Some people said, "Well, if they had consented to a lottery, it would be different. Then it would be all right."
有人说,如果他们同意采取抽签方式,那就不一样了,那样就是可以的“
But if there were a lottery and they'd all agreed to the procedure, you think that would be okay?
但如果他们抽签了,他们也都同意这一程序,那你认为就没问题,是吧?
If we grant that to Plato, he thinks we've got an argument for the immortality of the soul.
如果我们同意柏拉图这个观点,他认为我们就有了支持灵魂不灭性的论据
If I want my kid to do something, I should say yes one out of every ten times.
如果我想肯定孩子的某种行为,我就应该在他的每十次提议中同意一次。
And you think about it, and you say yes, and it comes out in that form.
你想了想就同意了,然后就这样做了。
It can't exist as a force that conceives a human individual from the outside without that individual's consent because we all freely sin. No one can be compelled to do anything within the Miltonic theology of free will.
不存在那种不经人类同意就从外界,构造人类个体的力量,因为我们都自由地带着原罪,在弥尔顿自由意志的学说下,没有人被强迫做任何事。
So the instinct of many cabinet officers and other senior officials is "Boy, when we take this to the president, let's see if we can reach some sort of 4 compromise, you know, you say 2, I say 4, let's just go tell the president 3 that we've agreed on 3."
所以许多内阁官员,还有其他高层的领导人的本能都是,我们把这个给总统处理之前,先看看我们能不能各自让步,比如你说2,我说,我们就告诉总统,我们都同意“
Remember when we were talking about pushing the fat man off the bridge, someone said, "But he didn't agree to sacrifice himself.
还记得第一讲谈到的,把胖子推下桥的例子,有人就说,但他没同意去牺牲自己啊。
Taking government's services, you are implying that you are consenting to the government taking things from you.
享受政府的福利,就意味着默认,同意政府可以从你那拿去东西。
And if we add consent, then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice morally justified.
如果有征得同意,更多的人就愿意认为,这在道德上是正当的。
So Socrates has what he wants, once we give him premise number two, that the eternal, non-physical can only be grasped by the eternal, non-physical.
所以如果我们同意他的前提二,苏格拉底就得到了他想要的,前提二说永恒,非现实的事物,只能被永恒,非现实的事物认知
Why does an act of consent make such a moral difference, that an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent, is morally permissible with consent?
为什么征得了同意,就能在道德上如此不同呢,没有征得同意就杀人,在道德上是不允许的,征得同意就是允许的吗?
I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven had asked for Richard Parker's consent in you know, dying, if that would exonerate them from an act of murder and if so, is that still morally justifiable?
我想知道达德利和斯蒂芬斯,是否征得过派克的同意,取他的性命,是否那样就能赦免他们的谋杀罪名,是否这样,道德上就是正当的?
But over a lifetime, I think I would think almost a complete majority here would agree that they would rather be a human with higher pleasure than be that rat with intense pleasure for a momentary period of time.
但是就一生而言,我觉得,在场绝大部分人都会同意,他们更愿意做拥有更高级快乐的人,而不是只图一时快乐,做那只享受一时快感的鼠。
So, even if we were to agree with the pessimists that it would be better never to have been born at all, as the old joke goes, show me one person in a thousand who's so lucky, right?
所以,即使我们要同意悲观主义者的观点,根本不出生更好,就像老笑话讲的那样,给我千里挑一找到一个走运的人?
Now, is there someone who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent, can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference?
认为派克同意就属正当的,有没人能解释一下,为什么派克同意了,在道德上就有所不同呢?
Remember at the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery, suppose that they had agreed to a lottery, then how many would then say it was all right?
还记得一开始时,达德利曾提议抽签吗,假设他们都同意了抽签,有多少人认为,这样就可以接受?
How do they leave? Well, here is where consent comes in.
怎么脱离呢,这时候同意就登场了。
So taxation by consent of the governed is not coercive.
经统治者同意的税收就不是强制的。
If the right to private property is natural, not conventional, if it's something that we acquire even before we agree to government, How does that right constrain what a legitimate government can do?
如果私有财产是与生俱来的,而非约定俗成,如果这是在我们同意组建政府前就拥有的,这个权利又如何能限制合法政府的行为呢?
Why would consent make a moral difference?
为什么派克同意了,在道德上就会不同呢?
And if the majority of those who are governed doesn't agree with you, then you know, you're choosing to live in a society and you have to operate under what the majority the society concludes.
如果不能获得大多数同意,那你,你既然选择活在这个社会,你就得按大多数人的意志来办事。
What is wrong with Locke's account of how private property can arise without consent?
洛克关于私有财产,无需他人同意就能产生这个观点,有何错呢?
And if they had done a lottery where everyone consented that someone should die and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves to save the rest.
但如果他们每人都同意抽签决定,谁应该牺牲,就像是所有的人都同意牺牲自己来救其他人。
Milton is much more likely imagined to wield - and if you have any sense of what the mythology surrounding Milton is, you would have to agree with this - a socially conservative power over his readers.
现在,大家更可能认为弥尔顿,-如果你对弥尔顿时代的神学有点了解的话,你就会同意这一点,-大家认为弥尔顿向读者传达的是社会保守思潮。
Now,if you're like Parfit,and for that matter like me then you're going to say,of course I care I want it to be the case that I'm one of the people who's already had the operation I don't want to be one of the people who hasn't yet had the operation ? You might say,how can that make any sense?
如果你们同意帕非特,那也会同意我,你就会说,我当然在意,我希望的情况是,我是已经做完手术的人,我不想是那种,还没做手术的人,你可能会说,这有什么意义?
应用推荐