ADM-201 dump PMP dumps pdf SSCP exam materials CBAP exam sample questions

你会选择牺牲一个人来救五个人吗? – 译学馆
未登陆,请登陆后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

你会选择牺牲一个人来救五个人吗?

Would you sacrifice one person to save five? - Eleanor Nelsen

Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley
假设你正看着一辆失控的电车
barreling down the tracks
沿着轨道急速前行
straight towards five workers who can’t escape.
径直驶向五名无法逃脱的工人
You happen to be standing next to a switch
这时你碰巧站在一个转辙器旁边
that will divert the trolley onto a second track.
只要启动转辙器 电车就会转到第二条轨道上
Here’s the problem.
那么问题来了
That track has a worker on it, too, but just one.
那条轨道上也有一名工人 不过只有一名
What do you do?
你会怎么做?
Do you sacrifice one person to save five?
你会不会为了救五个人而牺牲一个人呢?
This is the trolley problem,
这就是“电车难题”
a version of an ethical dilemma
它是哲学家菲力帕•芙特
that philosopher Philippa Foot devised in 1967.
在1967年设计的道德困境的一个版本
It’s popular because it forces us to think
它很受欢迎 因为它迫使我们思考
about how to choose when there are no good choices.
如何在进退两难的情况下作出选择
Do we pick the action with the best outcome
我们应选择的究竟是结果最好的行为
or stick to a moral code that prohibits causing someone’s death?
还是坚持道德标准 不让另一个人死亡?
In one survey, about 90 % of respondents
在一项调查中 大约90%的受访者表示
said that it’s okay to flip the switch,
启动转辙器 杀死一个工人以救五个人
letting one worker die to save five,
是可以接受的行为
and other studies, including a virtual reality simulation of the dilemma,
其他的研究 包括对该难题的一项虚拟现实模拟
have found similar results.
也得出了相似的结果
These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism
这类判断与效益主义的哲学原则一致
which argues that the morally correct decision
主张从道德的角度来看
is the one that maximizes well-being for the greatest number of people.
让最多人获得最大益处的决定 才是正确的决定
The five lives outweigh one,
五条人命比一条人命更重要
even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.
就算必须害死一个人也一样
But people don’t always take the utilitarian view,
但人们并非总是从效益主义出发
which we can see by changing the trolley problem a bit.
只要稍微调整一下电车难题 便可见一斑
This time, you’re standing on a bridge over the track
这次 你正站在跨越轨道的一座桥上
as the runaway trolley approaches.
而失控的电车正朝你驶来
Now there’s no second track,
现在只有一条轨道
but there is a very large man on the bridge next to you.
但是桥上有一个大胖子站在你边上
If you push him over, his body will stop the trolley,
只要把他推下桥 他的身体就会挡住电车
saving the five workers, but he’ll die.
这样就能救到那五名工人 但大胖子会死
To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same,
对效益主义者来说 这两个决定完全一样
lose one life to save five.
都是为救五条人命而牺牲一条人命
But in this case, only about 10% of people
但是这次 只有大约10%的人表示
say that it’s OK to throw the man onto the tracks.
把大胖子推下去轨道 是可以接受的行为
Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone’s death
我们本能地知道 故意害死一个人
is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage.
不同于把他们的死当作附带损害
It just feels wrong for reasons that are hard to explain.
这么做感觉上是不对的 但理由却说不上来
This intersection between ethics and psychology
道德和心理学的交叉
is what’s so interesting about the trolley problem.
正是电车难题的有趣之处
The dilemma in its many variations
这一难题的各种形式表明
reveal that what we think is right or wrong
我们对于对和错的认知
depends on factors other than a logical weighing of the pros and cons.
不仅仅取决于对利和弊的理性权衡
For example, men are more likely than women
比方说 相较于女性
to say it’s okay to push the man over the bridge.
男性更愿意把大胖子推下桥
So are people who watch a comedy clip before doing the thought experiment.
进行这项思想实验前观看喜剧片段的人也一样
And in one virtual reality study,
此外 在一项虚拟现实研究中
people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.
比起牺牲女性 人们更愿意牺牲男性
Researchers have studied the brain activity of people thinking through
研究人员对思考这一经典和“桥”版本电车难题的人
the classic and bridge versions.
进行了脑活动的研究
Both scenarios activate areas of the brain
大脑中被这两个状况激活的区域
involved in conscious decision-making and emotional responses.
与有意识的决策能力和情绪反应有关
But in the bridge version, the emotional response is much stronger.
但是“桥”版本引发的情绪反应更为强烈
So is activity in an area of the brain
大脑中负责处理内心冲突的区域
associated with processing internal conflict.
也会发生更强烈的活动
Why the difference?
两者之间为何有差别呢?
One explanation is that
有一种解释就是
pushing someone to their death feels more personal,
把人推向死亡的想法会让自己产生一些情绪
activating an emotional aversion to killing another person,
从而抗拒杀人的动作
but we feel conflicted
但是我们倍感矛盾
because we know it’s still the logical choice.
因为我们知道 这还是逻辑上的选择
“Trolleyology” has been criticized by some philosophers and psychologists.
“电车学”遭到了一些哲学家和心理学家的批评
They argue that it doesn’t reveal anything
他们认为 这一难题不能揭露什么
because its premise is so unrealistic
因为它的假设不切实际
that study participants don’t take it seriously.
以至于参与者们在研究中表现得不认真
But new technology
但是新技术的发明
is making this kind of ethical analysis more important than ever.
让这类道德分析变得比以往更重要了
For example, driver-less cars may have to handle choices
比如说 自动驾驶汽车可能必须决定
like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one.
是否应该为避免发生严重车祸而酿成小车祸
Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones
与此同时 各国政府研究的自动驾驶军用无人机
that could wind up making decisions
可能必须决定
of whether they’ll risk civilian casualties
该不该冒着平民死伤的风险
to attack a high-value target.
去攻击一个高价值的目标
If we want these actions to be ethical,
要想做出有道德的行动
we have to decide in advance
我们就要事先决定
how to value human life and judge the greater good.
如何判断人命的价值和更大范围的利益
So researchers who study autonomous systems
因此 自动驾驶系统方面的研究人员
are collaborating with philosophers
正在与哲学家合作
to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines,
以解决将道德编入机器程序这一复杂问题
which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas
由此可见 即便是假设性的难题
can wind up on a collision course with the real world.
也会和现实世界撞个正着

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

你会选择牺牲一个人来救五个人吗?

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

搬那度

审核员

审核员 V

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg16u_bzjPE

相关推荐