TED2010
Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate
Michael Sandel：當民主辯論的技藝已消失
Filmed:
Readability: 4.2
1,412,912 views
成功的民主來自於公民社會的辯論，Michael Sandel 說：然而對於這門技藝，我們早已荒疏許久。與 TEDsters 一塊，他帶我們進入一節有趣的課堂，從近來美國最高法院的判例中，揭示了正義的關鍵因素。
Michael Sandel - Political philosopher
Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time. Full bio
Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:17
One thing the world needs,
0
2000
2000
這個世界所必要的一件東西
00:19
one thing this country desperately needs
1
4000
2000
這國家所急需的
00:21
is a better way
2
6000
2000
是一個更好的
00:23
of conducting our political debates.
3
8000
2000
論辯政治的方式
00:25
We need to rediscover
4
10000
2000
我們需要重新發現
00:27
the lost art of democratic argument.
5
12000
3000
早已失傳的民主論辯的技藝
00:30
(Applause)
6
15000
6000
（掌聲）
00:36
If you think about the arguments we have,
7
21000
3000
想想我們現今的主要辯論，
00:39
most of the time it's shouting matches
8
24000
2000
大多數時間，它們都是
00:41
on cable television,
9
26000
2000
有線電視頻道上的叫囂比賽
00:43
ideological food fights on the floor of Congress.
10
28000
3000
國會上演的意識形態 大胃王比賽
00:48
I have a suggestion.
11
33000
2000
我有一個建議
00:50
Look at all the arguments we have these days
12
35000
3000
看看近來 我們所有的這些
00:53
over health care,
13
38000
2000
關於健保的辯論、
00:55
over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street,
14
40000
3000
看看關於華爾街的獎金和緊急援助、
00:58
over the gap between rich and poor,
15
43000
3000
關於貧富差距、
01:01
over affirmative action and same-sex marriage.
16
46000
3000
看看關於防止種族與性別歧視的 積極行動和同性婚姻
01:04
Lying just beneath the surface
17
49000
2000
在這些爭論之下
01:06
of those arguments,
18
51000
3000
潛藏著
01:09
with passions raging on all sides,
19
54000
3000
一種鼓噪的欲望湧向四方，
01:12
are big questions
20
57000
3000
這些是
01:15
of moral philosophy,
21
60000
2000
倫理哲學上的大問題
01:17
big questions of justice.
22
62000
2000
涉及正義的大問題
01:19
But we too rarely
23
64000
2000
但我們卻很少
01:21
articulate and defend
24
66000
3000
表達、維護、
01:24
and argue about
25
69000
2000
與爭論
01:26
those big moral questions in our politics.
26
71000
3000
這些藏於我們政治生活中的倫理議題
01:29
So what I would like to do today
27
74000
3000
所以，今天我要做的是
01:32
is have something of a discussion.
28
77000
2000
討論一些事
01:34
First, let me take
29
79000
2000
首先，讓我引述
01:36
a famous philosopher
30
81000
2000
一位著名哲學家的話
01:38
who wrote about those questions
31
83000
2000
他曾寫過這些關於
01:40
of justice and morality,
32
85000
2000
正義與道德的問題，
01:42
give you a very short lecture
33
87000
2000
我要談一段在舊時雅典
01:44
on Aristotle of ancient Athens,
34
89000
3000
古老雅典時代的亞理斯多德
01:47
Aristotle's theory of justice,
35
92000
2000
的正義論
01:49
and then have a discussion here
36
94000
3000
接著會後討論
01:52
to see whether Aristotle's ideas
37
97000
2000
看看亞理斯多德的想法
01:54
actually inform
38
99000
2000
是否在實際上，
01:56
the way we think and argue
39
101000
2000
告訴了我們 思考與辯論
01:58
about questions today.
40
103000
3000
今日問題的方法
02:01
So, are you ready for the lecture?
41
106000
3000
所以，你們準備好這堂課了嗎？
02:05
According to Aristotle,
42
110000
2000
根據亞理斯多德
02:07
justice means giving people what they deserve.
43
112000
3000
正義 意指 給予人們他們所應得的
02:13
That's it; that's the lecture.
44
118000
2000
意思就是，這堂課
02:15
(Laughter)
45
120000
3000
（笑聲）
02:18
Now, you may say, well, that's obvious enough.
46
123000
2000
現在，你們也許會說，嗯，那是再明白不過的道理
02:20
The real questions begin
47
125000
2000
真正的問題開始於
02:22
when it comes to arguing about
48
127000
2000
當人們爭論
02:24
who deserves what and why.
49
129000
3000
誰應該得到什麽、以及爲什麽
02:28
Take the example of flutes.
50
133000
2000
以長笛為例
02:30
Suppose we're distributing flutes.
51
135000
3000
假設我們分配長笛
02:33
Who should get the best ones?
52
138000
2000
誰應得到那最好的呢?
02:35
Let's see what people --
53
140000
2000
讓我們看看有誰...
02:37
What would you say?
54
142000
2000
你認為呢？
02:39
Who should get the best flute?
55
144000
2000
誰應該得到最好的？
02:41
You can just call it out.
56
146000
2000
你可以直接說
02:43
(Audience: Random.)
57
148000
2000
（觀眾：隨機分配）
02:45
Michael Sandel: At random. You would do it by lottery.
58
150000
2000
Michael Sandel：隨機選取，你們可以透過抽籤
02:47
Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them.
59
152000
3000
或者先到先拿
02:51
Who else?
60
156000
2000
哪一種？
02:53
(Audience: The best flute players.)
61
158000
2000
（觀眾：最優秀的長笛吹奏者）
02:55
MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)
62
160000
2000
Michael Sandel：最優秀的長笛樂手（觀眾：最糟的長笛樂手）
02:57
MS: The worst flute players.
63
162000
3000
Michael Sandel：最糟的長笛樂手
03:00
How many say the best flute players?
64
165000
2000
有多少人贊同 最優秀的長笛樂手
03:04
Why?
65
169000
2000
爲什麽？
03:07
Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.
66
172000
3000
事實上，那也是亞理斯多德的答案
03:10
(Laughter)
67
175000
2000
（笑聲）
03:12
But here's a harder question.
68
177000
2000
但這裡有個更難的問題
03:14
Why do you think,
69
179000
2000
爲什麽你們認為
03:16
those of you who voted this way,
70
181000
2000
你們這些贊成此法的人
03:18
that the best flutes should go to the best flute players?
71
183000
3000
最好的長笛 應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手呢？
03:21
Peter: The greatest benefit to all.
72
186000
2000
Peter：這賦予所有人最大的利益
03:23
MS: The greatest benefit to all.
73
188000
2000
Michael Sandel：賦予所有人最大利益
03:25
We'll hear better music
74
190000
2000
我們得以聆聽好音樂
03:27
if the best flutes should go to the best flute players.
75
192000
3000
如果把最好的長笛 給予最優秀的長笛樂手
03:30
That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.)
76
195000
2000
那是 Peter？（觀眾：Peter）
03:32
MS: All right.
77
197000
2000
Michael Sandel：好的。
03:35
Well, it's a good reason.
78
200000
2000
嗯，這是好理由
03:37
We'll all be better off if good music is played
79
202000
2000
我們所有人都會過得比較好，假使他演奏好音樂的話
03:39
rather than terrible music.
80
204000
3000
而不是難聽的音樂
03:43
But Peter,
81
208000
2000
但是，Peter
03:45
Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason.
82
210000
3000
亞理斯多德並不同意 你所說的是合理的
03:48
That's all right.
83
213000
2000
沒關係
03:50
Aristotle had a different reason
84
215000
2000
亞理斯多德有不同的理由
03:52
for saying the best flutes should go to the best flute players.
85
217000
3000
當他提到 最好的長笛應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手
03:55
He said,
86
220000
2000
他說
03:57
that's what flutes are for --
87
222000
2000
那是長笛存在的目的
03:59
to be played well.
88
224000
3000
就是要被拿來好好演奏
04:02
He says that to reason about
89
227000
2000
他說 推論一件事物
04:04
just distribution of a thing,
90
229000
3000
是否公平地分配
04:07
we have to reason about,
91
232000
3000
我們必須提出、
04:10
and sometimes argue about,
92
235000
2000
並且有時候要辯論
04:12
the purpose of the thing,
93
237000
2000
這東西的目的何在
04:14
or the social activity --
94
239000
2000
或 這個社會活動的目的何在
04:16
in this case, musical performance.
95
241000
2000
在這個案例中，是音樂表演，
04:18
And the point, the essential nature,
96
243000
2000
在這一點上，音樂表演的
04:20
of musical performance
97
245000
2000
主要本質
04:22
is to produce excellent music.
98
247000
2000
是爲了產生絕佳的音樂
04:24
It'll be a happy byproduct
99
249000
2000
它會營造一個歡樂的副產品
04:26
that we'll all benefit.
100
251000
3000
使我們所有人皆獲得益處
04:30
But when we think about justice,
101
255000
3000
但，當我們思考正義時
04:33
Aristotle says,
102
258000
2000
亞理斯多德說
04:35
what we really need to think about
103
260000
2000
我們真正必須思考的問題是
04:37
is the essential nature of the activity in question
104
262000
3000
這個活動的主要本質
04:41
and the qualities that are worth
105
266000
3000
以及那值得尊重、欣賞、
04:44
honoring and admiring and recognizing.
106
269000
3000
、與承認的品質
04:47
One of the reasons
107
272000
2000
關於最好的長笛應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手
04:49
that the best flute players should get the best flutes
108
274000
2000
的其中一個理由是
04:51
is that musical performance
109
276000
2000
音樂表演
04:53
is not only to make the rest of us happy,
110
278000
2000
並不只是爲了要使我們感到愉快而已，
04:55
but to honor
111
280000
2000
它還得使那
04:57
and recognize
112
282000
2000
最傑出的音樂家
04:59
the excellence
113
284000
2000
獲得殊榮
05:01
of the best musicians.
114
286000
2000
並認可其傑出表現
05:03
Now, flutes may seem ... the distribution of flutes
115
288000
3000
現在，分配長笛似乎...
05:06
may seem a trivial case.
116
291000
3000
看起來是個平凡的例子
05:09
Let's take a contemporary example
117
294000
2000
讓我們舉一個關於分配正義的
05:11
of the dispute about justice.
118
296000
3000
當代例子
05:14
It had to do with golf.
119
299000
2000
這與高爾夫有關
05:16
Casey Martin -- a few years ago,
120
301000
2000
幾年前，Casey Martin
05:18
Casey Martin --
121
303000
2000
Casey Martin
05:20
did any of you hear about him?
122
305000
2000
有人聽過他嗎？
05:22
He was a very good golfer,
123
307000
2000
他是一個非常好的高爾夫球手
05:24
but he had a disability.
124
309000
2000
但他是殘障人士
05:26
He had a bad leg, a circulatory problem,
125
311000
3000
他的腳有問題，循環系統出了問題
05:29
that made it very painful
126
314000
2000
這使得他在走路時
05:31
for him to walk the course.
127
316000
3000
奇痛無比
05:34
In fact, it carried risk of injury.
128
319000
3000
事實上，這也有運動傷害的危險
05:38
He asked the PGA,
129
323000
2000
他問 PGA
05:40
the Professional Golfers' Association,
130
325000
2000
美國職業高爾夫球協會
05:42
for permission to use a golf cart
131
327000
3000
是否可以在比賽中
05:45
in the PGA tournaments.
132
330000
2000
使用高爾夫球車
05:47
They said, "No.
133
332000
2000
他們說：「不，
05:49
Now that would give you an unfair advantage."
134
334000
2000
那會讓你得到不公平的優勢。」
05:51
He sued,
135
336000
2000
他一狀告上法院
05:53
and his case went all the way
136
338000
2000
他的案子一路上到
05:55
to the Supreme Court, believe it or not,
137
340000
2000
美國最高法院，你們相信嗎
05:57
the case over the golf cart,
138
342000
3000
這麼一件關於高爾夫球車的訴訟
06:00
because the law says
139
345000
2000
因為法律上說
06:02
that the disabled
140
347000
2000
我們必須考慮到殘障人士
06:04
must be accommodated,
141
349000
3000
為他們提供妥善的輔助設施
06:07
provided the accommodation does not
142
352000
3000
提供妥善的殘障設施 並不會
06:10
change the essential nature
143
355000
3000
改變比賽
06:13
of the activity.
144
358000
2000
或活動的本質
06:15
He says, "I'm a great golfer.
145
360000
2000
他說：「我是一位優秀的高爾夫球選手
06:17
I want to compete.
146
362000
2000
我要參加比賽
06:19
But I need a golf cart
147
364000
2000
但我需要一輛高爾夫球車
06:21
to get from one hole to the next."
148
366000
2000
讓我可以從這一球洞到下一球洞。」
06:23
Suppose you were
149
368000
2000
假使你們是
06:25
on the Supreme Court.
150
370000
2000
最高法院
06:27
Suppose you were deciding
151
372000
2000
假設你們要審議
06:29
the justice of this case.
152
374000
3000
這個涉及正義的案子
06:32
How many here would say
153
377000
2000
有多少人會認為
06:34
that Casey Martin does have a right to use a golf cart?
154
379000
3000
Casey Martin 有權使用高爾夫球車？
06:37
And how many say, no, he doesn't?
155
382000
3000
另外，有多少人認為他沒有？
06:41
All right, let's take a poll, show of hands.
156
386000
2000
好，讓我們做個調查，請舉手
06:43
How many would rule in favor of Casey Martin?
157
388000
2000
有多少人站在 Casey Martin 這一方？
06:47
And how many would not? How many would say he doesn't?
158
392000
3000
那有多少人不支持他呢？
06:50
All right, we have a good division of opinion here.
159
395000
3000
很好，我們已有兩種不同的意見了
06:54
Someone who would not
160
399000
2000
有人不給予
06:56
grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart,
161
401000
2000
Casey Martin 使用高爾夫球車的權利
06:58
what would be your reason?
162
403000
2000
你們的理由是什麽？
07:00
Raise your hand, and we'll try to get you a microphone.
163
405000
2000
請舉手，我們會試著把麥克風遞給你
07:02
What would be your reason?
164
407000
2000
你的理由是什麽？
07:05
(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)
165
410000
2000
（觀眾：那會形成不公平的優勢）
07:07
MS: It would be an unfair advantage
166
412000
3000
Michael Sandel：那會形成不公平的優勢
07:10
if he gets to ride in a golf cart.
167
415000
2000
假使他可以得到高爾夫球車
07:12
All right, those of you,
168
417000
2000
好的，在你們之中
07:14
I imagine most of you who would not give him the golf cart
169
419000
3000
我想多數不願給他高爾夫球車的人
07:17
worry about an unfair advantage.
170
422000
2000
大多擔心勝之不武
07:19
What about those of you who say
171
424000
2000
那麼，在你們當中，那些認為
07:21
he should be given a golf cart?
172
426000
2000
應當給予他高爾夫球車的人怎麼說？
07:23
How would you answer the objection?
173
428000
2000
你們會如何表達反對立場？
07:25
Yes, all right.
174
430000
2000
是，好的
07:27
Audience: The cart's not part of the game.
175
432000
3000
觀眾：車子並不構成比賽的一部份
07:30
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.)
176
435000
3000
Michael Sandel：你的名字是？（觀眾：Charlie）
07:33
MS: Charlie says --
177
438000
3000
Michael Sandel：Charlie 說
07:36
We'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply.
178
441000
2000
我們會給 Charlie 一隻麥克風，當有人想要回答時
07:38
Tell us, Charlie,
179
443000
2000
告訴我們，Charlie
07:40
why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart?
180
445000
3000
你爲什麽說他應該獲得一輛高爾夫球車？
07:43
Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.
181
448000
3000
Charlie：車子不是比賽的一部分
07:47
MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?
182
452000
3000
Michael Sandel：那從一洞走到另一洞又怎麼說呢？
07:50
Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.
183
455000
3000
Charlie：這與比賽無關，它不算比賽的一部份
07:53
MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?
184
458000
3000
Michael Sandel：在賽程中走路不算比賽的一部份？
07:57
Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.
185
462000
2000
Charlie：對我來說不是，它不是。
07:59
MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.
186
464000
2000
Michael Sandel：好，請留在那，Charlie
08:01
(Laughter)
187
466000
2000
（笑聲）
08:03
Who has an answer for Charlie?
188
468000
3000
誰想替 Charlie 回答？
08:06
All right, who has an answer for Charlie?
189
471000
2000
好，有誰想替 Charlie 回答的？
08:08
What would you say?
190
473000
2000
你會怎麼說？
08:10
Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game,
191
475000
3000
觀眾：耐力是比賽中一個非常重要的部分，
08:13
walking all those holes.
192
478000
2000
走完那些球洞
08:15
MS: Walking all those holes?
193
480000
2000
Michael Sandel：走過所有那些洞？
08:17
That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)
194
482000
3000
那是高爾夫比賽的一部份？（觀眾：一點也不錯）
08:20
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)
195
485000
2000
Michael Sandel：你的名字是？（觀眾：Warren）
08:22
MS: Warren.
196
487000
2000
Michael Sandel：Warren
08:25
Charlie, what do you say to Warren?
197
490000
2000
Charlie：你有什麽想跟 Warren 說？
08:29
Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.
198
494000
2000
Charlie：我堅持原來的論點
08:31
(Laughter)
199
496000
6000
（笑聲）
08:37
MS: Warren, are you a golfer?
200
502000
2000
Michael Sandel：Warren，你打高爾夫嗎？
08:39
Warren: I am not a golfer.
201
504000
2000
Warren：我不打
08:41
Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.)
202
506000
2000
Charlie：但我打。（Michael Sandel：好的。）
08:43
(Laughter)
203
508000
2000
（笑聲）
08:45
(Applause)
204
510000
4000
（掌聲）
08:49
You know,
205
514000
2000
你們知道
08:51
it's interesting.
206
516000
2000
這很有趣
08:55
In the case, in the lower court,
207
520000
2000
在這個案例中，在下級法院
08:57
they brought in golfing greats
208
522000
3000
他們把偉大的高爾夫選手帶進
09:00
to testify on this very issue.
209
525000
3000
這個特殊的案例中
09:04
Is walking the course essential to the game?
210
529000
3000
步行在比賽中是必不可少的過程嗎？
09:07
And they brought in Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.
211
532000
3000
於是他們找來 Jack Nicklaus 和 Arnold Palmer
09:10
And what do you suppose they all said?
212
535000
2000
你們猜他們都怎麼說？
09:12
Yes. They agreed with Warren.
213
537000
3000
是的，他們同意 Warren 的說法
09:15
They said, yes, walking the course
214
540000
2000
他們說，是的，走完全程
09:17
is strenuous physical exercise.
215
542000
2000
是費力的運動
09:19
The fatigue factor is an important part of golf.
216
544000
3000
疲憊是高爾夫球賽中的重要一環
09:22
And so it would change
217
547000
2000
所以讓他使用高爾夫球車
09:24
the fundamental nature of the game
218
549000
3000
會改變
09:27
to give him the golf cart.
219
552000
2000
比賽的根本性質
09:29
Now, notice,
220
554000
2000
現在，請注意，
09:31
something interesting --
221
556000
2000
這裡有件有趣的事
09:33
Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.
222
558000
2000
嗯，我應該先告訴你有關最高法院的事
09:35
The Supreme Court
223
560000
2000
最高法院
09:37
decided.
224
562000
2000
作了裁決
09:39
What do you suppose they said?
225
564000
3000
你們認為他們怎麼說？
09:42
They said yes,
226
567000
2000
他們說，是的，
09:44
that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart.
227
569000
3000
Casey Martin 必須獲得一輛高爾夫球車
09:47
Seven to two, they ruled.
228
572000
2000
七比二，他們裁決。
09:50
What was interesting about their ruling
229
575000
3000
有趣的是，關於他們的這項判決
09:54
and about the discussion we've just had
230
579000
3000
以及關於我們剛剛的討論，
09:58
is that the discussion about
231
583000
2000
那些有關
10:00
the right, the justice, of the matter
232
585000
2000
權利與正義等問題
10:02
depended on
233
587000
2000
都是建立於
10:04
figuring out what is
234
589000
3000
我們對高爾夫球比賽
10:07
the essential nature of golf.
235
592000
3000
的必要本質的認識，
10:10
And the Supreme Court justices
236
595000
2000
而最高法院
10:12
wrestled with that question.
237
597000
2000
審慎思量了那問題
10:14
And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority,
238
599000
2000
Stevens 法官，寫給多數人
10:16
said he had read all about the history of golf,
239
601000
3000
說他遍讀了高爾夫球的歷史，
10:21
and the essential point of the game
240
606000
3000
而這項比賽的必要之處 在於
10:24
is to get very small ball from one place
241
609000
2000
把一個非常小的球，從一個地方
10:26
into a hole
242
611000
2000
推到另一個洞裡
10:28
in as few strokes as possible,
243
613000
3000
盡可能地使用最少的稈數
10:31
and that walking was not essential, but incidental.
244
616000
2000
而走路並不是必要的，反而僅只是次要的
10:33
Now, there were two dissenters,
245
618000
2000
現在，有兩位持反對意見者
10:35
one of whom was Justice Scalia.
246
620000
3000
一位是 Scalia 法官
10:40
He wouldn't have granted the cart,
247
625000
3000
他不願賦予使用高爾夫球車的權利
10:43
and he had a very interesting dissent.
248
628000
2000
他提出一個非常有趣的異議
10:45
It's interesting because
249
630000
2000
有趣 是因為
10:47
he rejected the Aristotelian premise
250
632000
3000
他否決了大多數人所持的
10:50
underlying the majority's opinion.
251
635000
2000
亞理斯多德假設
10:52
He said it's not possible
252
637000
3000
他說
10:55
to determine the essential nature
253
640000
3000
要決定一項賽事的本質，比如高爾夫球賽
10:58
of a game like golf.
254
643000
2000
是不可能的
11:00
Here's how he put it.
255
645000
2000
以下是他的見解
11:02
"To say that something is essential
256
647000
2000
「當談到某些事物是必要時
11:04
is ordinarily to say that it is necessary
257
649000
2000
通常我們會說，它是在
11:06
to the achievement of a certain object.
258
651000
3000
爲了要達到某種目標時，是必要的。
11:09
But since it is the very nature of a game
259
654000
2000
但畢竟一項比賽的最終本質
11:11
to have no object except amusement,
260
656000
3000
除了達到娛樂目的之外，並沒有任何其他目標
11:15
(Laughter)
261
660000
4000
（笑聲）
11:19
that is, what distinguishes games
262
664000
2000
也就是說，把比賽
11:21
from productive activity,
263
666000
2000
與生產活動區別開來
11:23
(Laughter)
264
668000
3000
（笑聲）
11:26
it is quite impossible to say
265
671000
2000
我們不可能說
11:28
that any of a game's arbitrary rules
266
673000
3000
任何一種比賽的任意規則
11:31
is essential."
267
676000
2000
是必要的。」
11:33
So there you have Justice Scalia
268
678000
2000
所以在這，你們有 Scalia 法官
11:35
taking on the Aristotelian premise
269
680000
3000
採取亞理斯多德
11:38
of the majority's opinion.
270
683000
3000
的多數人意見的假設
11:41
Justice Scalia's opinion
271
686000
3000
根據兩個原因，
11:44
is questionable
272
689000
2000
我們可以質疑
11:46
for two reasons.
273
691000
2000
Scalia 法官的意見
11:48
First, no real sports fan would talk that way.
274
693000
3000
第一，沒有哪個真正的球迷會那樣說話
11:51
(Laughter)
275
696000
2000
（笑聲）
11:53
If we had thought that the rules
276
698000
2000
如果我們想到
11:55
of the sports we care about
277
700000
2000
我們所關心的比賽的規則
11:57
are merely arbitrary,
278
702000
2000
只不過是任意性的，
11:59
rather than designed to call forth
279
704000
3000
而非一種追求
12:02
the virtues and the excellences
280
707000
3000
道德與卓越的設計
12:05
that we think are worthy of admiring,
281
710000
2000
一種值得我們尊敬的事物
12:07
we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game.
282
712000
3000
我們根本不會關心這項比賽的結果
12:10
It's also objectionable
283
715000
3000
這也是第二個客觀的
12:13
on a second ground.
284
718000
2000
的理由
12:15
On the face of it,
285
720000
2000
面對它時
12:17
it seemed to be -- this debate about the golf cart --
286
722000
3000
當面對這些高爾夫球車的辯論時
12:20
an argument about fairness,
287
725000
3000
它看來似乎是一項關於公平的爭議
12:23
what's an unfair advantage.
288
728000
3000
一項不平等的優勢
12:27
But if fairness were the only thing at stake,
289
732000
3000
但，倘若公平性是唯一一項受到威脅的事物的話
12:30
there would have been an easy and obvious solution.
290
735000
3000
解決辦法應該是再簡單明白不過
12:33
What would it be? (Audience: Let everyone use the cart.)
291
738000
2000
那是什麽？（觀眾：讓每個人都有車）
12:35
Let everyone ride in a golf cart
292
740000
3000
讓每個人都可乘坐高爾夫球車
12:38
if they want to.
293
743000
2000
如果他們要的話
12:40
Then the fairness objection goes away.
294
745000
3000
這麼一來，就可以消除那些關於公平性的反對聲浪了
12:43
But letting everyone ride in a cart
295
748000
3000
然而，讓每個人乘坐高爾夫球車
12:46
would have been, I suspect,
296
751000
2000
可能會，我懷疑，
12:48
more anathema
297
753000
2000
可能會使美國高爾夫球公開賽
12:50
to the golfing greats
298
755000
2000
與那些球星
12:52
and to the PGA,
299
757000
2000
蒙受詛咒，
12:54
even than making an exception for Casey Martin.
300
759000
2000
甚至如果為 Casey Martin 首開先例的話，其結果也有可能變得如此
12:56
Why?
301
761000
2000
爲什麽？
12:58
Because what was at stake
302
763000
2000
因為，在這高爾夫球車的爭議中
13:00
in the dispute over the golf cart
303
765000
3000
所受到威脅的事物
13:03
was not only the essential nature of golf,
304
768000
3000
並不只是高爾夫球的本質而已
13:06
but, relatedly, the question:
305
771000
3000
它還涉及所謂運動員天賦的問題：
13:09
What abilities
306
774000
3000
什麽樣的能力
13:12
are worthy
307
777000
2000
是值得
13:14
of honor and recognition
308
779000
2000
運動員的才華
13:16
as athletic talents?
309
781000
3000
獲得崇敬與認可呢？
13:19
Let me put the point
310
784000
2000
我盡可能地試著
13:21
as delicately as possible:
311
786000
3000
細緻地鋪陳論點：
13:24
Golfers are a little sensitive
312
789000
2000
高爾夫球選手們 多多少少
13:26
about the athletic status of their game.
313
791000
3000
對於比賽的地位有些敏感。
13:29
(Laughter)
314
794000
5000
（笑聲）
13:35
After all, there's no running or jumping,
315
800000
3000
畢竟，這項比賽沒有跑步或跳躍，
13:38
and the ball stands still.
316
803000
3000
而那顆球通常也靜止不動。
13:41
(Laughter)
317
806000
3000
（笑聲）
13:44
So if golfing is the kind of game
318
809000
3000
所以，如果高爾夫球是那種
13:47
that can be played while riding around in a golf cart,
319
812000
3000
可以安坐於車上的比賽的話
13:50
it would be hard to confer
320
815000
3000
這麼一來，人們就很難賦予
13:53
on the golfing greats
321
818000
2000
那些高爾夫球巨星
13:55
the status that we confer,
322
820000
2000
偉大崇高的地位了，
13:57
the honor and recognition
323
822000
2000
也很難給予偉大球星
13:59
that goes to truly great athletes.
324
824000
3000
榮耀與認可了。
14:03
That illustrates
325
828000
3000
這說明了
14:06
that with golf,
326
831000
3000
高爾夫球
14:09
as with flutes,
327
834000
2000
如同長笛一般
14:11
it's hard to decide the question
328
836000
3000
是很難界定
14:14
of what justice requires,
329
839000
3000
其所需的正義，
14:17
without grappling with the question,
330
842000
2000
當你們不解決如下問題時：
14:19
"What is the essential nature
331
844000
2000
「什麽是這項活動的
14:21
of the activity in question,
332
846000
2000
內在本質、
14:23
and what qualities,
333
848000
3000
以及 什麽樣的品質、
14:26
what excellences
334
851000
2000
什麼樣的卓越內涵
14:28
connected with that activity,
335
853000
2000
關於這項活動
14:30
are worthy of honor and recognition?"
336
855000
3000
是值得尊敬與認可的？」
14:34
Let's take a final example
337
859000
2000
讓我們拿最後一個例子說明
14:36
that's prominent in contemporary political debate:
338
861000
3000
當代著名的政治辯論：
14:39
same-sex marriage.
339
864000
2000
同性婚姻
14:43
There are those who favor state recognition
340
868000
3000
有些人認為，國家僅僅只能
14:46
only of traditional marriage
341
871000
2000
承認傳統的婚姻
14:48
between one man and one woman,
342
873000
3000
在男人與女人之間的婚姻；
14:51
and there are those who favor state recognition
343
876000
2000
另外，也有些人希望，國家能承認
14:53
of same-sex marriage.
344
878000
2000
同性婚姻
14:55
How many here
345
880000
2000
這裡有多少人
14:57
favor the first policy:
346
882000
2000
贊成第一項政策的：
14:59
the state should recognize traditional marriage only?
347
884000
3000
國家只應承認傳統婚姻？
15:04
And how many favor the second, same-sex marriage?
348
889000
3000
另外，有多少人贊同同性婚姻？
15:08
Now, put it this way:
349
893000
3000
現在，這麼說好了，
15:11
What ways of thinking
350
896000
2000
在我們既有的
15:13
about justice and morality
351
898000
2000
涉及到正義與道德的這些爭議下
15:15
underlie the arguments we have
352
900000
2000
關於婚姻，
15:17
over marriage?
353
902000
2000
我們有什麽樣的思考方式？
15:19
The opponents of same-sex marriage say
354
904000
3000
反對同性婚姻的人說
15:22
that the purpose of marriage,
355
907000
2000
婚姻的目的
15:24
fundamentally, is procreation,
356
909000
2000
基本上說來，是爲了生育，
15:26
and that's what's worthy of honoring
357
911000
2000
而那是值得尊敬、
15:28
and recognizing and encouraging.
358
913000
3000
認可、與鼓勵的；
15:31
And the defenders of same-sex marriage say no,
359
916000
3000
然而，捍衛同性婚姻的人說：不，
15:34
procreation is not the only purpose of marriage;
360
919000
3000
生育並不是婚姻的唯一目的，
15:38
what about a lifelong, mutual, loving commitment?
361
923000
3000
那一個終身的、相互的、愛的承諾又如何呢？
15:41
That's really what marriage is about.
362
926000
3000
那的確與婚姻息息相關啊。
15:45
So with flutes, with golf carts,
363
930000
3000
因此，長笛、高爾夫球車、
15:48
and even with a fiercely contested question
364
933000
3000
甚至如此激烈爭辯的議題
15:51
like same-sex marriage,
365
936000
3000
像同性婚姻
15:54
Aristotle has a point.
366
939000
3000
亞理斯多德提及了一個重點
15:57
Very hard to argue about justice
367
942000
2000
倘若我們首先沒有探討
15:59
without first arguing
368
944000
3000
社會制度的目的、
16:02
about the purpose of social institutions
369
947000
3000
與什麼樣的品質是值得
16:05
and about what qualities are worthy
370
950000
2000
尊敬與認可的話，
16:07
of honor and recognition.
371
952000
3000
要爭辯何謂正義是極為困難的。
16:10
So let's step back from these cases
372
955000
3000
因此，讓我們從這些案件回過頭來
16:13
and see how they shed light
373
958000
3000
看看它們如何向我們提供一種方式
16:16
on the way we might improve, elevate,
374
961000
3000
使我們藉此得以會進步、提高
16:19
the terms of political discourse
375
964000
3000
在美國的
16:22
in the United States,
376
967000
2000
政治論述的語彙
16:24
and for that matter, around the world.
377
969000
3000
以及世界各地關於這方面的政治語言方式，
16:27
There is a tendency to think
378
972000
2000
倘若我們在政治中
16:29
that if we engage too directly
379
974000
3000
愈是直接地涉入倫理議題，
16:32
with moral questions in politics,
380
977000
2000
人們會傾向於認為
16:34
that's a recipe for disagreement,
381
979000
2000
那是解決分歧的藥方，
16:36
and for that matter, a recipe for
382
981000
2000
從那方面說來，這也是一個
16:38
intolerance and coercion.
383
983000
2000
解決不寬容與強制脅迫的藥方。
16:40
So better to shy away from,
384
985000
2000
因此，我們不如迴避、
16:42
to ignore,
385
987000
2000
略過
16:44
the moral and the religious convictions
386
989000
2000
那些人們帶進公民生活中
16:46
that people bring to civic life.
387
991000
2000
的宗教與倫理衝突
16:48
It seems to me that our discussion
388
993000
3000
在我看來，我們的討論
16:51
reflects the opposite,
389
996000
2000
反映了相反的一面，
16:53
that a better way
390
998000
3000
一個達成相互尊重
16:56
to mutual respect
391
1001000
2000
的更好方式是
16:58
is to engage directly
392
1003000
2000
直接地涉入
17:00
with the moral convictions
393
1005000
2000
公民帶入公共生活中的
17:02
citizens bring to public life,
394
1007000
3000
的倫理衝突
17:05
rather than to require
395
1010000
2000
而不是要求
17:07
that people leave their deepest moral convictions
396
1012000
3000
人們在進入政治以前，
17:10
outside politics
397
1015000
2000
把他們最深的倫理衝突
17:12
before they enter.
398
1017000
2000
留在政治之外。
17:14
That, it seems to me, is a way
399
1019000
2000
在我看來，那是一個
17:16
to begin to restore
400
1021000
2000
開始重建
17:18
the art of democratic argument.
401
1023000
2000
民主辯論技藝的方法
17:20
Thank you very much.
402
1025000
2000
謝謝大家
17:22
(Applause)
403
1027000
3000
（掌聲）
17:25
Thank you.
404
1030000
2000
謝謝
17:27
(Applause)
405
1032000
3000
（掌聲）
17:30
Thank you.
406
1035000
2000
謝謝
17:32
(Applause)
407
1037000
2000
（掌聲）
17:34
Thank you very much.
408
1039000
2000
非常感謝
17:36
Thanks. Thank you.
409
1041000
2000
謝謝，謝謝各位
17:39
Chris.
410
1044000
2000
Chris
17:41
Thanks, Chris.
411
1046000
2000
謝謝，Chris
17:44
Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses
412
1049000
2000
Chris Anderson：從長笛、高爾夫球場
17:46
to same-sex marriage --
413
1051000
2000
到同性婚姻
17:48
that was a genius link.
414
1053000
2000
實在是非常巧妙的連結
17:50
Now look, you're a pioneer of open education.
415
1055000
3000
你的確是開放教育的先驅
17:53
Your lecture series was one of the first to do it big.
416
1058000
2000
你的系列課堂是開創者之一
17:55
What's your vision for the next phase of this?
417
1060000
3000
你下一個階段的計劃是什麽？
17:58
MS: Well, I think that it is possible.
418
1063000
3000
Michael Sandel：嗯，我想這是可能的
18:01
In the classroom, we have arguments
419
1066000
3000
在這個教室裡，我們有
18:04
on some of the most fiercely held
420
1069000
3000
學生們曾經討論過的
18:07
moral convictions that students have
421
1072000
2000
關於道德衝突的最激烈辯論
18:09
about big public questions.
422
1074000
2000
涉及了許多大型的公眾議題
18:11
And I think we can do that in public life more generally.
423
1076000
3000
我想我們可以更廣泛地 把它置入於公眾生活
18:14
And so my real dream would be
424
1079000
2000
所以，我真正的夢想是
18:16
to take the public television series
425
1081000
2000
創辦一個我們曾有過的課堂辯論
18:18
that we've created of the course --
426
1083000
2000
在電視節目之中
18:20
it's available now, online,
427
1085000
2000
現在，透過網絡 這已經是可行的了
18:22
free for everyone anywhere in the world --
428
1087000
2000
任何人在世界每個角落都可以進入
18:24
and to see whether we can partner with institutions,
429
1089000
3000
看看我們是否可以與一些機構合作
18:27
at universities in China, in India,
430
1092000
2000
比如在中國、印度、
18:29
in Africa, around the world,
431
1094000
2000
非洲、和世界各地的大學
18:31
to try to promote
432
1096000
3000
試著提升
18:34
civic education
433
1099000
2000
公民教育
18:36
and also a richer kind
434
1101000
2000
與更豐富的
18:38
of democratic debate.
435
1103000
2000
民主辯論
18:41
CA: So you picture, at some point,
436
1106000
2000
Chris Anderson：所以你在某種程度上，想像了
18:43
live, in real time,
437
1108000
2000
一個現場的、即時的
18:45
you could have this kind of conversation, inviting questions,
438
1110000
3000
真實對談，徵求問題
18:48
but with people from China and India joining in?
439
1113000
3000
但要求中國和印度的人們參與？
18:51
MS: Right. We did a little bit of it here
440
1116000
2000
Michael Sandel：我們在這裡做了一點
18:53
with 1,500 people in Long Beach,
441
1118000
2000
在 Long Beach 那兒有 1500 人參與
18:55
and we do it in a classroom at Harvard
442
1120000
3000
另外，我們也在哈佛大學的講堂上
18:58
with about 1,000 students.
443
1123000
2000
與 1000 位學生進行討論。
19:00
Wouldn't it be interesting
444
1125000
2000
這不是很有趣嗎？
19:02
to take this way
445
1127000
3000
以這種
19:05
of thinking and arguing,
446
1130000
2000
思考與辯論的方式
19:07
engaging seriously with big moral questions,
447
1132000
3000
深刻地討論宏大的倫理議題，
19:10
exploring cultural differences
448
1135000
2000
發掘文化差異
19:12
and connect through a live video hookup,
449
1137000
3000
並且透過現場直播
19:16
students in Beijing and Mumbai
450
1141000
2000
使得在北京、孟買、
19:18
and in Cambridge, Massachusetts
451
1143000
2000
劍橋、麻薩諸塞州的學生
19:20
and create a global classroom.
452
1145000
2000
都能一起創造全球教室
19:22
That's what I would love to do.
453
1147000
2000
那就是我想做的事。
19:24
(Applause)
454
1149000
4000
（掌聲）
19:28
CA: So, I would imagine
455
1153000
2000
Chris Anderson：所以，我猜想
19:30
that there are a lot of people who would love to join you in that endeavor.
456
1155000
3000
會有許多人願意加入你的努力的
19:33
Michael Sandel. Thank you so much. (MS: Thanks so much.)
457
1158000
2000
Michael Sandel，非常謝謝你。(MS：謝謝各位。)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Michael Sandel - Political philosopherMichael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time.
Why you should listen
Michael Sandel is one of the best known American public intellectuals. The London Observer calls him "one of the most popular teachers in the world" and indeed his lectures at Harvard draw thousands of students eager to discuss big questions of modern political life: bioethics, torture, rights versus responsibilities, the value we put on things. Sandel's class is a primer on thinking through the hard choices we face as citizens. The course has been turned into a public TV series with companion website and book: Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? In his newest book, What Money Can't Buy, he challenges the idea that markets are morally neutral.
"To understand the importance of his purpose," a Guardian reviewer wrote of the book, "you first have to grasp the full extent of the triumph achieved by market thinking in economics, and the extent to which that thinking has spread to other domains. This school sees economics as a discipline that has nothing to do with morality, and is instead the study of incentives, considered in an ethical vacuum. Sandel's book is, in its calm way, an all-out assault on that idea, and on the influential doctrine that the economic approach to "utility maximisation" explains all human behaviour."
Read more about his thinking on markets and morality: "Lunch with Michael Sandel" on FT.com >>
Michael Sandel | Speaker | TED.com