建立在任何特定的利益、目标或目的，的基础之上
on any particular interests, purposes, or ends
因为那样，它只与人的目的有关
because then it would be only relative to the person whose ends they were.
然而，假设有一些东西，它的存在本身就
But suppose, however, there was something whose existence has in itself
具有绝对的价值....其自身就是目的...
an absolute value . . . an end in itself . . .
在其本身，单单是它本身
then in it, and in it alone,
而这会是定言命令的基础”
would there be the ground of a possible categorical imperative."
那么，有什么我们能想到的
Well, what is there that we can think of
其本身具有的终结？
as having its end in itself?
康德的答案是，“我说，人
Kant's answer is this, "I say that man,
一个理性的人，其本身就是目的
and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself,
而不只是被其他意志任意利用的手段”
not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will."
在这里，康德区分人
And here Kant distinguishes between persons on the one hand
与物
and things on the other.
人是理性的存在
Rational beings are persons,
他不像其他物体一样，只是有相对价值
they don't just have a relative value for us
他还有绝对的价值
but if anything has they have an absolute value,
内在的价值，即理性的人拥有尊严
an intrinsic value, that is rational beings have dignity.
他们值得崇敬或尊重
They're worthy of reverence or respect.
这种推理引出了康德关于定言命令的
This line of reasoning leads Kant to the second formulation
第二种表述，如下：
of the categorical imperative which is this:
“你总是以下这种方式行事，你总是把人
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
不管是你自己的，或者是其他人的
whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
你从不把它简单地视作一种手段
never simply as a means,
但你同时把它看作目的“
but always at the same time, as an end."
这就是（第二种）表述：把人视作目的
So, that's the formula of humanity as an end,
作为理性的存在，人本身即是目的
the idea that human beings as rational beings are ends in themselves,
而不是被用来使用的手段
not open to use merely as a means.
当我给你许下虚假的承诺
When I make a false promise to you,
我是在把你当作，实现我的目的的手段，
I'm using you as a means to my ends,
实现我对100元的需要
to my desire for the $100,
那样我就是在不尊重你
and so I'm failing to respect you,
我不尊重你的尊严
I'm failing to respect your dignity,
我是在操纵你
I'm manipulating you.
现在，思考一下刚才反对自杀的例子
Now, consider the example of the duty against suicide.
谋杀和自杀，与定言命令不一致
Murder and suicide are at odds with the categorical imperative.
为什么？
Why?
如果我谋杀一个人，我是在拿走他们的生命，来达到某种目的
If I murder someone, I'm taking their life for some purpose,
或是因为我是一个职业杀手
either because I'm a hired killer
或是因为我被惹怒了
or I'm in the throes of some great anger passion,
我有某种利益，某种目的
I have some interest, some purpose,
这是把其他人当作手段来利用
that's particular for the sake which I'm using them as a means.
谋杀违反了定言命令
Murder violates the categorical imperative.
康德认为，从道德上来说，自杀与谋杀一样
For Kant, morally speaking, suicide is on a par with murder.
自杀等同于谋杀，因为我们违反了...，
It's on a par with murder because what we violate when we take a life,
当我们拿走我们自己，或别人的生命时
when we take someone's life, ours or somebody else's,
我们把这个人，一个理性的人
we use that person, we use a rational being,
我们把人当作一种手段来使用
we use humanity as a means
我们没有尊重人，没有把人看作目的
and so we fail to respect humanity as an end.
这种理性的能力，人要求得到尊重的观念
And that capacity for reason, that humanity that commands respect,
就是尊严的基础
that is the ground of dignity,
这种人性，这种理性的能力
that humanity, that capacity for reason
无差别地存在于我们所有人身上
resides undifferentiated in all of us
所以，如果我自杀，或者谋杀拿走其他人的生命
and so I violate that dignity in my own person, if I commit suicide,
我就侵犯了我自己的尊严
and in murder if I take somebody else's life.
从道德的角度来看，它们是相同的
From a moral point of view they're the same
它们之所以是相同的，跟我们普遍具有的特性
and the reason they're the same has to do with the universal character
以及道德准则的基础，有关
and ground of the moral law.
我们要尊重他人的尊严，其原因
The reason that we have to respect the dignity of other people
跟他们没有任何关系
has not to do with anything in particular about them
尊重，康德所指的尊重，在这一点上，和爱不一样
and so respect, Kantian respect, unlike love in this way.
它不像同情
It's unlike sympathy.
它不像团结，友情，或利他主义
It's unlike solidarity or fellow feeling or altruism
因为，爱，以及其他一些特定的美德、
because love and those other particular virtues or reasons
对他人的关怀，都要看它们的对象是谁
for caring about other people have to do with who they are in particular.
而尊重，对于康德来说
But respect, for Kant,
尊重是对人类普遍共有的
respect is respect for humanity which is universal,
普遍共有的理性的尊重
for a rational capacity which is universal,
这就是为什么，如果侵犯了我的尊严
and that's why violating it, in my own case,
跟侵犯其他人的尊重，是同样的让人反对
is as objectionable as violating it in the case of any other.
有问题或反对吗？
Questions or objections?
请。
Go ahead.
我想，我有担心，康德所说的
I guess I'm somewhat worried about Kant's statement
你不能把人当作一种手段来使用
that you cannot use a person as a means
因为每个人即是自己的目的
because every person is an end of themselves,
因为似乎每天
because it seems that everyday,
为了要完成一些事情
in order to get something accomplished for that day,
我必须把自己当作实现某种目的的手段
I must use myself as a means to some end
同样，我必须把我身边的人当作实现目的的手段
and I must use the people around me as a means to some end as well.
比如，假设我想拿个好成绩
For instance, suppose that I want to do well in a class
我要完成一篇论文
and I have to write a paper.
我得把自己的当作，完成论文的手段
I have to use myself as a means to write the paper.
假设我想买一些，例如食物
Suppose I want to buy something, food,
我必须去商店，把收款员当作
I must go to the store and use the person working behind the counter
一种手段来买到我的食物
as a means for me to purchase my food.
对。确实如此
Right. That's true, you do.
你叫什么名字？
What's your name?
Patrick.
Patrick
Patrick.，你没做错任何事情
Patrick, you're not doing anything wrong.
你没有违反定言命令
You're not violating the categorical imperative
当你把其他人当作手段时
when you use other people as means,
这不是不允许的
that's not objectionable
只要我们与其他人打交道时
provided when we deal with other people
我们的目的是，为了完成我们共同的的工作、目的和和利益
for the sake of advancing our projects and purposes and interests,
大家也都这样做
which we all do,
只要我们对待他们的方式，
provided we treat them in a way that is consistent
尊重到他们的尊严
with respect for their dignity
怎么尊重他们
and what it means to respect them
是由定言命令来给出的
is given by the categorical imperative.
你同意吗？
Are you persuaded?
你同意，康德给了一个令人信服的解释
Do you think that Kant has given a compelling account,
一个关于道德的最高原则的、有说服力的解释吗？
a persuasive account, of the supreme principle of morality?
重读了《道德的形而上学基础》，我们将在下次回答这个问题
Reread the groundwork and we'll try to answer that question next time.
英文字幕：
http://forum-network.org
xiaolai
中文字幕：
thucydides
kitty
校对：
何_何
欢迎接着收看
耶鲁心理学入门课程
http://u.youku.com/aprilseason
?2
撒谎的教训
A Lesson in Lying
上一次我们 开始尝试领会
Last time we began trying to we began by trying to navigate our way
康德的道德论
through Kant's moral theory.
现在，为了能从根本上 理解康德的道德论
Now, fully to make sense of Kant moral theory in the groundwork
我们要 回答三个问题
requires that we be able to answer three questions.
责任（duty）和自律（autonomy） 是如何联系在一起的？
How can duty and autonomy go together?
回应责任的伟大尊严 从何而来？
What's the great dignity in answering to duty?
也许这两个想法是相悖的：责任和自律
It would seem that these two ideas are opposed: duty and autonomy.
康德的回答是什么？
What's Kant's answer to that?
有没有人愿意 代表康德回答一下？
Need someone here to speak up on Kant's behalf.
他有答案么？
Does he have an answer?
好，请回答
Yes, go ahead, stand up.
康德认为只有在 以责任之名去追求一样东西时 才是自主行为
Kant believes you the only act autonomously when you are pursuing something only the name of duty
而不是因为你 身处的环境
and not because of your own circumstances
比如--你在做一件好事，有道德的事
such as – like you're only doing something good and moral
是出于责任，而不是因为 你自己的个人得失
if you're doing it because of duty and not because something of your own personal gain.
那么为什么这种行为.....你的名字是？
Now why is that acting… what's your name?
我叫Matt
My name is Matt.
Matt，为什么这种行为 是建立在自由的基础上? 你说到责任
Matt, why is that acting on a freedom? I hear what you're saying about duty?
因为是你自己选择接受 这些道德法则
Because you choose to accept those moral laws in yourself
而不是外界强加于你的
and not brought on from outside upon onto you.
好，很好，因为出于责任而行动
Okay, good. Because acting out of duty
你遵循的道德法则
Yeah. - is following a moral law
是你自己加给自己的
that you impose on yourself.
是你自己加给自己的，
That you impose on yourself.
这就是为什么 责任能与自由 相容
That's what makes duty compatible with freedom. - Yeah.
