【TED演讲】道德难题：你可以说谎吗？

中英文字幕

Your plan to set up your friend Carey with your acquaintance Emerson is finally coming together.

你撮合你的朋友凯里和熟人艾默生的计划终于要实现了。

Both individuals have heard all about each other and they're eager to meet for dinner.

双方都听说过彼此，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，一个令人不安的想法从你的脑海中飘过：凯里永远都迟到。

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，甚至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?

但如果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.

这样，他们就大概会准时到达。

You really want this relationship to work, so...

你非常希望这段感情能成，所以……

should you lie?

你应该撒谎吗？

Take a moment to think: what you would do?

花点时间想想：你会怎么做？

Maybe you should lie!

也许你应该撒谎！

You think this new relationship could be great for Carey, and you don't want them to ruin it before it's even begun.

你认为这段新感情对凯里来说会很棒，并且你不希望他们没有开始就黄了。

Sure, Emerson may eventually learn about their chronic lateness.

当然了，艾默生迟早会知道她严重迟到的毛病。

But if Carey shows up on time just this once, the relationship will at least have a chance to take root.

但如果这一次凯里准时出现，这段关系至少有一个开始的机会。

Your lie would pave the way for a potentially happy relationship.

你的谎言将会为一段幸福的感情打下基础。

And if taking an action will create a better outcome for everyone involved, that's normally a pretty good reason to take it.

而且如果一个谎言会制造一个好的结局，那这么做就非常合理。

But isn't it morally wrong to lie?

但这样撒谎不会没道德吗？

The absolutist position on lying, associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant,

绝对主义的谎言立场，来自于德国哲学家伊曼纽尔康德，

holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

坚持说谎永远都是不道德的，不论任何情况。

In other words, there's a moral rule which forbids lying, and that rule is absolute.

换句话说，有一条道德规矩杜绝说谎，而这规矩是不可动摇的。

You might think, though, that this stance overstates the moral importance of lying.

不过，你可能会想，这夸大了撒谎的道德重要性。

Suppose a murderer were hunting Carey down.

假设有一个杀手追杀凯里。

If the killer asked you about Carey's whereabouts,

如果这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，出卖你朋友的生命。

From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.

从这个点看，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.

相比之下，功利主义哲学家约翰·斯图尔特·米尔就表示说谎只是在减少幸福感时才是错误的。

Now, to be fair, most lies do seem likely to create unhappiness.

现在，扪心自问，大多数的谎言都造成了不幸福感的产生。

Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false,

有的人接受一个谎言，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.

并试图在假信息的基础上度过人生，大多数都不会好过。

However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation, lying might produce more happiness overall.

然而，在某些情况下，也许包括你自身的处境，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.

在这些案例中，功利主义者们会说撒谎在道德上并没有错。

In fact, it might even be your moral duty to do so.

反而，这可能是你的道德责任。

But if absolutism seems too extreme, you might feel this stance is too lax.

但如果绝对主义太过极端，你可能就会觉得这个立场过于松懈。

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.

许多人通常对撒谎感到后悔，即使他们觉得这个决定没错。

This suggests there's something inherently objectionable about lying— even when it leads to more happiness.

这表明撒谎本质上是令人反感的——就算能够带来幸福感。

In this case, lying to Carey would be an instance of Paternalism.

在这个情况，对凯里撒谎是家长式作风的一个例子。

Paternalism is interfering with another person's choices for that person's benefit.

家长式作风是为了对方的利益而干扰他人的决定。

This might be fine if that person is a literal child.

如果对象真的是一个孩子，这可能就没关系。

But it seems disrespectful to treat a peer paternalistically.

但是用家长式对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剥夺她根据自己的信仰、价值观以及他们认为合适的方式处理问题的机会。

Trying to protect Carey from what you consider to be a bad choice would show a lack of respect for their autonomy.

试图通过帮助凯里规避错误选择来保护她，会显得缺乏尊重对方的自主权。

By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson,

推而广之，这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.

因为你故意的给他留下凯里守时的假印象。

So how do you weigh potential happiness against guaranteed disrespect?

所以你要如何掂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,

康德的支持者会说尊重地对待对方是道德的主干，

while followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness.

而米尔的支持者会表示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,

但其他哲学家认为这种矛盾只能根据具体情况，

depending on various details and on the individuals involved.

细节和参与角色来解决。

So what will you do in Carey's case?

如果你处在凯里的处境你会怎么做？