I own myself in the sense that
自己是否拥有自我所有权
I have a privileged claim
取决于自己是否对天赋才能所带来的成功
on the benefits that come from the exercise of my talents
有优先权
in a market economy.
然后Rawls说 经过再三考虑 我们没有
And Rawls says, on reflection, we don't.
我们可以捍卫权利
We can defend rights.
我们可以尊重个性
We can respect the individual.
我们可以维护尊严
We can uphold human dignity.
即使在没有自我所有权的条件下
Without embracing the idea of self-possession.
实际上 这就是他对自由主义质疑的回答
That, in effect, is his reply to the libertarian.
现在 我将转向讨论他针对
I want to turn now, to his reply to
精英主义拥护者提出的质疑的回答
the defender of a meritocratic conception.
他认为努力是道德缺失的根源
Who invokes effort as the basis of moral desert.
人们认为 只要是以努力工作来提高自己才能的人
People who work hard to develop their talents
就应该得到用自己的才能去实现的利益
deserve the benefits that come from the exercise of their talents.
其实 我们已经知道了Rawls对这个问题的
Well, we've already seen the beginning of Rawls's answer
最初一部分回答
to that question.
这要回到我们在谈到出生顺序时而做的民意测验
And it goes back to that poll we took about birth order.
他的第一个解释是
His first answer is
即使是职业道德 即使是奋斗精神
even the work ethic, even the willingness to strive conscientiously,
都依靠于不同种类的家庭环境
depends on all sorts of family circumstances and
和社会因素以及文化因素的偶然性 我们不能妄自称功
social and cultural contingencies for which we can claim no credit.
你们 你们中的大多数或我们中的大多数
You can't claim credit for the fact that you,
都不能妄自把最先出生这一结果 归功于自己
most of you, most of us, happen to be first in birth order.
而从一些复杂的哲学观点和社会原因来看
And that for some complex psychological and social reasons
那好像有很多方面的因素 比如奋斗
that seems to be associated with striving,
成功 努力
with achieving, with effort.
这是他的回答之一
That's one answer.
还有一个回答
There's a second answer.
那些把希望寄托于努力的人
Those of you who invoke effort,
实际上不是真的认为努力与道德缺失有关系
you don't really believe that moral desert attaches to effort.
以两名建筑工人为例
Take two construction workers.
其中一位很强壮 不费吹灰之力
One is strong and can raise four walls in an hour
就能筑高四堵围墙
without even breaking a sweat.
另外一个建筑工人却又矮又瘦
And another construction worker is small and scrawny.
得花三天的时间
And has to spend three days
才能完成同样的任务
to do the same amount of work.
但没有一个精英制度的拥护者会真的考虑到
No defender of meritocracy is going to look at the effort
这名可怜的建筑工人所做的努力 并为他辩护说
of that weak an scrawny construction worker and say
"因此他应该得到更多"
"Therefore he deserves to make more".
所以这并不是真的努力
So it isn't really effort.
这是对精英制度主张的
This is the second reply
第二个辩驳
to the meritocratic claim.
努力 并不是真正的
It isn't really effort
精英制度的拥护者们所坚信的
that the defender of meritocracy believes is the moral basis
分配份额的道德基础
of distributive shares.
真正的基础是贡献
It's contribution.
你贡献了多少?
How much do you contribute?
但是贡献又把我们带回了关于
But contribution takes us right back to
自然分配的天赋和才能的问题上 不仅仅是努力
our natural talents and abilities. Not just effort.
并且 我们最初能够拥有那些天赋和才能
And it's not our doing, how we came into the possession
也不是我们的功劳
of those talents in the first place.
好吧 假设你们接受了以下这些说法
Alright, suppose you accepted these arguments,
从精英理念的立场来说 努力并不代表一切
that effort isn't everything, that contribution matters,
贡献才起着决定性作用
from the standpoint of the meritocratic conception.
努力甚至不是我们所争取的
That effort, even, isn't our own doing.
那是否意味着 反对是成立的
Does that mean, the objection continues,
也就是说 根据Rawls的说法
does that mean that according to Rawls,
道德缺失与分配公平 毫无关系吗?
moral desert has nothing to do with distributive justice?
是的
Well, yes.
追求分配公平并不是道德缺失
Distributive justice is not about moral desert.
关于这点 Rawls向我们介绍了一种
Now, here, Rawls introduces an important
既重要又狡猾的区分方法
and a tricky distinction.
用以区别道德应得
It's between moral desert, on the one hand,
与合法的期望的具体含义
and entitlements to legitimate expectations, on the other.
道德应得与合法的期望究竟有何区别?
What is the difference between moral deserts and entitlements?
让我们来看看两种不同的游戏
Consider two different games.
一个关于机会 一个关于技巧
A game of chance and a game of skill.
以关于纯粹的机会的游戏为例
Take a game of pure chance.
假如 我买了马萨诸塞州的彩票
Say, I play the Massachusetts state lottery.
并且中奖了
And my number comes up.
我理应得到我的奖金
I'm entitled to my winnings.
但即使我应该得到奖金
But even though I'm entitled to my winnings,
也没什么意义 因为这只不过是靠运气
there's no sense in which, because it's just a game of luck,
更不可能说 我道德上应该得到这笔奖金
no sense in which, I morally deserve to win in the first place.
这就是合法的预期
That's an entitlement.
现在让我们来看看另一种与彩票完全不同的游戏
Now contrast the lottery with a different kind of game.
竞技比赛
A game of skill.
现在 试想波士顿红袜队(棒球队名)赢了年度冠军联赛
Now, imagine the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series.
他们既然赢了 当然有资格得到奖杯
When they win, they're entitled to the trophy.
但当论及竞技比赛时 有一个问题却常被质疑
But it can be always asked of a game of skill
他们应该获胜吗?
did they deserve to win?
在原则上 在相同的比赛规则
It's always possible, in principle,
人们是否有权利获胜
to distinguish what someone's entitled to,
并且这胜利
under the rules,
是否应得的 这些都是能区别出来的
and whether they deserve to win in the first place.
这就是未动标准 即 "道德缺失"
That's an antecedent standard. Moral desert.
所以 Rawls认为 尽管分配公平是合法预期
Now, Rawls says distributive justice is not a matter of
但它在其本质上
moral desert though it is a matter of
并不是"合法期望" 的范畴
entitlements to legitimate expectations.
他对此做了如下解释
Here's where he explains it.
"一个公平的体系 回答了人们的权利问题
"A just scheme answers to what men are entitles to.
满足了他们建立在社会制度之上的
It satisfies their legitimate expectations as founded upon
合法期望
social institutions.
但是他们有权利得到的东西
But what they are entitled to is not proportional to
与他们的内在价值并不相称"
nor dependent upon their intrinsic worth."
"调节社会基本结构和规定个人义务和责任的原则
"The principles of justice that regulate the basic structure
并不涉及道德应得 分配的份额
do not mention moral desert and there is no tendency
也不倾向于要与它相称"
for distributive shares to correspond to it."
Rawls为什么做出了这种区分?
Why does make this distinction?
什么才是道德上的危机?
What, morally, is at stake?
其中一个道德危机就是我们已经讨论过的
One thing morally at stake is the whole question of effort
关于努力的问题
that we've already discussed.
但是还有第二种是偶然事件 另外一种
But there's a second contingency, a second source of
道德的武断性 它超越了
moral arbitrariness that goes beyond
我们之前所谈到的问题 即我们是否应该认为
the question of whether it's to my credit
得到自然赋予的才能是理所当然的
that I have the talents that enable me to get ahead.
这只是一种偶然性而已
And that has to do with the contingency
我只是碰巧生活在推崇我这种天赋的
that I live in an society that happens to prize
社会中
my talents.
就好像David Letterman
The fact that David Letterman
他只是碰巧生活在一个把很多钱和精力
lives in a society that puts a great premium,
都投放在某种让人傻笑的节目上的社会
puts a great value, on a certain type of smirky joke,
他无法选择
that's not his doing.
他只是很幸运 因为他碰巧生活在这样一个社会
He's lucky that he happens to live in such a society.
这是第二种偶然性
But this is a second contingency.
我们不能够选择所生活的环境
This isn't something that we can claim credit for.
即使我认为我的天赋和我的努力
Even if I had sole, unproblematic, claim
是应得的 毋庸置疑的
to my talents and to my effort.
仍然有一个问题需要我去解答
It would still be the case, that the benefits I get
即我依靠自己的天赋所获的利益
from exercising those talents,
是建立在道德的武断性上的
depend on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.
那我的天赋将会从市场经济中得到什么呢
What my talents will reap in a market economy.
它将基于什么呢?
What does that depend on?
这个社会的人们又碰巧偏好些什么呢
What other people happen to want or like in this society.
这取决于供求原则
It depends on the law of supply and demand.
不是我能够决定的
That's not my doing.
这当然就不是道德应得的基本原则
It's certainly not the basis for moral desert.
而贡献 也取决于
What counts as contributing
这个社会所推崇的种种素质
depends on the qualities that this or that society happens to prize.
在很大程度上 我们中的大多数人
Most of us are fortunate to possess, in large measure,
都很幸运地拥有
for whatever reason,
这个社会碰巧推崇的种种素质
the qualities that our society happens to prize.
这些素质让我们可以提供
The qualities that enable us to provide
