Michael Sandel (Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University)

The auditorium of thousands of people was crowded upstairs and downstairs, and Professor Michael Sandel took to the podium to applaud.

Professor: This is an open class about fairness and justice. Tell a story first.

Suppose you are a tram driver now, and your tram runs at a speed of 60 miles per hour. At the end of the track, you will find five workers working on the track. You tried your best to stop the tram, but you couldn't. You feel desperate because you know that these five workers will all die if you hit them like this.

When you feel helpless, you suddenly find that at the end of the other track on the right, only 1 worker is working. There is nothing wrong with your steering wheel. If you like, you can turn the tram to the bifurcated track, kill 1 workers and save five others.

So here comes our first question. What should we do now? What would you do? Let's do a survey to see how many people will choose to turn the tram to a bifurcated track. Hands up.

(Most people raise their hands)

How many people don't? How many people choose to go straight like this?

(A few people raise their hands)

A few people won't, and most people choose to transfer. Listen first, now let's study. Why do you think this is the right thing to do? Let's start with most people. Who chose to change? Why did you choose this way? What's your reason? Who wants to give me a reason?

(of students) stand up and speak.

Student A: Because it is definitely wrong to kill five people when you can only kill 1.

Professor: It must be wrong to kill five people if you can kill 1 person. That's a good reason. Where are the others? Did everyone agree with that reason just now? (of students) There you are.

Student B: I think this is the same as a 9. 1 1 incident. We regard those who crashed the plane into the Pennsylvania clearing as heroes, because they chose to sacrifice only the people in the plane, thus saving more lives in the building.

Professor: So, the reason is the same as those people's choices in the 9. 1 1 incident. Although tragedy is bound to happen, killing only 1 person is better than killing five people. Do most of you think so? Everyone who chooses to change, right? Now let's listen to the thoughts of those few people who choose to go straight ...

Student C: I think this is similar to the sophistry of genocide and totalitarianism. To save one race, you erased the others.

Professor: So what would you do in this situation? Would you choose to kill five people to avoid the genocide of terrorism? (Laughter)

Student C: Theoretically.

Professor: Really?

Student C: Yes.

Professor: OK, who else? This is a bold idea, thank you.

Let's consider another example of a tram to see if those who are in the majority will still adhere to the principle just now, "I would rather die 1 person than kill five people."

This time you are not a tram driver, you are a bystander. You stand on the bridge overlooking the tram track under it. At this time, a tram passed by and there were five workers at the end of the track. The brakes are out of order, and the tram will hit those five people. This time, you are not a driver, and you really feel helpless until you suddenly find a very, very fat person on the bridge next to you. (Laughter) You can push him. He will fall off the bridge and block the tram. Although he will be crushed to death, he will be killed. How many people will push the fat man on the bridge this time? Hands up.

(Someone raises his hand)

Professor: How many people don't do this?

(Most people raise their hands)

Professor: Most people don't. The problem is obvious. What happened to the principle just now? Sacrifice 1 person, it is better to sacrifice 5 people. What happened to the principle that almost everyone agreed in the first example just now? I need to hear what most people think. How do you explain the different choices? (of students) There you are.

Student D: The second example, I think, involves active choice. To push someone who wouldn't have been involved in the accident, we made a choice for him and involved him, which has nothing to do with him. But in the first example, three parties-the driver and two teams of workers-have fallen into this trouble.

Professor: But the guy who works alone on the tracks, he didn't choose to sacrifice his life, and so did the fat man, didn't he?

Student D: Yes, but he is already on the runway, so ...

Professor: So the fat man is already on the bridge. You can talk about it later if you want. This is a very difficult question. You are doing very well. This question is very difficult. You are doing very well. Who else can fully explain the different choices of most people in the two events? (of students) There you are.

Student E: Yes, I think in the first example, the choice is between 5 people and 1 person. You must make a choice. It was not your direct act that the worker died in that tram. The tram is out of control, and you must make a choice in an instant. And pushing that fat man is a real murder for you. You can control whether you push him, but you can't control whether the tram hits the worker, so I think the two occasions are slightly different.

Professor: Good. Who wants to respond to what he said? He's right. Who wants to respond? Are there any other answers? (of students) There you are.

Student F: I don't think this is a good reason. Because your choice ... no matter how you choose, you are choosing to kill. Because whether you choose to let the tram hit the other side, it is your own conscious behavior, or you choose to push the fat man on the bridge, which is also your active and conscious behavior. So, whatever you do, you are choosing.

Professor: (referring to a student) Do you want to respond to her statement?

Student E: I'm not sure what I just said is completely correct. It just looks a little different. The act of pushing a person into orbit, he dies, and you actually kill him yourself.

Professor: You pushed him yourself.

Student E: You pushed him yourself. There is a difference. The former is that you hit the steering wheel and cause others to die. It seems (a little hesitant) that this is not the case now.

Professor: No, no, you speak very well. What's your name?

Student e: Andrew.

Professor: Let me ask you a question, Andrew.

Student e: ok.

Professor: If I stand on the bridge next to the fat man, I won't have to push him. Suppose he is standing by a door, I can open that door with the steering wheel like this. Will you open it?

Student E: Well, that looks even more wrong (laughter). I mean, maybe you accidentally leaned on the steering wheel or something, or the tram accidentally turned into a fork (laughter), then I agree.

Professor: OK, it was the right choice in the first case, but now it is wrong ... you said (referring to a student).

Student E: I think that in the first case, you have been directly involved in the incident, while in the second case, you are just a bystander.

Professor: OK.

Student E: So you can choose whether to participate or not, or whether to push the fat man.

Professor: Well, let's forget this case for a while and imagine a different scenario now. This time you are a doctor in the emergency room, and six patients ask you for help. Have been run over by trams. (Laughter) Five of them were moderately injured and the other was seriously injured. You can spend the whole day treating the seriously injured victims, but at the same time, five other people will die, or you can take care of those five people and make them recover, but at the same time, the seriously injured patients will die. Now as doctors, how many people will choose to treat those five people?

(Most people raise their hands)

Professor: How many people chose to save the seriously injured one?

(Few people raise their hands)

Professor: Very few people, very, very few. I guess that's the same reason. One life for five lives?

Now consider another example about doctors. This time, you are an organ transplant surgeon. You have five patients, each of whom desperately needs an organ transplant to survive. A person needs a heart, a kidney, a lung, a liver and a pancreas. You have no organs donated by others, and you will have to watch them die. Then you think of a healthy man coming to the hospital for examination in the next room (laughs). He is dozing off. If you want, you can go in quietly and take out his five internal organs (laughter). Although this man will die, you saved five lives. How many people would do that? Really? Please raise your hand if you want to do this.

(Nobody raises their hands)

Professor: Is there one upstairs? Would you? Be careful not to go to extremes.

(Nobody raises their hands)

Professor: How many people can't?

(All hands up)

Professor: Well, what do you say? Students on the second floor, will you take out the man's five internal organs?

Student G: I just proposed another slightly different option. I just need to find the first of those five patients who died, and then I can treat the other four with his healthy organs.

Professor: That's a very good idea. That's a good idea. Unfortunately, your method bypasses the philosophical point of view we discussed. (Laughter)

Let's put these examples and arguments aside and focus on something else. How did our argument begin? In the process we have just discussed, some moral principles have begun to appear. Now let's seriously think about what those moral principles are.

The first item involved in the discussion, whether things are correct or not, depends on the consequences of your actions. If all five people can survive in the end, it is worthwhile to sacrifice even one life. This example embodies the moral reasoning of consequentialism. The moral reasoning of consequentialism depends on the consequences of actions, that is, the impact of our actions on the outside world.

But when we discussed it further, we added some other examples, so everyone questioned the moral reasoning of consequentialism. When you are hesitating whether to push the fat man or take the organs of the innocent, you are thinking about the behavior itself. Whatever the outcome, you won't do it. People think it is wrong, and it is all wet. Even to save the lives of five of you, it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. At least that's what everyone thought in our story just now.

This leads to the second moral reasoning, absolutist moral reasoning. Absolute moral reasoning holds that no matter what the result is, morality has its absolute moral principles and clear responsibilities and rights.

In the next few weeks, we will discuss the difference between consequentialism and absolutism. Among the moral principles of consequentialism, the most famous theory is utilitarianism. /kloc-this theory was put forward by Jamie Bentham, a British political philosopher in the 0 th and 8 th centuries. The representative of absolutist moral reasoning is 18 century German philosopher Kant.

We will discuss these two different moral reasoning, evaluate them, and consider some other moral reasoning models. If you have read the syllabus, you will find that we will read many famous books, such as Aristotle, Locke, Kant, Mill and so on. You will also find that we not only read them, but also cite some contemporary political or legal disputes to raise some philosophical questions. We will discuss what is equality and inequality, anti-discrimination behavior, freedom of speech and offensive speech, same-sex marriage, conscription and other practical issues. Why? We should not only move these ancient and abstract scholars, but also find out some problems in our daily life, including our political life and so on. Therefore, we will read these books and debate some issues, so that we can see the connection between them.

It sounds attractive, but I need to remind you that reading these books in this way can be an exercise for you to know yourself, but it is also an adventure. This adventure is both personal and political.

Students majoring in political philosophy should know this. Adventure comes from philosophy that educates us, disturbs us and contradicts what we already know. Ironically, the difficulty of this course is that it teaches what you already know, and it suddenly makes what we are undoubtedly familiar with strange. At the beginning, those interesting and serious fictional events played this role, and those philosophical books also had the same power.

Philosophy makes what we are familiar with strange. It doesn't give us more new information, but gives us another way of looking at things. The so-called adventure is that once familiar things become strange, they will never be the same again.

Self-knowledge is like a lost traveler. No matter how confused and uneasy you are, you can't stop thinking about it. This process is very difficult, but you must devote yourself wholeheartedly. Moral and political philosophy are like a story. You don't know where it will take you, but you clearly know that this is a story about you.

The above is a personal adventure. What about the political level? One way to introduce this course is to promise you that after reading this book and participating in these discussions, you will become a better and more responsible citizen, you will test your assumptions about the political field of public affairs, your political judgment will be exercised, and you will participate in public affairs more actively.

But such a promise may be one-sided and misleading. Political philosophy, to a great extent, does not have that function. What you need to admit is that this may make you a worse citizen, not a better citizen, or at least make you worse before you become a good citizen. That's because philosophy is a long time ago, even destructive. Let's look at a dialogue in Socrates' time.

Socrates' friend Carrickler hoped to persuade him to leave philosophy. He said to Socrates: "Philosophy is really beautiful, but it is only beautiful when you get involved in it at the right moment in your life. But if you indulge in it too much, it will destroy you. Listen to me, put aside those philosophical arguments and think about what real achievements are in real life. Don't be like those who waste their time on ambiguous philosophical statements. You should see those people who are really alive. So, Carrickler was actually saying to Socrates, "Give up philosophy, man, be realistic and go to business school. "However, Carrick was right about one thing. He said that philosophy will alienate us from the original conventions, preset assumptions and inherent concepts.

This is what I want to say about personal and political adventure. When we face them, we have a special way to avoid them. Its name is skepticism. It means that, like this, we have just begun to learn, and there is no way to completely solve the cases or principles we are arguing about at once. If Aristotle, Kant, Locke and Mill have not solved these problems for so many years, who do we think we are? Can it be solved by staying in this auditorium for one semester? And this may just be a matter of everyone having their own different principles. There is nothing worth discussing, and you can't tell why these problems are. This is an escape from skepticism.

I think I can answer this question. It is true that these problems have been discussed for a very, very long time, but it is precisely because they are constantly discussed that although they cannot be solved in a sense, they cannot be avoided on the other hand, because the answers to these problems lie in our daily lives. So skepticism just makes you let go and give up thinking. It won't solve any moral or philosophical problems.

Kant's description of skepticism has a wonderful passage. He wrote: "Skepticism is just a temporary rest place in the process of people's exploration. It makes us wander in some dogmas, but it is by no means a place where we can stay forever. " "Simple acquiescence to skepticism," Kant wrote, "can never satisfy endless reasoning about problems."