Funding for this programis provided by:本节目的赞助来自......Additi onal funding provided by:另外的赞助来自……Last time,we argued about上次,我们谈到the case ofThe Quee n v. Dudley & Stephe ns,女王诉Dudley和Stephens案件，the lifeboat case,the case of cann ibalism at sea.那个救生艇上，海上吃人的案件.And with the argume ntsabout the lifeboat in mind,带着针对这个案件所展开的一些讨论the argume nts for and aga instwhat Dudley and Stephe ns did in mind,带着支持和反对Dudley和Stephens所做的吃人行为的讨论let's turn back to the philosophy,the utilitaria n philosophy of Jeremy Ben tham.让我们回头来看看Bentham的功利主义哲学.Ben tham was born in En gla nd in 1748.At the age of 12, he went to Oxford. Bentham于1748年出生于英国.12岁那年,他去了牛津大学At 15, he went to law school.He was admitted to the Bar at age 1915岁时，他去了法学院.19岁就取得了律师资格but he n ever practiced law.但他没有从事于律师行业.In stead, he devoted his life to jurisprude nee and moral philosophy.相反，他毕生致力于法理学和道德哲学•Last time, we bega n to con siderBen tham's version of utilitaria ni sm.上一次,我们开始考虑Bentham版本的功利主义The mai n idea is simply statedand it's this:简单来说其主要思想就是：The highest prin ciple of morality,whether pers onal or political morality, 道德的最高原则，无论个人或政治道德，is to maximize the gen eral welfare,or the collective happ in ess,就是将公共福利，或集体的幸福最大化，or the overall bala neeof pleasure over pain;或在快乐与痛苦的平衡中倾向快乐；in a phrase, maximize utility.简而言之就是，功利最大化.Ben tham arrives at this prin cipleby the followi ng line of reas oning: Bentham是由如下推理来得出这个原则的：We're all gover nedby pain and pleasure,我们都被痛苦和快乐所控制，they are our sovereig n masters,and so any moral system他们是我们的主宰，所以任何道德体系has to take acco unt of them.都要考虑到这点•How best to take acco unt?By maximizi ng.如何能最好地考虑这一点？通过最大化.And this leads to the prin ciple of thegreatest good for the greatest nu mber从此引出的的原则就是将最大利益给最多数的人的What exactly should we maximize?我们究竟该如何最大化?Ben tham tells us happ in ess,or more precisely, utility - Bentham告诉我们幸福，或者更准确地说，实用-maximizi ng utility as a prin ciplenot only for in dividuals最大化效用作为一个原则不仅适用于个人but also for com mun itiesand for legislators.而且还适用于社区及立法者•"What, after all, is a commu nity?"Ben tham asks."毕竟，什么是社区？” Bentham问道.It's the sum of the in dividualswho comprise it.它是构成这个社区的所有个体的总和•And that's why in decidi ngthe best policy,这就是为什么在决定最好的政策，in decidi ng what the law should be,in decidi ng what's just,在决定法律应该是什么样，在决定什么是公正时citize ns and legislatorsshould ask themselves the questi on公民和立法者应该问自己的问题if we add up all of the ben efitsof this policy如果我们把这项政策所能得到的所有利益and subtract all of the costs,the right thing to do减去所有的成本，正确的做法is the one that maximizes the bala nee of happ in ess over sufferi ng.就是将幸福与痛苦之间的平衡最大化地倾向幸福That's what it meansto maximize utility.这就是效用最大化.Now, today, I want to seewhether you agree or disagree with it,现在，我想看看你们是否同意它，and it ofte n goes,this utilitaria n logic,往往有云：功利主义的逻辑，un der the n ame ofcost-be nefit an alysis,名为成本效益分析，which is used by compa niesand by gover nments all the time.也是被公司以及各国政府所常常使用的And what it in volvesis placi ng a value,它的内涵是用一个价值usually a dollar value,to sta nd for utility on the costs 通常是由美元，来代表不同提案的效用and the ben efitsof various proposals.这效用是基于成本和效益得出的Recen tly, in the Czech Republic,there was a proposal最近,在捷克共和国，有一个提案to in crease the excise tax on smok ing.Philip Morris, the tobacco compa ny,对吸烟增加货物税Philip Morris烟草公司，does huge bus in essin the Czech Republic.该公司在捷克共和国有着大笔生意.They commissi oned a study,a cost-be nefit an alysis他们委托了一个研究，of smok ing in the Czech Republic,and what their cost-be nefit关于吸烟在捷克共和国的成本效益分析.an alysis found was the gover nmentgains by havi ng Czech citize ns smoke.他们的分析发现，捷克政府将会因公民吸烟而收益Now, how do they gain?现在,他们如何收益？It's true that there aren egative effects to the public finance确实，捷克政府的公共财政体系of the Czech gover nmentbecause there are in creased health care会因为吸烟人群所引发的相关疾病而增加的医疗保健开支costs for people who developsmok in g-related diseases.从而受到负面影响.On the other hand,there were positive effects另一方面,这也有积极效应and those were added upon the other side of the ledger .并且这些积极效益累加到了账簿的另一面The positive effects in cluded,for the most part,积极效益包括，在大多数情况下，various tax revenues that thegover nment derives from the sale政府通过卷烟产品而获得的各种税收收入of cigarette products,but it also in eluded但也包括health care savi ngs to thegover nment whe n people die early,政府因为吸烟人群过早死亡而省下的医疗储蓄，例如pension sav ings -- you don't have topay pensions for as long -养老金储蓄-不必支付退休金了-and also, sav ings inhous ing costs for the elderly.还有，老年人住房费用•And whe n all of the costsand ben efits were added up,当把所有的成本和效益都分别加起来，the Philip Morris study foundthat there is a net public finance gain Philip Morris公司的研究发现，捷克共和国会有一个in the Czech Republicof $147,000,000,$147,000,000的公共财政净增益，and give n the savi ngs in hous ing,in health care, and pension costs,并鉴于节省了住房费用，医疗保健费用，养老金费用，the gover nment enjoys savi ngsof over $1,200 for each pers onwho dies prematurely due to smok ing.每个因吸烟而过早死亡的人都为政府节省了$1,200.Cost-be nefit an alysis.成本效益分析.Now, those among youwho are defe nders of utilitaria nism现在，你们中间，那些功利主义的捍卫者may think that this is an un fair test.可能认为这是一种不公平的测试.Philip Morris was pilloriedin the pressPhilip Morris公司在新闻界遭到了嘲笑and they issued an apologyfor this heartless calculatio n.他们也因为这个无情的计算而发表了道歉.You may say that what's miss ing hereis somethi ng that the utilitaria n你可能会说,功利主义在这里可以轻易弥补一个疏漏can easily in corporate,n amely the value to the pers on它没有正确评估人的价值and to the families of those who diefrom lung cancer .以及那些因为肺癌而死亡的人的家属的损失.What about the value of life?如何评估生命价值?Some cost-be nefit an alyses in corporatea measure for the value of life.一些成本效益分析的确纳入了对生命价值的评估.One of the most famousof these in volved the Ford Pinto case.其中最有名的要数Ford Pin to案件.Did any of you read about that?你们有没有阅读过这个案件？This was back in the 1970s.那是发生在20世纪70年代.Do you rememberwhat the Ford Pinto was,你还记得Ford Pinto是，a kind of car?Anybody?什么样的车么？谁能记得？It was a small car ,subcompact car , very popular ,那是一种小型车，超小型车，很受欢迎,but it had one problem,which is the fuel tank但它也有问题，车后座的油箱was at the back of the carand in rear collisi ons,少数情况下，碰撞会导致the fuel tank explodedand some people were killed油箱爆炸并且有些人会因此死去and some severely injured.还有人因此严重受伤.Victims of these injuriestook Ford to court to sue.这些受害者将福特告到法院.And in the court case,it turned out that Ford而在诉讼案件，人们发现福特原来had long since known about thevuln erable fuel tank早已知道油箱的脆弱and had done a cost-be nefit an alysisto determ ine whether it would be并且已做了成本效益分析，以确定是否worth it to put ina special shield that would值得来放入一个特殊的盾牌protect the fuel tankand preve nt it from explod ing.用来保护油箱并防止它爆炸.They did a cost-be nefit an alysis.他们做了成本效益分析.The cost per partto in crease the safety of the Pin to,增加Ford Pinto安全的每部件费用，they calculated at $11.00 per part.他们算出，要每部件$ 11.00.And here's -- this was the cost-be nefitan alysis that emerged in the trial.这里-这就是当时审判中出示的成本效益分析Eleve n dollars per partat 12.5 millio n cars and trucks每件11美元,乘以12.5万辆轿车和卡车came to a total cost of$137 milli on to improve the safety.得到一个总成本，需要13700万美元来改善安全性.But the n they calculated the ben efitsof spe nding all this money不过，他们随后计算了一下花这笔钱来改善安全性的收益率on a safer carand they coun ted 180 deaths（如果不花这笔钱来改善安全，）假设会导致180人死亡and they assig ned a dollar value,$200,000 per death,他们对此用美元价值来代替，每个死去的人赔偿$ 200,000180 injuries, $67,000,and the n the costs to repair ,180人受伤的赔偿为每人$67,000,然后是维修受损车的费用the replaceme nt costfor 2,000 vehicles,2 000辆车,it would be destroyed withoutthe safety device $700 per vehicle.由于没有安装安全设施，每辆车将会需要$700来维修.So the ben efits turned out to beon ly $49.5 millio n结论是总效益只有$49.5 million（相对于修复安全隐患总成本需要$137 millio n）and so they did n'tin stall the device.因此他们没有安装那个安全设备.Needless to say,whe n this memo of the毫无疑问，福特汽车公司的这个成本效益分析备忘录Ford Motor Compa ny's cost-be nefitan alysis came out in the trial,在审判中出现时，it appalled the jurors,who awarded a huge settleme nt.震惊了陪审团，也因此裁定了福特公司巨大的赔偿金额.Is this a coun terexample to theutilitaria n idea of calculat ing?这是一个功利主义计算的反例么？Because Ford in cluded a measureof the value of life.因为福特引入了对生命价值的评估.Now, who here wants to defe ndcost-be nefit an alysis好,这里有谁想针对这一明显反例from this appare nt coun terexample?来捍卫成本效益分析？Who has a defe nse?谁来辩护？Or do you think thiscompletely destroys the whole或者你认为这一反例已经完全摧毁了utilitaria n calculus?Yes?功利主义计算？你来Well, I think that once aga in,they've made the same mistake嗯,我想再次指出，他们犯了同样的错误the previous case did,that they assig ned a dollar value和以前的情况一样，他们对人的生命赋予to huma n life,and once aga in,一个美元为单位的价值，同样的，they failed to take acco untthi ngs like sufferi ng他们没有考虑到家属的痛苦和损失and emoti on al losses by the families.诸如此类的因素•I mean, families lost earningsbut they also lost a loved one我的意思是，家庭损失了收入来源，但他们也失去了爱人and that is more valuedthan $200,000.这些的价值远远超过$200,000的.Right and -- wait, wait, wait,that's good. What's your n ame?好的-等等,等等,等等，很好•你叫什么名字？Julie Roteau .Julie Roteau .So if $200,000, Julie,is too low a figure因此,Julie,如果$200,000 是个太低的金额，because it does n't in elude theloss of a loved one因为它不包括失去爱人and the loss of those years of life,what would be -以及那些在没有亲人的岁月里的损失，你认为what do you thinkwould be a more accurate nu mber?更准确的金额是多少？I don't believe I could give a nu mberI think that this sort of an alysis我不认为，我可以对此给出一个金额•我认为这类分析should n't be applied to issuesof huma n life.不适用于人类生命相关的问题•I think it can't be used mon etarily.我认为不能用金钱来衡量.So they did n't just puttoo low a number , Julie says.因此,Julie认为他们不只是金额定的太低.They were wrong to tryto put any nu mber at all.他们压根就不应该用金额来衡量.All right, let's hear some one who -You have to adjust for in flati on.好吧，让我们听听还有谁-You have to adjust for in flati on.（这个金额）要根据通货膨胀进行调整All right, fair eno ugh.好吧,很公平.So what would the nu mber be now?那么现在这个金额将是？This was 35 years ago.这发生在35年前.Two millio n dollars.两百万美兀.Two milli on dollars?You would put two milli on?200万美元？你认为是200万?And what's your n ame?你的名字是？VoytekVoytekVoytek says we have toallow for in flati on. Voytek说，我们必须允许通货膨胀We should be more gen erous.我们应该更慷慨些.Then would you be satisfiedthat this is the right way of然后，你认为这就是考虑这个问题的thinking about the questi on?正确的方式么？I guess, unfortun ately, it is for -我想，不幸的是，现在-there n eeds to be a nu mber put somewhere, like, I'm not sure我们需要有一个金额，我不确定what that nu mber would be,but I do agree that合适的金额是多少，但我同意there could possiblybe a nu mber put on the huma n life.对人类生命定一个金额是可行的•All right, so Voytek says,and here, he disagrees with Julie. 好的，Voytek说，他不同意Julie.Julie says we can't put a nu mberon huma n life朱莉认为,我们不能在成本效益分析中for the purpose of acost-be nefit an alysis.对人的生命定一个金额.Voytek says we have to becausewe have to make decisi ons somehow.Voytek认为，我们必须这样做因为我们无论如何需要作出某种决定What do other peoplethi nk about this?其他人觉得呢？Is there anyone preparedto defe nd cost-be nefit an alysis这里有人打算为能足够准确的成本效益分析辩护么？here as accurate as desirable?Yes? Go ahead.好?请继续.I thi nk that if Fordand other car compa nies我认为，如果福特和其他汽车公司did n't use cost-be nefit an alysis,they'd eve ntually go out of bus in ess没有使用成本效益分析，他们会最终歇业because they would n't be able to beprofitable and milli ons of people因为他们将无法盈利,（从而导致）数百万的人would n't be able to use their carsto get to jobs,将无法使用这些汽车去上班，to put food on the table,to feed their childre n.（没钱）购买餐桌上的食物,（没钱）来喂养孩子.So I thi nk that if cost-be nefitan alysis isn't employed,因此,我认为，如果不利用成本效益分析，the greater good is sacrificed,in this case.在这种情况下,（我们将会）牺牲更大的利益.All right, let me add.What's your n ame?好吧，让我来补充.你叫什么名字？Raul.Raul.Raul, there was recen tly a study doneabout cell phone use by a driverRaul,最近有一项研究表明，关于开车时驾驶者使用手机whe n people are drivi ng a car ,and there was a debate有一场辩论，关于这种行为whether that should be bann ed.是否应被禁止.Yeah.是啊。