这是总体的观点。你会了解到这一点，
That’s the general point and you can see this
如果你想像 把这个婚姻案例稍微改一下
if you imagine a slight variation on the marriage case.
假设我们没有结婚20年
Suppose we haven’t been married for 20 years.
假设我们刚刚结婚，背叛就发生了
Suppose we were just married and that the betrayal occurred
在我们去印第安纳州的Hammond 度蜜月的途中
on the way to our honeymoon in Hammond, Indiana.
这时契约已经达成，
After the contract has been made,
但我这一方还没有任何表现，我是指对于契约的作为。
but before there is any history of performance on my part, performance of the contract I mean,
我仍然站在Julian一边。我会说：
I would still with Julian, I'd be able to say
但你承诺了，你承诺了
but you promised, you promised.
这就把 同意 这一要素 单独抽离出来
That would isolate the pure element of consent,
虽然还没有产生利益，但这无关紧要。你明白我的意思。
Right？Where there were no benefits, never mind. You get the idea.
这就是主要观点。真实契约的道德力量
Here’s the main idea, actual contracts have their moral force
借助于两个不同的理念：自律和互惠
in virtue of two distinguishable ideals: autonomy and reciprocity,
但在现实生活中，每个真实契约都可能不符合这两点
but in real life every actual contract may fall short,
可能一开始 就没有实现这两点，没能给契约 赋予道德力量
may fail to realize the ideals that give contracts their moral force in the first place.
自律的理念可能没有实现，
The ideal of autonomy may not be realized
因为 各方谈判的势力 可能是不均衡的
because there may be a difference in the bargaining power of the parties.
互惠的理念可能没有实现，
The ideal of reciprocity may not be realized
因为 各方的知识上，可能存在差距。
because there may be a difference of knowledge between the parties
因此，他们可能错误地判断，什么是真正具有相等价值的。
and so they may misidentify what really counts as having equivalent value.
现在，假如你们 想象一个契约
Now suppose you were to imagine a contract
它自律和互惠的理念 不是受制于外界的偶然因素
where the ideals of autonomy and of reciprocity were not subject to contingency
而是确保能够实现的。这将会是什么样的契约？
but were guaranteed to be realized, what kind of contract would that have to be?
想象一种契约，它的各方在权力和知识上是平等的，
Imagine a contract among parties who were equal in power and knowledge
而不是不等的，他们的地位是相同的，而非不同的
rather than unequal who are identically situated rather than differently situated.
这就是Rawls 的正义观念 背后的理论：
That is the idea behind Rawls’ claim that
思考正义的方法就是，站在一个假想契约的角度
the way to think about justice is from the standpoint of a hypothetical contract,
站在“无知的面纱” 的背后 创造了平等的条件
behind a veil of ignorance that creates the condition of equality
通过排除，或者使我们暂时忘记，权力和知识的差距，
by ruling out or enabling us to forget for the moment the differences in power and knowledge
这些差距在大多数情况下，会导致不公平的结果。
that could even in principle lead to unfair results.
这就是为什么对康德和Rawls 来说
This is why for Kant and for Rawls,
一个各方平等的假想契约 是思考正义原则的 唯一途径
a hypothetical contract among equals is the only way to think about principles of justice.
这些原则是什么？这是我们下次要讨论的问题
What will those principles be? That’s the question we’ll turn to next time.
欢迎在本字幕的基础上，再次修改。 为大家提供更好的翻译版本。
中英文双语字幕下载：射手网 shooter.cn
英文字幕：
http://forum-network.org
xiaolai
中文字幕：
muffin
thucydides
crimethink
校对：
何_何
欢迎接着收看
耶鲁心理学入门课程
www.COPSY.org
?1
--==圣城家园SCG字幕组bbs.cnscg.com==--
仅供翻译交流使用, 禁止用于商业用途
--==圣城家园SCG字幕组bbs.cnscg.com==--
翻译: 吾谁 苏菲 校对: 桃茜茜
协调: 飞天宇 MAXの依依
怎样才是公平的开始
What's a Fair Start?
今天 我们来讨论
Today, we turn
分配公平的问题
to the question of distributive justice.
财富 权力和机会方面的收入
How should income in wealth and power
应该怎样分配?
and opportunities be distributed?
根据怎样的原则分配呢?
According to what principles?
John Rawls给出了详尽的答案
John Rawls offers a detailed answer to that question.
而我们今天将要检验和评估
And we're going to examine and assess his answer
他对这个问题的答案
to that question, today.
上一次 我们也是亲自检验过
We put ourselves in a position to do so last time.
方法是试着去弄清为什么
By trying to make sense of why he thinks
他认为公正的原则
that principles of justice
主要源于假设合同
are best derived from a hypothetical contract.
而真正重要的是这份假设合同
And what matters is that the hypothetical contract
需要在原有的平等基础上实施
be carried out in an original position of equality,
而其背后 正是Rawls所说的 "无知的面纱"
behind, what Rawls calls, the veil of ignorance.
这些明白了吗?
So that much is clear?
好 现在让我们来看Rawls所说的
Alright, then let's turn to the principles
在"无知的面纱"背后
that Rawls says would be chosen
会选择哪些哪则
behind the veil of ignorance.
首先 他考虑过一些主要的替代原则
First, he considered some of the major alternatives.
比如说功利主义?
What about utilitarianism?
在原始状态 人们会不会选择
Would the people in the original position
用功利主义的原则
choose to govern their collective lives
即追求最大多数人的最大快乐 来支配他们的集体生活?
utilitarian principles, the greatest good for the greatest number?
不 他们不会的 Rawls认为
No, they wouldn't, Rawls says.
理由就是
And the reason is,
在无知的面纱背后 所有人都知道
that behind the veil of ignorance, everyone knows
一旦面纱被揭开 现实生活将开始
that once the veil goes up, and real life begins,
我们每个人都渴望尊严 希望获得尊重
we will each want to be respected with dignity.
即使是我们处于少数派的一员
Even if we turn out to be a member of a minority,
我们也不想受到压迫
we don't want to be oppressed.
因此我们会同意
And so we would agree
去反对功利主义 取而代之的 是采取我们的
to reject utilitarianism, and instead to adopt
第一原则 即基本自由原则
as our first principle, equal basic liberties.
人们有言论自由
Fundamental rights to freedom of speech,
集会自由 宗教自由
freedom of assembly, religious liberty,
信仰自由等基本权利
freedom of conscience and the like.
我们不会愿意冒险
We wouldn't want to take the chance
担心我们会成为那些
that we would wind up
被压迫或受轻视的少数派
as members of an oppressed or a despised minority
被多数派所欺压
with the majority tyrannizing over us.
因此Rawls说 人们不会接受功利主义
And so Rawls says utilitarianism would be rejected.
"功利主义导致错误频发" Rawls写道
"Utilitarianism makes the mistake", Rawls writes,
"它使人忘记 或至少是忽视
"of forgetting, or at least not taking seriously,
人与人之间是存在着差异的"
the distinction between persons."
在无知的面纱背后的原始状态
And in the original position behind the veil of ignorance,
我们会承认差别 拒绝功利主义
we would recognize that and reject utilitarianism.
我们不会用基本权利和自由
We wouldn't trade off our fundamental rights and liberties
来换取经济优势
for any economic advantages.
这是第一原则
That's the first principle.
第二原则 与社会和经济的不平等有关
Second principle has to do with social and economic inequalities.
我们赞成什么?
What would we agree to?
记着 我们不知道我们最终
Remember, we don't know whether we're going to
是贫是富
wind up being rich or poor.
健康与否
Healthy or unhealthy.
我们不知道我们会来自怎样的家庭
We don't know what kind of family we're going to come from.
我们是富二代呢
Whether we're going to inherit millions
还是来自贫困家庭
or whether we will come from an impoverished family.
因此 也许乍一想
So we might, at first thought,
我们会说 "我们要求收入和财富的平等分配"
say, "Well, let's require an equal distribution of income and wealth."
只是为了以防万一
Just to be on the safe side.
但是 我们会意识到
But then we would realize,
我们可以做得更好
that we could do better than that.
就算我们很不走运 出身于社会底层
Even if we're unlucky and wind up at the bottom.
但如果我们同意采取有条件的平等原则 我们会做得更好
We could do better if we agree to a qualified principle of equality.
Rawls把它称为 "差异原则"
Rawls calls it "the Difference Principle."
这个原则认为 只有在社会与经济不平等这一条件
A principle that says, only those social and economic
能够为最贫困最底层的人带来利益之时
inequalities will be permitted that work to the benefit
才许可这一条件
of the least well off.
因此我们不会拒绝所有收入和财富的不平等
So we wouldn't reject all inequality of income and wealth.
我们会允许一些
We would allow some.
但是标准是
But the test would be,
他们是否服务于所有人的利益
do they work to the benefit of everyone including those,
或正如这个原则所强调的
or as he specifies, the principle,
尤其是最底层人民的利益
especially those at the bottom.
在无知的面纱后 只有这样的不平等可以被接受
Only those inequalities would be accepted behind the veil of ignorance.
因此Rawls认为 只有那些有利于贫困人民的不平等
And so Rawls argues, only those inequalities that work to the benefit
才能称之为公平
of the least well off, are just.
我们讲过迈克尔·乔丹
We talked about the examples of
每年赚3100百万美元的例子
Michael Jordan making 31 million dollars a year,
也讲过比尔·盖茨拥有数百亿美元财富的例子
of Bill Gates having a fortune in the tens of billions.
在差异原则下 这样的不平等会被允许吗?
Would those inequalities be permitted under the difference principle?
除非当这些收入差异是某个系统的一部分
Only if they were part of a system, those wage differentials,
而这个系统确实在为最底层人民服务时 才会被允许
that actually work to the advantage of least well off.
那么 这个系统会是什么?
Well, what would that system be?
也许在实际情况下
Maybe it turns out that as a practical matter
你需要提供动力
you have to provide incentives
才能把需要的人才吸引到某些工作岗位
to attract the right people to certain jobs.
而当你这样做了 在这些岗位上有这些人
And when you do, having those people in those jobs
确实会帮助底层人民
will actually help those at the bottom.
严格来讲 Rawls关于差异原则的论据是
