《正义课程第四讲：深入阅读与全面解析》

大家好，今天来为大家分享《正义课程第四讲：深入阅读与全面解析》的一些知识点，和的问题解析，大家要是都明白，那么可以忽略，如果不太清楚的话可以看看本篇文章，相信很大概率可以解决您的问题，接下来我们就一起来看看吧！

and you remember,we considered some examples of cost-benefit analysis,but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benefit analysis when it came to placing dollar value on human life.and so that led us to the second objection.it questioned whether it’s possible to translate all values into a single uniform measure of value.it asks,in other words,whether all values are commensurable（可以同单位度量的）.第二点争议是否可以用一种统一的方式衡量所有东西？

Let me give you one other example of an experience.this actually is a true story.it comes from personal experience that raises a question at least about whether all values can be translated without loss（完好无损） into utilitarian terms.所有价值是否能够完好无损地转化为功利主义的形式？重点在于完好无损地转化。

some years ago,when I was a graduate student,I was at oxford in England and they had men’s and women’s colleges.they weren’t yet mixed and women’s colleges had rules against overnight male guests.by the 1970s,these rules were rarely enforced and easily violated,or so I was told（至少我听说是这样）.by the late 1970s,when I was there,pressure grew to relax these rules and it became the subject of debate among the faculty at st.anne’s college,which was one of these all-women’s colleges.the older women on the faculty were traditionalists.they were opposed to change unconventional moral grounds.but times have changed.and they were embarrassed to give the true grounds for their objection and so they translated their arguments into utilitarian terms.“if men stay overnight,”they argued,“the costs to the college will increase,”how?you might wonder.“well,they’ll want to take baths and that’ll use up hot water,”they said.furthermore,they argued,“we’ll have to replace the mattresses（床垫） more often.”the reformers met these arguments by adopting the following compromise.each woman could have a maximum of three overnight male guests each week.they didn’t say whether it had to be the same one or three different,provided（前提、在…条件下）,and this was the compromise,provided the guest paid 50 pence to defray（支付、付给） the cost to the college.the next day,the national headline in the national newspaper reads,“st.anne’s girls,50 pence a night.”another illustration of the difficulty of translating all values,in this case,a certain idea of virtue,into utilitarian terms.so that’s all to illustrate the second objection to utilitarianism,at least the part of that objection,that question whether utilitaranism is right to assume that we can assume the uniformity of value,the commensurability of all values and translate all moral considerations into dollars or money.but there is a second aspect to this worry about aggregating values and preferences，why should we weigh all preferences that people have without assessing whether they’re good preferences or bad preferences?shouldn’t we distinguish between higher pleasures and lower pleasures?明明是有关于德性的问题，却因为时代的改变，只能与时俱进地采取曲折的方式来表达他们的抗议，这个事件本身反映了有些东西不能完好无损地转化为金钱或者其它的功利主义所一直声称的可以用一个统一的标准来转化任何东西。我们可以质疑功利主义的这种假设是否正确，即假设价值同质，所有价值可比以及所有道德问题都能用金钱衡量。另一方面的担忧是对价值和选择的简单相加，为什么我们该同等看待所有偏好，而不区分其好坏呢？难道不该区分高级快乐和低级快乐吗？调侃地说几句，学校是不是也在为学生的劳逸结合着想。学校是否充当了皮条客呢？比如更换床垫这个行为。这个报纸的新闻发布者也是够可以的，真行。

Now,part of the appeal of not making any qualitative distinctions.about the worth of people’s preferences,part of the appeal is that it is nonjudgmental and egalitarian（主张平等的、平等主义的）.不区分这些，是为了主张所有的都是平等的。我记得，易中天和一个人有个对话，那个人说，你说话为什么不分场合呢，对所有人都一个语气，一个样子，这是刻意还是不刻意？易中天说，你对领导一个样子说话，对其他人一个样子说话，这难道不是刻意吗？我谁也不管谁不谁，这才能显示出所有人都平等。我不想在此展开分析这套规则背后的原因，我只说一句，儒家没有真正区分家庭和家庭外之间的处世规则，如果你读《四书章句集注》仔细的话，以孟子为代表的儒家是有他们的理由的，他们在批评墨子的时候显示了这一点，他们说墨子是二心，而他们只有一个心，采取不同的处世规则就意味着你有两个心了。但这是希腊人不同意的。我想接着就这个继续探讨原因，因为中国就没有家庭以外的关系。我说这个并不是偏激，你仔细想想，家庭以外是宗族，这是家庭关系的延伸。在社会里，我们也会向陌生人认亲戚。比如什么干爹、干妈，我们总是试图把陌生人的关系消解到我们熟悉的领域即家庭关系。那么国家呢，别忘了，中国是家天下，你方唱罢我登场的家族式统治，这在西晋和东晋表现得最为明显。皇帝是一个家族，而那些世家大族也是一个家族，为什么东晋会兴起记录家族传承谱系的职业，因为他们重视血缘，重视家族传承，还是西周以来的嫡长子继承制传统。好像有点扯远了。其实，你如果关注学术信息的话，光我就看到好几位学者试图解决儒家如何面对陌生人的问题，比如柯小刚的文章，比如程乐松的文章，当然还有很多很多，我们把视野放得更大一点，这个问题就是自五四以来一直困扰学者们的问题，即儒家与现代社会的问题。我的意见是，或者我的情绪是儒家与现代社会不合，当然，问题的关键还在于如何理解现代社会这个概念。我想说的是希腊人在僭主政治时期就以快刀斩乱麻的方式解决了家庭问题，而我们就像以侯外庐为代表的老一辈学者所说的那样，我们早熟而不成熟。《士兵突击》里的连长高城不是说过吗？早熟的人通常都晚熟。当然了，这又是一个很大的问题，我不想在这里解释早熟的原因。我也看到一些学者对此的看法，说实话，有点道理，但不伤筋动骨，一针见血，而我又没有找到一个能够说服我自己的看法，因此只能保持存疑。我要补充的是，也许世界上没有一个最好的生活方式，一个巴掌拍不响，一个传统的形成一定是这个民族选择的结果，至于未来的世界是什么，完全取决于今天的人怎么看待自己，看待过去的传统，怎么理解什么才是真正好的东西。在这里，我觉得我说的已经够多了。

The Benthamite utilitarian says everybody’s preferences count and they count regardless of what people want,regardless of what makes different people happy.for bentham,all that matters,you’ll remember,are the intensity and the duration of a pleasure or a pain.the so-called “higher pleasures or nobler virtues”are simply those,according to bentham,that produce stronger,longer pleasure.he had a fomous phrase to express this idea,“the quantity of pleasure being equal,pushpin（一种儿童游戏） is as good as poetry.”what was pushpin?it was some kind of a child’s game,like tiddlywinks.“pushpin is as good as poetry,”Bentham says.and lying behind this idea,I think,is the claim,the intuition,that it’s a presumption（推测、设想） to judge whose pleasures are intrinsically higher or worthier or better.and there is something attractive in this refusal to judge.after all,some people like Mozart（莫扎特）,others Madonna（麦当娜，歌手）.some people like ballet,others bowling.who’s to say,a benthamite might argue,who is to say which of these pleasures,whose pleasures are higher,worthier,nobler than others?but is that right,this refusal to make qualitative distinctions?can we altogether dispense with the idea that certain things we take pleasure in are better or worthier than others?这种不区分快乐是不是对的？不管怎样，我认为你只要区分快乐，你就意味着区分了欲望的等级，你就有了嘲笑别人的资本，因为你比别人追求的看起来貌似要高，我想说的是，喝红酒的人是否有资格嘲笑喝啤酒的人呢？读亚里士多德《形而上学》《物理学》的人是否有资格嘲笑读亚里士多德《尼可马克伦理学》《政治学》的人呢？因为从存在等级看，前面显然比后面更高。我想不是的。你只要区分，就会带来不平等。

Think back to the case of the romans in the colosseum.one thing that troubled people about that practice is that it seemed to violate the rights of the christian.another way of objection to what’s going on there is that the pleasure that the romans take in this bloody spectacle,should that pleasure,which is abased（使感到羞耻）,kind of corrupt,degrading pleasure,should that even be valorized（给予价值或有效性） or weighed in deciding what the general welfare is?so here are the objections to bentham’s utilitaranism，有些快乐是可耻的，比如妻不如妾，妾不如偷，相比于性欲带来的快感，他们享受更多的是那种藏着捏着所带来的刺激感，那句话怎么说来着，你越反抗，我越兴奋。这种掺杂着很多情绪所带来的快感难道不应该是可耻的吗？还有很多人热衷于在不同的场合做人类本能欲望的活动不也是一种寻找快感、寻求刺激的尝试吗？也许最刺激的是身处闹市但是有办法不让别人发现的人类情感的发泄方式。又比如李卫当官里的“银浪飘金”的故事，这太刺激了，这种刺激直接让那位扬州知府感觉，老子这辈子值啦！功利主义者不会这么看，因为他们认为道德是快乐大于痛苦。但是一般而言，大家还是对此种行为嗤之以鼻的。

and now,we ture to someone who tried to respond to those objections,a latter-day（近代的、现代的、当今的） utilitarian,john stuart Mill.so what we need to examine now is whether john stuart Mill had a convincing reply to these objections to utilitarianism.穆勒回应了这些对于功利主义的质疑。我们需要思考的是他的回应是否令人信服。

john stuart mill was born in 1806.his father,james mill,was a disciple（信徒） of bentham’s,and james mill set about giving his son,john stuart mill,a model education,he was a child prodigy（神童）,john stuart mill,he knew Greek at the age of three,latin at eight,and age 10,he wrote“a history of roman law”.at age 20,he had a nervous breakdown（神经衰弱、精神崩溃）.this left him in a depression for five years,but at age 25,what helped lift him out of this depression is that he met harriet taylor.she and mill got married,they lived happily ever after,and it was under her influence that john stuart mill tried to humanize（变得有人性） utilitarianism.what mill tried to do was to see whether the utilitarian calculus could be enlarged and modified to accommodate（容纳、接应） humanitarian concerns,like the concern to respect individual rights,and also to address the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.in 1859,Mill wrote a famous book on liberty,the main point of which was the importance of defending individual rights and minority rights.and in 1861,toward the end of his life,he wrote the book we read as part of this course,“utilitarianism”.he makes it clear that utility is the only standard of morality,in his view,so he’s not challenging Bentham’s premise,he’s affirming it.he says very explicitly,“the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it”.so he stays with the idea that our de facto achual empirical（经验主义的）desires are the only basis for moral judgment.but then,page eight,also in chapter two,he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish higher from lower pleasures.穆勒是边沁的追随者，他坚持了他的前提，我们的实际欲望是道德的基础。然而，他又区分了高级快乐和低级快乐。

Now,for those of you who have read mill already,how,according to him,is it possible to draw that distinction?how can a utilitarian distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures from lessor ones,base ones,unworthy ones?yes?教授在向已经读过的学生寻问他的区分方式。

if you’ve tried both of them and you prefer the higher one,naturally,always.观点很明确，如果你体验了高级快乐和低级快乐之后，他说，你在本性上，总是更喜欢高级快乐。他强调的是本性上，而非事实上，这里要区分开来。我们在本性上都知道这样做是不对的，但实际上我们还是在做它，但这并不妨碍人们对于本性的理解。正如亚里士多德在《形而上学》开篇提到，人们在本性上都要想要明白。但你也看到了，事实上，至少以我们经验来看，很少有人发挥了这一本性。

that’s great,that’s right.so as john points outs,mill says here’s the test.since we can’t step outside actual desires,actual preferences that would violate utilitarian premises,the only test of whether a pleasure is higher or lower is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it.and here,in chapter two,we see the passage where mill makes the point that john just described.“of two pleasures,if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference,irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it ,then that is the more desirable pleasure.”我们不能先天的从某个原则出发去规定哪个是更高的快乐，哪个则更低，因为如果你规定了，就是违背功利主义的原则，我们实际的欲望是道德的基础。因此，唯一区分方式是去看两个都体验过的人他们更喜欢哪一个。穆勒说人们在体验之后，在不受任何道德倾向的影响下更喜欢哪一个，它就是更值得的快乐。

what do people think about that argument?does it succeed?how many think that it does succeed of arguing within utilitarian terms for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?how many think it doesn’t succeed?I want to hear your reasons.but before we give the reasons let’s do an experiment of mill’s claim.in order to do this experiment,we’re going to look at three short excerpts of popular entertainment.先看看三个不同的片段，测试一下他的观点是否正确。

the first one is Hamlet soliloquy（自言自语、独白）.it’ll be followed by two other experiences.see what you think.

“what a piece of work（杰作、作品） is a man,how noble in reason,how infinite in faculties,in form and moving,how express and admirable,in action how like an angel,in apprehension（理解力、领悟力） how like a god!the beauty of the world,the paragon（模范、十全十美的人） of animals and yet,to me,what is this quintessence（典范、精华） of dust?man delights not me.”看这个对话，你感到严肃，认真，甚至会心意相通，你感受到了一种很大的格局。

“Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality.Ahh!they’re biting（咬）me!each show,six contestants from around the country battle each other in three extreme stunts（惊人的表演、引人注目的花招）.these stunts are designed to challenge the contestants both physically and mentally.six contestants,three stunts,one winner.”你感受了人类挑战自身极限的魅力，你的理性并没有发动，你的勇敢这个层面在起作用。你感受了一种追求卓越的氛围，他们在挑战自我，挑战生命的极限，你没有感受到思辨的快乐，只有刺激、惊讶、佩服。

“hi-diddily-ho,pedal-to-the-metal-o-philes.Flanders,since when do you like anything cool?well,I don’t care for the speed but I can’t get enough of that safety gear（装置）.helmets（头盔）,roll bars（保险杠）,caution flags（警示旗）..I like the fresh air..and looking at the poor people in the infield.Dang,Cletus,why’d you have to park by my parents?Now,Honey,they’s my parents too.在这里，理性与勇敢都不起作用了，只有欲望在起作用，你在这里感受到了放松，快乐，那是生活的气息。原谅我，用柏拉图对于人类欲望的划分来区分这三个片段，因为这已经隐含了我对于它的看法，但我还是想说，你一定是最喜欢第一个的，因为你感受到了最高的愉悦，我曾经听一位老师说，人类思想的舞蹈性比那些KTV里的搔首弄姿的舞蹈要美丽多了并且更具有多样性。然而事实上，你宁愿去欣赏美女的舞蹈也不愿意去看思想的舞蹈，你会选择去看第二个或者第三个而不是第一个，原因很简单。第一、看第一个太累了，思考太累了。第二、我们更容易被意气和欲望所奴役，想让理性做自己的主宰一定要下很大的功夫，因为这意味着你要克服你身上的动物性。第三、如果我们以快乐为人生目的的话，那么需要条件越多的东西越不容易快乐，需要条件越少越容易获得快乐。快意恩仇、敢爱敢恨这些人间的快乐更容易使我们达到目的，而你追求思辨的快乐就像是柏拉图洞穴喻里那个试图走出洞穴的人，你越往外走，越发现自己能看见的光越少，你会崩溃的。所以，我们看到和苏格拉底对过话的人，都走不了几个回合，因为要么他们没考虑过这些问题，要么他们不想失去照亮自己生命的光，哪怕这个光只是人造光。第四、我觉得穆勒似乎忽视了一点，我们能够感受到快乐，首先需要我们有感受快乐的能力，而你所拥有的感受快乐的能力实际上是城邦的传统给你的，就拿我们来说吧，我们不太认为阿基里斯是个英雄，反而更喜欢赫克托，因为他完全符合我们对于完美男人的期待，爱国、爱妻子、爱兄弟、爱所有人…这些品质是我们喜欢的，而阿基里斯呢？他显然是个烂人，看着希腊人死在面前也不出战。然而，在希腊人看来，阿基里斯要比赫克托更高、更好，因为他更接近自然德性，赫克托是城邦德性，自然高于城邦。我们更喜欢忠孝之人，外国人可能就和我们不太一样，他们喜欢个人英雄主义式的人物。而这些是传统给你的，不是你自己的东西。

I don’t even have to ask which one you liked most.the Simpsons,how many liked the Simpsons most?how many Shakespeare?what about fear factor?how many preferred fear factor?really?people overwhelmingly like the Simpsons better than Shakespeare.all right,now,let’s take the other part of the poll,which is the highest experience or pleasure.how many say Shakespeare?how many say fear factor?no,you can’t be serious(你开玩笑的吧）.really?what?all right.go ahead.you can say it.

I found that one the most entertaining.

I know.but which do you think was the worthiest,the noblest experience?I know you found it the most entertaining.

If something is good just because it is pleasurable,what does it matter whether you have sort of an abstract idea of whether it is good by someone else’s sense or not?判定哪个更好没有意义，喜欢就好。

all right,so you come down in the straight Benthamite side.who is to judge and why should we judge.apart from just registering and aggregating de facto preference?all right,that’s fair enough.so how many think the Simpsons is actually,apart from liking it,is actually the higher experience?higher than Shakespeare?all right,let’s see the vote for Shakespeare again.how many think Shakespeare is higher?all right.so why is it..ideally,I’d like to hear from someone,is there someone who thinks shakespeare is highest but who preferred watching the simpsons?yes?觉得莎士比亚更高级但更爱看《辛普森一家》的原因我在前面已经分析了。

Like，I guess just sitting and watching the Simpsons,it’s entertaining because make jokes and they makes us laugh.but like,someone has to tell us that shakespeare was this great writer.we had to be taught how to read him,how to understand him.we had to be taught how to kind of take in rembrandt（伦布兰特）,how to analyze a painting.她的观点也很明确，我们看《辛普森一家》的能力似乎是天生就有的，但是看莎士比亚的著作和伦布兰特的画却需要被传授。她的言下之意是说，我们之所以认为这是更高级的体验，是我们一定要达到某种能力之后才会发现它是更高级的体验，在此之前，它对我们没有任何吸引力，我们感受不到快乐。内行看门道，外行看热闹。

when you say someone told you that shakespeare is better..教授捕捉了她的话，辛普森一家是来自于你自己的感受，而莎士比亚的精彩是别人带给你的能力

right.

Are you accepting it on blind faith?you voted that shakespeare is higher only because the culture tells you that or teachers tell you that or do you actually agree with that yourself?教授的意思是，仅仅是因为别人告诉你这是好的，你自己没有一点认可的地方。还是因为别人告诉了你这是好的，然后你仔细发现这真是好的，这是有区别的，前者仅仅是来自于外在的力量，而后者恰恰显示莎士比亚是一种高级的快乐，这种高级的快乐需要我们具备一种更好的能力才能够享受到这种快乐。

well,in the sense that shakespeare no,but earlier you made an example of rembrandt.I feel like I would enjoy reading a comic book more than I would enjoy kind of analyzing rembrandt because someone told me it was great,you know.她的观点承认了莎士比亚是真的好，而且是真心的，但是对于伦布兰特就欣赏不来。为什么？难道高级快乐里还能区分出等级吗？例如莎士比亚比伦布兰特更为普遍一点，伦布兰特的个人化气味更浓之类的。还是因为她不认为莎士比亚好，仅仅因为被迫说它好，否则会受到别人的嘲笑？我再次强调一点，你更喜欢看什么，和你认为什么最伟大，什么是高级快乐没有任何关系。举个简单的例子，哲学是说理的，几乎是概念之间的运动，而故事是人物事件情节，最极端的故事是段子，它们能让你发笑，我知道哲学确实是一种高级快乐，但并不影响我更喜欢看段子，明白吗？这并不冲突。根据柏拉图，你的灵魂有三个部分，那个部分都对应相应的快乐，但你很容易明白只有理性的快乐才是高级快乐，但并不影响你更喜欢低级快乐。并不一定说它是高级快乐，我就一定要更喜欢享受它，这两者没有必然联系，就好像大家都知道助人为乐带来的快乐是发自心里的愉悦，但我们也并不会碰到一个事件就助人为乐，我们有时也会袖手旁观。总之，不是因为一个东西更好，我就会和它一直在一起。不是的。千万不要混淆这个。就像教授说的那样，有谁觉得莎士比亚是高级快乐但我就是更喜欢看辛普森一家，我记得赵汀阳有一次说过，人的脑子是很懒惰的，能不动就不动。而体验高级快乐是需要能力的，是很累的一件事，相反，体验辛普森一家却并不需要太高的能力。

right,so some of this seems to be,you’re suggesting,a kind of a cultural convention and pressure.we’re told what books,what works of art are great.教授总结了她的看法，对于高级快乐是传统给你的，而不是你自己选择的，其实我想说低级快乐又何尝不是呢？外国人举止奔放，而中国人则含蓄内敛，我们也很难欣赏那些太过裸露的场景，虽然我们可能喜欢看，但似乎内心里总有一个声音在谴责你，你这是不对的。那么这个声音就来自传统。

right.

who else?

Although I enjoyed watching the Simpsons more in this particular moment.in justice,if I were to spend the rest of my life considering the three different video clips shown,I would not want to spend that remainder of my life considering the latter two clips.I think I would derive more pleasure from being able to branch out in my own mind sort of considering more deep pleasures,more deep thoughts.他说的很有意思，我虽然更喜欢看辛普森一家，但你要我从中选一个共度余生的话，我肯定会选莎士比亚，因为它是更高的快乐，我深有同感，虽然我觉得读海德格尔解读荷尔德林的诗是最高的快乐，可是，老实讲，距离我上一次翻《荷尔德林诗的阐释》已经一年之久了。因此，我感到很愧疚。

so if you had to spend the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas with only Shakespeare or the collected episodes of the Simpsons,you would prefer Shakespeare?what do you conclude from that about john stuart mill’s test that the test of a higher pleasure is whether people who have experienced both prefer it?

can I cite another example briefly?

yeah.

in neurobiology last year,we were told of a rat who was tested a particular center in the brain where the rat was able to stimulate his brain and caused itself intense pleasure repeatedly.the rat did not eat or drink until it died.so the rat was clearly experiencing intense pleasure.now,if you ask me right now if I would rather experience intense pleasure or have a full lifetime of higher pleasure,I would consider intense pleasure to be low pleasure.I would right now enjoy intense pleasure but…yes.I would.I certainly would.but over a lifetime,I think I would think almost a complete majority here would agree that they would rather be a human with higher pleasure than be that rat with intense pleasure for a momentary period of time.now,in answer to your question,I think this proves that or I won’t say “proves.”I think the conclusion is that mill’s theory that when a majority of people are asked what they would rather do,they will answer that they would rather engage in a higher pleasure.他举了小白鼠的例子来证明他的观点，就漫长的一生而言，人们会选择高级快乐，而不是短暂性的、强烈的低级快乐。那句话怎么说来着，如果你看过这个世界上最美的东西，其它的东西你都看不上眼了，虽然你平时也会看这些东西，但你会一直拿这些东西和那个最美的东西比较，然后说这些东西真次。想起来了，曾经沧海难为水，除却巫山不是云。这句话可能来自孟子里的话，“孔子登东山而小鲁，登泰山而小天下，是故观于海者难为水，游于圣人之门者难为言”。当然，这没有证实。他想表达的就是这个意思。

so you think that this support mill’s,you think mill is onto something here?

I do.

all right,is there anyone who disagree with joe and who thinks that our experiment disproves mill’s test,shows that that’s not an adequate way,that you can’t distinguish higher pleasures within the utilitarian framework?yes?教授点出了一个关键的问题，也许是刚才这个人在往前走一步就能够碰到的问题，即高级快乐真的来自于功利主义吗？我的答案是它来自于超越于功利的地方，比如亚里士多德对于哲学的看法，他认为只有远离人事，远离功利的目的，人们才会阅读哲学。康德对于美的看法也大体类似，他认为美一定是无目的的目的性。我们没有带着任何目的去看一个东西，但是它向我们显现的正是让我们感受到了美。他进一步把这理解为道德的源泉。当然这个表述可能有点不对，但是，这些东西都不是在功利主义的框架里可以运转的。包括前面那个人的回答，她的看法也大体反映了这一点，从功利上讲，我当然会选择辛普森一家，但是我认为莎士比亚是高级快乐。

if whatever is good is truly just whatever people prefer,it’s truly relative and there’s no objective definition,then there will be some society where people prefer Simpsons more.anyone can appreciate the Simpsons but I think it does take education to appreciate shakespeare as much.

all right,you’re saying it takes education to appreciate higher true things.mill’s point is that the higher pleasure do require cultivation and appreciation and education.he doesn’t dispute that.but once having been cultivated and educated,people will see,not only see the difference between higher and lower pleasures,but will actually prefer the higher to the lower.you find this famous passage from john stuart mill.“it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.and if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion.it is because they only know their side of the question.”so here（至此），you have an attempt to distinguish higher from lower pleasures.so going to an art museum or being-a couch potato(电视迷）and swilling beer,watching television at home.sometimes,mill agrees,we might succumb（屈服） to the temptation to do the latter,to be couch potatoes.but even when we do that out of indolence（懒惰、好逸恶劳） and sloth（懒惰）,we know that the pleasure we get gazing at rembrandts in the museum is actually higher because we’ve experienced both,and it is a higher pleasure gazing at rembrandts because it engages our higher human faculties.这段话的大意我们在之前都提过了，再说一句，穆勒认为人们认为偏爱高级快乐是因为它展现了我们人类的更高能力。这既是人们选择逃离它的原因，也是人们会认为它是更高级快乐的原因。我忽然想起一个老师说，为什么有人爱跑马拉松，不是因为这让我们身体健康，也不是为了向他人炫耀自己有多了不起，而是因为它能将我们身上的能力充分发挥出来，让我们变得卓越。所以，那些热衷于冲击世界纪录的人大体也有类似想法，我又想起了史铁生的话，“看来他懂，他知道奥林匹斯山上的神火为何而燃烧，那不是为了一个人把另一个人战败，而是为了有机会向诸神炫耀人类的不屈，命定的局限尽可永在，不屈的挑战却不可须臾或缺。”是的，我们就是在向诸神炫耀人类的卓越。在希腊人眼里，人与神只有死亡这一个区分，除此之外，没有任何区别，只要你努力，你是可以无限接近神的。好吧，我认为我在此说的够多了。

what about mill’s attempt to reply to the objection about individual rights?in a way,he uses the same kind of argument,and this comes out in chapter five.he says“I dispute the pretensions(自命不凡的） of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility.”but still,he considers justice grounded on utility to be what he calls“the chief part and incomparably,the most sacred and binding part of all morality.”so justice is higher,individual rights are privileged,but not for reasons that depart from utilitarian assumptions.他在回应个体权利的质疑的时候，仍然站在功利主义的角度思考，他说了几点：1、公正应该建立在功利的基础之上，并且它把这种公正称为最神圣的、最主要的部分。从这看他仍然是随着边沁在走。2、他承认个体权利是特权，也就是说，他对于那些说功利主义为了大多数人而忽视少数人权利的回应，我们没有忽视这些人的权利，我们的目的只是为了功利最大化。个体有权利为自己的利益进行争取，只要他能够说服大家。他的意思说，个体可以行使他所具有的权利，这是他的特权，但是不能违背功利主义最大化这个初衷。政治世界本来就是为了满足身体需要的，从这个角度看，追求功利最大化并没有什么不对。

“justice is a name，for certain moral requirements,which,regarded collectively,stand higher in the scale of social utility and are,therefore,of more paramount obligation than any others.”so justice,it is sacred,it’s prior.it’s privileged.it isn’t something that can easily be traded off against lesser things.but the reason is ultimately,mill claims,a utilitarian reason once you consider the long-run interests of humankind,of all of us as progressive beings.if we do justice and if we respect rights,society as a whole will be better off in the long run.公正对于一定的道德要求而言，从整体看来，在社会总功利的范畴内，更高等，因此，也高于其他任何义务。所以，公正神圣、至高、且享有特权，它是不能被轻易交换的，但穆勒说，当然这个原因根本上还是功利主义的，当你考虑到人类长远发展的利益，如果我们秉持公正，尊重权利，从长远看，社会整体会发展得更好。我想这个和他区分高级快乐和低级快乐的方法一致，他仍然在功利的角思考，高级快乐比低级快乐更能够充分实现你的自然能力，而公正作为高级手段比其它的手段更能够让社会稳定、充分发展。因此，我们要坚持公正。他并没有离开功利来思考。其实，我困惑的是功利主义和非功利主义的界限是什么？这两者是怎么区分的？我以为我懂的，但在这里的时候，我茫然失措。我在这里引述一下宋儒对于孟子几段话的注解，看看我们是否能够理解两者之间的区别。我们都知道孟子开篇就是梁惠王问“何以利吾国”，开始就是功利。我们今天已经对于功利的理解完全都是负面的印象了，它已经成了一个贬义词，但是思的力量逼迫我们放弃任何没有根据的意见。孟子的回答也很有意思，他说“何必曰利，亦有仁义而已矣。”1、他没有否认梁惠王追求功利的目的。事实上，没有人会拒绝这个目的，也许他会伪装自己，说我一切都是为了大家好，都是为人民服务，诸如此类的话，但是如果你继续问他，你这样能够带来什么？当然喽，你的这个问法本身也是有问题的，因为你仍然是功利地在思考他的行为，你不相信一个人做一件事完全只是为了事件本身，而不抱有其它的目的。在你眼里，他的行为不过是为了达到他不可告人的目的的手段，一切只不过是他在作秀而已。但是，我们仔细想想，我们为什么要追求功利，功利对我们来说意味着什么？是好对不对。我们做每件事都是为了好，比如我早晨起来锻炼，为了身体健康。我好好学习，为了找个好工作。或者格局大一点为了报效祖国，更大一点为了继承历史传统等等，这些都是为了好。我们用好代替功利是不是就不那么偏见的看这个词了呢？事实上，如果你去看理想国，存在等级最高的不是正义，而是善，正义是为了实现善。亚里士多德也说，我们是为了追求幸福。难道这不是一种功利主义吗？2、如果我们接受我的第一点论证，所有人都追求好。那么，孟子也不否认这一点，他没有对梁惠王说，你这个人不要张口闭口就谈利，俗不俗，简直俗不可耐，他没有这么说，他只是说，你的嘴上不要说利，你要有仁义，他也没有说你不说利，说仁义就够了。梁惠王还是心胸坦荡者，心里想什么直接说出来，毫不避讳，另一个就是秦二世，毫不伪装，我们看看他和李斯的对话。他说“彼贤人之有天下也，专用天下适己而已矣，此所以贵于有天下也。夫所谓贤人者，必能安天下而治万民，今身且不能利，将恶能治天下哉! 故吾愿赐志广欲，长享天下而无害（无人伤害我），为之奈何?”李斯：“主独制于天下而无所制也，能穷乐之极矣。…能荦然独行恣睢之心而莫之敢逆。若此然后可谓能明申、韩之术，而修商君之法。”我不是为天下人服务的，适合我的权力欲和奢侈的，在帝制时代，发现，他能够任意支配他人的生命，他能调动巨大的人力和物力（掌握乾坤，翻云覆雨），那种满足感，恐怕是任何人都难以抗拒的，秦二世就是如此。然后李斯说，您说的对，统治者就是要这样。这难道不是某种意义上的“知行合一”吗？我们简直可以用随性洒脱来形容他的行为，当然他也为这种“直率”付出了代价，给后来的人上了一课，告诉他们应该怎么做。于是他们都变聪明了。扯远了。孟子说，你要有仁义，最后三个字“而已矣”是什么意思。首先，孟子很自信的告诉他，你只要拥有仁义这个德性就够了。其次，只有你有了它，你想要的一切东西都能够得到。你从功利主义角度看，这和穆勒差不多啊，穆勒也是这么看的，只有正义才能够得到最好的好处。3、我们看看程子的解读，他说，君子不是不说利，但是你以利为目的就有了害处。你会为了利无所不用其极，但是，你以仁义为目的，你就能够得到一切“惟仁义则不求利而未尝不利也”。用王弼的话就是“守母以存子”。只有以仁义为本，才能够得到最好的、最高程度的幸福。我想，在这里，通过我的分析，我们大概区分了功利主义与非功利主义的区别。他们的区别不在于是不是追求功利，而是在于怎么达到功利？结论是只有以非功利的目的才能够达到功利的目的。这有点像什么，不争才是最大的争。总之，在这点上，我认为柏拉图也许会同意穆勒的观点，利用公正达到最大的好。因为，柏拉图也是这么看的，甚至在某些地方，柏拉图会认为好比正义更重要。因为，好比正义的存在等级高。正义能够被照亮，完全是因为善的太阳。我们为什么一直号召追求正义。还不是因为它是个好东西吗？我们并不比功利主义高尚到哪里去。好了，关于这里我就说这么多。虽然我还想阐释一下朱子的那段关于天理人欲关系的思考，但我想，对于阐释这段话已经足够了。

well,is that convincing?or is mill actually,without admitting it,stepping outside utilitarian considerations in arguing for qualitatively higher pleasures and for sacred or especially important individual rights?we haven’t fully answered that question because to answer that question,in the case of rights and justice,will require that we explore other ways,non-utilitarian ways of accounting for the basis of rights and then asking whether they succeed.教授的质疑是穆勒的这段分析，是否已经超越了功利主义的范畴呢？当然，这要看你怎么思考功利主义，如果你从希腊人的视野看，他仍然在功利主义的范围内思考，因为没有比好更好的东西了。但是从边沁看，他确实已经在边界之外了。因为公正看的是长远利益，是细水长流的发财，对应于商业有点像薄利多销。功利主义有点像开张吃三年，他着重的是具体的事情，此时此刻发生的事情，就像牺牲一个救五个人一样。五大于一，所以，牺牲一个是对的。接着教授说，我们目前为止不能回答这个问题，要真正解决这个问题，明白公正和个体权利是什么，我们只能从功利主义跳出来，我们一定要从其他角度看，从非功利主义看，否则永远都是“不识庐山真面目”，就像上述分析的那样，我们很容易把孟子也看成是一个功利主义者。

As for Jeremy Bentham,who launched utilitarianism as a doctrine in moral and legal philosophy,Bentham died in 1832 at the age of 85.but if you go to London,you can visit him today literally.he provided in his will that his body be preserved,embalmed（保存尸体不腐）,and displayed in the university of London,where he still presides in a glass case with a wax（腊） head,dressed in his actual clothing.you see,before he died,Bentham addressed himself to a question consistent with his philosophy.of what use could a dead man be to the living?one use,he said,would be to make one’s corpse（尸体） available to the study of anatomy（解剖）.In the case of great philosophers, however, better yet to preserve one's physical presence in order to inspire future generations of thinkers（哈哈）.

You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed?Here is what he looks like.There he is.

Now, if you look closely, you will notice that the embalming of his actual head was not a success, so they substituted（代替、替换） a waxed head and at the bottom, for verisimilitude（逼真、貌似真实）, you can actually see his actual head on a plate.

You see it?

Right there.

So, what's the moral of the story?