-
Dudley Herschbach, a Harvard chemistry professor who has a Nobel prize had this painting hung at one of the halls.
德利·赫施巴赫，一位哈佛化学教授,他曾获得诺贝尔奖并将这画,挂在了其中的一个大厅里。
-
Last time, we argued about the case of Queen versus Dudley and Stevens, the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism at sea.
上节课，我们讨论了,女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案，即救生艇的案例，海上食人惨案。
-
Remember at the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery, suppose that they had agreed to a lottery, then how many would then say it was all right?
还记得一开始时，达德利曾提议抽签吗，假设他们都同意了抽签，有多少人认为，这样就可以接受？
-
Dudley offered a prayer, he told the boy his time had come, and he killed him with a pen knife, stabbing him in the jugular vein.
达德利为派克做了祷告，并告诉派克他的时辰到了，然后就用小刀割破他的颈静脉杀死了他。
-
So in the story Dudley is there, pen knife in hand, but instead of the prayer or before the prayer, he says "Parker, would you mind?"
故事里达德利手拿小刀，没有做祷告，或是在做祷告前，他说，派克，介意我们杀你吗“
-
So on the 19th day, Dudley, the captain, suggested that they should all have a lottery, that they should draw lots to see who would die to save the rest.
在第19天，船长达德利，建议大家应该抽签，通过抽签决定谁先死，来救其他的人。
-
Brooks turned state's witness. Dudley and Stevens went to trial.
布鲁克斯成了目击证人，达德利和斯蒂芬斯则成了被告。
-
Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism.
达德利日记里描述的得救情形，委婉得让人震惊。
-
Let's hear first from the defense of Dudley and Stevens.
先听听为达德利和斯蒂芬斯作出的辩护。
-
There were four in the crew, Dudley was the captain, Stevens was the first mate, Brooks was a sailor, all men of excellent character or so the newspaper account tells us.
全体船员一行四人，达德利是船长，斯蒂芬斯是大副，布鲁克斯是水手，都是品德高尚的人，至少报上是这么说的。
-
The next day there was still no ship in sight so Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and he motioned to Stevens that the boy, Parker, had better be killed.
又过了一天，依然没有船只的影子,于是达德利叫布鲁克斯转过头去,并示意斯蒂芬斯，最好杀掉派克。
-
And with the arguments about the lifeboat in mind, the arguments for and against what Dudley and Stephens did in mind, let's turn back to the philosophy, the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.
带着对救生艇上发生事件的讨论，即对达德利和斯蒂芬斯行为赞同与否的讨论，让我们再回归，杰里米·边沁的功利主义哲学。
-
I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven had asked for Richard Parker's consent in you know, dying, if that would exonerate them from an act of murder and if so, is that still morally justifiable?
我想知道达德利和斯蒂芬斯,是否征得过派克的同意，取他的性命，是否那样就能赦免他们的谋杀罪名,是否这样，道德上就是正当的？
-
Also, I don't think that there is any remorse, like in Dudley's diary, "We're eating our breakfast," it seems as though he's just sort of like, you know, the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life.
而且，我不认为达德利有丝毫悔意，既然他可以写出“我们正在吃早餐“这样的日记“,说明他似乎根本，没有把别人的生命当回事儿。
-
In fact, the London newspaper at that time and popular opinion sympathized with them, Dudley and Stevens, and the paper said if they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones at home and their dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this.
事实上，当时伦敦的报纸,以及舆论，是很同情达德利和斯蒂芬斯的，报纸上说，要不是因为他们,为了能活着见到家中的挚爱亲朋，他们肯定不会这么做的。
-
With this basic principle of utility on hand, let's begin to test it and to examine it by turning to another case, another story, but this time, not a hypothetical story, a real life story, the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens.
有了这条最基本的功利原则，让我们检验一下这条原则,是否适用于另一案例，而这一次，就不再是假定的事件了，是个真实的故事，女王诉达德利和斯蒂芬斯案。
应用推荐