤
Once the familiar turns strange, it’s never quite the same again.
一旦熟悉变得陌生，它就绝不会和以前一样了。
Self knowledge is like a lost innocent.
自我认识，就像一个迷了路的人。
By reading the books and debating the issues, you will become a more responsible citizen. You’ll exam preconceive notion that public policy, you’ll hone your political judgment. You’ll become a more effective participant in public affairs，but this would be a partial and misleading promi. Political philosophy for the most part hasn’t work that way.
通过阅读这些（哲学）书籍和讨论问题,你将会成为一位更负责任的公民。你重新审视那些，你过去的观念和政策,你会训练你的政治判断力。你会更有效地参与公共事务.但这是一个片面的、误导人的承诺.大部分政治哲学并不是那样的。
Philosophy is a distant thing.
哲学是一个遥远的事情。
It’s true the questions have been debated for a very long time.
这些问题确实已经被辩论过很长时间了。
Skepticism just throwing up your hands, and given up by moral reflection is no solution.
怀疑主义只是让你放手，放弃思考道德问题，并不是问题的答案。
Skepticism is a resting place for human reasoning where it can reflect on dogmatic wandering，but it’s not a permanent ttlement.
康德说的,怀疑主义是人类推理的安息之地,它只是让我们在一些教条之间徘徊，它并不是我们最好的安身之处。
We tried to articulate the reasons and principles lied behind our judgement.
我们试图阐明它们背后的原因和原则,我们决策背后的原因。
He meant by utility the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.
效用的意思是，在快乐和痛苦之间找到一个平衡点，在享乐和受苦之间找到一个平衡点。
He went in hopefulness of youthful ambition thinking the journey would make a man of him.
他去的时候，充满希望、充满年轻人的雄心，他认为，这次旅程将会让他成为一个真正的男人。
三五成群打一生肖They should all have a lottery that they should draw a lot to e who would die to save the rest.
他们都来抽一次签，来决定谁先死，以救活其他人。
They claimed they acted out of necessity.
他们声称，他们是出于需要。
People raid two objections in the discussion we had.
人们提出了两种反对意见。
Today, we have debates about torture and terrorism.
今天，我们讨论有关酷刑和恐怖主义。
Objections to utilitarianism: 1. fails to respect individual rights; 2. not possible to aggregate all values and preferences.
反对功利主义的理由：1.不能尊重个体的权利；2.不能将所有的东西转化成金钱和喜好。
They were oppod to change unconventional moral grounds.
他们反对改变传统。
The quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.
快乐不分多少，图钉跟诗歌一样好。
But is that right, this refusal to make qualitative distinctions?
但是拒绝做决定性区分，是否就是正确的呢？
At the age 20,he had a nervous breakdown.
20岁时，他精神崩溃。
How can a utilitarian distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures from lesr ones, ba ones and unworthy ones?
借条的写法功利主义是这样决定性地把高级的快乐从低级的、可耻的、无意义的快乐区分出来的？
