Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"
-
0:04 - 0:08本節目贊助:
-
0:08 - 0:15額外贊助:
-
0:34 - 0:38這是一堂關於正義的課程，我先說個故事來拋磚引玉
-
0:38 - 0:40假設你是一個火車的駕駛員
-
0:40 - 0:45而你駕駛的這輛火車正以60英哩/小時疾速行駛中
-
0:45 - 0:49而你看到五個工人正在遠處的鐵軌上工作
-
0:49 - 0:52你試圖煞車，卻做不到
-
0:52 - 0:54你的煞車失靈了
-
0:57 - 1:00如果你撞到這五個工人
-
1:00 - 1:01他們都會必死無疑
-
1:01 - 1:05假設這是一個確定的結果
-
1:05 - 1:07於是你感到無助
-
1:07 - 1:09直到你發現
-
1:09 - 1:11右邊那邊
-
1:11 - 1:13有個岔路
-
1:13 - 1:16在那岔路的彼端
-
1:16 - 1:17有一個工人
-
1:17 - 1:19正在工作
-
1:19 - 1:21你還是可以控制你的方向盤
-
1:21 - 1:23所以
-
1:23 - 1:26你還是可以轉向
-
1:26 - 1:29轉到這個岔路上
-
1:29 - 1:30殺一個人
-
1:30 - 1:33但可以救五個人
-
1:33 - 1:36我們的第一個問題是
-
1:36 - 1:39該怎麼做才是正確的呢?
-
1:39 - 1:40你會怎麼做?
-
1:40 - 1:43我們來投票吧
-
1:43 - 1:45哪些人
-
1:45 - 1:52會將火車開向那個岔路?請舉手
-
1:52 - 1:54哪些人不會呢?
-
1:54 - 1:58哪些人會繼續往前走，請舉手
-
1:58 - 2:04會繼續往前走的，手請舉高
-
2:04 - 2:08少數人會繼續往前走，但多數人會選擇轉向
-
2:08 - 2:10我們來聽聽看這些人的意見
-
2:10 - 2:14現在我們來分析你從何判斷該怎麼做才正確
-
2:14 - 2:20我們從多數人的意見開始好了
-
2:20 - 2:22會開向岔路的多數人
-
2:22 - 2:24為什麼要開向岔路?
-
2:24 - 2:26說說看你的理由
-
2:26 - 2:30誰自願說明?
-
2:30 - 2:32請站起來吧
-
2:32 - 2:39因為當你可以只殺一個人的時候，選擇殺五個人是不對的。
-
2:40 - 2:42因為當你可以只殺一個人的時候
-
2:42 - 2:47選擇殺五個人是不對的
-
2:47 - 2:49這是的好理由
-
2:49 - 2:53這理由不錯
-
2:53 - 2:54還有嗎?
-
2:54 - 2:57大家都同意這個說法嗎?
-
2:57 - 3:01請說
-
3:01 - 3:04我認為這理由跟911發生時一樣
-
3:04 - 3:05我們視那些將飛機開進賓州田野的人為英雄
-
3:10 - 3:12因為他們選擇犧牲機上乘客
-
3:12 - 3:14來拯救大樓裡更多的人
-
3:16 - 3:19所以這立論跟911那時發生的選擇一樣
-
3:19 - 3:22都是悲劇
-
3:22 - 3:25但寧殺殺一人，來讓五人存活
-
3:25 - 3:31這是你們這些選擇轉向的人的理由，對吧
-
3:31 - 3:33現在來聽聽看
-
3:34 - 3:36少數人的意見
-
3:36 - 3:41不轉彎的少數人的意見，請說
-
3:41 - 3:46我認為這樣的理念就像合理化種族屠殺和功利主義的理念
-
3:45 - 3:50為了拯救一個種族就消滅另一種族
-
3:50 - 3:53那換作是你會怎麼做?
-
3:53 - 3:55你會為了避免種族屠殺
-
3:58 - 4:04而撞死那五個人嗎?
-
4:04 - 4:08沒錯
-
4:08 - 4:10好吧 還有嗎
-
4:10 - 4:14你的答案非常勇敢 謝謝你
- Title:
- Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"
- Description:
-
more » « less
PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM
Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
PACE
- Duration:
- 54:56
|
Yi Ching Shen edited Chinese, Traditional subtitles for Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" | |
|
|
Yi Ching Shen edited Chinese, Traditional subtitles for Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" | |
|
|
Yi Ching Shen edited Chinese, Traditional subtitles for Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" | |
|
|
Yi Ching Shen added a translation |