这就是 法庭所持的中立意见。
So this is the liberal neutral strand in the court opinion,
自愿主义的立场，即尊重人们的
voluntarist strand, the one that emphasizes
自主、选择和同意的权利。
autonomy, choice, consent.
但是法庭似乎认识到，自由主义的、中立的观点，
But the court seemed to realize that the liberal case, the neutral case,
在同性婚姻合法化 这个案件上，并没有获得成功。
for recognizing same sex marriage doesn't succeed,
并没有完全实现 个人的自主和自由选择，
doesn't get you all the way to that position,
因为如果这只是 关于尊重个人自主权的事情，
because if it were only a matter of respect for individual autonomy,
如果政府真的 对人们自愿建立的亲密关系
if government were truly neutral on the moral worth
持中立态度的话，
of voluntary intimate relationships,
那么就应该采取 另外一种政策。
then it should adopt a different policy.
也就是 政府和国家应该
Which is to remove government and the state all together
完全不插手这件事，无需去承认 某些特定的婚姻
from according recognition to certain associations,
而不承认 另外的一些婚姻
certain kinds of unions, rather than others.
如果政府 真的是中立的话，
If government really must be neutral,
那么 它的立场应该是
then the consistent position is what we here
我们先前讨论过的 第三种立场，
have been describing as the third position,
即 Michael Kinsley在文章中所支持的立场。
the one defended in the article by Michael Kinsley,
他认为应该 废除婚姻制度，
who argues for the abolition of marriage,
至少是不应成为 一种国家职能。
at least as a state function.
也许，“政教分离” 是个更好的表达。
Perhaps a better term for this is the disestablishment of religion.
这是Kinsley的建议。
This is Kinsley's proposal.
他指出，反对同性婚姻的理由就是
He points out that the reason for the opposition to same sex marriage
这超出了 中立立场，
is that it would go beyond neutral toleration
为了 同性婚姻 盖上认可的公章。
and give same sex marriage a government stamp of approval.
这就是争议的核心。
That's at the heart of the dispute.
在亚里斯多德看来，这里的问题在于
In Aristotle's terms, at issue here
职位和荣誉应该怎样 合理分配，
is the proper distribution of offices and honors,
它是关乎 社会认可的事情。
a matter of social recognition.
同性婚姻被认可 不能
Same sex marriage can't be justified
单单建立在 中立、反歧视 或自主权 这些基础之上，
on the basis of liberal neutrality or non-discrimination or autonomy rights alone
因为 这个公共议题的关键是
because the question at stake in the public debate
同性婚姻 有没有道德价值
is whether same sex unions have moral worth,
同性婚姻 是否应 得到尊重和认可，
whether they're worthy of honor and recognition,
它们是否符合 婚姻制度的目标。
and whether they fit the purpose of the social institution of marriage.
所以Kinsley说，你想要中立？
So Kinsley says, you want to be neutral?
如果想，就让教堂和其他宗教社团 来提供结婚仪式。
Then, let churches and other religous institutions offer marriage ceremonies.
如果 百货公司或者赌场 也想介入这行，也可以让它们去做。
Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want to.
这就是Kinsley的观点。
This is Kinsley.
让两口子 自由选择 他们庆祝结合的仪式
Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose
让他们决定 什么时候结婚。
and consider themselves married whenever they want.
如果 三个人想要结婚，
And if three people want to get married,
或者 如果一个人 想要跟自己结婚，
or if one person wants to marry himself or herself,
而其他人 想要为他们举行庆典，
and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony for them
宣布他们结婚，都随他们去做。
and declare them married, let them.
如果你和你的政府 都没有牵连进去，你还操心什么？
If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?
这就是Kinsley的意见。
This is Kinsley.
但 这不是马萨诸塞州最高法院
But this is not the position that the Supreme Judicial Court
想要的立场。
of Massachusetts wanted.
他们并没有要求 废除婚姻制度，或者政教分离。
They didn't call for the abolition or for the disestablishment of marriage.
法院并没有 质疑政府
The court did not question government's role in conferring
承认某些结合形式，而不承认其他婚姻形式的角色
social recognition on some intimate associations rather than others.
相反，
To the contrary,
法庭对 婚姻制度赞颂有加，说
the court waxes eloquent about marriage as,
“（婚姻）是我们社会最赞赏、最珍视的制度。”
"one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
然后他们把婚姻的定义 扩大化
And then it goes on to expand the definition of marriage
把同性伴侣 也包括了进去。
to include partners of the same sex.
他们这样的做法，承认了
And in doing so it acknowledges
婚姻不仅仅是一个
that marriage is more than a matter
包容 每个人的选择的问题。
of tolerating choices that individuals make.
它也是一个关于 社会承认的问题。
It's also a matter of social recognition and honor.
Marshall法官写道，
As Justice Marshall wrote.
在每一桩民事婚姻中 都有三个参与者：
In a real sense there are three partners to every civil marriage:
配偶双方，以及 对此加以承认的国家。
two willing spouses and an approving state.
婚姻既是一个 个人的深度承诺，
Marriage is at once a deeply personal cimmitment,
也是公众对 理想的、
but also a highly public celebration of the ideals of
伴侣关系、亲密、忠实和家庭的 一种庆祝方式。
mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family.
这就是法庭的意见。
This is the court.
这不仅仅是 自由派的中立立场，
Now, this is reaching well beyond liberal neutrality.
它还将婚姻 看做是一种值得尊敬的
This is celebrating and affirming marriage as an honorific,
一种社会认可的形式 。
as a form of public recognition.
因此，法官们发现 他们不可避免的
And, therefore, the court found that it couldn't avoid the debate
要对婚姻的目的 进行争论。
about the telos of marriage.
Marshall法官的意见 考虑到、也反对
Justice Marshall's opinion considers and rejects the notion
婚姻的首要目的是为了繁衍 这个观点
that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.
她指出，一对异性恋男女
She points out that there is no requirement
在申请结婚证书的时候，国家没有要求他们
that applicants for marriage license, who are heterosexuals,
证明自己 有能力或有意愿 生小孩。
attest to their ability or their intention to conceive children.
生孩子 并不是婚姻的前提条件。
Fertility is not a condition of marriage.
有些人就快要死了，还结婚来着。
People who cannot stir from their deathbed, they marry.
所以，她思考了所有这些意见，
So she advances all kinds of arguments,
包括我们上节课讨论过的那些意见，
along the lines that we began last time,
关于 婚姻的内在本质和目的所在。
about the proper and the essential nature, the telos of marriage, is.
她总结说，繁衍不是婚姻的目的，
And she concludes, not procreation
专一、永久的伴侣关系
but the exclusive and permanent commitment of the partners to one another
才是 婚姻的本质和目的。
is the essential point and purpose of marriage.
我现在所说的 这个法院的意见
Now, nothing I've said about this court opinion
还并没有表明 支持或反对同性婚姻。
is an argument for or against same sex marriage.
但是它却反对了一件事
But it is an argument against the claim
那就是 你可以在道德和宗教问题上 保持中立
that you can favor or oppose same sex marriage
与此同时 又能支持或反对 同性婚姻。
while remaining neutral on the underlying moral and religious questions.
所有这些论述表明，
So all of this is to suggest
至少 在一些十分激烈的争论中，
that at least in some of the hotly contested debates
在争论着 我们社会中的 正义或权利问题 的时候，
about justice and rights that we have in our society,
想要保持中立，想要说
the attempt to be neutral, the attempt to say,
“这只是一个 个人同意、自愿选择和自主的问题，”
it's just a matter of consent and choice and autonomy,
“我们不持 任何立场，”
we take no stand.
这种想法 是行不通的。
That doesn't succeed.
即使法院 想要在道德和宗教争议中 保持中立，
Even the court, which wants to be neutral on these moral and religious disputes,
也会发现 自己做不到这点。
finds that it can't.
对于我们的第二个问题 又怎样呢？
What then about our second question?
如果当我们讨论 什么是正义和权利 的时候，
If reasoning about the good is unavoidable
就不可避免的要谈论 “善”
in debates about justice and rights,
那么，我们是否有可能
is it possible
如果讨论“善”意味着
If reasoning about the good means
你在评价 什么是善的时候，
that you must have a single principle or rule or maxim
是不是 只能有一条原则、规则、格律或者标准。
or criterion for the good life,
每次你碰到道德难题，你就可以简单的加以运用。
that you simply plug in every time you have a disagreement about morality,
那么答案是：不。
then the answer is, no.
只有一条原则 并不是唯一的方法
But having a single principle or rule is not the only way,
也不是最好的方法
not the best way of reasoning
来思考 什么是善，什么是正义。
either about the good life or about justice.
请回想一下 我们一直以来的讨论，
Think back, think back to the arguments that we've been having here
关于正义，关于权利，有的时候还讨论到“善”的生活。
about justice and about rights and sometimes about the good life.
这些论点 是怎么展开的？
How have those arguments proceeded?
它们进行的方式
They've proceeded very much in the way
正如亚里斯多德 所说的那样
that Aristotle suggests moving back and forth
在我们对特定事件、故事和问题
between our judgments about particulars,
的看法中 前后比较，
particular cases, events, stories, questions,
在我们对特定事件的判断
back and forth between our judgments about particular cases
以及 我们在特定事件中 所持的立场
and more general principles that make sense
其背后的那些一般原则。
of our reasons for the positions we take on the particular cases.
这种 道德推理的 辩证方式
This dialectical way of doing moral reasoning goes back
可以追溯到古人，追溯到柏拉图和亚里斯多德，
to the ancients, to Plato and Aristotle,
这种辩证思想方式 并没有停滞在那个时代
but it doesn't stop with them,
因为 当John Rawls在论证他的 一套正义理论的时候，
because there is a version of Socratic or dialectical moral reasoning
他有力和清晰的进行了阐述，
that is defended with great clarity and force by John Rawls
用的就是 苏格拉底式的 辩证推理方式。
in giving an account of his method of justifying a theory of justice.
你们还记得，Rawls所提出的并不仅仅只是
You remember it's not only the veil of ignorance and the principles
“无知的面纱” 和 其他的原则 （第9集）
that Rawls argues for.
Rawls的正义理论 也是一种道德推理的方式，
It's also a method of moral reasoning,
他称之为 “反思的平衡”。
reasoning about justice that he calls reflective equilibrium.
“反思的平衡” 是一种什么样的推理方式？
What is the method of reflective equilibrium?
它是指 在我们对特定事件的判断
It's moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases
