几年前，我在报纸上读到一个案例：芝加哥有个上了年纪的寡妇
I read some years ago of a case in Chicago there was an elderly widow,
一个84岁的寡妇，名叫Rose。她遇到一个麻烦：
她的公寓里的马桶漏水。
an 84-year-old widow named Rose who had a problem in her apartment with a leaky toilet
于是，她和一个黑心的承包商 签订了个契约。
and she signed a contract with an unscrupulous contractor,
对方提出以5万美元的价格，修理她那个漏水的马桶
who offered to repair her leaky toilet in exchange for $50, 000.
但她也同意了。她心智健全，也许过于天真
But she had agreed she was of sound mind, maybe terribly naive
不熟悉 管道工的价格
and unfamiliar with the price of plumbing,
她签订了这个协议
she had made this agreement.
幸运的是，事情被发现了
Luckily, it was discovered.
她到银行去 取2万5千美元出来
She went to the bank and asked to withdraw $25, 000.
出纳员问：“你用这么多钱干什么？”
And the teller said, “Why do you need all of that money for?”
她说：“我的马桶漏水。”
And she said, “Well, I have a leaky toilet.”
出纳员给有关部门打了电话。他们发现了这个黑心承包商
And the teller called authorities and they discovered this unscrupulous contractor.
我猜，就连在座 最热心的契约履行者 也会同意
Now, I suspect that even the most ardent contract carryings in the room will agree
这位女士签了协议的 这一事实
that the fact of this woman’s agreement
并不是 保证协议公平的充分条件
is not a sufficient condition of the agreement being fair.
有人反驳这一点吗？没有人。 我有没有漏掉什么人？
Is there anyone who will dispute that? No one. Am I missing anyone?
Alex，你在哪儿？
Alex, where are you?
你在哪儿？
Where are you?
那么，看来没有人反驳我的第一个论点：
So, maybe there’s no dispute then to my first claim that
真实的契约本身不是一定……
an actual agreement is not necessary to their..
不是要求我们 履行义务的充分条件
is not a sufficient condition of there being an obligation.
现在我想提出 更强有力的，也许是更有争议的论断
I want to now make us stronger, maybe more controversial claim about
关于真实契约的道德局限
the moral limits of actual contracts that
契约，或者主动同意，不仅不是义务存在的 充分条件
a contract or an active consent is not only not sufficient
甚至也不是必要条件
but it’s not even a necessary condition of there being an obligation.
这个观点是：如果 双方存在互惠
And the idea here is that if there is reciprocity,
如果双方存在交换，然后有一方得到了利益
if there is an exchange, then a receipt of benefits,
那么义务就产生了，即使没有双方同意的条款。
there can be an obligation even without an act of consent.
一个很好的例子，18世纪的哲学家
One great example of this involves the 18th century philosopher,
苏格兰道德哲学家 大卫·休谟
the Scottish moral philosopher David Hume.
休谟年轻时写过一本书
When he was young, Hume wrote a book arguing against
驳斥洛克 关于原始社会契约的观点
Locke’s idea of an original social contract.
休谟对他的契约论不屑一顾
Hume heaps scorn on his contractarian idea.
他说，这是哲学的虚构
He said it was a philosophical fiction.
这个社会契约论的想法，是人们所能想象到的
One of the most mysterious and incomprehensible operations
最难以理解和不可思议的
that can possibly be imagined, this idea of the social contract.
多年之后，休谟62岁时的一个亲身经历
Many years later when he was 62 years old, Hume had an experience
检验了他的一个观点，即 他拒绝把同意 作为义务的基础。
that put to the test his rejection of consent as the basis of obligation.
休谟在Edinboro有一座房子
Hume had a house in Edinboro.
他把房子租给了朋友James Boswell ，
Boswell又把房子转租给了别人
He rented to his friend James Boswell who in turn sublet it to a subtenant.
转租者认为，房子需要进行一些维修和翻新
The subtenant decided that the house needed some repairs and a paint job.
他雇了一个承包商做这些工作
He hired a contractor to do the work.
油漆匠完工之后，把帐单寄给了休谟
The painter did the work and sent the bill to Hume.
休谟拒绝付帐单，因为他没有同意。
Hume refused to pay on the grounds that he hadn’t consented.
他没有雇用那个油漆匠。这个案子上了法庭
He hadn’t hired the painter. The case went to court.
承包商说：“休谟是没有同意，
The contractor said, “It’s true, Hume didn’t agree.
但房子需要翻新，而我把它很好的刷了一遍。”
but the house needed the painting and I gave it a very good one.”
休谟认为，这不成理由
Hume thought this was a bad argument.
油漆匠唯一的论据是，这项工作有必要完成
The only argument this painter makes is that the work was necessary to be done
但这不是一个好的答案。因为照这样说，
but this is no good answer because by the same rule,
油漆匠可以走进Edinboro的每一座房子，做他认为应该做的事
this painter may go through every house in Edinboro and do what he thinks proper to be done
而不需要得到房主的同意。
without the landlord’s consent
然后说，这些翻新工作是有必要的，房子会因此变得更好。
and give the same reason that the work was necessary and that the house was the better for it.
在不经同意的情况下，受益者也有义务回报----
休谟不喜欢这一套理论。
So Hume didn’t like the theory that there could be obligation to repay a benefit without consent.
但他的辩护失败了，他只好付钱
But the defense failed and he had to pay.
让我再举一个例子来说明
Let met give you one other example of the distinction
义务中 基于同意的方面 和 基于利益的方面，这两方面的区别
between the consent-based aspect of obligations and the benefit-based aspect
以及在某些时候 它们是怎样同时出现
and how they’re sometimes run together.
这基于我的个人经历
This is based on a personal experience.
几年前，我和几个朋友一起开车 穿越美国
Some years ago, I was driving across the country with some friends
我们到了 印第安纳州的Hammond 的一个偏僻的地方
and we found ourselves in the middle of nowhere in Hammond, Indiana.
我们在休息站停下来，走出了车外
We stopped in a rest stop and got out of the car
我们回去时，车发动不了了
and when we came back our car wouldn’t start.
我们对汽车都不太在行
None of us knew much about cars.
实在不知道该怎么办，直到我们发现停车场里
We didn’t really know what to do until we noticed that in the parking lot
一辆货车开到了我们身边，车身上写着
driving up next to us was a van and on the side it said,
“Sam的流动维修车” 一个男人从车里走出来
“Sam’s mobile repair van.” And out of the van came a man,
估计他就是Sam。他走到我们面前说：“需要帮忙吗？
presumably Sam and he came up to us and he said, “Can I help you?
我的规矩是这样的：我的工作按小时计，每小时50块
Here’s how I work. I work by the hour for $50 an hour.
如果我五分钟就把车修好了，你就该付我50块
If I fix your car in five minutes, you owe me the $50
如果我修了一小时 还是没修好
and if I work on your car for an hour and can’t fix it,
你仍然 付我五十块。”
you’ll still owe me the $50.”
于是我说：“但你把车修好的可能性是多大呢？”
So I said, “But what is the likelihood that you’ll be able to fix the car”
他没有回答
and he didn’t answer.
但他开始往下看，检查转向柱的周围
But he did start looking under the poking around the steering column.
片刻之后，他从转向柱下面钻出来，说：
Short time passed, he emerged from under the steering column and said,
点火系统没什么问题，
“There’s nothing wrong with the ignition system“
但你还有45分钟，要不要我看看引擎盖下面？”
but you still have 45 minutes left. Should I look under the hood?”
我说：“且慢。我没有雇你，我们没有签订协议。”
I said, “Wait a minute. I haven’t hired you. We haven’t made any agreement.”
于是他很生气，说：“你的意思是不是说
And then he became very angry and he said, “Do you mean to say that
如果我刚才在转向柱下面检查，修好了你的车
if I had fixed your car while I was working under the steering column
你也不会付我钱？” 我说：“那是另一码事。”
that you wouldn’t have paid me?” And I said, “That’s a different question.”
我没有给他讨论
基于同意的和基于利益的契约 之间区别
I didn’t go into the distinction between consent based and benefit based applications.
但我想，他的直觉判断是，如果他在刚才检查的过程中
But I think he had the intuition that if he had fixed it
修好了车，我会给他五十块钱的
while he was poking around that I would have owed him the $50.
我同意他的直觉。我是会给钱的。但他由此进行了推论
I shared that intuition. I would have. But he inferred from that.
我想，这就是他愤怒背后的谬论和推理
This was the fallacy and the reasoning that I think lay behind his anger.
他从那里推断 我们有一个心照不宣的协议
He inferred from that fact that therefore implicitly we had an agreement.
但对我来说，这是错误的
But that it seems to me as a mistake.
错在没能认清
It’s a mistake that fails to recognize the distinction between
契约论的两个不同方面之间的区别
these two different aspects of contract arguments.
是的，我同意。我会给他50块钱，如果他那时修好了我的车
Yes, I agree. I would have owed him $50 if he had repaired my car during that time
并非因为我们有什么协议。 我们没有。
not because we had made any agreement. We hadn’t.
那只是因为，如果他修好了我的车，他就给我带来了利益
But simply because if he had fixed my car, he would have conferred on me a benefit for which
为此我应该付他钱，以互惠和公平的名义。
I would have owed him in the name of reciprocity and fairness.
这个例子再次说明，两种不同的论断，
So here’s another example of the distinction between these two different kinds of arguments,
契约的道德力量的两个不同方面 之间的区别。
these two different aspects of the morality of contract.
现在我想知道，有多少人认为我在这件事上是对的？
Now I want to hear how many think I was in the right in that case?
我放心了。有人认为我做错了吗？
That’s reassuring. Is there anyone who thinks I was in the wrong?
有人吗？你这样认为？为什么？请
Anyone? You do? Why? Go ahead.
任何利益都是内在的主观定义，这不是问题所在吗？
Isn’t the problem with this is that any benefit is inherently subjectively defined?
我是说，如果你希望你的车是坏的，而他把它修好了呢？...
I mean what if you wanted your car broken and he had fixed it? I mean...
不，我不希望它坏
No, I didn’t want it broken.
在这个案例里是这样。我是说……
Yeah in this case. I mean...
但谁会希望车坏？谁会呢？
But who would? Who would?
我不知道，某些人吧
I don’t know, someone.
我是说如果休谟，如果那个油漆匠
I mean what if Hume, you know, what if the painter
把他的房子漆成蓝色，但他讨厌蓝色
that painted his house blue but he hated the color blue,
我的意思是，你必须在别人做事之前，对你的利益进行定义。
I mean you have to sort of define what your benefit is before the person does it.
好吧，那么你想由此得出什么结论呢？
Well all right, so what would you conclude for that, though, for the larger issue here,
你是否会总结说，同意是义务存在的必要条件？
would you conclude that therefore consent is a necessary condition of their being an obligation?
是的。- 你会这样。你叫什么？
Absolutely.-You would. What’s your name?
Nate.
Nate.
Nate 说，如果不是这样，我们怎么能知道
Because otherwise how can we know, Nate says,
这是 对等的或公平的利益交换呢？除非我们进行主观评价，
whether there has been an exchange of equivalent or fair benefits unless we have the subjective evaluation
而这种评价可能是因人而异的。
which may vary one person to the next of the situation.
好吧，这个质疑有道理 All right, that’s a fair challenge.
让我再给你们举一个例子，来检验契约的道德性的
Let me put to you one other example in order to test the relation between
两个不同方面 之间的关系
these two aspects of the morality of contract.
假设我结婚了，而在忠于我们的婚姻 20年之后
Suppose I get married and suppose I discover that after 20 years of faithfulness on my part,
我发现，每年在我们出去旅行的时候
every year on our trip across the country
我的妻子都会和另一个男人幽会，
一个在印第安纳的收费公路上开货车的男人
my wife has been seeing another man, a man with a van on the Indiana toll road.
顺便说一下，这部分完全是虚构的
This part is completely made up by the way.
我道德上的激愤 是不是也有两种不同的理由呢？
Wouldn’t I have two different reasons for moral outrage?
一种理由是 我们有协议
One reason could be we had an agreement.
她违背了她的承诺，这一承诺是基于她的同意而作出的
She broke her promise referring to the fact of her consent.
但我道德上的激愤 还可以有第二种理由
But I would also have a second ground for moral outrage
它和契约本身无关。但我这一方一直很忠诚。
having nothing to do with the contract as such but I’ve been so faithful for my part.
我当然应该得到更好的
Surely I deserve better than this.
我的付出 就得到这种回报吗？
Is this what I’m doing in return and so on?
这就表明了 互惠的要素
So that would point to the element of reciprocity.
每一种理由 都有独立的道德力量
Each reason has an independent moral force.
