Ethical dilemma: Would you lie? - Sarah Stroud

譯者: Camila Lin 審譯者: 至磊Zi Le 黃Ng

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

你撮合朋友凱莉 和熟人愛默森的計畫，

is finally coming together.

今天終於付諸實行。

Both individuals have heard all about each other

兩個人都已經聽說過對方的大小事，

and they’re eager to meet for dinner.

也很期待和對方共進晚餐。

You’ve just made them a reservation for Friday night,

你剛為他們訂位， 時間是星期五晚上，

and you’re about to text Carey the details

你正要傳訊息告訴凱莉這件事。

when an unsettling thought crosses your mind:

但一個讓人不安的念頭 突然閃過腦海：

Carey is always late.

凱莉總是會遲到。

And not just by 5 minutes;

而且不是遲到五分鐘那種程度，

we’re talking 20 or even 30 minutes late.

是晚了二、三十分鐘那種遲到。

Carey seems to view punctuality as an oppressive relic of an earlier era.

凱莉似乎覺得， 準時是上一代遺留的壓迫。

But what if you told them dinner was at 6 instead of 6:30?

但如果你告訴凱莉， 晚餐是六點開始，而不是六點半呢？

That way, they would almost certainly arrive on time.

這樣一來，他們就會 幾乎同時抵達餐廳。

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

你真的很希望他們在一起， 所以......你應該說謊嗎？

Take a moment to think: what you would do?

花點時間想一想：你該怎麼做？

Maybe you should lie!

或許你就該說謊！

You think this new relationship could be great for Carey,

你覺得這段關係對凱莉來說會很棒，

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

也不希望這段關係在開始前就夭折。

Sure, Emerson may eventually learn about their chronic lateness.

當然，愛默森最後可能還是會 發現凱莉習慣性遲到。

But if Carey shows up on time just this once,

但如果凱莉能在這次準時出現，

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

這段關係至少還有開始的機會。

Your lie would pave the way for a potentially happy relationship.

你的謊言會為一段 可能幸福的關係鋪路。

And if taking an action will create a better outcome for everyone involved,

如果某個行動能為 所有相關人士帶來更好的結果，

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

通常這就已經是個夠好的動機。

But isn't it morally wrong to lie?

但在道德層面，說謊不是錯的嗎？

The absolutist position on lying,

說謊在道德上的絕對地位，

associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant,

和德國哲學家康德有關。

holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

康德認為，無論情況為何， 說謊永遠都是違反道德的行為。

In other words, there’s a moral rule which forbids lying,

也就是說，有一條道德準則 禁止我們說謊，

and that rule is absolute.

而且這條準則有絕對性。

You might think, though, that this stance overstates

但你可能會覺得這種立場 誇大了說謊在道德上的重要性。

the moral importance of lying.

Suppose a murderer were hunting Carey down.

假設有個殺人犯正在追殺凱莉，

If the killer asked you about Carey’s whereabouts,

如果這個殺人魔問你凱莉在哪，

it seems odd to say that you must tell the truth

以朋友的生命做代價 老實回答也很怪。

at the cost of your friend’s life.

From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.

從這個角度來看， 絕對主義似乎太過頑固。

By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill

與此相反，

功利主義哲學家約翰彌爾，

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

則認為除非說謊會減少全體福祉， 才算得上是道德錯誤。

Now, to be fair, most lies do seem likely to create unhappiness.

平心而論，大多數謊言 的確更容易帶來不快樂。

Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false,

接受謊言，意味著某人 相信某個錯誤的資訊，

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

而試著將生活奠基在錯誤的訊息上，

doesn’t usually go well.

通常結局都不會太好。

However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation,

但是，在某些狀況下， 也許你的處境也包含其中，

lying might produce more happiness overall.

說謊可能會帶來更多全體福祉。

In those cases, utilitarians say it’s not morally wrong to lie.

在這種案例中，功利主義者認為， 說謊並不違背道德。

In fact, it might even be your moral duty to do so.

事實上，說謊甚至會 成為你的道德責任。

But if absolutism seems too extreme, you might feel this stance is too lax.

但如果你認為絕對主義太激進， 你可能也會覺得功利主義太馬虎。

In other words, perhaps the utilitarian position understates

也就是說，或許功利主義者的立場

對說謊的道德重要性避重就輕。

the moral significance of lying.

Most people generally feel some regret about lying,

大多數的人通常都會因說謊而後悔，

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

就算他們認為應該說謊時也一樣。

This suggests there’s something inherently objectionable about lying—

這說明我們天生就不喜歡說謊，

even when it leads to more happiness.

即使能帶來更多福祉也一樣。

In this case, lying to Carey would be an instance of Paternalism.

在這個案例中，對凱莉說謊 是家長主義的立場。

Paternalism is interfering with another person’s choices

家長主義是指，為了某人的利益，

for that person's benefit.

而干涉某人的選擇。

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

如果對象真的是小孩， 那似乎未嘗不可。

But it seems disrespectful to treat a peer paternalistically.

但如果這樣對待同儕， 就有點不尊重。

Lying to Carey would mean taking away their opportunity

向凱莉說謊，就是剝奪凱莉 根據自己的信念和價值觀，

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

用自認適當的方法處理此事的機會。

Trying to protect Carey from what you consider

試著保護凱莉免於 你認為的「壞選擇」，

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

顯示出你並不尊重她的自主權。

By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson,

更進一步說，這樣做 也可能不尊重愛默森，

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

因為你故意試著讓他對凱莉的準時

of Carey’s punctuality.

產生錯誤印象。

So how do you weigh potential happiness against guaranteed disrespect?

所以，你該怎麼衡量潛在的幸福 和實際的不尊重？

Followers of Kant would say treating others with respect

康德的信徒會說，

尊重他人是道德實踐的中心；

is the heart of moral conduct,

while followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness.

約漢彌爾的信徒則認為， 福祉是首要之務。

But other philosophers believe that such conflicts can only be resolved

但其他哲學家相信，

這種衝突只能 針對不同個案一一解決，

on a case-by-case basis,

depending on various details and on the individuals involved.

視具體細節和參與者而定。

So what will you do in Carey’s case?

所以，你會怎麼跟凱莉說？