You can only save one— who do you choose? - Doug MacKay

翻译人员: Nancy Huang 校对人员: Thomas Tam

You are the captain of the Mallory 7, an interstellar cargo transport.

你是马洛里7号 星际货物运输太空船的船长。

On your way to the New Lindley spaceport, you receive a distress call.

在你前往新林德利太空港的路上， 收到了一个求救信号。

There’s been an explosion on the Telic 12

泰利奇12号发生了爆炸

and its passengers are running out of oxygen.

它里面的乘客用完了所有氧气。

As you set a course to intercept, you check the Telic 12′s manifest.

当你设置拦截路线时， 会检查泰利奇12号的手册。

It’s currently transporting 30 middle-aged individuals

目前它正在运送30名中年人，

from some of Earth’s poorest districts to the labor center on New Lindley,

从地球上一些最贫穷的地区， 到新林德利的劳动力中心，

where they'll be assigned jobs on the spaceport.

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.

但当你接近泰利奇12号时， 又收到了第二个求救信号。

A luxury space cruiser called the Pareto has lost a thruster,

一艘名为帕累托的豪华太空巡洋舰 失去了一个推进器，

sending them careening towards an asteroid belt.

将它们送向了小行星带。

Without your help, the 20 college students headed for vacation

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。

aboard the Pareto are all doomed.

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

这种困境是更广泛问题的一个例子

where a life-saving resource— such as a donated organ or vaccine—

在救生资源方面，例如捐赠的器官

is scarce.

或疫苗的稀缺情况下，

There are many schools of thought on how to approach these problems,

有很多学校思考如何应对这些问题，

and one of the most influential is utilitarianism,

其中最有影响力的一种是功利主义，

an ethical view first systematically developed

还有伦理观首先被系统地发展，

by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

多得杰里米·边沁 和约翰·斯图尔特·米尔的努力 。

In this view, you should choose the action

在这种观点下，你应该选择的行动

which promises the greatest sum of happiness.

是保证最大的幸福度总和。

Though, how to define and measure happiness is a difficult question.

尽管，如何定义和测量幸福度 是困难的问题。

For example, hedonists would suggest a happy life

例如享乐主义者会提出的是快乐生活，

contains the most pleasure and the least pain.

包含最大的乐趣和最少的痛苦。

Others might say it’s the life where your desires are most fulfilled.

其他人可能会说的是， 那愿望能实现最滿足的生活。

However happiness is defined,

但不管幸福是怎么定义的，

most would agree that saving 30 lives has the potential

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。

to generate more happiness than saving 20.

But is it enough to consider how many lives would be saved?

但只思考去拯救多少生命足够吗？

Or should you also consider how many life years would be?

或者你是不是应该也考虑一下 总共有多少的寿命年呢？

Assuming a life expectancy of 80, saving the lives of the students,

假设预期寿命为80岁， 若挽救学生的生命，

with an average age of 20, saves 1,200 life years,

他们的平均年龄为20岁， 你就拯救了1,200 寿命年，

while saving the workers, with an average age of 45, saves 1,050.

工人平均年龄为45岁，如果拯救他们， 你挽回了1,050寿命年。

All things being equal, a longer life should promise

当万事平等，能挽救 更长的寿命年，

a greater sum of happiness than a shorter one.

应该保证了更满足的幸福度。

So perhaps saving the smaller ship actually has the potential

所以拯救更小的那艘船，

或许更有潜力产生最大的幸福度。

to generate the most happiness.

If all these calculations feel a bit cold,

如果这些计算感觉有些冷血，

you may want to consider a different approach.

你可能想考虑一种不同的解决方案。

The philosopher Derek Parfit argues we should give priority to the worse off,

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，

since benefits to those groups matter more

因为这些群体的利益

than equivalent benefits to the well-off.

相比富裕群体的更重要。

In this view, it’s more urgent to help those whose basic needs aren’t met

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,

even if they’re harder to help than those who are flourishing.

尽管他们比那些富裕的人更难帮助。

But often, determining which group is truly worse off can get complicated fast.

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。

In our case, Earth is still beset by drastic inequalities

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 。

in wealth and opportunity.

And those able to afford a vacation on New Lindley

那些足够支付乘坐豪华巡洋舰费用

and transport on a luxury cruiser

到新林德利度假的人，

are no doubt among the most well-off people on the planet.

是毫无疑问属于地球上 最富裕的一群人。

The workers, by contrast, are among the most disadvantaged,

相比之下，那些劳动人民， 是处于最不利的处境，

traveling away from home for months at a time to perform service work.

他们要离家数月执行服务工作。

With fewer resources and opportunities,

由于资源和机会的缺乏，

it’s likely they’ve experienced more hardship in their lives

意味着他们很可能经历的艰辛，

远远多于那些富裕游客，

than the vacationers,

so maybe they’re more deserving of rescue?

所以也许他们更值得拯救？

On the other hand, the students have experienced less life overall—

另一方面，学生总体上经历的生活较少，

so perhaps they’re worse off?

所以他们的情况也许更糟？

Or maybe none of these variables should influence our decision.

又或者这些因素 都不应该影响我们的选择。

The philosopher John Taurek famously argued that in these types of cases,

哲学家约翰·陶雷克有其著名论点， 在这种的案例中，

the numbers don’t count.

数量不是在计算之内。

Each person is deserving of equal concern and respect,

每个人都值得平等的关注和尊重，

so the best way to decide which passengers to save is to flip a coin.

因此决定要拯救哪些乘客， 最佳的方法是抛硬币。

While this might seem arbitrary at first, this approach treats all parties equally,

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，

giving each individual an equal chance of being rescued.

给予每个单独的个体被拯救的平等机会。

Could any passenger argue that they're being treated unfairly by a coin flip?

会有乘客争辩说 受到了抛硬币的不公平对待吗？

It’s tough to say.

这很难说。

But how they— and you— feel about the result may be another dilemma altogether.

但他们以及你对结果的看法 可能完全是另一个两难选择。