社会之所需
what society wants.
在资本主义社会里 它可以用作企业前进的动力
In a capitalist society it helps to have entrepreneurial drive.
在官僚主义社会 它可以帮助人们更好更顺利地
In bureaucratic society it helps to get on easily and smoothly
与上级相处
with superiors.
在民主党派众多的民主社会
In a mass democratic society
它可以帮助各党派人士在电视里
it helps to look good on television
以简短精炼的讲话击败对手
and to speak in short, superficial sound bites.
在官司成风的社会
In a litigious society,
它可以让你顺利进入法律学校 并且在法学入学考试中取得好成绩
it helps to go to law school and have the talents to do well on LSATs.
但是这些都不是我们能够决定的
But none of this is our doing.
设想 如果我们和我们的才能
Suppose that we, with our talents,
不是出生在这个社会 而是出生在一个科技发达
inhabited not our society, technologically advanced,
官司成风的狩猎社会
highly litigious, but a hunting society,
或者勇士社会
or a warrior society.
我们的才能将会遭遇什么后果?
What would become of our talents then?
它们不会给我们太多帮助
They wouldn't get us very far.
毫无疑问我们需要培养其它的才能
No doubt some of us would develop others.
但是我们的价值会减少吗?
But would we be less worthy?
我们的道德价值会减少吗?
Would we be less virtuous?
如果我们是住在那样一个社会 而不是现在的社会
Would we be less meritorious if we lived in that kind of society
我们就不值得称赞了吗
rather than in ours.
Rawls的回答是 不
Rawls's answer is, no.
我们也许会少挣一些钱
We might make less money and properly so.
但是 当我们得到的东西减少时
But while we would be entitled to less,
我们的价值却不会随之减少
we would be no less worthy.
跟我们现在的情况相比 不会有变化
No less deserving than we are now.
重点就在这里
And here's the point.
这样的例子同样适用于这个社会中的其他人
The same could be said of those in our society
他们拥有的社会地位碰巧较低
who happen to hold less prestigious positions,
也拥有很少这个社会碰巧推崇
who happen to have fewer of the talents that our society
天赋与才能
happens to reward.
这就是道德应得和合法期望之间
So here's the moral import of the distinction between
在道德层面上的区别
moral desert and entitlements to legitimate expectations.
我们有权通过自己的努力
We are entitled to the benefits
在比赛制定的规则下
that the rules of the game promise
利用我们的天赋和才能获得成功
for the exercise of our talents.
但是 如果我们认为自己本来就应该拥有
But it's a mistake and a conceit to suppose
那些碰巧被这个社会所推崇的素质的话
that we deserve, in the first place,
这就是一个错误而自负的想法
a society that values the qualities we happen to have in abundance.
我们一直在这里讨论收入和财富的问题
Now we've been talking here about income and wealth,
那么有关机会和荣誉的问题呢?
what about opportunities and honors?
各所名校的招生名额分配问题又该如何解释呢?
What about the distribution of access of seats in elite colleges and universities?
没错
It's true,
你们所有人
all of you
你们中的大多数人最先出生 努力学习 不懈奋斗
most of you first born, worked hard, strived,
提高你们的才能 才能来到这里
developed your talents, to get here.
但Rawls问 实际上
But Rawls asks, in effect,
当你宣称你应该得到那些利益
what is the moral status of your claim
是因为你拥有别人没有的机会时
to the benefits that attach
你的道德地位又在哪里呢?
to the opportunities that you have?
难道大学的招生名额
Are seats in colleges and universities
是为那些应该得到机会的人
a matter, a kind of reward, an honor
准备的一种嘉奖或荣誉
for those who deserve them,
因为他们一直在努力学习吗?
because they've worked so hard?
或者 这些名额 这些机会和荣誉
Or, are those seats, those opportunities and honors
以及合法期望
entitlements to legitimate expectations
都依赖于他们对我们自身价值的肯定
that depend for their justification
我们希望学校这么做
on those of us who enjoy them
是因为这是一种很好的
doing so in a way that works to the benefit
能够帮助底层人民的方式吗?
of those at the bottom of society?
这就是Rawls的差异原则所提出的问题
That's the question that Rawls's difference principle poses.
这个问题能够放在
It's a question that can be asked
迈克尔·乔丹和David Letterman以及法官朱蒂
of the earnings of Michael Jordan and David Letterman
的薪酬问题上
and Judge Judy.
同样也能放在
But it's also a question that can be asked
名校的招生名额
of opportunities to go to
这一问题上
the top colleges and universities.
这个辩题我们将在下节课
And that's a debate that comes out
讨论平权问题的时候加以阐述
when we turn to the question of affirmative action next time.
--==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
翻译: 吾谁 苏菲 校对: 桃茜茜
协调: 飞天宇 MAXの依依
英文字幕：http://forum-network.org xiaolai
COPSY 让中国 了解心理
www.COPSY.org?1
关于平权运动的争论
Arguing Affirmative Action
上节课我们讨论了Rawls 描述的
Last time,we were discussing the distinction, that Rawls draws
两种不同类型主张的区别
between two different types of claims.
其一：道义应得（moral desert）
Claims of moral deserton the one hand,
其二：合法期望 （legitimate expectations ）
and of entitlement to legitimate expectations on the other.
Rawls 指出 认为分配正义 就是关于道义应得 的问题
Rawls argued that it's a mistake to think that distributive justice is a matter of moral desert,
就是根据人们的品行 进行奖赏，这样想是错误的。
a matter of rewarding people according to their virtue.
今天，我们将继续探讨 道义应得
Today we're going to explore that question of moral desert
以及它与分配正义的关系
and its relation to distributive justice.
它与收入丰足无关
Not in connection with incoming wealth,
而是与机会有关
but in its connection with opportunities.
与雇佣决策 和录用标准 有关
With hiring decisions and admission standards.
因此，我们来转到“平权行动” 这个案例
（平权行动，就是给少数族裔和女性提供教育、就业方面的一点特殊照顾）
And so we turn to the case, of affirmative action.
你们读过Cheryl Hopwood的案例
You read about the case of Cheryl Hopwood.
她申请了 得克萨斯州立大学的法学院
She applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School.
Cheryl Hopwood 通过勤工俭学读完高中
Cheryl Hopwood had worked her way through high school,
她并非来自富裕的家庭
she didn't come from an affluent family,
她让自己读完了社区学院
she put herself through community college,
以及 加州州立大学 萨克拉门托分校
and California State University at Sacramento.
她取得了3.8分的平均成绩
She achieved a 3.8 grade point average there,
后来 她移居 得克萨斯，成为那里的居民
later moved to Texas, became a resident,
参加了法学院的录取考试
took the law school admissions test,
取得了优良的成绩
did pretty well on that,
她申请了 德州大学的法学院
and she applied to the University of Texas Law School.
但被拒绝了
She was turned down.
她被拒绝的时候，正值德州大学 实行
She was turned down at a time when the University of Texas,
“平权行动” 的录取政策时期
was using an affirmative action admissions policy.
这项政策着重考虑
A policy that took into account,
肤色 和 种族背景
race and ethnic background.
德州大学 表示“得克萨斯40%的人口
The University of Texas said,"40 percent of the population of Texas
由 非裔美国人 和 墨西哥裔美国人 组成”
is made up of African Americans and Mexican Americans.“
作为一所法学院，我们有必要拥有 多样性的学生群体
It's important that we, as a law school, have a diverse student body.
因此，我们将要考虑的
And so we are going to take into account,
不只有中学成绩 和 考试得分（例如SAT）
not only grades and test scores,
而且还要包括 人口学的组成，如 肤色和种族
but also the demographic make up of our class including, its race and ethnic profile."
Hopwood 要控诉的，正是这个结果
The result, and this is what Hopwood complained about,
这个政策的结果是
the result of that policy,
一些申请 德州大学法学院的人
is that some applicants to the University of Texas Law School,
比她学术指数（包括中学成绩和考试得分） 都低的申请人
with a lower academic index, which includes grades and test scores,
却得到了录取
than hers, were admitted.
而她却被拒绝了
And she was turned down.
她控诉道，“我被拒绝的理由 仅仅因为我是白人”
She said, she argued, "I'm just beingturned down because I'm white.
如果我不是白人，如果我是少数民族
If I weren't, if I were a member of a minority group,
凭我的成绩和考分，我会被录取的”
with my grades and test scoresI would had been admitted."
而且，根据在法庭中出示的 统计数据
And the statistics, the admissions statistics that came out in the trial,
就在那一年，非裔美国人 和 墨西哥裔美国人
confirmed that African American and Mexican American applicants that year,
以 和她一样的成绩和考分 获得了录取
who had, her grades and test scores,were admitted.
官司一直打到 联邦法院
It went to Federal Court.
现在，先不考虑 法律
Now, put aside the law,
让我们从 公正和道德的角度 来思考
let's consider it from the standpoint of justice and morality.
这件事情到底公不公平？
Is it fair, or it unfair?
Cheryl Hopwood 是否有论据？
Does Cheryl Hopwood have a case?
她的控诉 合法吗？
A legitimate complaint?
法学院的录取政策 是否侵犯了她的权利？
Were her rights violated, by the admissions policy of the law school?
有多少人，有多少人愿意 支持法学院的做法？
How many say, how many would rule for the law school,
说 录取政策 应该要考虑肤色和人种因素，是公正的？
and say that it was just to consider race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions?
有多少人愿意支持Cheryl Hopwood？
How many would rule for Cheryl Hopwood
认为“她的权利被侵犯了”？
and say "her rights were violated?"
那么，我们现在分成了 两个势均力敌的阵营
So here we have a pretty even split.
现在 我想听听支持 Cheryl Hopwood 的意见。
Alright, now I want to hear from a defender of Cheryl Hopwood. Yes?
