好，Matt你回答的很好，这也是康德的答案。 很好
Okay, that's good Matt. That is Kant's answer. That's great.
所以康德的回答是，我拥有尊严 不在于我遵循了这些法则
Thank you. So, Kant's answer is it is not in so far as I am subject to the law that I have dignity
而是在于 我是这些法则的主人
but rather in so far as with regard to that very same law, I'm the author
我附属于那些法则的理由， 是因为我自愿接受它的
and I am subordinated to that law on that ground that I took it as much as at I took it upon myself.
是我定下那些法则。那就是为什么，对于康德来说
I willed that law. So that's why for Kant
依责任而行，与在自律下自由地行为，都是同一件事情
acting according to duty and acting freely in the sense of autonomously are one and the same.
但这就带来了一个问题：我们到底有多少条道德法则?
But that raises the question, how many moral laws are there?
如果说，尊严是受到 我加于自己的法则 所支配的
Because if dignity consists and be governed by a law that I give myself,
那怎么保证我的道德感，和你们的道德感是一样的呢？
what's to guarantee that my conscience will be the same as your conscience?
谁知道康德怎么回答？
Who has Kant's answer to that? Yes?
因为道德法则 不依外部诱人的条件而变化
Because a moral law trend is not contingent upon seductive conditions.
它将超越 人与人间所有的差异
It would transcend all particular differences between people
成为一个普遍法则，
and so would be a universal law and
在这个方面看来，只有同一条道德法则，因为它是至高无上的。
in this respect there'd only be one moral law because it would be supreme.
对，非常对，你的名字是？
Right. That's exactly right. What's your name?
Kelly
Kelly.
康德认为，如果我们都依照我们的道德感 来自由选择，
Kelly. So Kelly, Kant believes that if we choose freely out of our own consciences,
那么我们就能保证，我们得出的是同一条道德法则。是的
the moral law we're guarantee to come up with one and the same moral law. -Yes.
因为当我选择的时候，并不是我--Michael Sandel 在选择
And that's because when I choose it's not me, Michael Sandel choosing.
也不是你，Kelly 在为自己选择
It's not you, Kelly choosing for yourself?
那么是谁呢？是谁在选择？
What is it exactly? Who is doing the choosing?
谁是主体？谁是代理人？谁在选择？
Who's the subject? Who is the agent? Who is doing the choosing?
理性？ -- 理性，纯粹的理性
Reason? - Well reason… Pure reason.
纯粹的理性。 你说纯粹的理性，是什么意思？
Pure reason and what you mean by pure reason is what exactly?
纯粹的理性就是，像刚才所说的，
Well pure reason is like we were saying before not subject to
我们不会 依附于任何外部环境
any external conditions that may be imposed on that side.
非常好。所以，是理性支配了意志
Good that's' great. So, the reason that does the willing,
当我执行道德法则的时候，是理性主导着我的意志。
the reason that governs my will when I will the moral law
同样是这种的理性，让你为自己选择了 同一条道德法则
is the same reason that operates when you choose the moral law for yourself
这就是为什么 我们能自律地行动，为自己作出选择，
and that's why it's possible to act autonomously, to choose for myself,
作为自律的存在，每一个人都能为自己作出选择
for each of us to choose for ourselves as autonomous beings
我们最后都遵循 同一个道德法则
and for all of us to wind up willing the same moral law,
即 定言命令
the categorical imperative.
但这也留下一个大难题
But then there is one big and very difficult question left
即使你们接受了Matt和Kelly 所说的
even if you accept everything that Matt and Kelly had said so far.
定言命令怎么成为可能呢？
How is a categorical imperative possible?
道德怎么成为可能呢？为了回答这个问题
How is morality possible? To answer that question,
康德说，我们要做出一个区分
Kant said we need to make a distinction.
我们要区分 两个立脚点
We need to make a distinction between two standpoints,
这两个立脚点可以让我们理解 我们的日常经验
two standpoints from which we can make sense of our experience.
我们试着解释一下 这两个立脚点的意思
Let me try to explain what he means by these two standpoints.
作为一个经验客体，我属于这个感官世界
As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world.
我的行为是由自然法则 所决定的
There my actions are determined by the laws of nature
由因果规律 所决定的 and by the regularities of cause and effect.
但作为一个经验主体，我居住在一个智思世界
But as a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world here
我独立于自然法则之外，能够实现自律
being independent of the laws of nature I am capable of autonomy,
我能根据 我给自己制定的法则 来行事
capable of acting according to a law I give myself.
康德说 “只有站在第二个立脚点上（指智思世界），我才能认为我自己是自由的。
Now Kant says that, "Only from this second standpoint can I regard myself as free,
因为不受 感官世界里的外界因素 决定，才是自由”
for to be independent of determination by causes in the sensible world is to be free."
如果我是至善的经验主义者，正如功利主义者假设的一样
If I were holy and empirical being as the utilitarian assume,
如果我只是至善的，受我的感官支配
if I were a being holy and only subject to the deliverances of my senses,
疼痛、快乐、饥饿、饥渴、欲望
pain and pleasure and hunger and thirst and appetite,
如果这就是符合仁道，我们就不可能得到自由
if that's all there were to humanity, we wouldn't be capable of freedom,
康德论证道，因为这样的话，每个意志的行使都将
Kant reasons because in that case every exercise of will
受制于 我们对某些客体的欲望
would be conditioned by the desire for some object.
这样的话，我们的选择就会各异，都受到外部目的而支配
In that case all choice would be heteronomous choice governed by the pursued of some external end.
“当我们认为。我们是自由的时候”
"When we think of ourselves as free, "
康德曾写道，“我们把自己转到这个智思世界，成为了其中的一员， 并认识到了意志的自主性”
Kant writes, "we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will."
以上就是那两个立脚点
That's the idea of the two standpoints.
那么，定言命令是 如何成为可能的呢？
So how are categorical imperatives possible?
只因 自由让我成为了智思世界的一员.
Only because the idea of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world.
康德承认，我们不仅仅是理性的存在
Now Kant admits we aren't only rational beings.
我们并不仅仅只是 居住在这个智思世界，这个自由的王国。
We don't only inhabit the intelligible world, the realm of freedom.
如果是的话 -- 那么我们所有的行为
If we did -- if we did, then all of our actions
将会始终如一地，符合意志的自律
would invariably accord with the autonomy of the will.
但恰恰因为 我们同时处于两个立脚点中
But precisely because we inhabit simultaneously the two standpoints,
两个领域中---自由的领域 和 需求的领域
the two realms, the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity
恰恰是因为我们处在两个领域中，
precisely because we inhabit both realms,
我们做的和我们应该做的，是和应该， 两者之间就总会有 潜在的鸿沟。
there is always potentially a gap between what we do and what we ought to do, between is and ought.
这个观点用另一个方式来说，也就是
Another way of putting this point and this is the point with which
康德在《道德的形而上学基础》里总结：道德不是经验主义
Kant concludes the groundwork, morality is not empirical.
不管你在世界上看到了什么，不管你通过科学发现了什么
Whatever you see in the world, whatever you discover through science
这些都不能决定 道德问题
can't decide moral questions.
道德和经验主义世界，存在着相当一段距离
Morality stands at a certain distance from the world, from the empirical world.
这也是为什么 从科学无法得出道德事实
And that's why no science could deliver moral truth.
现在我想用一个可能是最难的例子，来验证一下康德的道德论
Now I want to test Kant's moral theory with the hardest possible case,
这是他提出的一个案例-- “门口的谋杀者”
a case that he raises, the case of the murderer at the door.
康德认为，说谎是错误的。我们都知道这点。
Kant says that lying is wrong. We all know that.
我们也讨论过为什么。说谎和定言命令之间不一致。
We've discussed why. Lying is at odds with the categorical imperative.
法国哲学家 本杰明·康斯坦特 写了一篇文章
A French Philosopher, Benjamin Constant wrote an article
来回应《道德的形而上学基础》，他写道
responding to the groundwork where he said,
“这个设想是错的。不可能是对的。
"This absolute probation on lying is wrong. It can't be right.
如果有一个杀手来到你的门前，寻找你的朋友
What if a murderer came to your door looking for your friend
而这位朋友正躲在你家里
who was hiding in your house?
杀手直截了当的问你，“你的朋友在你家么”
And the murderer asked you point blank, "Is your friend in your house?"
康斯坦特说 “如果在这样的情况中，还要说真话
Constant says, "It would be crazy to say that the moral thing to do
那真是疯了”
in that case is to tell the truth."
康斯坦特认为， 杀手不应该 知道真相
Constant says the murderer certainly doesn't deserve the truth
康德回复道
and Kant wrote to reply.
他坚持他的原则，对杀手 撒谎也是错误的
And Kant stuck by his principle that lying even to the murderer at the door is wrong.
错误的原因是，他说
And the reason it's wrong, he said is
一旦你开始考虑事情的后果，开了个例外，不遵循定言命令
once you start taking consequences into account to carve out exceptions to the categorical imperative,
那么，你就已经放弃了 整个道德标准
you've given up the whole moral framework.
你已经成为了一个结果论者，或者是功利主义者
You've become a consequentialist or maybe a rule utilitarian.
但是你们中的大部分人，还有康德的大部分读者，
But most of you and most to our Kant's readers think
认为这个答案，有些奇怪和不可能
there's something odd and impossible about this answer.
我想试着 在这一点上为康德辩护
I would like to try to defend Kant on this point
然后看看 你们觉得我的辩护是否合理
and then I want to see whether you think that my defense is plausible,
我想根据 他对道德的解释的精神，来作出辩护。
and I would want to defend him within the spirit of his own account of morality.
想象一下，有个人来到你的门前。
Imagine that someone comes to your door.
杀手问了你这个问题
You were asked that question by this murder.
而你的朋友正藏在你家
You are hiding your friend.
有没有一种方式，可以不对杀手说谎
Is there a way that you could avoid telling a lie
同时不出卖你的朋友？
without selling out your friend?
你们中有人想到 要怎么说?
Does anyone have an idea of how you might be able to do that?
好， 请站起来回答 Yes? Stand up.
我会说，如果一开始，我真的把我的朋友藏在我家，
I was just going to say if I were to let my friend in my house to hide in the first place,
我会先和他们 定好计划
I'd probably make a plan with them
我会说 “嘿 等下我会告诉杀手你在这儿，你赶紧逃吧”
so I'd be like, "Hey I'll tell the murderer you're here, but escape, "
这是其中的一个选择
and that's one of the options mentioned.
我不确定 这是不是康德式的选择。你还是在撒谎。
But I'm not sure that's a Kantian option. You're still lying though.
不。因为他当时是在屋子里，但是之后不会在（我叫他逃跑）
No. Because he's in the house but he won't be.
我明白了。 好 很好，还有人有想法么
Oh I see. All right, good enough. One more try.
你说，我不知道他在哪 就好
If you just say you don't know where he is
因为他也许不在衣柜里 because he might not be locked in the closet.
他可能离开了衣柜。你真的不知道他在哪。
He might have left the closet. You have no clue where he could be.
所以，我说我不知道他在哪，算不上说谎
So you would say, I don't know which wouldn't actually be a lie
因为你在那个时候，不是在看着衣柜。
because you weren't at that very moment looking in the closet.
对，所以严格来说，你说的是真话
Exactly. -So it would be strictly speaking true.
对
Yes.
但也有可能带有欺骗性，误导性。但仍然是真话
And yet possibly deceiving, misleading. -But still true.
你的名字是？约翰
What's your name? -John.
约翰。约翰也许意识到了某些东西
John. All right, John has... now John may be on to something.
约翰，你给我们大家提供了一个很机智的托词
John you're really offering us the option of a clever evasion
它严格上来说 是真话
that is strictly speaking true.
这就给我们带来了一个问题，
This raises the question
完全的谎言和误导的真相 这两者在道德上 有区别么？
whether there is a moral difference between an outright 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
From Kant's point of view there actually is a world of difference between a lie and a misleading truth.
为什么？ 即使这两者带来的结果是一样的？
Why is that even though both might have the same consequences?
记得，康德并不是 把 道德 建立在结果之上的
But then remember Kant doesn't base morality on consequences.
他认为 道德 就是对道德法则的遵守
He bases it on formal adherence to the moral law.
有时候，在日常生活中，我们会破例地使用"善意的谎言"
Now, sometimes in ordinary life we make exceptions for the general rule against lying with the white lie.
什么是善意的谎言？ What is a white lie?
它是一种谎言来用来... 比如，为了避免伤害别人的感情
It's a lie to make...you're well to avoid hurting someone's feelings for example.
它是一种我们用它带来的结果来让它成为合理解释的谎言
It's a lie that we think of as justified by the consequences.
