Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker

譯者: Camila Lin 審譯者: Helen Chang

Smallpox is one of the deadliest diseases in history,

天花是史上最致命的疾病之一。

but fortunately, it’s been eradicated for over 40 years.

幸運的是，天花已經絕跡四十多年。

However, samples of the virus that causes smallpox still exist,

然而我們仍保存著天花樣本病毒，

leading to concern that rogue actors might try to weaponize it.

因此有人擔心，激進份子 可能會把天花當作武器。

This is especially worrying

這件事讓人特別擔心，

because older smallpox vaccines can have serious side effects,

因為舊式的天花疫苗， 可能會引起嚴重的副作用，

and modern antiviral drugs have never been tested against this disease.

而現代的抗病毒藥物 又從未用以治療天花。

To protect against this potential threat,

為了對抗這個潛在的威脅，

the US government is funding research to improve smallpox treatments

美國政府挹注資金， 研究天花的治療方式，

and vaccines.

與更優良的天花疫苗。

And since it’s unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus,

而因為讓人類染上致命的病毒， 是不道德的事情，

labs are using humanity's closest biological relatives as research subjects.

實驗室便用和人類最相似的動物 作為實驗對象。

But is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat?

但為了保護人類免受潛在威脅， 就傷害其他動物，是正確的事嗎？

Or should our closest relatives also be protected against lethal experiments?

或者，這些動物也應該受到保護， 免於參與致命的實驗？

What would you do as a scientist faced with this very real scenario?

如果你是實驗室中的 科學家，你會怎麼做？

In many ways, this dilemma isn't new.

這個道德困境已用不同形式存在許久。

Animals have been used in research aimed at improving human welfare for centuries,

好幾個世紀以來，我們都以 動物進行增進人類福祉的實驗，

typically at the cost of their lives.

而實驗的代價往往便是動物的生命。

This practice reflects the widespread belief that human lives are more valuable

這種行為反映出普世的信念，

即人類的生命比其他動物更有價值。

than non-human lives.

People have different views about the ethics of animal testing

但說到動物實驗倫理，以及實驗方式， 每個人都有自己的觀點。

and how it’s conducted.

But whatever your opinion,

但不論你的意見為何，

this scenario raises an important philosophical question:

這個情境提出了一個重要的哲學問題：

how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human?

我們該如何決定人及其他生命的價值？

One tool philosophers have used to consider this question is moral status.

哲學家用來衡量這一問題的 工具之一是道德地位。

Beings with moral status should have their needs and interests

具有道德地位的生物的需求和福祉，

應被那些做出決定、 影響牠們的人納入考量。

taken into consideration by those making decisions that impact them.

Traditionally, moral status has been seen as binary—

以傳統層面而言，道德地位相當二元：

either a being’s interests matter for their own sake, or they don’t.

要不在意自己的福祉，要不就不在意。

And historically, many philosophers believed that humans had moral status

而從歷史上來看，許多哲學家都相信，

唯一擁有道德地位的動物就是人類。

and other animals didn’t.

Some contemporary philosophers like Shelly Kagan

但雪萊‧卡根等現代哲學家，

have argued that moral status comes in degrees,

認為道德地位也有程度之分，

but even in this model, he argues that people have the most moral status.

但就算以這種方式來看， 人類的道德地位仍是最高的。

However, determining what grants any degree of moral status can be difficult.

但是，決定究竟是何物賦予生命 不同等級的道德地位，是件困難的事。

Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant thought humans have moral status

啟蒙運動時期的哲學家康德， 認為人類擁有道德地位，

because of their rational nature and ability to will their actions.

是因為我們天生理性， 且具有主宰行動的意志力。

A binary conception of moral status then suggests that beings with these capacities

這種道德地位的二元觀念， 說明了只要生物擁有這些能力，

are “persons” bearing full moral status,

就是具有完整道德地位的「人」，

while all other creatures are “things” without moral status.

而其他沒有道德地位的生物 都屬於「東西」這一範疇。

But thinkers like Christine Korsgaard have argued a Kantian view

但美國哲學家柯絲卡等人 則認為康德這種論點，

should include many non-human animals because of how they value their own good.

應該也包含了許多非人的動物， 因為牠們也會尋求自己的利益。

Another line of argument, suggested by utilitarianism’s founding father

另一個反駁的論點， 來自功利主義之父邊沁，

Jeremy Bentham and elaborated by Peter Singer,

而他的論點又被辛格發揚光大，

claims that a capacity for suffering

這個論點認為， 如果個體能夠承受痛苦，

makes an entity worthy of moral consideration.

那這個生命就值得道德考量。

These inclusive ways of thinking about moral status dramatically widen the scope

這些針對道德地位的廣泛討論方式，

大大拓寬了我們道德責任的範圍，

of our moral responsibility,

in ways some people might find unnerving.

有些人甚至可能會因此坐立難安。

So where do our monkeys stand?

所以，猴子的道德地位又如何呢？

Our closest genetic relatives have high social and intellectual capacities.

牠們是我們在基因上最相近的物種， 有著高度的社交能力和智力。

They live cooperatively in complex social groups

牠們組成複雜的社會團體，和諧共存，

and recognize members of their community as individuals.

並能單獨認出團體中的每一成員。

They support and learn from one another—

牠們會彼此支持、互相學習，

there’s even evidence they respond to inequality.

甚至有證據證明，牠們會對不公產生反應。

And of course, they’re capable of suffering.

當然，牠們都能承受痛苦。

Yet despite all this, it’s still generally common opinion

但撇除這些不談，我們仍普遍認為，

that a human’s life is more valuable than a monkey’s.

人的生命比猴子的生命更重要。

And that while killing one human to save five others is typically wrong,

為了拯救五個人而殺掉一人， 在普遍情況下都是錯誤的，

killing one monkey to save five humans is regrettable,

但殺掉一隻猴子來拯救五個人，

雖然也是件憾事， 但以道德層面而言卻可被接受。

but morally acceptable.

Even morally required.

甚至符合道德要求。

At some point, however, this calculation starts to feel unstable.

但是，到了某種程度之後， 這種計算方法會逐漸讓我們產生懷疑。

Should we kill 100 monkeys to save five people?

比如說，我們應該殺掉一百隻猴子， 來拯救五個人嗎？

How about 10,000?

那殺一萬隻呢？

If moral status is binary and monkeys don't have it, then theoretically,

如果道德地位是二元性的， 且猴子沒有道德，

那麼以理論而言， 犧牲幾隻猴子救一個人都可以。

any number of monkeys could be sacrificed to save just one person.

But if moral status comes in degrees and monkeys have any at all,

但如果道德地位是用程度計算， 而猴子也擁有某程度的道德地位，

then at some point the balance will tip.

那在某個時機點後， 人和猴子的道德地位值就會失衡。

The situation you're in complicates things even further.

我們在影片開頭假設的情境， 甚至讓事情更加複雜。

Unlike the scenarios above,

和剛剛那些殺猴子救人的情境不一樣，

there's no guarantee your work will ever save human lives.

沒有人能保證，你的努力最後必能 成功拯救人類的生命。

This is true of any animal experiment—

任何動物實驗都是這樣，

the process of scientific discovery only sometimes leads to improved medical care.

在科學發現的漫長過程中， 只有某些時刻才能促成醫療進步。

But in your case, it’s even trickier!

但以你的情境來說，事情更加複雜。

While the government is worried smallpox might be weaponized,

雖然政府擔憂天花會被當作生化武器，

if they’re wrong the disease will remain eradicated,

但如果他們預估錯誤，天花仍然絕跡，

and your research won’t save anyone from smallpox.

你的實驗也就無法救下任何人。

You could try to quantify this uncertainty to help make your decision.

你可以試著量化這種不確定性， 幫助自己做出決定。

But how do you determine what an acceptable amount of risk is?

但你要怎麼決定，多大的風險 仍在可被接受的範圍內？

And what if there’s so much uncertainty that your calculations

而如果在估算中有這麼多不確定性，

are essentially wild guesses?

讓你的推測變成盲猜，又該怎麼辦呢？

These kinds of moral mathematics get complicated fast,

這種道德數學問題， 一下子就會變得非常複雜，

and some philosophers would argue they’re not even the best way

有些哲學家甚至會說，

這並非做出道德決定的最佳方法。

to make moral decisions.

But whatever you decide, your choice should be well justified.

但不論你的決定為何， 你的選擇都應該具有充分的正當理由。