Ethical dilemma: Would you lie? - Sarah Stroud

翻译人员: Yinglin Ye 校对人员: Yuwei Wu

Your plan to set up your friend Carey with your acquaintance Emerson

你撮合你的朋友凯里和熟人 艾默生的计划

is finally coming together.

终于要实现了。

Both individuals have heard all about each other

双方都听说过对方

and they’re eager to meet for dinner.

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

当你想发信息告诉凯里细节时

when an unsettling thought crosses your mind:

一个令人不安的想法 从你的脑海中飘过：

Carey is always late.

凯里永远都迟到。

And not just by 5 minutes;

不是仅迟到 5 分钟；

we’re talking 20 or even 30 minutes late.

是 20 分钟或者甚至是 迟到 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，他们就会大概会准时到达。

You really want this relationship to work, so... should you lie?

你非常希望这段感情能成， 所以。。。你应该说谎吗？

Take a moment to think: what you would do?

花点时间思考一下：你会怎么做？

Maybe you should lie!

也许你应该说谎！

You think this new relationship could be great for Carey,

你认为这段新感情 对凯里来说会很棒，

and you don’t want them to ruin it before it’s even begun.

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 她的严重迟到病。

But if Carey shows up on time just this once,

但如果这一次凯里准时出现，

the relationship will at least have a chance to take root.

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,

而且如果一个谎言 会制造一个好的结局，

that’s normally a pretty good reason to take it.

那这非常合理去这么做。

But isn't it morally wrong to lie?

但 这样撒谎不会没道德吗？

The absolutist position on lying,

绝对主义的谎言立场，

associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant,

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,

换一句话说， 有一条道德规矩杜绝说谎，

and that rule is absolute.

而这规矩是不可动摇的。

You might think, though, that this stance overstates

不过，你可能会想，这夸大了

the moral importance of lying.

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

很难想象你会告知事实。

at the cost of your friend’s life.

出卖你的朋友的生命。

From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.

从这个看点，绝对性就有点死板。

By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill

相对比，功利主义哲学家 约翰·斯图尔特·米尔

would say lying is wrong only when it leads to less happiness overall.

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， 大多数的谎言都形成不幸福感。

Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false,

有的人接受一个谎言 是在相信某些假的事物，

and trying to conduct your life on the basis of false information

而试图想在假信息的基础上度过人生

doesn’t usually go well.

大多数都不会好过。

However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation,

然而，在一些情况， 也许包括你的处境，

lying might produce more happiness overall.

说谎可能整体会产生更多的幸福感。

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

换一句话说， 也许功利主义的立场低估了

the moral significance of lying.

说谎的道德重要性。

Most people generally feel some regret about lying,

许多人通常对撒谎感到悔感，

even when they believe it’s the right thing to do.

甚至当他们觉得这是对的决定。

This suggests there’s something inherently objectionable about lying—

这表明撒谎本质上是令人反感的——

even when it leads to more happiness.

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

家长式作风是干扰他人的决定

for that person's benefit.

为了那个人的利益。

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

如果这个人真的是一个孩子 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

对凯里说谎就意味着剥夺她

to handle the situation as they see fit, based on their own beliefs and values.

根据自己的信仰和价值观以及 他们认为合适的方式处理的机会。

Trying to protect Carey from what you consider

试图想从你认为 是错的选择来保护凯里

to be a bad choice would show a lack of respect for their autonomy.

会显得缺乏尊重他们的自主权。

By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson,

推而广之，这可能 对艾默生不太礼貌，

since you would be deliberately trying to give him a false impression

因为你故意的给他留下

of Carey’s punctuality.

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 对于绝对的不尊重呢？

Followers of Kant would say treating others with respect

康德的支持者会说尊重地对待对方

is the heart of moral conduct,

是道德的主心干，

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

但其他哲学家认为这种矛盾只能根据

on a case-by-case basis,

具体情况

depending on various details and on the individuals involved.

细节和参与人物来解决。

So what will you do in Carey’s case?

如果你在凯里的处境 你会怎么做？