Strictly speaking, Rawls's argument for the difference principle
在无知的面纱之后 这个原则会被采用
is that it would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.
我想要听听你们关于
Let me hear what you think about
Rawls对于无知的面纱后会采取的
Rawls's claim that these two principles would be chosen
这两种原则的看法
behind the veil of ignorance.
有没有人不同意选择这两种原则?
Is there anyone who disagrees that they would be chosen?
好 可以的话 我们从楼上开始吧
Alright, let's start up in the balcony, if that's alright.
说吧
Go ahead.
你的论证的基础是
OK, your argument depends upon us believing that
我们相信我们会从底层来讨论政治或公平
we would argue in said policy, or justice from a bottom.
因为我们处于弱势
For the disadvantaged.
我没有看到真凭实据
And I just don't see from a proof standpoint,
我们怎么证明了这点
where we've proven that.
为什么不是上层开始?
Why not the top?
- 好的 你叫什么? - 我叫Mike
- Right, and what's your name? - Mike.
Mike 好的 好问题
Mike, alright, good question.
把你自己放在无知的面纱后
Put yourself behind the veil of ignorance.
进入思想的实验
Enter into the thought experiment.
你会选择什么原则？
What principles would you choose?
你怎么想清楚的?
How would you think it through?
我认为 哈佛大学的存在本身
Well, I would say things like, even Harvard's existence
就是一个向上层宣讲的例子
is an example of preaching toward the top.
因为哈佛是学府的最上层
Because Harvard takes the top academics.
我出生的时候 并不知道我会变得多聪明
And I didn't know when I was born how smart I would be.
但是我一直在努力 才达到了这个水平
But I worked my life to get to a place of this caliber.
现在 如果你说哈佛要随机挑选
Now, if you had said Harvard's going to randomly take 1600 people
1600个完全没有资格的人 我们都会说
of absolutely no qualification, we'd all be saying,
"我们的努力真不值得"
"There's not much to work for."
那么你会选择什么原则呢?
And so what principle would you choose?
在这种情况下 我会选择基于功绩的原则
In that situation I would say a merit based one.
虽然我不太清楚这样的原则 但我宁愿选择一个
One where I don't necessarily know, but I would rather have a system that
根据我的努力给予奖励的体系
rewards me based on my efforts.
那么Mike 在无知的面纱后
So you, Mike, behind the veil of ignorance,
你会选择基于功绩
would choose a merit-based system,
根据人们的努力程度给予奖励的体系吗?
where people are rewarded according to their efforts?
好的 很公平 你觉得呢?
Alright, fair enough. What would you say?
请说
Go ahead.
我的问题是 这个基于功绩的论证是否建立在
My question is, if the merit-based argument is based on
人人平等的基础上?
when everyone is at a level of equality?
是在这个基础上 你因你到达的程度受到奖励
Where from that position, you're rewarded to where you get,
还是要忽略那些在你开始受教育
or is it regardless of what advantages you may have
并为未来努力的时候 你可能就具有的优势?
when you began your education to get where you are here?
我认为你问的这个问题是说
I think what the question you're asking is saying that
当我们想要功利主义或政治之类时
if we want to look at, whatever, utilitarianism, policy,
是否想使世界的财富最大化
do you want to maximize world wealth.
我认为功绩体系
And I think a system that rewards merit
是我们大多数人一起确立的
is the one that we've pretty much all established,
是对我们所有人最好的体系
is what is best for all of us.
尽管我们中的某些人是百分之二的少数派
Despite the fact that some of us may be in the second percentile
而某些是百分之九十八的多数派
and some may be in the 98th percentile.
到最后 当最底层也得到提升时
At the end of the day it lifts that lowest based level,
社会氛围会反对关于努力的奖励的差异
a community that rewards effort as opposed to an differences.
但是 我不明白 你是怎样奖励某些人的付出的
But, I don't understand how you're rewarding someone's efforts
那些人 不是你 或许是我
who clearly has had, not you, but maybe myself,
在取得成功的路上 一直都有显著的优势
advantages throughout, to get where I am here.
我的意思是 我不能说其他那些
I mean, I can't say that somebody else
和我一样努力的人
who maybe worked as hard as I did
都会有和我一样的机会
would have had the same opportunity to come
进入这样的大学
to a school like this.
好的 我们来讨论这一点 你叫什么?
Alright, let's look at that point. What's your name?
- 我叫Kate - Kate 你觉得能否
- Kate. -Kate, you suspect that the ability
进入顶尖的大学 在很大程度上取决于
to get into top schools may largely depend
你的家庭是否富足
on coming from an affluent family,
是否有很好的家庭背景
having a favorable family background,
社会 文化 经济等优势?
social, cultural, economic advantages and so on?
我是说经济方面 不过社会和文化方面也有
I mean, economic, but yes, social, cultural.
所有这些优势 的确
All of those advantages, for sure.
有人做过一项调查
Someone did a study, of the 146 selective
在美国 他们选择了146所院校
colleges and universities in the United States.
他们调查这些院校里的
And they looked at the students
学生们 想要调查出
in those colleges and universities
他们的家庭背景 经济背景
to try to find out what their background was, their economic background.
你觉得 其中有多少人
What percentage do you think, come from the bottom quarter
来自收入最底层?
of the income scale?
你知道数据是什么吗?
You know what the figure is?
在这些院校里 只有百分之三的学生
Only three percent of students, at the most selective colleges and universities
出身贫寒
come from poor backgrounds.
有超过百分之七十的学生出身富足
Over 70 percent come from affluent families.
让我们再进一步 试着解决Mike的挑战
Let's go one step further then, and try to address Mike's challenge.
实际上 Rawls有两个论据 而不是一个
Rawls actually has two arguments, not one,
来支持他的公平理论
in favor of his principles of justice.
尤其是支持差异原则
And in particular, of the difference principle.
一个论证是官方论证
One argument is the official argument,
在无知的面纱后人们会选择什么理论
what would be chosen behind the veil of ignorance.
有人挑战了这个论证 他们说
Some people challenge that argument, saying,
"也许人们会想要冒险
"Maybe people would want to take their chances.
也许人们在无知的面纱后都会成为赌徒
Maybe people would be gamblers behind the veil of ignorance,
希望他们最后可以到达顶层"
hoping that they would wind up on top."
这是对于Rawls的一个挑战
That's one challenge that has been put to Rawls.
但是从原始状态来支持这个论证的
But backing up the argument from the original position
是第二个论据
is the second argument.
即直接道德论据
And that is the straightforwardly moral argument.
它是这样说的
And it goes like this,
它说
it says,
收入 财富和机会的分配
the distribution of income and wealth and opportunities
不应该基于那些
should not be based on factors
人们不信任的因素
for which people can claim no credit.
不应该基于那些从道德层面看来 专制的因素
It shouldn't be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.
通过对比不同的公平理论 Rawls举例说明了这点
Rawls illustrates this by considering several rival theories of justice.
他从现在大多数人
He begins with the theory of justice
都会拒绝的公平理论开始说起
that most everyone these days would reject.
封建贵族统治
A feudal aristocracy.
封建贵族统治下的生活分配有什么问题?
What's wrong with the allocation of life prospects in a feudal aristocracy?
Rawls说 这种分配明显的错误
Rawls says, well the thing that's obviously wrong about it is
就是人们的生活前景
that people's life prospects are determined
取决于他们的出身
by the accident of birth.
你出生在贵族还是农奴之家?
Are you born to a noble family or to a family of peasants and serfs?
就这样了 你不能升职
And that's it. You can't rise.
你不能改变你的未来
It's not your doing where you wind up
不能去把握机会
or what opportunities you have.
但是从道德层面看 这是专制的
But that's arbitrary from a moral point of view.
因此 在历史过程中
And so that objection to feudal aristocracy
对于封建贵族统治的抵制 使得人们认为
leads, and historically has lead, people to say,
成功应该接纳人才
careers should be open to talents.
应该有平等的机会
There should be formal equality of opportunity
这样的机会与出身无关
regardless of the accident of birth.
每个人都可以自由地去奋斗 去工作
Every person should be free to strive, to work,
去应聘任何职位
to apply for any job in the society.
所以 如果你不仅提供工作 让人们来应聘
And then, if you open up jobs, and you allow people to apply,
而且让他们在各自的岗位上各尽所能 那么其结果就是公平的
and to work as hard as they can, then the results are just.
这有点类似于我们前几周讨论的
So it's more or less the libertarian system that we've discussed
自由主义制度
in earlier weeks.
Rawls对此有何看法呢?
What does Rawls think about this?
他认为这是一次进步
He says it's an improvement.
之所以说是一次进步 是因为它没有被用于
It's an improvement because it doesn't take as fixed
去弥补天生的造化
the accident of birth.
但即使是就平等主义的形式
But even with formal equality of opportunity
自由主义观念并没有于扩展于此
the libertarian conception doesn't extend that,
并未有深入地探讨这个问题
doesn't extend its insight far enough.
因为如果让每个人都参加赛跑
Because if you let everybody run the race,
任何人都可以进入跑道 但是某些人
everybody can enter the race, but some people start
却可以从不同的起点开始 那么比赛就不会公平
at different starting points, that race isn't going to be fair.
直观来说 他认为这个制度明显的不公平性
Intuitively, he says, the most obvious injustice of this system
在于它允许分配 受到来源于专断的
is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced
