评论
打印
You are the captain of the Mallory 7, an interstellar cargo transport.
你是星际货船马洛利七号的舰长。
On your way to the New Lindley spaceport, you receive a distress call.
在你前往新林德利太空港的路上，你接到了求救的呼叫。
There's been an explosion on the Telic 12 and its passengers are running out of oxygen.
泰利克十二号发生爆炸，乘客的氧气即将用尽。
As you set a course to intercept, you check the Telic 12's manifest.
当你设定拦截航线时，也查了泰利克十二号的乘客名单。
It's currently transporting 30 middle-aged individuals from some of Earth's poorest districts to the labor center on New Lindley,
它目前正在载送三十名中年人，将他们从地球上最贫穷的地区送到新林德利的劳工中心，
where they'll be assigned jobs on the spaceport.
中心会安排他们在太空港工作。
But as you approach the Telic 12, you receive a second distress call.
但在接近泰利克十二号时，你又接到求救的呼叫。
A luxury space cruiser called the Pareto has lost a thruster, sending them careening towards an asteroid belt.
豪华的太空舰波里托号失去了一个推进器，让他们摇摇晃晃航向一个小行星带。
Without your help, the 20 college students headed for vacation aboard the Pareto are all doomed.
若你不前往协助，波里托号上去渡假的二十名大学生都是死路一条。
So with only enough time to save one ship, which one should you choose?
你的时间只够救一艘宇宙飞船，你会怎么选择？
This dilemma is an example of a broader class of problems where a life-saving resource -- such as a donated organ or vaccine -- is scarce.
这个两难的例子，是一类逻辑推理的代表性问题：当救命的资源--比如捐赠的器官或疫苗--很稀少。
There are many schools of thought on how to approach these problems,
对如何解决这类问题，有许多不同派的看法，
and one of the most influential is utilitarianism, an ethical view first systematically developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
最有影响力的其中一派就是功利主义，最早系统性发展出这种伦理观点的人是杰若米·班萨姆和约翰·史都华·米尔。
In this view, you should choose the action which promises the greatest sum of happiness.
在这种观点中，要选择的是能够达成最大总体快乐的做法。
Though, how to define and measure happiness is a difficult question.
不过，如何定义和测量快乐仍然是个难题。
For example, hedonists would suggest a happy life contains the most pleasure and the least pain.
比如，享乐主义者会说，快乐的人生就是要有最多的乐趣、最少的痛苦。
Others might say it's the life where your desires are most fulfilled.
也有人认为，最能满足欲望的人生才是最快乐的。
However happiness is defined, most would agree that saving 30 lives has the potential to generate more happiness than saving 20.
不论如何定义快乐，大部分人会同意，拯救三十条性命产生的快乐可能会多于拯救二十条性命。
But is it enough to consider how many lives would be saved? Or should you also consider how many life years would be?
但只考虑拯救的人数就够了吗？还是也应该要考虑剩下的寿命长度？
Assuming a life expectancy of 80, saving the lives of the students, with an average age of 20, saves 1,200 life years,
假设寿命是八十岁，若拯救平均年龄二十岁的学生，就拯救了一千两百年的寿命，
while saving the workers, with an average age of 45, saves 1,050.
若拯救平均年龄四十五岁的工人，则是一千零五十年。
All things being equal, a longer life should promise a greater sum of happiness than a shorter one.
如果其他条件都一样，越长的寿命代表的总体快乐应该会多于比较短的寿命。
So perhaps saving the smaller ship actually has the potential to generate the most happiness.
所以，也许拯救较小的宇宙飞船其实比较有可能产生最大的快乐。
If all these calculations feel a bit cold, you may want to consider a different approach.
若觉得这种计算方式有点冷血，你可以试试另一种方法。
The philosopher Derek Parfit argues we should give priority to the worse off,
哲学家德里克·帕菲特主张，应该优先考虑境况较差的人，
since benefits to those groups matter more than equivalent benefits to the well-off.
因为让这些族群受益比让境况较好的人受益更为重要。
In this view, it's more urgent to help those whose basic needs aren't met even if they're harder to help than those who are flourishing.
这种观点认为，较急迫的是去协助基本需求尚未被满足的人，即使协助他们比协助发达的人更困难。
But often, determining which group is truly worse off can get complicated fast.
但若要判定哪个族群境况较差，情况经常会马上变复杂。
In our case, Earth is still beset by drastic inequalities in wealth and opportunity.
在我们的例子中，地球仍然深深为财富与机会的不平等所苦。
And those able to afford a vacation on New Lindley and transport on a luxury cruiser are no doubt among the most well-off people on the planet.
所以有钱可以到新林德利渡假还搭豪华的大型太空舰，无疑一定属于地球上境况最好的人。
The workers, by contrast, are among the most disadvantaged, traveling away from home for months at a time to perform service work.
相对之下，工人则是最弱势的，每次都要离家数个月，去做服务性质的工作。
With fewer resources and opportunities, it's likely they've experienced more hardship in their lives than the vacationers, so maybe they're more deserving of rescue?
由于资源和机会都比较少，他们很可能在生活上会过得比那些渡假者更辛苦，所以也许他们比较应该得救？
On the other hand, the students have experienced less life overall -- so perhaps they're worse off?
另一方面，总的来说学生的人生经历还比较少，也许他们的境况算比较糟？
Or maybe none of these variables should influence our decision.
或者，也许我们的决策不该被这些变量左右。
The philosopher John Taurek famously argued that in these types of cases, the numbers don't count.
哲学家约翰·陶瑞克很知名的主张就是：在这类例子中，不要管数字。
Each person is deserving of equal concern and respect, so the best way to decide which passengers to save is to flip a coin.
每个人都应该得到同等的关注和尊重，所以决定该救哪些乘客的最佳方式就是掷硬币。
While this might seem arbitrary at first, this approach treats all parties equally, giving each individual an equal chance of being rescued.
虽然一开始可能会觉得很随便，但这个方法对各方一视同仁，平等给每个人得救的机会。
Could any passenger argue that they're being treated unfairly by a coin flip? It's tough to say.
有任何乘客能争论说掷硬币对他们不公平吗？很难说。
But how they -- and you -- feel about the result may be another dilemma altogether.
但他们--以及你--对掷硬币结果会有什么感受，可能又完全是另一个两难的问题了。
