201803101005第三堂課幫生命標價PuttingaPriceTagOnLife英文字幕

馬來語翻譯Student: Inflation
Anna: Yes
Anna: So, well with any of the cases that we’ve talked about翻譯社 like for the ship wreck one umm I think that the boy who was eaten still had as much of a right to live as the other people and umm just because he was the minority in that case翻譯社 the one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living, that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him just because it would give a greater amount of people the chance to live.
Michael Sandel: You want to take it under advisement?
Michael Sandel: A million!?
Michael Sandel: You have to adjust for inflation. All right, fair enough. So what would the number be now? This was 30, 35 years ago. 2 million dollars. You would put 2 million. And what's your name?
Voitek: Voitek.
Michael Sandel: What's your name by the way?
Raul: Well I think that if the great majority of people tried to derive maximum utility out of a service like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide, that sacrifice is necessary for satisfaction to occur.

第三堂課幫生命標價Putting a Price Tag On Life 英文字幕

Michael Sandel: Last time we argued about the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens翻譯社 the life boat case翻譯社 the case of cannibalism at sea翻譯社 and with the arguments about the life boat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind翻譯社 let’s turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was born in England in 1748, at the age of 12 he went to Oxford, at 15 he went to law school, he was admitted to the bar at age 19 but he never practiced law, instead he devoted his life to jurisprudence and moral philosophy.

Raul: Yeah, I'll take it under advisement.
Raul: Yeah
Michael Sandel: All right let me ask you, what’s your name?
Anna: Anna
Julie: Well, I think that once again they’ve made the same mistake the previous case did, that they assigned a dollar value to human life, and once again they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families. I mean families lost earnings but they also lost a loved one and that, uh翻譯社 is more valued than 200 thousand dollars.
Michael Sandel: You're an outright utilitarian?
Michael Sandel: So there may be certain rights that the minority members have翻譯社 that the individual has that shouldn't be traded off for the sake of utility? Do I , Yes Anna. Yeah this would be a test for you.
Last time we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism. The main idea is simply stated and it's this. The highest principle of morality翻譯社 whether personal or political morality, is to maximize the general welfare翻譯社 or the collective happiness, or the overall balance of pleasure over pain. In a phrase "maximize utility". Bentham arrives at this principle by the following line of reasoning; we are all governed by pain and pleasure, they are our sovereign masters, and so any moral system has to take account of them. How best to take account? By maximizing. And this leads to the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. What exactly should we maximize? Bentham tells us happiness, or more precisely翻譯社 utility. Maximizing utility is a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators. "What after all is a community?", Bentham asks. It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it and that's why when deciding the best policy, when deciding what the law should be and deciding what’s just, citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question, if we add up all the benefits of this policy and subtract all of the costs翻譯社 the right thing to do is the one that maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering. That's what it means to maximize utility. Now today I want to see whether you agree or disagree with it and it often goes翻譯社 this utilitarian logic翻譯社 under the name of cost benefit analysis which is used by companies and by governments all the time. And what it involves is placing a value, usually a dollar value to stand for utility, on the costs and the benefits of various proposals. Recently in the Czech Republic there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking, Philip Morris, the tobacco company翻譯社 does huge business in the Czech Republic, they commissioned a study of cost benefit analysis of smoking in the Czech Republic and what their cost benefit analysis found was, the government gains by having Czech citizens smoke. Now, how do they gain? It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking related diseases. On the other hand there were positive effects, and those were added up on the other side of the ledger. The positive effects included, for the most part翻譯社 various tax revenues that the government derives from the sale of cigarette products but it also included health care savings to the government when people die early; pension savings, you don't have to pay pensions for as long and also savings in housing costs for the elderly翻譯社 and when all the costs and benefits were added up, the Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of 147 million dollars, and given the savings in housing and health care and pension costs the government enjoys a saving, savings of over 1200 dollars for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking. Cost benefit analysis, now those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test, Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation. You may say that what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate, namely翻譯社 the value to the person and to the families of those who die from lung cancer. What about the value of life? Some cost benefit analyses incorporate a measure for the value of life. One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. Did any of you read about that? This was back in the 1970s, do you remember what the Ford Pinto was? A kind of car. Anybody? It was a small car翻譯社 subcompact car翻譯社 very popular, but it had one problem翻譯社 which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions the fuel tank exploded and some people were killed and some severely injured. Victims of these injuries took Ford to court to sue. And in the court case it turned out that Ford had long since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it from exploding. They did a cost benefit analysis, the cost per part, to increase the safety of the Pinto, they calculated at 11 dollars per part. And here's翻譯社 this was the cost benefit analysis that emerged in the trial. 11 dollars per part at 12.5 million cars and trucks, came to a total cost of 137 million dollars to improve the safety. But then they calculated the benefits of spending all this money on a safer car, and they counted a 180 deaths and they assigned a dollar value 200 thousand dollars per death, 180 injuries, 67 thousand and then the cost to repair, the replacement costs to repair two thousand vehicles that would be destroyed without the safety device翻譯社 70翻譯社 700 dollars per vehicle. So the benefits turned out to be only 49.5 million and so they didn't install the device. Needless to say翻譯社 when this memo of the Ford Motor Company's cost benefit analysis came out in the trial翻譯社 it appalled the jurors who awarded a huge settlement. Is this a counter example to the utilitarian idea of calculating? Because Ford included a measure of the value of life. Now who here wants to defend cost benefit analysis from this apparent counter example? Who has a defense? Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus?
Michael Sandel: Right, and uh, wait, wait, wait. That's good. What's your name?
Michael Sandel: You know, the uh, that's good, thank you. So these are some of the controversies that arise these days from cost benefit analysis翻譯社 especially those that involve placing a dollar value on everything to be added up. Well now I want to turn to your objections, to your objections not necessarily to cost benefit analysis specifically, because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today, but to the theory as a whole翻譯社 to the idea that the right thing to do翻譯社 the just basis for policy in law is to maximize utility.
Raul: Raul
Michael Sandel: Ahh, who has an answer to Anna's worry about the effect on the minority? What do you say to Anna?
Raul: In, yes.
Raul: Yeah...
Julie: Ahh翻譯社 Julie Rotoe.
How many disagree with the utilitarian approach to law and to the common good? How many agree with it? So more agree than disagree, so let’s hear from the critics.
Michael Sandel: OK. All right then翻譯社 one last question Raul
Yes.
Michael Sandel: Can you give an example?
Michael Sandel: Raul, there was recently a study done about cell phone use by drivers when people are driving a car and there's a debate about whether that should be banned. And the figure was that some 2000 people die as a result of accidents each year using cell phones and yet the cost benefit analysis, which was done by the Center of Risk Analysis at Harvard, found that if you look at the benefits of the cell phone use and you put some value on the life it comes out about the same. Because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time翻譯社 not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on while they are driving. Doesn't that suggest that it’s a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life?
Yongda: Yongda
Michael Sandel: Is that about right?
Michael Sandel: So if 200 thousand翻譯社 Julie翻譯社 is too, too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life; what would be, what do you think would be a more accurate number?
Michael Sandel: For the greater good. Anna what do you say? What's your name?
Raul: OK
Back in ancient Rome they threw Christians to the lions in the Coliseum for sport翻譯社 if you rea...
Raul: Maybe a million.
Raul: OK
Michael Sandel: Voitek says we have to allow for inflation翻譯社 we should be more generous. Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of thinking about the question?
Michael Sandel: You got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want to prevent those deaths by banning the use of cell phones in cars.
Julie: I don't believe I could give a number, I think that this sort of analysis is, shouldn't be applied to issues of human life. Can't be used, monetarily.
Think how the utilitarian calculus would go. Yes the Christian thrown to the lion suffers enormous excruciating pain but look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans.
Michael Sandel: What do you say to Yongda? Yongda says you just have to add up people’s preferences and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed. Can you give an example of the kind of thing you’re worried about when you say you’re worried about utilitarianism violating the concern or respect due the minority?
Yes翻譯社 go ahead.
Yongda
Raul: OK
Michael Sandel: All right, so Voitek says, and here he disagrees with Julie, Julie says we can't put a number on human life for the purpose of a cost benefit analysis. Voitek says we have to, because we have to make decisions somehow. What do other people say翻譯社 think about this? Is there anyone prepared to defend cost benefit analysis here? As accurate, as desirable?
Michael Sandel: But what roughly speaking would it be? You got 2300 deaths...
Voitek: I guess, unfortunately it is翻譯社 for, there needs to be a number put somewhere, like I'm not sure what that number would be but翻譯社 I do agree it could possibly be a number put on human life.
Michael Sandel: So, they didn’t just put too low of a number, Julie says翻譯社 they were wrong to put any kind of number at all. All right let’s hear someone who
Yongda: Well, umm, in that time, I don’t, if umm ahh翻譯社 in modern day of time to value the umm to, give a number to the happiness given to the people watching I don’t think that any like policymaker would say the pain of one person翻譯社 the suffering of one person is much much, is I mean, comparison to the happiness gained
Raul: Well, I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure翻譯社 I mean right now, I think that...
Anna: My main issue with it is that I feel like that you can't say that just because someone is in the minority what they want and need is less valuable than someone who is in the majority umm so I guess I have an issue with the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number is OK because there is still, what about people who are in the lesser number, like it's not fair to them, they didn't have any say in where they wanted to be.
Raul: I think that if Ford and other car companies didn't use cost benefit analysis they'd eventually go out of business because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get to jobs to put food on the table翻譯社 to feed their children. So I think that cost benefit analysis isn't employed the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.
Michael Sandel: No翻譯社 but you have to admit if there were enough for Romans delirious enough with happiness翻譯社 it would outweigh even the most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the lion. So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism. One has to do with whether utilitarianism adequately respects individual rights or minority rights and the other has to do with the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values, is it possible to aggregate all values to translate them into dollar terms. There was in the 18, in the 1930s, a a psychologist who tried to address this second question. He tried to prove what utilitarianism assumes, that it is possible to translate all goods, all values翻譯社 all human concerns into a single uniform measure, and he did this by conducting a survey of young recipients of relief. This was in the 1930s, and he asked them, he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences and he asked them how much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences and he kept track. For example翻譯社 how much would you have to be paid to have one upper front tooth pulled out. Or how much would you have to be paid to have one little翻譯社 one little toe cut off. Or to eat a live earthworm 6翻譯社 6 inches long, or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas翻譯社 or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands. Now, what do you suppose, what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list. Kansas? You’re right it was Kansas, for翻譯社 for Kansas people said they’d have to pay them, they would have to be paid $300,000. What do you think, what do you think was the next most expensive, not the cat, not the tooth, not the toe翻譯社 the worm. People said you’d have to pay them $100翻譯社000 to eat the worm. What do you think was the least expensive item, not the cat, the tooth during the Depression people were willing to have their tooth pulled for only $4500. Now here’s what Thorndike concluded from his study, any want or satisfaction which exists, exists in some amount and is therefore measurable; the life of a dog or a cat or a chicken consists of appetites, cravings, desires and their gratifications. So does the life of human beings, though the appetites and desires are more complicated. But what about Thorndike’s study翻譯社 does it support Bentham’s idea that all goods, all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value or does the preposterous character of the different items on the list suggest the opposite conclusion? That maybe whether we are talking about life or Kansas or the worm, maybe the things we value and cherish can't be captured according to a single uniform measure of value. If they can't翻譯社 what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory of morality?
Michael Sandel: So what would your hunch be? How much? A million? Two million? Two million was Voitek's figure.
Michael Sandel: All right that's an interesting objection, you are worried about the effect on the minority.
Michael Sandel: Umm, and I put this to Voitek. What, what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones?
Anna: OK
Yes.
Yongda: Umm, she said that the minority is valued less; I don't think that’s the case because individually the minority's value is just the same as the individual of the majority. It's just that the numbers outweigh the umm minority and I mean at a certain point you have to make a decision and I'm sorry for the minority but sometimes it's for the general, for the greater good.
That's the question we will continue with next time.


本篇文章引用自此: http://blog.roodo.com/arslonga/archives/16075871.html有關各國語文翻譯公證的問題歡迎諮詢天成翻譯公司02-77260931
沒有上一則|日誌首頁|沒有下一則
回應
關鍵字
[此功能已終止服務]
    沒有新回應!





Powered by Xuite