You’re sitting on the couch watching TV, when you hear a knock on the door. The police have just arrived to arrest your spouse— for murder. This accusation comes as a total shock. In your experience, your partner has always been gentle and loving, and you can't imagine them committing a grisly murder. But the evidence is serious: their fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. Your spouse insists they're innocent. “I know it looks bad,” they say, “but you have to believe me! If you don’t, who will?” Should you believe your spouse, even though the evidence against them looks damning? Take a second to think what you would believe in this situation.
你坐在沙發上看電視時 聽到有人在敲門的聲音 警察前來拘捕你的另一半 以謀殺的罪名來拘捕 這項指控讓人感到非常震驚 在你的印象中,你的伴侶 總是既溫柔又有愛心 你無法想像他會犯下 這麼恐怖的謀殺案 但是調查證據詳實 凶器上發現了他的指紋 你的另一半堅持他的清白 「我知道這一切看起來很糟,」他說 「但你一定要相信我!」 「如果你不相信我,誰會信?」 你是否應該相信你的另一半呢? 即使不利於他的證明都鐵證如山? 花點時間想想 在這個情況下,你會相信什麼
This dilemma is part of what philosophers call the ethics of belief: a field of study that explores how we ought to form beliefs, and whether we have ethical duties to believe certain things. The question here isn't about what you should do, such as whether or not you should find your spouse guilty in a court of law. After all, you wouldn’t be on the jury in their trial! Rather, it’s about what you should believe to be true. So, what factors should you consider?
這個兩難就是哲學家所謂 「信念倫理學」的一部分 這個研究領域探討的是 我們該如何形成信念 以及我們是否有道德義務 去相信某些事情 這裡的問題並非關於你應該怎麼做 像是,你應不應該在法庭上證明 你的另一半是否有罪 畢竟在審判時 你根本不會出現在陪審團裡 這個問題關乎的是 你應該要相信什麼東西是真實的 既然如此,你該考量哪些要素呢?
Perhaps the most obvious is your evidence. After all, to believe something is to take it to be true. And evidence is, by definition, all information that helps us determine what's true. From this, some philosophers draw the conclusion that evidence is the only thing that ought to determine what you believe. This view is called evidentialism, and a strict evidentialist would say it doesn’t matter that the accused is your spouse. You should evaluate the evidence from a neutral, objective point of view. Taking the perspective of an unbiased third party, your judgment of your spouse's character is a relevant consideration. But finding their fingerprints at the crime scene is surely stronger evidence. So, from an evidentialist point of view, you should either believe your spouse is guilty, or at best remain undecided.
或許最顯見的就是你的證據了 畢竟,要相信某件事情 就得要認為那件事情是真的 而證據的定義就是 能夠幫助我們確認 何者為真的所有訊息 因此有些哲學家得出的結論是 證據作為唯一的要素 應當讓你決定要相信什麼 這個觀點稱之為「證據主義」 而且一個不折不扣的證據主義者會說 就算被告人是你的另一半也沒關係 你評估證據時 應該要保持中立且客觀 以一個不帶偏見的第三者角度來看 你自己對於另一半的判斷 是個相對的考量因子 但在犯罪現場找到了他的指紋 卻是個強而有力的證據 因此,根據證據主義者的觀點 你要嘛應該相信另一半有罪 不然頂多就是持保留態度
Some philosophers present evidentialism only as a view of what’s most rational to believe. But others, like 19th century evidentialist W.K. Clifford, think that following the evidence is also morally required. One argument for this view is that having well-informed, accurate beliefs is often vitally important to determining the ethical way to act. Another argument is that there’s something unethical about being dishonest, and refusing to follow the evidence is a way of being dishonest with oneself.
有些哲學家僅將證據主義當成 一種最合理可信的觀點 但是其他人,像是19世紀的實證主義者 W. L.克里福就認為 遵循證據也算是道德上的要求 這種觀點的論證是 擁有充分的理解與精確的信念 往往對於確立道德表現 是至關重要的 另一個論證是 不誠實即是不道德 不遵循證據也是一種 對自己不誠實的方式
However, perhaps there are other ethical factors in play. Although the evidence against your spouse is strong, there’s still a chance that they’re actually innocent. Think for a moment about how it would feel to be innocent, and have no one believe you— not even your own partner! By not trusting your spouse, you run the risk of seriously hurting them in their crucial hour of need. Moreover, consider what this lack of trust would do to your marriage. It would be incredibly difficult to continue a loving relationship with someone that you believed— or even strongly suspected— was a murderer. You might try to pretend to believe that your spouse is innocent, but could you really go on living that lie?
然而,或許還有其他的 道德因素起了作用 雖然不利於你另一半的證據 非常強而有力 但還是有機會證明他確實是清白的 想一想,若你是無辜者 會有什麼感受? 沒有人相信你 就連伴侶都不相信你 如果你不相信自己的另一半 你冒的風險就是 在他最需要幫助時狠狠地傷害他 此外還要考慮,失去信任 會對你們的婚姻產生什麼影響 這會讓你們很難繼續維持戀愛關係 就因為你認為,或是強烈地懷疑對方 是個殺人犯 你或許會裝作自己相信另一半是清白的 但你真的能一直活在這個謊言裡嗎?
According to a theory of the ethics of belief called pragmatism, these kinds of practical considerations can sometimes make it right to believe something even without strong evidence. Some pragmatists would even say that you morally owe it to your spouse to believe them.
根據信念倫理學當中 一個稱作「實用主義」的理論 這些務實的考量有時候 會讓人相信某些東西是正確的 即使是在一個沒有確切證據的情況下 有些實用主義者甚至會說 你在道德上有義務相信你的另一半
But is it even possible to believe your spouse is innocent just because you think it’ll be good for your relationship? Or because you think you owe it to the accused? You might desperately want to believe they’re innocent, but can you control your beliefs in the same way you control your actions? It seems like you can’t just believe whatever you like when the truth is staring you in the face. But on the other hand, recall your spouse’s plea. When we say things like this, we seem to be assuming that it is possible to control our beliefs in some way. So what do you think? Can you control what beliefs you have? And if so, what will you believe about your spouse?
但,有可能你會相信另一半的清白 就只因為你覺得有助於你們的感情嗎? 還是因為你覺得對於被告人有所虧欠? 你可能拚了命想要相信他的清白 但你能以控制行動的方式 來控制你的信念嗎? 你似乎不能夠一味地相信你想相信的 尤其事實就擺在眼前 但另一方面說來 你去回顧另一半的抗辯 當我們談的是這樣的事情時 我們似乎在假設自己有可能 在某些程度上控制信念 那你是怎麼想的呢? 你能夠控制自己擁有什麼信念嗎? 如果你能的話 你會相信關於另一半的哪些事情呢?