Michael Sandel - Justice：What's The Right Thing To Do【邁克桑德爾 - 正義：一場思辨之旅】

Michael Sandel - Justice：What's The Right Thing To Do【邁克桑德爾 - 正義：一場思辨之旅】EPISODE 01Part One : The Moral Side Of MurderIf you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do?  What would be the right thing to do?  Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning.  After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult.  As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white. Part Two : The Case For CannibalismSandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four.  After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive.   The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."第一講概要第1部分－謀殺的道德層面如果你必需在這兩種情況中作選擇，（1）殺害一人而挽救其他五人的生命;（2）什麼也不做，即使你知道這樣這五個人就會在你的眼前死去－你會怎麼做？

什麼才是正確的做法？Michael Sandel教授用這個假設的狀況，開始他的道德推理課程。 第2部分－吃人肉的案例Sandel以一個十九世紀著名的四個船難船員法律案例，介紹功利主義哲學家Jeremy Bentham的理論。在海上漂流十九天後，船長決定殺死他們當中最孱弱的打雜少年，這樣他們就得以賴他的血肉維生。

EPISODE 02Part One : Putting A Price Tag On LifeToday, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of cost-benefit analysis. Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?Part Two : How To measure PleasureSandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.第二講概要第1部分－為生命訂價Sandel提出了一些當代案例中將人類生命訂價的損益分析。

這些案例引起一些對於尋求「最大數量最大利益」之功利主義邏輯的反對意見。是否有可能累積所有價值並轉換成金錢估價來比較？ 第2部分－如何衡量快樂Sandel介紹了功利主義哲學家J. S. Mill，他主張尋求「最大數量最大利益」可兼容保護個體權利，並在此功利主義中納入崇高和低下快樂之間的差異。Sandel藉由播放三段類型差異頗大的通俗娛樂短片來測試這個理論：莎士比亞的哈姆雷特、實境秀《誰敢來挑戰》及辛普森家族。

EPISODE 03Part One : Free To ChooseSandel introduces the libertarian conception of individual rights, according to which only a minimal state is justified. Libertarians argue that government shouldnt have the power to enact laws that 1) protect people from themselves, such as seat belt laws, 2) impose some peoples moral values on society as a whole, or 3) redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel explains the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation is akin to forced labor with references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan. Part Two : Who Owns Me?Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick makes the case that taxing the wealthy—to pay for housing, health care, and education for the poor—is a form of coercion.  Students first discuss the arguments behind redistributive taxation. Dont most poor people need the social services they receive in order to survive?  If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, arent you obligated to pay your taxes?  Dont many rich people often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or family fortune?  A group of students dubbed Team Libertarian volunteers to defend the libertarian philosophy against these objections.第3講概要第1部分－自由選擇：Sandel幽默的以Bill Gates和Michael Jordan為例，介紹了自由意志論者認為重分配稅收政策－即透過向富人徵稅而將財富分配給窮人－就如同強制勞動一樣。

第2部分－誰擁有我？學生們首先討論支持重分配稅收政策的論點。如果你生活在一個有累進稅制系統的社會，不是有義務繳稅嗎？許多富人不往往是因為運氣或家族財產而致富嗎？一組被稱為「自由意志論者隊」的學生，自願捍衛自由意志哲學論點，挺身與這些反對意見辯駁。

EPISODE 04Part One : This Land Is My LandThe philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights so fundamental that no government can ever take them away.  These rights—to life, liberty and property—were given to us as human beings in the the state of nature, a time before government and laws were created.  According to Locke, our natural rights are governed by the law of nature, known by reason, which says that we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else.  Sandel wraps up the lecture by raising a question:  what happens to our natural rights once we enter society and consent to a system of laws?Part Two : Consenting AdultsIf we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesnt that amount to taking some peoples property without their consent? Lockes response is that we give our tacit consent to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society. Therefore, taxation is legitimate and compatible with individual rights, as long as it applies to everyone and does not arbitrarily single anyone out.第4講概要第1部分 - 這片土地是我的哲學家John Locke認為，個體有一定的權利－即天賦的生命、自由和財產權－這是人類在「自然狀況」下，即政府和法律創造前就被賦予的。

根據Locke所說，我們擁有的自然權利受到自然規範限制，因此既不能夠被放棄，也不能夠從他人身上被剝奪。第2部分 - 合意的成年人如果我們都有不可剝奪的生命、自由和財產權，政府怎能僅依多數表達的共識來執行稅法？難道這不算未經同意剝奪某些人的財產？Locke的回應是，當我們選擇生活在一個社會，我們就「默許」遵守多數決的稅法。

EPISODE 05Part One : Hired GunsDuring the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Professor Sandel asks students whether they consider this policy just.  Many do not, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to avoid serving and risking their lives by paying less privileged citizens to fight in their place. This leads to a classroom debate about war and conscription.  Is todays voluntary army open to the same objection?  Should military service be allocated by the labor market or by conscription?  What role should patriotism play, and what are the obligations of citizenship?  Is there a civic duty to serve ones country? And are utilitarians and libertarians able to account for this duty?Part Two : Motherhood - For SaleIn this lecture, Professor Sandel examines the principle of free-market exchange in light of the contemporary controversy over reproductive rights.  Sandel begins with a humorous discussion of the business of egg and sperm donation.  He then describes the case of Baby M"—a famous legal battle in the mid-eighties that raised the unsettling question, Who owns a baby?" In 1985, a woman named Mary Beth Whitehead signed a contract with a New Jersey couple, agreeing to be a surrogate mother in exchange for a fee of $10,000.  However, after giving birth, Ms. Whitehead decided she wanted to keep the child, and the case went to court. Sandel and students debate the nature of informed consent, the morality of selling a human life, and the meaning of maternal rights.
第5講概要第1部分－僱用槍手？

內戰期間，被徵召入伍的男性可選擇花錢雇人來代替他上戰場。許多學生說，他們發現這種政策不公正，認為讓富裕者藉由付費給社會階層較低的公民代替他們上戰場，來避免從軍及冒生命危險，這是不公平的。這引發課堂上關於戰爭和徵兵的辯論。今日的志願從軍制度也招致同樣的反對意見嗎？第2部分－出售：母親權力：Sandel教授探討了與生育權利有關的自由市場交易原則。Sandel以一個卵子和精子捐贈業務的幽默討論開始。然後介紹「嬰兒M」案例－一個引發令人兩難問題的著名法律論戰，「誰擁有寶寶？」學生辯論知情同意的屬性，出售人類生命的道德，以及母親權利的含義。

EPISODE 06Part One : Mind Your MotiveProfessor Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher.  Kant rejects utilitarianism.  He argues that each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility.  Kant rejects the notion that morality is about calculating consequences.  When we act out of duty—doing something simply because it is right—only then do our actions have moral worth.  Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because his business might suffer if other customers found out.  According to Kant, the shopkeepers action has no moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.Part Two : The Supreme Principle Of MoralityImmanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty.  Sandel tells the true story of a thirteen-year old boy who won a spelling bee contest, but then admitted to the judges that he had, in fact, misspelled the final word.  Using this story and others, Sandel explains Kants test for determining whether an action is morally right: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could act on.第6講概要第1部分－思考你的動機Sandel教授介紹了Immanuel Kant，一位難以理解卻深具影響力的哲學家。

Kant反對功利主義。他認為，我們每個人都有一定的基本責任和權利，那是凌駕於最大利益之上的。康德不同意道德是計算的結果這個觀念。當我們憑藉責任感而行動－做一些事，只是因為它是正確的－只有這樣我們的行為才具有道德價值。Kant舉了一個例子，商店主人錯過少找客人零錢的機會，只因為如果有其他客人發現，他的生意可能會減少。根據Kant的說法，商店主人的行為並沒有道德價值，因為他做了正確的事，卻是因為錯誤的理由。第2部分－道德的最高原則Immanuel Kant說，當我們的行為具有道德價值時，這個道德價值就是我們超越自身利益與喜好，憑藉責任感而行動的能力。

Sandel講述了一個真實故事，一位十三歲的男孩贏得了拼字比賽，但隨後向評審承認，他事實上拼錯了最後一個字。用這個故事及其他例子，Sandel解釋了Kant決定一個行為在道德上是否正確的測試：確定在我們行為中所體現的原則，然後問這個原則是否能成為一個普世規範，讓每個人都能遵守。

EPISODE 07Part One : A Lesson In LyingImmanuel Kants stringent theory of morality allows for no exceptions.  Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of ones own dignity. Professor Sandel asks students to test Kants theory with this hypothetical case: if your friend were hiding inside your home, and a person intent on killing your friend came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie?  If so, would it be moral to try to mislead the murderer without actually lying? This leads to a discussion of the morality of misleading truths. Sandel wraps up the lecture with a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  Part Two : A Deal Is A DealSandel introduces the modern philosopher John Rawls and his theory of a hypothetical social contract. Rawls argues that principles of justice are the outcome of a special kind of agreement. They are the principles we would all agree to if we had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power. According to Rawls, the only way to ensure that no one has more power than anyone else is to imagine a scenario where no one knows his or her age, sex, race, intelligence, strength, social position, family wealth, religion, or even his or her goals in life.  Rawls calls this hypothetical situation a veil of ignorance.  What principles would we agree to behind this veil of ignorance? And would these principles be fair? Professor Sandel explains the idea of a fair agreement with some humorous examples of actual contracts that produce unfair results.第7講概要第1部分－說謊案例的討論Immanuel Kant認為說謊，即使是善意的謊言，也違背了自我尊嚴。

Sandel教授要求學生以假設情況來測試Kant的理論：如果你朋友躲在你家，一位意圖殺死你朋友的人來到你家門口，問你他在哪裡，這種情況下，說謊是錯誤的嗎？並以這段討論帶出一段近期最著名的、規避事實案例的影片剪輯：柯林頓總統談論他與陸文斯基的關係。 第2部分－契約的強制力Sandel介紹了當代哲學家John Rawls，他認為一套公平的原則是，如果我們必須共同為我們的社會規範做選擇，在大家都有公平協商能力的情況下，我們都同意的規範。

EPISODE 08Part One : Whats A Fair Start?Is it just to tax the rich to help the poor? John Rawls says we should answer this question by asking what principles you would choose to govern the distribution of income and wealth if you did not know who you were, whether you grew up in privilege or in poverty. Wouldnt you want an equal distribution of wealth, or one that maximally benefits whomever happens to be the least advantaged? After all, that might be you. Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesnt go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted cant claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawlss point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.Part Two : What Do We Deserve?Professor Sandel recaps how income, wealth, and opportunities in life should be distributed, according to the three different theories raised so far in class. He summarizes libertarianism, the meritocratic system, and John Rawlss egalitarian theory. Sandel then launches a discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor ($200,000) with the salary of televisions Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not. Rawls argues that an individuals personal success is often a function of morally arbitrary facts—luck, genes, and family circumstances—for which he or she can claim no credit. Those at the bottom are no less worthy simply because they werent born with the talents a particular society rewards, Rawls argues, and the only just way to deal with societys inequalities is for the naturally advantaged to share their wealth with those less fortunate.第8講概要第1部分－什麼是公平的起點？

Rawls認為，即使菁英制度－一個獎勵努力的分配系統－對於公平競賽的理念也延伸的不夠遠，因為擁有天賦的人總是會獲得成功。此 外，Rawls說，天賦也不值得被獎賞，因為他們的成功往往取決於如出生順序等隨機要素。Sandel為了表達Rawls的觀點，請家中排行老大的學生舉 手。第2部分－什麼是我們應得的？Sandel探討了現代社會中薪資差異的公平性。他比較了前最高法院法官Sandra Day O'Connor（20萬美元）與法庭實境節目主持人Judy法官（2,500萬美元）的薪水。Sandel問，這是否公平？根據John Rawls的說法，這並不公平。

EPISODE 09Part One : Arguing Affirmative ActionSandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the schools affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a students efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a universitys stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission?Part Two : Whats The Purpose?Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest civic virtue. For Aristotle, justice is a matter of fitting a persons virtues with an appropriate role.第9講概要第1部分－積極平權的討論Sandel介紹了1996年的法律案例，一位名叫Cheryl Hopwood的白人女子被拒絕進入德州大學法學院就讀，即使她分數和考試成績都比一些獲得錄取的少數族裔還高。

Hopwood向法院提出控訴，認為學校的積極平權政策侵犯了她的權利。學生們對贊成或反對積極平權的作法進行討論。我們是否應該試著將種族納入入學考量而導正教育背景的不公平？我們是否應該對歷史的不公，如奴隸制和種族隔離做補償？這個討論贊成推廣多樣性是正當的嗎？它如何評估以下論點：一個學生的努力和成就應該比那些他或她無法控制的隨機因素重要嗎？當一所大學設定的任務是增加多樣性，那麼拒絕一位白人入學是侵犯了他的權利嗎？第2部分－目標是什麼？Sandel介紹亞理斯多德和他的正義論。亞理斯多德不同意Rawls和Kant的看法。

他認為，正義是給予人們應得的，罪有應得或是利有應得。當考慮到分配時，亞理斯多德認為必須考慮目標、終點及分配的事物。例如，最好的笛子應該給最好的吹笛手。而最高的政治職位應該給那些擁有最佳判斷力和最崇高公民美德的人。對亞理斯多德來說，所謂的正義是找出一個人的道德以及他們合適的角色，並給予他們應得的判斷。

EPISODE 10Part One : The Good CitizenAristotle believes the purpose of politics is to promote and cultivate the virtue of its citizens. The telos or goal of the state and political community is the good life. And those citizens who contribute most to the purpose of the community are the ones who should be most rewarded. But how do we know the purpose of a community or a practice? Aristotles theory of justice leads to a contemporary debate about golf. Sandel describes the case of Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, who sued the PGA after it declined his request to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour. The case leads to a debate about the purpose of golf and whether a players ability to walk the course is essential to the game. Part Two : Freedonm Vs. FitHow does Aristotle address the issue of individual rights and the freedom to choose? If our place in society is determined by where we best fit, doesnt that eliminate personal choice? What if I am best suited to do one kind of work, but I want to do another? In this lecture, Sandel addresses one of the most glaring objections to Aristotles views on freedom—his defense of slavery as a fitting social role for certain human beings. Students discuss other objections to Aristotles theories and debate whether his philosophy overly restricts the freedom of individuals.第10講概要第1部分－好公民亞里斯多德認為，政治的目的在於促進和培育公民的美德。

城邦和政治社群的telos或目的在於「美好的人生」。而這些對社群目的貢獻最多的公民則是最應得到獎賞的人。但我們怎麼知道社群的目的或如何實踐？亞里斯多德的正義論導出了當代關於高爾夫球的爭論。Sandel介紹了Casey Martin案例，他是一位有殘疾的高爾夫球選手，控告職業高爾夫聯盟（PGA）拒絕他在PGA巡迴賽中使用高爾夫球車的請求。這個案例引發了一場關於高爾夫球賽目的為何之爭論，以及在比賽中高爾夫球選手「步行穿越球場」的能力是否是不可或缺的。第2部分－自由與適才適所的爭論亞里斯多德如何闡述個人權利和自由選擇這個議題？

如果我們的社會角色是由我們最適合擔任什麼來決定，這是否排除了個人選擇？如果我最適合做一種工作，但我想做的是另一種呢？在這堂講座中，Sandel提出其中一個對亞里斯多德自由觀點最明顯的反對理由－他對奴隸制度的辯護，認為奴隸是適合某些人的社會角色。學生們討論了其他反對亞里斯多德理論的意見，爭論他的哲學是否過度限制了個人自由。

EPISODE 11Part One : The Claims Of CommunityProfessor Sandel presents Kants objections to Aristotles theory. Kant believes politics must respect individual freedom. People must always respect other peoples freedom to make their own choices—a universal duty to humanity—but for Kant, there is no other source of moral obligation. The discussion of Kants view leads to an introduction to the communitarian philosophy. Communitarians argue that, in addition to voluntary and universal duties, we also have obligations of membership, solidarity, and loyalty. These obligations are not necessarily based on consent. We inherit our past, and our identities, from our family, city, or country. But what happens if our obligations to our family or community come into conflict with our universal obligations to humanity? Part Two : Where Our Loyality LiesProfessor Sandel leads a discussion about the arguments for and against obligations of solidarity and membership. Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? Is patriotism a virtue, or a prejudice for ones own kind? If our identities are defined by the particular communities we inhabit, what becomes of universal human rights? Using various scenarios, students debate whether or not obligations of loyalty can ever outweigh universal duties of justice.第11講概要第1部分－社群的主張社群主義認為，除了自願和對人類普及的責任以外，我們也有成員、團結和忠誠的義務。

這些義務不一定以同意為基礎。我們從我們的家庭、城市或國家繼承我們的過去、我們的身份。但問題是，如果我們對家庭或社群的義務，與對人類普及的義務發生衝突呢？第2部分－我們的忠誠所在？我們對我們同胞的虧欠比對其他國家的公民還多嗎？愛國主義是一種美德，或是對自己所屬社群的偏見？如果我們的身份是由我們身處的特定社群所定義，那普及的人權會是什麼？

EPISODE 12Part One : Debating Same-Sex MarriageIf principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a heated debate about same-sex marriage. Should same-sex marriage be legal? Can we settle the matter without discussing the moral permissibility of homosexuality or the purpose of marriage?Part Two : The Good LifeProfessor Sandel raises two questions. Is it necessary to reason about the good life in order to decide what rights people have and what is just? If so, how is it possible to argue about the nature of the good life? Students explore these questions with a discussion about the relation of law and morality, as played out in public controversies over same-sex marriage and abortion. Michael Sandel concludes his lecture series by making the point that, in many cases, the law cant be neutral on hard moral questions. Engaging rather than avoiding the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.第12講概要第1部分－同性婚姻的辯論如果正義的原則在於其所針對權利中蘊含的道德或內在價值，那我們該怎麼面對每個人對於良善的概念都有所不同的事實？

學生以激烈爭論同性婚姻是否應該合法來解決這個問題。我們可以在不討論同性戀的道德容許性或婚姻的目的之下來解決這個問題嗎？第2部分－良好生活Sandel認為，政府在困難的道德問題上不能保持中立，例如同性婚姻和墮胎，並詢問為什麼我們不該以同樣的道德和宗教信念商討所有議題－包括經濟及與公民切身相關之事。Michael Sandel教授在最後一堂課中，強而有力的提出了一個攸關公眾利益的政治新觀點。參與而不是迴避我們同胞的道德信念可能是尋求公正社會最好的方式。