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.
你是马洛里7号 星际货物运输太空船的船长。 在你前往新林德利太空港的路上, 收到了一个求救信号。 泰利奇12号发生了爆炸 它里面的乘客用完了所有氧气。 当你设置拦截路线时, 会检查泰利奇12号的手册。 目前它正在运送30名中年人, 从地球上一些最贫穷的地区, 到新林德利的劳动力中心, 在那里他们会分配太空港的工作。
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.
但当你接近泰利奇12号时, 又收到了第二个求救信号。 一艘名为帕累托的豪华太空巡洋舰 失去了一个推进器, 将它们送向了小行星带。 如果没有你的帮助, 去度假的20名大学生 在帕累托号上的命运就注定了。
So with only enough time to save one ship, which one should you choose?
所以当你只有足够时间救一艘太空船时, 你应该选择哪一艘呢?
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.
这种困境是更广泛问题的一个例子 在救生资源方面,例如捐赠的器官 或疫苗的稀缺情况下, 有很多学校思考如何应对这些问题, 其中最有影响力的一种是功利主义, 还有伦理观首先被系统地发展, 多得杰里米·边沁 和约翰·斯图尔特·米尔的努力 。 在这种观点下,你应该选择的行动 是保证最大的幸福度总和。 尽管,如何定义和测量幸福度 是困难的问题。 例如享乐主义者会提出的是快乐生活, 包含最大的乐趣和最少的痛苦。 其他人可能会说的是, 那愿望能实现最滿足的生活。 但不管幸福是怎么定义的, 大多数人都会同意 拯救30个生命 是最有潜力去产生更高的幸福度, 相比于只拯救20个人。
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.
但只思考去拯救多少生命足够吗? 或者你是不是应该也考虑一下 总共有多少的寿命年呢? 假设预期寿命为80岁, 若挽救学生的生命, 他们的平均年龄为20岁, 你就拯救了1,200 寿命年, 工人平均年龄为45岁,如果拯救他们, 你挽回了1,050寿命年。 当万事平等,能挽救 更长的寿命年, 应该保证了更满足的幸福度。 所以拯救更小的那艘船, 或许更有潜力产生最大的幸福度。
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?
如果这些计算感觉有些冷血, 你可能想考虑一种不同的解决方案。 哲学家德里克·帕菲特认为, 我们应该优先考虑处境更糟糕的人, 因为这些群体的利益 相比富裕群体的更重要。 在这种观点下,帮助那些基本需求 得不到满足的人更为逼切, 尽管他们比那些富裕的人更难帮助。 但在正常情况下,确定哪个团体情况更糟 可能会很快变得复杂。 在设定情况下, 地球仍然正在被严重的 财富不平等机遇所困扰 。 那些足够支付乘坐豪华巡洋舰费用 到新林德利度假的人, 是毫无疑问属于地球上 最富裕的一群人。 相比之下,那些劳动人民, 是处于最不利的处境, 他们要离家数月执行服务工作。 由于资源和机会的缺乏, 意味着他们很可能经历的艰辛, 远远多于那些富裕游客, 所以也许他们更值得拯救? 另一方面,学生总体上经历的生活较少, 所以他们的情况也许更糟?
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.
又或者这些因素 都不应该影响我们的选择。 哲学家约翰·陶雷克有其著名论点, 在这种的案例中, 数量不是在计算之内。 每个人都值得平等的关注和尊重, 因此决定要拯救哪些乘客, 最佳的方法是抛硬币。 虽然这乍看似乎很随意, 但这种方法可平等对待所有当事人, 给予每个单独的个体被拯救的平等机会。 会有乘客争辩说 受到了抛硬币的不公平对待吗? 这很难说。 但他们以及你对结果的看法 可能完全是另一个两难选择。