評論
打印
Science and Technology
科技
Moral philosophy
道德哲學
Goodness has nothing to do with it
一點也不善良
Utilitarians are not nice people
功利主義者絕非善類
IN THE grand scheme of things Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are normally thought of as good guys.
杰里米·邊沁和約翰·斯圖亞特·穆勒是公認的好好先生。
Between them, they came up with the ethical theory known as utilitarianism.
在倫理學上，他們提出了功利主義原則。
The goal of this theory is encapsulated in Bentham's aphorism that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."
從邊沁的名言"最多數人的最大幸福乃道德與立法之根本"，功利主義的原則可見一斑。
Which all sounds fine and dandy until you start applying it to particular cases.
聽上去合情合理看上去美輪美奐，但是應用功利主義進行道德判斷時就不是那么回事了。
A utilitarian, for example, might approve of the occasional torture of suspected terrorists—for the greater happiness of everyone else, you understand.
例如，功利主義者會同意特殊情況下對恐怖嫌疑人施以酷刑，你懂的，為了最多數人的最大幸福。
That type of observation has led Daniel Bartels at Columbia University and David Pizarro at Cornell to ask what sort of people actually do have a utilitarian outlook on life.
哥倫比亞大學的丹尼爾巴特斯和康奈爾大學的大衛皮塞羅觀察到這一現象，使得他們發問，在現實生活中，功利主義者究竟表現為怎樣的人。
Their answers, just published in Cognition, are not comfortable.
在他們最近合著的《認知》（Cognition）給出的答案了讓人不安。
One of the classic techniques used to measure a person's willingness to behave in a utilitarian way is known as trolleyology.
"失控電車困境"是公認的經典方法，用來判斷一個人是否樂意根據功利主義原則做決定。
The subject of the study is challenged with thought experiments involving a runaway railway trolley or train carriage.
在這個思維實驗中，被調查者面臨一部失控電車或者火車車廂帶來的困境。
All involve choices, each of which leads to people's deaths.
而所有給出的選項都涉及人命。
For example: there are five railway workmen in the path of a runaway carriage. The men will surely be killed unless the subject of the experiment, a bystander in the story, does something.
假設，五個處于失控電車鐵軌上的鐵路工人危在旦夕，亟需站在橫跨鐵路的橋梁上的路人，也就是被調查者伸出援手。
The subject is told he is on a bridge over the tracks. Next to him is a big, heavy stranger.
被調查者旁邊有另一個陌生的大胖子。
The subject is informed that his own body would be too light to stop the train, but that if he pushes the stranger onto the tracks, the stranger's large body will stop the train and save the five lives.
實驗人員告訴被調查者，他身體太單薄難以阻擋電車，但是如果他把旁邊的大胖子扔到鐵軌中那么另外五個人將獲救。
That, unfortunately, would kill the stranger.
但很不幸那個大塊頭則要死于非命。
Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro knew from previous research that around 90% of people refuse the utilitarian act of killing one individual to save five.
過去的調查中，巴特斯和皮塞羅博士知道大概90%的人都不選擇殺一換五。
What no one had previously inquired about, though, was the nature of the remaining 10%.
但是從來沒有人研究過剩下的10%的性格。
To find out, the two researchers gave 208 undergraduates a battery of trolleyological tests and measured, on a four-point scale, how utilitarian their responses were.
為了找出功利主義者如何應對，他們對208名在校大學生生發放了連串的關于"失控電車困境"問卷和他們性格的調查。
Participants were also asked to respond to a series of statements intended to get a sense of their individual psychologies.
參與調查的人用嚴重同意到嚴重不同意四個等級回應一系列陳述，研究人員據此了解他們的精神狀態。
These statements included, "I like to see fist fights", "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear", and "When you really think about it, life is not worth the effort of getting up in the morning".
這些陳述包括"我喜歡看打斗場面"，"投其所好，是控制別人的最有效方式"，"如果你認真思考世界的話，每天早上就不值得起來"，每個陳述都要求被調查者在"嚴重同意"到"嚴重不同意"之間表明立場。
Each was asked to indicate, for each statement, where his views lay on a continuum that had "strongly agree" at one end and "strongly disagree" at the other. These statements, and others like them, were designed to measure, respectively, psychopathy, Machiavellianism and a person's sense of how meaningful life is.
以上的陳述及測試中的其他陳述分別旨在衡量參與者心理是否正常，是否是喜歡玩弄權術的馬基雅維利主義者以及他是否覺得生命有意義。
Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro then correlated the results from the trolleyology with those from the personality tests. They found a strong link between utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas (push the fat guy off the bridge) and personalities that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended to view life as meaningless.
巴特斯和皮塞羅博士對"失控電車困境"和性格測試的結果歸類發現，在道德困境問題中表現出功利主義（也就是把大塊頭扔下橋的人）大部分表現為心理陰暗，玩弄權術又或者對人生絕望。
Utilitarians, this suggests, may add to the sum of human happiness, but they are not very happy people themselves.
由此可見，盡管功利主義者或許能提高人類總體的幸福，但本身卻不見得幸福。
That does not make utilitarianism wrong.
這并不是說功利主義不正確。
Crafting legislation—one of the main things that Bentham and Mill wanted to improve—inevitably involves riding roughshod over someone's interests.
邊沁和穆勒一直追求更為公正的立法，但在這個過程中，某些人的利益無可避免的將被殘酷打壓。
Utilitarianism provides a plausible framework for deciding who should get trampled.
功利主義者為打壓提供了一種合理的理論。
The results obtained by Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro do, though, raise questions about the type of people who you want making the laws.
但巴斯滕和皮塞羅博士的研究卻質問我們選舉立法人員的準則。
Psychopathic, Machiavellian misanthropes? Apparently, yes.
心理陰暗，玩弄權術還有反人類的人可以立法嗎？可以，大眾很明顯寄望這些人。
