视频介绍
你能够扯谎吗？Sarah Stroud借用艾默生和凯里的例子切磋了那个典范的道德窘境。
片长：13：35
滑动查看完全双语演讲稿☟
Your plan to set up your friend Carey with your acquaintance Emerson is finally coming together.
你撮合你的伴侣凯里和熟人艾默生的方案末于要实现了。
Both individuals have heard all about each other and they're eager to meet for dinner.
两边都传闻过相互，他们迫切地想约晚餐。
You've just made them a reservation for Friday night,
你刚帮他们约了礼拜五晚上的位子，
and you're about to text Carey the details when an unsettling thought crosses your mind: Carey is always late.
当你想发信息告诉凯里细节时，一个令人不安的设法从你的脑海中飘过：凯里永久都迟到。
And not just by 5 minutes; we're talking 20 or even 30 minutes late.
不是仅迟到5分钟，是20分钟，以至30分钟。
Carey seems to view punctuality as an oppressive relic of an earlier era.
凯里似乎将守时视为早期时代的压迫遗物。
But what if you told them dinner was at 6 instead of 6:30?
但假设你告诉他们晚餐是在6点而不是6点半呢？
That way, they would almost certainly arrive on time.
展开全文
如许，他们就可能会准时抵达。
You really want this relationship to work, so...
你十分期看那段豪情能成，所以……
should you lie?
你应该扯谎吗？
Take a moment to think: what you would do?
花点时间想想：你会怎么做？
Maybe you should lie!
也许你应该扯谎！
You think this new relationship could be great for Carey, and you don't want them to ruin it before it's even begun.
你认为那段新豪情对凯里来说会很棒，而且你不期看他们没有起头就黄了。
Sure, Emerson may eventually learn about their chronic lateness.
当然了，艾默生迟早会晓得她严峻迟到的弊端。
But if Carey shows up on time just this once, the relationship will at least have a chance to take root.
但假设那一次凯里准时呈现，那段关系至少有一个起头的时机。
Your lie would pave the way for a potentially happy relationship.
你的谎话将会为一段幸福的豪情打下根底。
And if taking an action will create a better outcome for everyone involved, that's normally a pretty good reason to take it.
并且假设一个谎话会造造一个好的结局，那那么做就十分合理。
But isn't it morally wrong to lie?
但如许扯谎不会没道德吗？
The absolutist position on lying, associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant,
绝对主义的谎话立场，来自于德国哲学家伊曼纽尔康德，
holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances.
对峙说谎永久都是不道德的，不管任何情状。
In other words, there's a moral rule which forbids lying, and that rule is absolute.
换句话说，有一条道德端方根绝说谎，而那端方是不成摆荡的。
You might think, though, that this stance overstates the moral importance of lying.
不外，你可能会想，那强调了扯谎的道德重要性。
Suppose a murderer were hunting Carey down.
假设有一个杀手逃杀凯里。
If the killer asked you about Carey's whereabouts,
假设那个杀手问你凯里在哪里，
it seems odd to say that you must tell the truth at the cost of your friend's life.
很难想象你会告知事实，出卖你伴侣的生命。
From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.
从那个点看，绝对性就有点死板。
By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill would say lying is wrong only when it leads to less happiness overall.
比拟之下，功利主义哲学家约翰·斯图尔特·米尔就表达说谎只是在削减幸福感时才是错误的。
Now, to be fair, most lies do seem likely to create unhappiness.
如今，抚躬自问，大大都的谎话都形成了不幸福感的产生。
Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false,
有的人承受一个谎话，是在相信某些虚假的事物，
and trying to conduct your life on the basis of false information doesn't usually go well.
并试图在假信息的根底上渡过人生，大大都都不会好过。
However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation, lying might produce more happiness overall.
然而，在某些情状下，也许包罗你本身的处境，说谎可能会整体上产生更多的幸福感。
In those cases, utilitarians say it's not morally wrong to lie.
在那些案例中，功利主义者们会说扯谎在道德上并没有错。
In fact, it might even be your moral duty to do so.
反而，那可能是你的道德责任。
But if absolutism seems too extreme, you might feel this stance is too lax.
但假设绝对主义过分极端，你可能就会觉得那个立场过于松弛。
In other words, perhaps the utilitarian position understates the moral significance of lying.
换句话说，也许功利主义的立场低估了说谎的道德重要性。
Most people generally feel some regret about lying, even when they believe it's the right thing to do.
许多人凡是对扯谎感应懊悔，即便他们觉得那个决定没错。
This suggests there's something inherently objectionable about lying— even when it leads to more happiness.
那表白扯谎素质上是令人恶感的——就算可以带来幸福感。
In this case, lying to Carey would be an instance of Paternalism.
在那个情状，对凯里扯谎是家长式做风的一个例子。
Paternalism is interfering with another person's choices for that person's benefit.
家长式做风是为了对方的利益而骚乱别人的决定。
This might be fine if that person is a literal child.
假设对象实的是一个孩子，那可能就不妨。
But it seems disrespectful to treat a peer paternalistically.
但是用家长式看待同伴会显得没有尊重。
Lying to Carey would mean taking away their opportunity to handle the situation as they see fit, based on their own beliefs and values.
对凯里说谎就意味着褫夺她根据本身的崇奉、价值看以及他们认为适宜的体例处置问题的时机。
Trying to protect Carey from what you consider to be a bad choice would show a lack of respect for their autonomy.
试图通过搀扶帮助凯里躲避错误抉择来庇护她，会显得欠缺尊重对方的自主权。
By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson,
推而广之，那也可能是对爱默生的不尊重，
since you would be deliberately trying to give him a false impression of Carey's punctuality.
因为你有意的给他留下凯里守时的假印象。
So how do you weigh potential happiness against guaranteed disrespect?
所以你要若何衡量潜在的幸福感和绝对的不尊重呢？
Followers of Kant would say treating others with respect is the heart of moral conduct,
康德的撑持者会说尊重地看待对方是道德的主干，
while followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness.
而米尔的撑持者会表达没有什么比的上幸福感。
But other philosophers believe that such conflicts can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis,
但其他哲学家认为那种矛盾只能根据详细情状，
depending on various details and on the individuals involved.
细节和参与角色来处理。
So what will you do in Carey's case?
假设你处在凯里的处境你会怎么做？
天天看看TED演讲，收获良多：
往期选举
TED | 不要让本身成为一个混蛋
TED | 87岁奶奶开网红食堂，一年亏80多万：我会做到死为行···
TED | 不要食掉棉花糖！
为何看过无数美剧
听过无数英文歌
碰着老外仍是“哑巴英语”？
那是因为你贫乏白话磨练！
领取后即可体验488元的外教白话课
勇猛启齿说英语，
相信你也能够！
点击那里阅读原文，亦可立即领取