You are the captain of the Mallory 7, an interstellar cargo transport. On your way to the New Lindley spaceport, you receive a distress call. There’s been an explosion on the Telic 12 and its passengers are running out of oxygen. As you set a course to intercept, you check the Telic 12′s manifest. It’s currently transporting 30 middle-aged individuals from some of Earth’s poorest districts to the labor center on New Lindley, where they'll be assigned jobs on the spaceport.
你係星際貨船 Mallory 7 嘅船長 喺去 New Lindley 嘅途中 收到求救嘅信號 Telic 12 發生爆炸 乘客嘅氧氣好快無曬 當設置攔截路線嗰陣 你檢查咗 Telic 12 嘅艙單 目前正將三十名來自地球貧民區嘅中年人 送往 New Lindley 勞動力中心 佢哋將會喺航天站獲得分配工作
But as you approach the Telic 12, you receive a second distress call. A luxury space cruiser called the Pareto has lost a thruster, sending them careening towards an asteroid belt. Without your help, the 20 college students headed for vacation aboard the Pareto are all doomed.
但你駛向 Telic 12 時 又收到第二個求救信號 豪華太空船 Pareto 失去咗一個推進器 正受影響,傾斜向一群小行星帶進發 沒有你嘅幫忙 二十個旅遊途中嘅大學生係命中注定喇
So with only enough time to save one ship, which one should you choose?
而你只係有時間拯救一艘船 咁你會選擇邊艘船呢?
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. There are many schools of thought on how to approach these problems, and one of the most influential is utilitarianism, an ethical view first systematically developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In this view, you should choose the action which promises the greatest sum of happiness. Though, how to define and measure happiness is a difficult question. For example, hedonists would suggest a happy life contains the most pleasure and the least pain. Others might say it’s the life where your desires are most fulfilled. However happiness is defined, most would agree that saving 30 lives has the potential to generate more happiness than saving 20.
呢種兩難嘅局面屬於更廣範疇問題嘅例子 就係當救人嘅資源 就比如器官或疫苗面臨短缺嘅情況下 有好多學校研究點樣解決呢啲問題 其中最具影響力嘅解決方法係功利主義 由 Jeremy Bentham 同 John Stuart Mill 首先發展嘅倫理觀念 認為你應該做啲 畀你得到最多幸福感嘅選擇 但係點樣定義同量度幸福感係個難題 比如享樂主義者會講快樂嘅人生 係有最多嘅歡樂同埋最少嘅痛苦 其餘啲人會講,快樂嘅人生 係能夠滿足最多嘅慾望 唔論你點樣定義幸福感 好多人會贊同拯救三十條人命 比救二十條人命,潛在 產生更多嘅幸福感
But is it enough to consider how many lives would be saved? Or should you also consider how many life years would be? Assuming a life expectancy of 80, saving the lives of the students, with an average age of 20, saves 1,200 life years, while saving the workers, with an average age of 45, saves 1,050. All things being equal, a longer life should promise a greater sum of happiness than a shorter one. So perhaps saving the smaller ship actually has the potential to generate the most happiness.
咁樣做決定係唔係就係足夠咩? 或者,係唔係需要諗啲人 仲有幾多年可以繼續生存呢? 假設預咗人有八十歲命 拯救平均二十歲嘅學生 就等於拯救咗一千二百年嘅壽命 如果拯救平均四十五歲嘅工人呢﹗ 就等於救咗一千零五十年嘅壽命 假設其他條件唔變 救咗多啲人嘅生存年數 可以帶來更多嘅幸福感 所以拯救嗰艘細嘅太空船 畀你帶來更多嘅幸福感
If all these calculations feel a bit cold, you may want to consider a different approach. The philosopher Derek Parfit argues we should give priority to the worse off, since benefits to those groups matter more than equivalent benefits to the well-off. 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. But often, determining which group is truly worse off can get complicated fast. In our case, Earth is still beset by drastic inequalities in wealth and opportunity. 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. The workers, by contrast, are among the most disadvantaged, traveling away from home for months at a time to perform service work. 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? On the other hand, the students have experienced less life overall— so perhaps they’re worse off?
如果你覺得咁樣計算太過冷血, 可以試下另一個方法。 哲學家 Derek Parfit 指出 我哋應該將優先權畀啲情況較差嘅人, 由於幫助呢啲人 比起幫助富有嘅人更加重要 從呢個角度睇,最急切嘅係 幫助嗰啲唔能夠滿足基本生活需要嘅人 儘管比起生活富足嘅人更難嚟到幫助 但係要判斷邊個情況較差係更加複雜。 呢種情況下,地球仍然受貧富懸殊 同埋資源分配不公平嘅困擾 嗰啲能夠負擔到 New Lindley 旅行 坐豪華太空船嘅人 毫無疑問係地球上最富裕嘅一批人 對比起嚟,工人係社會嘅低層 為咗生計離家幾個月 喺缺乏資源同埋機會底下 佢哋比起啲富有嘅遊客 已經面對咗更多艱辛嘅處境 係唔係佢哋更值得我哋拯救呢? 睇嚟學生未能夠得到更多嘅人生經驗 佢哋嘅情況又係唔係更差呢?
Or maybe none of these variables should influence our decision. The philosopher John Taurek famously argued that in these types of cases, the numbers don’t count. Each person is deserving of equal concern and respect, so the best way to decide which passengers to save is to flip a coin. While this might seem arbitrary at first, this approach treats all parties equally, giving each individual an equal chance of being rescued. Could any passenger argue that they're being treated unfairly by a coin flip? It’s tough to say. But how they— and you— feel about the result may be another dilemma altogether.
或者我哋嘅決定 唔應該受任何變數嘅影響好啲 哲學家 John Taurek 出名嘅觀點指出,喺呢種情況下 數字並唔係咁緊要 每一個人都值得我哋關心同埋尊重 所以掟銀仔做決定 拯救邊一啲乘客係最佳嘅方法 雖然睇嚟呢啲方法好隨便 但係對持份者係公平嘅 每一個人都得到同樣嘅拯救機會 有邊個乘客可以指出 掟銀仔嘅做法係唔公平咩? 咁就好難講啦﹗ 但係佢哋或者你哋對結果嘅感受 講真就係另一個兩難嘅題目啦!