Ethical dilemma: Who should you believe? - Alex Worsnip

譯者: Leigh Yapp 審譯者: Yi-Ping Cho (Marssi)

You’re sitting on the couch watching TV, when you hear a knock on the door.

你坐在沙發上看電視時 聽到有人在敲門的聲音

The police have just arrived to arrest your spouse— for murder.

警察前來拘捕你的另一半 以謀殺的罪名來拘捕

This accusation comes as a total shock.

這項指控讓人感到非常震驚

In your experience, your partner has always been gentle and loving,

在你的印象中，你的伴侶 總是既溫柔又有愛心

and you can't imagine them committing a grisly murder.

你無法想像他會犯下 這麼恐怖的謀殺案

But the evidence is serious:

但是調查證據詳實

their fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.

凶器上發現了他的指紋

Your spouse insists they're innocent.

你的另一半堅持他的清白

“I know it looks bad,” they say, “but you have to believe me!

「我知道這一切看起來很糟，」他說 「但你一定要相信我！」

If you don’t, who will?”

「如果你不相信我，誰會信？」

Should you believe your spouse,

你是否應該相信你的另一半呢？

even though the evidence against them looks damning?

即使不利於他的證明都鐵證如山？

Take a second to think what you would believe in this situation.

花點時間想想 在這個情況下，你會相信什麼

This dilemma is part of what philosophers call the ethics of belief:

這個兩難就是哲學家所謂 「信念倫理學」的一部分

a field of study that explores how we ought to form beliefs,

這個研究領域探討的是 我們該如何形成信念

and whether we have ethical duties to believe certain things.

以及我們是否有道德義務 去相信某些事情

The question here isn't about what you should do,

這裡的問題並非關於你應該怎麼做

such as whether or not you should find your spouse guilty in a court of law.

像是，你應不應該在法庭上證明 你的另一半是否有罪

After all, you wouldn’t be on the jury in their trial!

畢竟在審判時 你根本不會出現在陪審團裡

Rather, it’s about what you should believe to be true.

這個問題關乎的是 你應該要相信什麼東西是真實的

So, what factors should you consider?

既然如此，你該考量哪些要素呢？

Perhaps the most obvious is your evidence.

或許最顯見的就是你的證據了

After all, to believe something is to take it to be true.

畢竟，要相信某件事情 就得要認為那件事情是真的

And evidence is, by definition,

而證據的定義就是

all information that helps us determine what's true.

能夠幫助我們確認 何者為真的所有訊息

From this, some philosophers draw the conclusion that evidence

因此有些哲學家得出的結論是

證據作為唯一的要素 應當讓你決定要相信什麼

is the only thing that ought to determine what you believe.

This view is called evidentialism, and a strict evidentialist would say

這個觀點稱之為「證據主義」

而且一個不折不扣的證據主義者會說 就算被告人是你的另一半也沒關係

it doesn’t matter that the accused is your spouse.

You should evaluate the evidence from a neutral, objective point of view.

你評估證據時 應該要保持中立且客觀

Taking the perspective of an unbiased third party,

以一個不帶偏見的第三者角度來看

your judgment of your spouse's character is a relevant consideration.

你自己對於另一半的判斷 是個相對的考量因子

But finding their fingerprints at the crime scene

但在犯罪現場找到了他的指紋

is surely stronger evidence.

卻是個強而有力的證據

So, from an evidentialist point of view,

因此，根據證據主義者的觀點

you should either believe your spouse is guilty,

你要嘛應該相信另一半有罪

or at best remain undecided.

不然頂多就是持保留態度

Some philosophers present evidentialism only as a view

有些哲學家僅將證據主義當成

of what’s most rational to believe.

一種最合理可信的觀點

But others, like 19th century evidentialist W.K. Clifford,

但是其他人，像是19世紀的實證主義者 W. L.克里福就認為

think that following the evidence is also morally required.

遵循證據也算是道德上的要求

One argument for this view is that having well-informed, accurate beliefs

這種觀點的論證是 擁有充分的理解與精確的信念

is often vitally important to determining the ethical way to act.

往往對於確立道德表現 是至關重要的

Another argument is that there’s something unethical about being dishonest,

另一個論證是 不誠實即是不道德

and refusing to follow the evidence is a way of being dishonest with oneself.

不遵循證據也是一種 對自己不誠實的方式

However, perhaps there are other ethical factors in play.

然而，或許還有其他的 道德因素起了作用

Although the evidence against your spouse is strong,

雖然不利於你另一半的證據 非常強而有力

there’s still a chance that they’re actually innocent.

但還是有機會證明他確實是清白的

Think for a moment about how it would feel to be innocent,

想一想，若你是無辜者 會有什麼感受？

and have no one believe you— not even your own partner!

沒有人相信你 就連伴侶都不相信你

By not trusting your spouse,

如果你不相信自己的另一半

you run the risk of seriously hurting them in their crucial hour of need.

你冒的風險就是 在他最需要幫助時狠狠地傷害他

Moreover, consider what this lack of trust would do to your marriage.

此外還要考慮，失去信任 會對你們的婚姻產生什麼影響

It would be incredibly difficult to continue a loving relationship

這會讓你們很難繼續維持戀愛關係

with someone that you believed— or even strongly suspected—

就因為你認為，或是強烈地懷疑對方

was a murderer.

是個殺人犯

You might try to pretend to believe that your spouse is innocent,

你或許會裝作自己相信另一半是清白的

but could you really go on living that lie?

但你真的能一直活在這個謊言裡嗎？

According to a theory of the ethics of belief called pragmatism,

根據信念倫理學當中 一個稱作「實用主義」的理論

these kinds of practical considerations can sometimes make it right

這些務實的考量有時候 會讓人相信某些東西是正確的

to believe something even without strong evidence.

即使是在一個沒有確切證據的情況下

有些實用主義者甚至會說

Some pragmatists would even say that you morally owe it to your spouse

你在道德上有義務相信你的另一半

to believe them.

But is it even possible to believe your spouse is innocent

但，有可能你會相信另一半的清白

just because you think it’ll be good for your relationship?

就只因為你覺得有助於你們的感情嗎？

Or because you think you owe it to the accused?

還是因為你覺得對於被告人有所虧欠？

You might desperately want to believe they’re innocent,

你可能拚了命想要相信他的清白

but can you control your beliefs in the same way you control your actions?

但你能以控制行動的方式 來控制你的信念嗎？

It seems like you can’t just believe whatever you like

你似乎不能夠一味地相信你想相信的

when the truth is staring you in the face.

尤其事實就擺在眼前

But on the other hand, recall your spouse’s plea.

但另一方面說來 你去回顧另一半的抗辯

When we say things like this,

當我們談的是這樣的事情時

we seem to be assuming that it is possible to control our beliefs in some way.

我們似乎在假設自己有可能 在某些程度上控制信念

So what do you think? Can you control what beliefs you have?

那你是怎麼想的呢？ 你能夠控制自己擁有什麼信念嗎？

And if so, what will you believe about your spouse?

如果你能的話 你會相信關於另一半的哪些事情呢？