正義!一場思辨之旅 Archive

1

【正義!一場思辯之旅】第12講:同性婚姻的辯論&良好生活

哈佛大學開放式課程:Michael J. Sandel教授主講的正義課

第1部分-同性婚姻的辯論(DEBATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE)

如果正義的原則在於其所針對權利中蘊含的道德或內在價值,那我們該怎麼面對每個人對於良善的概念都有所不同的事實?學生以激烈爭論同性婚姻是否應該合法來解決這個問題。我們可以在不討論同性戀的道德容許性或婚姻的目的之下來解決這個問題嗎?

第2部分-良好生活(THE GOOD LIFE)

Sandel認為,政府在困難的道德問題上不能保持中立,例如同性婚姻和墮胎,並詢問為什麼我們不該以同樣的道德和宗教信念商討所有議題-包括經濟及與公民切身相關之事。Michael Sandel教授在最後一堂課中,強而有力的提出了一個攸關公眾利益的政治新觀點。參與而不是迴避我們同胞的道德信念可能是尋求公正社會最好的方式。 Read the rest of this entry »

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】第11講:社群的主張&我們的忠誠所在?

哈佛大學開放式課程:Michael J. Sandel教授主講的正義課

第1部分-社群的主張

社群主義認為,除了自願和對人類普及的責任以外,我們也有成員、團結和忠誠的義務。這些義務不一定以同意為基礎。我們從我們的家庭、城市或國家繼承我們的過去、我們的身份。但問題是,如果我們對家庭或社群的義務,與對人類普及的義務發生衝突呢?

第2部分-我們的忠誠所在?

我們對我們同胞的虧欠比對其他國家的公民還多嗎?愛國主義是一種美德,或是對自己所屬社群的偏見?如果我們的身份是由我們身處的特定社群所定義,那普及的人權會是什麼? Read the rest of this entry »

1

【跨科際閱讀】生命裡的物理奧祕

【2011.08.09/跨科際閱讀/全文原載於2011.07.01《知識通訊評論月刊》105期】

存在於物質微小尺度的量子效應,似乎與巨觀的生物風馬牛不相及。但是近來一些研究發現,在生物世界中存在著某種量子效應,這使得科學家想到,可以師法生物自然原理,來了解量子世界的奧祕。

從表面上看起來,量子效應跟生物有機體,這兩者似乎風馬牛不相及。量子效應通常只有在極小的奈米尺度才看得到,還要加上強力真空、超低溫、以及嚴密控管下的實驗室環境。生物有機體則居住在一個宏觀尺度的世界,那裡溫暖、混亂、什麼事情都不能控制。像是「同調性」這種一個系統裡每一部份波動模式,都保持一致的量子現象,在喧囂不已的細胞世界裡,維持不了百萬分之一秒鐘。

生物有機體和量子效應的關係,不是抬頭望天就能說明白的。 (圖片來源:OpenPhoto.net/by inaquim)

 

Read the rest of this entry »

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】第10講:好公民&自由與適才適所的爭論

哈佛大學開放式課程:Michael J. Sandel教授主講的正義課

第1部分-好公民

亞里斯多德認為,政治的目的在於促進和培育公民的美德。城邦和政治社群的telos或目的在於「美好的人生」。而這些對社群目的貢獻最多的公民則是最應得到獎賞的人。但我們怎麼知道社群的目的或如何實踐?亞里斯多德的正義論導出了當代關於高爾夫球的爭論。Sandel介紹了Casey Martin案例,他是一位有殘疾的高爾夫球選手,控告職業高爾夫聯盟(PGA)拒絕他在PGA巡迴賽中使用高爾夫球車的請求。這個案例引發了一場關於高爾夫球賽目的為何之爭論,以及在比賽中高爾夫球選手「步行穿越球場」的能力是否是不可或缺的。

第2部分-自由與適才適所的爭論

亞里斯多德如何闡述個人權利和自由選擇這個議題?如果我們的社會角色是由我們最適合擔任什麼來決定,這是否排除了個人選擇?如果我最適合做一種工作,但我想做的是另一種呢?在這堂講座中,Sandel提出其中一個對亞里斯多德自由觀點最明顯的反對理由-他對奴隸制度的辯護,認為奴隸是適合某些人的社會角色。學生們討論了其他反對亞里斯多德理論的意見,爭論他的哲學是否過度限制了個人自由。

影片詳細中文翻譯內容可參考【MyOOPS開放式課程-哈佛開放式課程–正義:一場思辨之旅第10講】

 

 

 

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"

 

 

好消息!!7/3(日)之後每星期日早上11點-12點公共電視會播喔~~~ (有中文字幕喔~~~)

Read the rest of this entry »

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】Episode 08: ” WHATS A FAIR START? “

Part 1: WHATS A FAIR START?

 
Is it just to tax the rich to help the poor? John Rawls says we should answer this question by asking what principles you would choose to govern the distribution of income and wealth if you did not know who you were, whether you grew up in privilege or in poverty. Wouldnt you want an equal distribution of wealth, or one that maximally benefits whomever happens to be the least advantaged? After all, that might be you. Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesnt go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted cant claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawlss point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.

Part2: WHAT DO WE DESERVE?

Professor Sandel recaps how income, wealth, and opportunities in life should be distributed, according to the three different theories raised so far in class. He summarizes libertarianism, the meritocratic system, and John Rawlss egalitarian theory. Sandel then launches a discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor ($200,000) with the salary of televisions Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not. Rawls argues that an individuals personal success is often a function of morally arbitrary facts—luck, genes, and family circumstances—for which he or she can claim no credit. Those at the bottom are no less worthy simply because they werent born with the talents a particular society rewards, Rawls argues, and the only just way to deal with societys inequalities is for the naturally advantaged to share their wealth with those less fortunate.

中文翻譯

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】Episode 07: ” A LESSON IN LYING”

Part 1: A LESSON IN LYING

 
Immanuel Kants stringent theory of morality allows for no exceptions. Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of ones own dignity. Professor Sandel asks students to test Kants theory with this hypothetical case: if your friend were hiding inside your home, and a person intent on killing your friend came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie? If so, would it be moral to try to mislead the murderer without actually lying? This leads to a discussion of the morality of misleading truths. Sandel wraps up the lecture with a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Read the rest of this entry »

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】Episode 06: “MIND YOUR MOTIVE”

Part 1 – MIND YOUR MOTIVE:Professor Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher. Kant rejects utilitarianism. He argues that each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility. Kant rejects the notion that morality is about calculating consequences. When we act out of duty—doing something simply because it is right—only then do our actions have moral worth.

Part 2 – SUPREME PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY:Immanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty. Sandel tells the true story of a thirteen-year-old boy who won a spelling bee contest, but then admitted to the judges that he had, in fact, misspelled the final word.

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】Episode 05: ” HIRED GUNS “

Part 1-HIRED GUNS
During the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Professor Sandel asks students whether they consider this policy just. Many do not, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to avoid serving and risking their lives by paying less privileged citizens to fight in their place. This leads to a classroom debate about war and conscription. Is todays voluntary army open to the same objection? Should military service be allocated by the labor market or by conscription? What role should patriotism play, and what are the obligations of citizenship? Is there a civic duty to serve ones country? And are utilitarians and libertarians able to account for this duty?

Part 2- MOTHERHOOD: FOR SALE
In this lecture, Professor Sandel examines the principle of free-market exchange in light of the contemporary controversy over reproductive rights. Sandel begins with a humorous discussion of the business of egg and sperm donation. He then describes the case of Baby M”—a famous legal battle in the mid-eighties that raised the unsettling question, Who owns a baby?” In 1985, a woman named Mary Beth Whitehead signed a contract with a New Jersey couple, agreeing to be a surrogate mother in exchange for a fee of $10,000. However, after giving birth, Ms. Whitehead decided she wanted to keep the child, and the case went to court. Sandel and students debate the nature of informed consent, the morality of selling a human life, and the meaning of maternal rights.

中文翻譯網頁

0

【正義!一場思辯之旅】Episode 04: “THIS LAND IS MY LAND”

Part 1 – THIS LAND IS MY LAND:The philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights—to life, liberty, and property—which were given to us as human beings in the “the state of nature,” a time before government and laws were created. According to Locke, our natural rights are governed by the law of nature, known by reason, which says that we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else.

Part 2 – CONSENTING ADULTS:If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesn’t that amount to taking some people’s property without their consent? Locke’s response is that we give our “tacit consent” to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society.

中文翻譯網頁