哈佛公开课 公平

Harvard University - Justice Michael Sandel

哈佛大学公开课----公平迈克尔·桑代尔教授主讲

Y our trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 Mph.

你的电车正以每小时60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 endorse in the first case?

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 case.

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 these stories, these 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.

Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences 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 second 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 consequences.

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 consequentialist 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 raise philosophical questions.

我们还讨论当代的政治和法律争议,讨论它们背后的哲学问题。

We‘ll debate equality and inequality，affirmative action, free speech vs hate speech，same sex 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 these abstract and distant books, but to make clear to br ing 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,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 see how each informs and illuminates the others.

我们将看到它们之间的联系。

These risks spring from the fact that philosophy teaches us and unsettles 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。

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 these books and debating these issues, you will become a more responsible citizen. Y ou‘ll exam preconceive notion that public policy, you‘ll hone your political judgment. Y ou‘ll become a more effective participant in public affairs，but this would be a partial and misleading promise. P olitical 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 these 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 settlement.

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。

They should all have a lottery that they should draw a lot to see 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 raised 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 opposed 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 lesser ones, base ones and unworthy ones?

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？

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to

be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

宁可像人类那样饥渴，也不要像猪一样饱足;宁可像苏格拉底一样饿着，也不要像傻瓜一样饱足。——约翰·密尔

I dispute the pretensions of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility.

我反对任何假想出一个关于正义的标准，而不是建立在效用的基础上。

Individuals are separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect.

个人是值得尊重的、有各自生活的独立个体。

Libertarianism takes individual rights seriously.

自由主义认真地考虑个人的权利。

The fundamental individual right is the right to liberty.

个人的基本权利是自由。

What does libertarianism say about the role of government or of the state？

自由主义是自由论述政府扮演的角色,或者国家的角色的？

The libertarian view of government: 1. No paternalist legislation; 2. No morals legislation; 3. No redistribution of income from rich to poor.

政府（应有）的自由观：1.废除家长式立法；2.废除道德立法；3.废除从富人到穷人的财富再分配（废除税收）。

Nozick: what makes income distribution just?

1. justice in acquisition(initial holdings)

公平竞争；一开始有什么，是怎样获得；是否公平地获得所拥有的

2. justice in transfer(free market)

收入分配是否来着大家同意、自愿的自由买卖

我个人的迷惑：卡住了，根据自由主义，列举不出比尔·盖茨和乔丹应该交税啊？

somebody else figured out, how much does he get paid on an hourly basis.也有人计算过他的时薪。

He made another 47 million dollars in endorsements for a Nike and other companies.

为耐克和其他公司代言，他每年赚4.7千万美元。

Y ou can‘t wreck your car and then buy insurance for it later.

你不能先毁坏你的车，然后再买保险。

Certain fundamental individual rights that are so important no government, even a representative government, even a democratically elected government, can override them.

某些基本的个人权利是非常重要的，是任何政府，即使是代表人民的政府，即使是由民主选出来的政府，也不能剥夺这些权利。

The right to poverty is a natural right in the sense that it is prepolitical.

这些财产就是在政权出现前就拥有的自然权利。

It is a right that attaches to individuals as human beings.

它是每个人与生俱来的。

It‘s not the case that some people are born to be kings and others are born to be serfs.

并没有人天生就是国王，也没有人天生就是农奴。

He makes the point that there is a difference between a state of liberty and a state of license.

他指出，自然状态和许可状态是有区别的。

What are the constraints?

那些约束是什么？

Our rights are unalienable.

我们的权利是不可分割的。

Our incomes are like our shoes: if too small, they gall and pinch us; but if too large, they cause us to stumble and to trip.——John Locke

收入就好像鞋子，太小了会挤脚，太大了会摔跤。

Consent is an obvious familiar idea in moral and political philosophy.

同意，是道德哲学和政治哲学一个很明显、很熟悉的概念。

It‘s hard to make sense of them or at least to find them very interesting.

我们很难理解它，或至少觉得它很有趣。

That‘s what I‘d like t o take up today.

这就是我今天要讨论的。

One way of testing the plausibility of Locke‘s idea of consent and also of probing some of its perplexities is to ask just what a legitimate government founded on consent can do, what are its powers according Locke.

验证洛克的―同意论‖是否合理，并同时探讨这些困惑的一个方法就是看看，基于同意而建立的政府，能够做什么，它有什么权力。

Remember, the state of nature is the condition that we decide to leave, and that‘s what gives rise to consent.

请记住，正是由于我们要离开自然状态，才导致―同意‖的出现。

He says there are some inconveniences in the state of nature, but what are those inconveniences?

他说，在自然状态下，有不方便的地方，但那些不便是什么？

The main inconvenience is that everyone can enforce the law of nature.

主要的不便是每个人都可以执行自然法则。

Everyone is enforcer, or what Locke calls ―the executor‖ of the state of nature, and he means executor literally.

人人都是实施者，或引用洛克的话，自然状态下的―执行者‖，他确实是这么说。

If someone violates the law of nature，he is an aggressor. he is beyond reason and you can punish him.

如果有人违反了自然法则，他就是一个侵犯者。他就是不理性的，那么你就可以惩罚他。

Y ou don‘t have to be too careful or find about gradations of punishment

in the state of nature. Y ou can kill him. Y ou can certainly kill someone who comes after you, who tries to murder you.

在自然状态下，你无须对惩罚的程度小心翼翼。你可以杀死他，你绝对可以杀死跟踪你、企图谋杀你的人。That‘s self defense.

那是自我防卫。

But the enforcement power, the right to punish, everyone can do the punishing in the state of nature. And not only you can punish with death people who come after you seeking to take your life, you can also punish a thief who tries to steal your goods because that also counts as aggression against the law of nature.

但在自然状态下，人人都可以执行的权力，惩罚权利。而且你不仅可以处死那些企图跟踪你、谋杀你的人，你还可以惩罚一个试图偷你东西的小偷，因为那也被看做违反了自然法则。

If someone has stolen from a third party, you can go after him. Why is this? Well, violations of the law of nature are an act of aggression. Everyone is the judge in his or her own case.

如果有人偷了第三者的东西，你可以去找他。为什么？任何违反自然法则的都是侵略行为。人人都是自己的法官。

And Locke observes that when people are the judges of their own cases, they tend to get carry away.

然而洛克发现，当人们成为他们自己的法官时，他们就倾向于失去理智。

People overshoot the mark. There is aggression. There is punishment and before you know it, everybody is insecure in the enjoyment of his or her own unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

如果你这位法官对―案情‖判断有误，这就是侵害.要受惩罚，而在你意识到你的错误之前，人们在享受其不可剥夺的生命权、自由权和财产权时，安全就得不到保障。

What counts as property, how it‘s defined and what counts as property, and that‘s up to the government.

什么算作是财产，它是怎样被定义的，以及什么算是剥夺财产，这些取决于政府。

It‘s the collective consent.

这是一个集体性的同意。

If we can‘t commit suicide,if we can‘t give up our right to property, how can we then agree to be bound by a majority that will force us to sacrifice our lives or give up our property.

既然我们都不能自杀，既然我们都不能放弃自己的财产权，我们怎么能够同意，接受多数派的限制，迫使我们牺牲生命或者放弃财产呢？（比如纳税和服兵役）

个人认为：同意不等于做法或者行动就是正确的，也许是迫不得已。

也许作为回答之一：个体挑选和随机挑选的区别。普遍适用而非专制，那么就易于被人们接受。What are the limits on government that even the agreement of the majority can‘t override.

是什么限制了政府的权力，使得即便获得多数同意，也不能侵犯它。

What it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society, to take on the political obligation, but once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.

它只要求人们在进入社会前，要事先征求同意，并承担一些政治义务。而你一旦承担了这些义务，你就同意了接受多数人的约束。

Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the obligation to obey?

在建立政权和服从的义务时，为什么―同意‖是如此一个强大的工具？

Ways to increase recruitment:

美国政府应对伊拉克战争兵源不足的三个解决方案：

1. increase pay and benefits

增加工资和福利

2. shift to military conscription(a draft)

采用强制征兵体系——抽签

3. outsource – hire mercenaries

军事外包，用雇佣军

What Anderson is suggesting is that certain goods should not be treated as open to use or to profit.

所以Anderson建议，某些东西不应该开放来使用或被用来盈利。

Certain goods are properly valued in ways other than use.

某些东西的价值高于其使用价值。

Anderson says there are many: respect, appreciation, love, honor, awe, sanctity.

Anderson说有很多这样（不应用来使用或盈利的）的东西：尊重、感激、爱、荣誉、敬畏、神圣。Science is organized knowledge; wisdom is organized life.——Immanuel Kant

科学是整理过的知识，而智慧是整理过的人生。----伊曼努尔·康德

At the age of 31, he got his first job as an unsalaried lecturer paid on commission based on the number of students who showed up at his lectures.

31岁时，他得到了第一份工作，担任无薪的讲师。根据当堂听课学生的数量获得报酬。

This is a sensible system that Harvard would do well to consider.

哈佛应该好好参考一下这个制度。

It was worth the wait.

这种等待是值得的。

What is the supreme principle of morality?

什么是道德的终极原则？

The reason the individual is sacred or the bearer of rights, according to Kant, d oesn‘t stem from the idea that we owe ourselves, but instead from the idea that we are all rational beings.

根据康德，个人之所以是受到尊重的，或者是权利的拥有者，并不是源于，我们拥有和支配自己，而是源于，我们都是理性的存在。

When we, like animals, seek after pleasure or the satisfaction of our

desires or the avoidance of pain, when we do t hat we aren‘t really acting freely.

如果我们像动物一样，追求享乐或欲望的满足，或者回避痛苦，如果我们是那样的话，我们并不是真正的自由。

Why not? We‘re really acting as the slaves of those appetites and impulses.

为什么呢？因为我们这样做，就成了欲望和冲动的奴隶。

I‘m just acting according to natural nece ssity.

我们只是去适应我们本能的需求而已。

And for Kant, freedom is the opposite of necessity.

在康德看来，自由是本能需求的对立。

Obey your thirst.

顺从你的愿望。

When you go for Sprite or Pepsi, you might think you are choosing freely, Sprite versus Pepsi, but you‘re actually obeying something. A thirst or maybe a desire manufactured or massaged by advertising, you‘re obeying a prompting that you yourself haven‘t chosen or created.

当你购买雪碧或者百事可乐的时候，你可能认为，自己在自由选择，雪碧或者百事可乐，但实际上，你是在顺从某些东西。口渴，或者某种被广告制造或操纵的欲望，你正在顺从某种，并非你选择或创造的刺激。And here it is worth no ticing Kant‘s specially demanding idea of freedom.

这里我们要注意，康德对自由下的尤为苛刻的定义。

What way of acting –how can my will be determined if not by the promptings of nature, or my hunger or my appetite or my desires?

这会是一种什么样的行为——我们的意志怎没会，不是出于本能的刺激，不是出于饥饿、食欲、或者欲望？Kan t‘s answer? To act freely is to act autonomously.And to act autonomously is to act according to a law that I give myself.

康德的答案是什么？自由的行动，就意味着，自主的行动。自主的行动，就意味着遵从我为自己设定的规则行动。

Not according to the physical laws of nature or the laws of cause and effect, which include my desire to eat or to drink, or to choose this food in a restaurant over that.

不是出于自然法则，或因果定律，它包括了，我选择吃或喝的欲望，或者选择这家餐馆，而非那一家。He invents a special term to describe the opposite of autonomy.

他发明了一个术语，来描述自主的对立面。

Heteronomy is the opposite of autonomy.

自主的对立，就是―他律‖。

When I act heteronomously, I‘m acting according to an inclination or a desire, that I haven‘t chosen for myself.

我因―他律‖而行动时，我的行动是出于某种偏好，或本能欲望，而不是我自己的选择。

To act freely is not to choose the best means to a given end, it‘s to choose the end itself for its own sake.

行动自由，并不是选择最好的手段，来达到特定的目的，而是为了选择目的本身。

In so far as we act on inclination or pursue pleasure, we act as means to the realization of ends given outside us.

We are instruments rather than authors of the purposes we pursue, that‘s the heteronymous determination of the will.

当我们出于偏好或享乐的行为，我们成了实现目的手段，而这个目的是外加给我们的。

我们成了工具，而不是目的的主人，这就是我们的意志受―他律‖支配。

Respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means but also as ends in themselves.

And this is why it‘s wrong to use people for the sake of other people‘s well-being or happiness.

尊重人类的尊严，意味着不仅仅要将人视为实现目的的手段，而且要将人本身也视为目的。

这就是为什么为了某些人的幸福，而利用其他人，是错误的。

Well, in the long run, if we uphold justice and respect the dignity of persons, we will maximize human happiness. ---- John Mill

长远看来，只要我们坚持正义，并尊重个人的尊严，我们就可以实现人类幸福的最大化。

What matters is the motive and the motive must be of a certain kind.

关键是动机,而且必须是某种类型的动机。

―A good will isn‘t good because of what it affects or accomplishes‖, Kant writes, ―it‘s good in itself‖.

高尚的意志之所以高尚，并不是看它的效果，康德说，它本身就是高尚的。

Even if by its utmost effort, the goodwill accomplishes nothing, it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake.

即使尽了最大努力，也一无所成，它仍像珠宝一样，因其自身而闪耀。

We have multiple reasons for not taking our own lives.

我们有很多理由不放弃生命。

The Better Business Bureau, what‘s their slogan? ―Honesty is the best policy‖.

美国商业促进局，他们的口号是什么？诚信是最好的政策。

Only the motive of duty confers moral worth on the action.

只有处于职责的动机，才能赋予行为的道德价值。——康德

人人适用的统一的道德准则：尊重他人的尊严。

百善孝为先，论心不论迹，论迹穷人无孝子；

万恶淫为首，论迹不论心，论心天下无完人。

I didn‘t want to feel like a s lime.

我不想让自己像个可恶的人。

What is there that we can think of as having its end in itself?

有什么我们能够想到的其本身具有的终结？

I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in

himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will. –Kant

我说，人，一个理性的人，其本身就是目的，而不是被其他意志任意利用的手段。

Murder violates the categorical imperative.

谋杀违反了定言命令。

Suicide is on a par with murder because what we violate when we take a life, when we take someone‘s life, ours or somebody else‘s, we use that person, we use a rational being, we use humanity as a means and so we fail to respect humanity as an end.

自杀等同于谋杀，因为我们违反了…当我们拿走自己，或别人的生命时，我们把这个人，一个理性的人，我们把人当做一种手段来使用，我们没有尊重人，没有把人看做目的。

The reason we have to respect the dignity of other people has not to do with anything in particular about them.

我们要尊重其他人的尊严，其原因跟他们没有任何关系。

And so respect, Kantian respect, unlike love in this love.

尊重，康德所指的尊重，在这一点上，和爱不一样。

Love and those other particular virtues or reasons for caring about other people have to do with who they are in particular.

爱，以及其他一些特定的美德,对他们的关怀，都要看对象是谁。

Respect is respect for humanity which is universal, for a rational capacity which is universal, and that‘s why violating it, in my own case, is as objectionable as violating it in the case of any other.

尊重是人类普遍共有的，普遍共有的理性的尊重，这就是为什么，如果侵犯了我的尊严，跟侵犯其他人的尊重，是同样的让人反对。

Hypothetical imperatives use instrumental reason.

假言命令是工具性的理性。

If the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the

imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore is necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical. – Kant

如果该行为是实现目的的手段，这就是个假言命令；如果行为本身是好的，因此这个意志本身就符合理性，那么它就是定言命令（或绝对命令）。

If dignity consists and be governed by a law that I give myself, what‘s to guarantee that my conscience will be the same as your conscience?

尊严是受到，我加之于自己的法则，所支配，那么怎么保证，我的道德感，和你的道德感一样呢？

As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world.

作为一个经验客体，我属于这个感官世界。

But as a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world here being independent of the laws of nature I am capable of autonomy, capable of acting according to a law I give myself.

但作为一个经验主体，我居住在一个智思世界。我独立于自然法则之外，能够实现自律.我能根据，我给自己制定的法则，来行事。

When we think of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will.

当我们认为，我们是自由的时候，我们把自己转移到这个智思世界，成为了其中的一员，并意识到自由的自主性。

How are categorical imperatives possible? Only because the idea of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world.

定言命令是如何成为可能的呢？只因，自由让我成为智思世界的一员。

There is always a potentially a gap between what we do and what we ought to do, between is and ought.

我们做的和我们应该做的，是和应该，两者之间就会有，潜在的鸿沟。

Whatever you see in the world, whatever you discover in science can‘t decide moral questions.

不管你在世上看到了什么，不管你通过科学发现了什么，这些都不能决定，道德问题。

Morality stands at a certain distance from the world, from the empirical world. And that‘s why no science could deliver moral truth.

道德和经验主义世界，存在着相当一段距离。这也是为什么，从科学无法得出道德事实。（不是吧？本人深表怀疑。）

Lying even to the murderer at the door is wrong.

甚至对杀手撒谎，也是错误的。

Once you start taking consequences into account to carve out exceptions to the categorical imperative, you‘ve given up the whole moral framework. Y ou‘ve become a consequentialist or maybe a rule utilitarian.

一旦你开始考虑事情的后果，开了个例外，不遵循定言命令.那么，你就已经放弃了，整个道德标准。你已经变成一个结果论者，或功利主义者。

Is there a way that you could avoid telling a lie without selling out your friend?

有没有一种方式，可以不对杀手撒谎，同时不出卖你的朋友？

（参考：你藏匿被追杀的朋友，对要杀你的朋友，并且询问你的杀手，可以回答不知道在哪,因为你并不具体知道他藏在地窖，还是衣柜或者床下。个人认为这还是在撒谎。）

Y ou‘re really offering us the option of a clever evasion that is strictly speaking true.

你给我们大家提供了一个很机智的托词,它严格上来说，是真话。

Whether there is a moral difference between an outright lie and a misleading truth?

完全的谎言和误导的真相，这两者在道德上，有什么区别吗？

From Kant‘s point of view there actually is a world of difference between a lie and a misleading truth.

从康德的观点看来，一个谎言和一个误导的真相，有天壤之别。(本人不认同)

Sometimes in ordinary life we make exceptions for the general rule

against lying with the white lie.

在日常生活中，我们会破例地使用―善意的谎言‖。

Y ou‘re hoping that they will be misled but in the case where you‘re telling the truth, your motive is to mislead while at the same time telling the truth and honoring the moral law and staying within the bounds of the categorical imperative.

你希望他们会被误导，当你在说实话时，你的动机是误导，但同时你是在说真话，在遵循着道德的法则，没有逾越定言命令。

What makes the contract exceptional is that it is not an actual contract that happens when people come together and try to figure out what the constitution should be.

这个契约的特别之处在于，它不是一个真正的契约。它不用把大家聚集在一起，试图讨论出，它里面应该有什么条文。

A contract that generates principles of right is merely an idea of reason, but it has undoubted practical reality, because it can oblige every legislator to frame his laws in such a way that they could have been produced by the united will of the whole nation.

引申出公正的原则的契约，只是理性的一个想法，但它有毋庸置疑的可行性，因为它可以迫使，每一个立法者在这样一个框架，使得制定的法律，能代表全民族的意志。

Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override… The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. – John Rawls

每个人拥有，公正基础上的不可侵犯性，即使是整个社会福利，也不能凌驾于它的上面。我们的权利受公正保护，不屈从于政治谈判，或社会利益的小算盘。

The fact of an agreement is not sufficient to establish the fairness of the terms.

达成协议不足以确定，条款的公平性。

How should income and wealth and opportunities and the good things in life, be distributed?

如何在生活中分配财富、机会和其他美好事物？

Libertarian – free market system

自由市场交易体系

Meritocratic – fair equality of opportunity

精英制度体系，强调机会均等

Egalitarian –Rawls‘ difference principle

差异原则，公平分配

The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education and for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well.

那些在天赋上占优势的人，不仅仅因为他们的天赋较高而得益，而只能通过抵消训练和教育费用，和用他们的天赋帮助较不利者而得益。

So you can have incentives, you can adjust the tax rate.

所以你可以采取激励措施，你可以调整税率。

If taking too much from those rich people, winds up actually hurting those at the bottom.

如果从富人那里拿走的太多，最终只会损害底层人民的利益。

Doesn‘t the difference principle, by treating our natural talents and endowments as common assets, doesn‘t that violate the idea that we own ourselves?

把天赋和才能,看做是共同资产的差异原则，难道没有违背自我所有权的理论吗？

Life is not fair. It is tempting to believe that government can rectify what nature has spawned.

生活本就是不公平的。相信政府可以纠正自然产生的东西，也是诱人的。--米尔顿·弗里德曼

The only way to try to rectify that is to have a leveling equality of

outcome.

唯一能够有效解决生活中不平等的方法，就是追求结果的平等。--米尔顿·弗里德曼

The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.

自然分配，它无所谓公平不公平，人降生于社会的某一特殊地位，也说不上公平。这些只是自然的事实。公平或不公平，只是制度处理这些事实的方式而已。-- John Rawls

It‘s coercion.

这是高压政策。

He doesn‘t address the idea of self-ownership directly. But the effect, the moral weight of his argument for the difference principle is maybe we don‘t own ourselves in that thoroughgoing sense after all.

他没有直接对自我所有权这一观点进行辩驳。但他对差异原则的论证所产生的道义影响，却是深远的. 就其绝对意义而言，也许我们根本就没有自我所有权。

I want to turn now, to his reply to the defender of a meritocratic conception.

现在，我将转向他针对精英主义拥护者，提出的质疑的回答。

Who invokes effort as the basis of moral desert.

他认为努力是道德缺失的根源。

A just scheme answers to what men are entitled to; it satisfies their legitimate expectations as founded upon social institutions. But what they are entitled to is not proportional to or dependent upon their intrinsic worth. – John Rawls

一个公平的体系，回答了人们的权利问题，满足了他们建立在社会制度之上的合法期望。但是他们有权利得到的东西，与他们的内在价值并不相称。

The principles of justice that regulate the basic structure… do not

mention moral desert, and there is no tendency for distributive shares to correspond to it. – John Rawls

调节社会基本结构、规定个人义务和责任的原则，并不涉及道德应得的分配的份额，也不倾向于要与它相称。

What morally is at stake?

什么才是道德上的危机？

One thing morally at stake is the whole question of effort that we‘ve already discussed.

其中一个道德危机，就是我们已经讨论过的，关于努力的问题。

There is a second source of moral arbitrariness that goes beyond the question of whether it‘s to my credit that I have the talents that enable me to get ahead.

另外一种道德的武断性，它超越了我们之前所谈到的问题，即我们是否应该认为，得到自然赋予的才能是理所当然的。

It has to do with the contingency that I live in a society that happens to the prize my talents.

这只是一种偶然性而已，我只是碰巧生活在,推崇我这种天赋的社会中。

It depends on the law of supply and demand.

这取决于供求原则。

Would we be less worthy? Would we be less virtuous?

（生活在不同的时代和社会）我们的价值会减少吗？我们的道德价值会减少吗？

Ra wls argued that it‘s a mistake to think that distributive justice is a matter of moral desert, a matter of rewarding people according to their virtue.

Rawls 指出，认为分配正义就是关于道德应得的问题，就是根据人们的品行进行奖赏，这样想是错误的。Not in connection with incoming wealth, but in its connection with opportunities, with hiring decisions and admission standards.