【TED演讲】失落了的民主辩论艺术（2/10)
成功的民主来自于公民辩论，Michael Sandel说－但我们对这门技艺已荒废许久。他与TED一起，带领我们进入一堂有趣的演讲，以近来美国最高法院判例（美国职业高尔夫球协会与Martin的诉讼），揭示了正义的关键本质。Sandel在哈佛教了二十多年关于正义的课程，超过一万学生听了他的课，这是哈佛有史以来听众最多的课程。2007年秋季有1115人参加了这门课。2005年秋季的课程被放到网上作为哈佛开放大学（Harvard Extension School）课程供哈佛以外的人观看。Hints:
Aristotle
Peter
注：不包括观众对话
听写以音频为准
翻译&注解：WXC1234567
任何疑问请短消息主持人
http://t1.g.hjfile.cn/listen/201311/201311090214229173949.mp3So, are you ready for the lecture? According to Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve. That's it; that's the lecture. Now, you may say, well, that's obvious enough. The real questions begin when it comes to arguing about who deserves what and why. Take the example of flutes. Suppose we're distributing flutes. Who should get the best ones? Let's see what people -- What would you say? Who should get the best flute? You can just call it out. At random. You would do it by lottery. Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them. Who else? The best flute players. The worst flute players. How many say the best flute players? Why? Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too. But here's a harder question. Why do you think, those of you who voted this way, that the best flutes should go to the best flute players? The greatest benefit to all. We'll hear better music if the best flutes should go to the best flute players. That's Peter? All right. Well, it's a good reason.我要开始演讲了，准备好了？亚里士多德曰：公正意味着给予人们他们所应得的，好了，演讲结束。你可能会说，这根本就是明摆着的，但问题的争议往往在于谁应该得到什么，理由是什么？举个例子来说，假设我们要分配笛子，谁应该得到最好的笛子呢？你们怎么说？谁应该得到最好的笛子？直接说出来就行。有人说随机分配，就跟抽彩票一样，或者先到者先得，还有其他想法吗？有人说给最好的笛子手，有人说要给最差的笛子手，有多少人觉得应该给最好的笛子手？实际上，这也是亚里士多德的回答。但是，更重要的问题是，诸位举手支持的人：你们为什么觉得最优秀的笛子手应该得到最好的笛子？最大受益，社会最大收益：最好的笛手拥有最好的笛子，我们就可以听到最好的音乐，你是彼得？好的，这是一个很好的理由。
页:
[1]