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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

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

你是星際貨船馬洛利七號的艦長，

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

前往新林德利太空港的路上， 你接到了求救的呼叫。

There’s been an explosion on the Telic 12

泰利克十二號發生爆炸，

and its passengers are running out of oxygen.

乘客的氧氣即將用盡。

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

當你設定攔截航線時， 也查了泰利克十二號的乘客名單。

It’s currently transporting 30 middle-aged individuals

它目前正在載送三十名中年人，

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

將他們從地球上最貧窮的地區 送到新林德利的勞工中心，

where they'll be assigned jobs on the spaceport.

中心會安排他們在太空港工作。

But as you approach the Telic 12, you receive a second distress call.

但在接近泰利克十二號時， 你又接到求救的呼叫。

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

豪華的太空艦波里托號 失去了一個推進器，

sending them careening towards an asteroid belt.

讓他們搖搖晃晃航向一個小行星帶。

Without your help, the 20 college students headed for vacation

若你不前往協助，波里托號上 去渡假的二十名大學生

aboard the Pareto are all doomed.

都是死路一條。

So with only enough time to save one ship, which one should you choose?

你的時間只夠救一艘太空船，

你會怎麼選擇？

This dilemma is an example of a broader class of problems

這個兩難的例子， 是一類邏輯推理的代表性問題：

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

當救命的資源

——比如捐贈的器官或疫苗——

is scarce.

很稀少。

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

對如何解決這類問題， 有許多不同派的看法。

and one of the most influential is utilitarianism,

最有影響力的其中一派 就是功利主義。

an ethical view first systematically developed

最早系統性發展出這種倫理觀點的人

by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

是傑若米班薩姆和約翰史都華米爾。

In this view, you should choose the action

在這種觀點中，要選擇的是 能夠達成最大總體快樂的做法。

which promises the greatest sum of happiness.

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

不過，如何定義和測量 快樂仍然是個難題。

For example, hedonists would suggest a happy life

比如，享樂主義者會說，

快樂的人生就是要有 最多的樂趣、最少的痛苦。

contains the most pleasure and the least pain.

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

也有人認為，最能滿足 慾望的人生才是最快樂的。

However happiness is defined,

不論如何定義快樂，

most would agree that saving 30 lives has the potential

大部分人會同意，拯救三十條性命

產生的快樂可能會多於 拯救二十條性命。

to generate more happiness than saving 20.

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

但只考量拯救的人數就夠了嗎？

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

還是也應該要考量剩下的壽命長度？

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

假設壽命是八十歲，

若拯救平均年齡二十歲的學生，

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

就拯救了一千兩百年的壽命，

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

若拯救平均年齡四十五歲的工人，

則是一千零五十年。

All things being equal, a longer life should promise

如果其他條件都一樣， 越長的壽命代表的總體快樂

a greater sum of happiness than a shorter one.

應該會多於比較短的壽命。

So perhaps saving the smaller ship actually has the potential

所以，也許拯救較小的太空船

其實比較有可能產生最大的快樂。

to generate the most happiness.

If all these calculations feel a bit cold,

若覺得這種計算方式有點冷血， 你可以試試另一種方法。

you may want to consider a different approach.

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

哲學家帕菲特主張， 應該優先考量境況較差的人，

since benefits to those groups matter more

因為讓這些族群受益 比讓境況較好的人受益更為重要。

than equivalent benefits to the well-off.

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

這種觀點認為，較急迫的是去 協助基本需求尚未被滿足的人，

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

即使協助他們比協助 發達的人更困難。

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

但若要判定哪個族群境況較差，

情況經常會馬上變複雜。

In our case, Earth is still beset by drastic inequalities

在我們的例子中，

地球仍然深深為 財富與機會的不平等所苦，

in wealth and opportunity.

And those able to afford a vacation on New Lindley

所以有錢可以到新林德利渡假

and transport on a luxury cruiser

還搭豪華的大型太空艦，

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

無疑一定屬於地球上境況最好的人。

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

相對之下，工人則是最弱勢的，

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

每次都要離家數個月， 去做服務性質的工作。

With fewer resources and opportunities,

由於資源和機會都比較少，

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

他們很可能在生活上會過得 比那些渡假者更辛苦，

than the vacationers,

so maybe they’re more deserving of rescue?

所以也許他們比較應該得救？

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

另一方面，總的來說學生的 人生經歷還比較少——

so perhaps they’re worse off?

也許他們的境況算比較糟？

Or maybe none of these variables should influence our decision.

或者，也許我們的決策 不該被這些變數左右。

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

哲學家約翰陶瑞克 很知名的主張就是：

在這類例子中，不要管數字。

the numbers don’t count.

Each person is deserving of equal concern and respect,

每個人都應該得到 同等的關注和尊重，

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

所以決定該救哪些乘客的最佳方式

就是擲硬幣。

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

雖然一開始可能會覺得很隨便，

但這個方法對各方一視同仁，

giving each individual an equal chance of being rescued.

平等給每個人得救的機會。

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

有任何乘客能爭論說 擲硬幣對他們不公平嗎？

It’s tough to say.

很難說。

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

但他們——以及你—— 對擲硬幣結果會有什麼感受，

可能又完全是另一個兩難的問題了。