视频库 / NO.035
--:--
点击播放，这里会跟随视频显示当前句的中英字幕。
第 35 期 · 回应 Ⅲ·03「道德可以计算吗？」
Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
节目发布 2013-05-20章节 · 点击跳转视频
0:00
小悦悦事件：你会停下来吗
1:30
每天19,000名儿童：距离与道德无关
3:35
有效利他主义：心与脑的结合
5:15
盖茨与巴菲特：历史上最有效的捐赠者
6:45
不必是亿万富翁：Toby Ord 与10%誓言
8:19
职业选择：8万小时与「赚钱以捐」
11:13
慈善效果相差千倍：导盲犬 vs 沙眼手术
13:06
动物福利与人类灭绝风险
13:41
捐赠是负担吗：走出西西弗斯困境
15:28
捐肾的陌生人：善行的折算与脱身之道
本期讲者
彼得·辛格澳大利亚哲学家，普林斯顿大学生物伦理学教授，功利主义伦理学的当代代表人物。著有《动物解放》（1975）、《你能拯救的生命》（2009）等，被视为有效利他主义运动的思想奠基者。
01小悦悦事件：你会停下来吗
0:00
Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast
译者：Joseph Geni 审校：Morton Bast
0:12
There's something that I'd like you to see. (Video) Reporter: It's a story that's deeply unsettled millions in China: footage of a two-year-old girl hit by a van and left bleeding in the street by passersby, footage too graphic to be shown. The entire accident is caught on camera. The driver pauses after hitting the child, his back wheels seen resting on her for over a second. Within two minutes, three people pass two-year-old Wang Yue by. The first walks around the badly injured toddler completely.
我想请大家看一样东西。（视频）记者：这件事让数百万中国人深感不安：画面中，一名两岁女童被一辆面包车撞倒，倒在血泊中，路人却视而不见，画面过于血腥，无法播出。整个事故被摄像头完整拍下。司机撞到孩子后停顿了一下，可以看到后轮压在她身上超过一秒钟。两分钟之内，有三个人从两岁的王悦身边经过。第一个人绕开了这个伤势严重的幼童，径直走开。
0:47
Others look at her before moving off. Peter Singer: There were other people who walked past Wang Yue, and a second van ran over her legs before a street cleaner raised the alarm. She was rushed to hospital, but it was too late. She died. I wonder how many of you, looking at that, said to yourselves just now, "I would not have done that. I would have stopped to help." Raise your hands if that thought occurred to you. As I thought, that's most of you. And I believe you. I'm sure you're right. But before you give yourself too much credit, look at this.
其他人看了她一眼，然后就离开了。彼得·辛格：还有其他人也从王悦身边走过，接着第二辆面包车又从她腿上碾了过去，直到一位清洁工才发出呼救。她被紧急送往医院，但为时已晚。她去世了。我想知道，你们当中有多少人看到这一幕，刚才心里对自己说：“我不会那样做的。我会停下来帮忙。”如果你有过这个念头，请举手。果然不出我所料，你们大多数人都举手了。我相信你们。我相信你们说的是真的。但在你们过于自我肯定之前，先看看这个。
02每天19,000名儿童：距离与道德无关
1:30
UNICEF reports that in 2011, 6.9 million children under five died from preventable, poverty-related diseases. UNICEF thinks that that's good news because the figure has been steadily coming down from 12 million in 1990. That is good. But still, 6.9 million is 19,000 children dying every day. Does it really matter that we're not walking past them in the street? Does it really matter that they're far away? I don't think it does make a morally relevant difference. The fact that they're not right in front of us, the fact, of course, that they're of a different nationality or race, none of that seems morally relevant to me.
联合国儿童基金会报告称，2011年有690万五岁以下儿童死于本可预防的、与贫困相关的疾病。联合国儿童基金会认为这算是个好消息，因为这个数字已经从1990年的1200万稳步下降。这确实是好事。但即便如此，690万意味着每天有19000名儿童死去。我们没有在街上从他们身边走过，这真的有什么区别吗？他们离我们很远，这真的重要吗？我认为这在道德上并不构成实质性的差别。他们不在我们眼前这个事实，当然还有他们属于不同国籍或种族这个事实，在我看来都与道德无关。
2:24
What is really important is, can we reduce that death toll? Can we save some of those 19,000 children dying every day? And the answer is, yes we can. Each of us spends money on things that we do not really need. You can think what your own habit is, whether it's a new car, a vacation or just something like buying bottled water when the water that comes out of the tap is perfectly safe to drink. You could take the money you're spending on those unnecessary things and give it to this organization, the Against Malaria Foundation, which would take the money you had given and use it to buy nets like this one to protect children like this one, and we know reliably that if we provide nets, they're used, and they reduce the number of children dying from malaria, just one of the many preventable diseases that are responsible for some of those 19,000 children dying every day.
真正重要的是：我们能不能降低这个死亡数字？我们能不能挽救每天死去的这19000名儿童中的一部分？答案是：我们能。我们每个人都会把钱花在并非真正必需的东西上。你可以想想自己的消费习惯，也许是一辆新车、一次度假，或者只是像买瓶装水这样的小事明明水龙头里流出来的水完全可以放心喝。你可以把花在那些不必要的东西上的钱，捐给这个机构——「对抗疟疾基金会」，他们会用你捐的钱买这样的蚊帐，去保护像这样的孩子，而且我们有可靠的证据表明，只要发放蚊帐，人们就会使用，死于疟疾的儿童人数就会减少，而疟疾只是众多可预防疾病中的一种，正是这些疾病夺走了每天那 19,000 个孩子中相当一部分人的生命。
03有效利他主义：心与脑的结合
3:35
Fortunately, more and more people are understanding this idea, and the result is a growing movement: effective altruism. It's important because it combines both the heart and the head. The heart, of course, you felt. You felt the empathy for that child. But it's really important to use the head as well to make sure that what you do is effective and well-directed, and not only that, but also I think reason helps us to understand that other people, wherever they are, are like us, that they can suffer as we can, that parents grieve for the deaths of their children, as we do, and that just as our lives and our well-being matter to us, it matters just as much to all of these people.
幸运的是，越来越多的人开始理解这个理念，其结果就是一场不断壮大的运动：有效利他主义。它之所以重要，是因为它同时结合了心与脑。「心」，你刚才当然已经感受到了。你对那个孩子产生了共情。但同样非常重要的是也要用「脑」，确保你所做的事情是有效的、方向正确的，不仅如此，我还认为理性能帮助我们理解：其他人，无论身在何处，都和我们一样，他们会像我们一样受苦，为人父母者会为孩子的死去而悲痛，就像我们一样；而正如我们的生命和福祉对我们自己至关重要，它对所有这些人来说也同样重要。
4:27
So I think reason is not just some neutral tool to help you get whatever you want. It does help us to put perspective on our situation. And I think that's why many of the most significant people in effective altruism have been people who have had backgrounds in philosophy or economics or math. And that might seem surprising, because a lot of people think, "Philosophy is remote from the real world; economics, we're told, just makes us more selfish, and we know that math is for nerds." But in fact it does make a difference, and in fact there's one particular nerd who has been a particularly effective altruist because he got this.
所以我认为，理性不只是一个帮你达成任何欲望的中立工具。它确实能帮助我们看清自己处境的全貌。我想这也正是为什么，有效利他主义中许多最重要的人物，都拥有哲学、经济学或数学的背景。这也许听起来有点意外，因为很多人会想：「哲学离现实世界很远；经济学呢，人们都说它只会让我们更自私，而数学嘛，我们都知道那是书呆子的事。」但事实上它确实带来了改变，而且确实有一位书呆子成了格外有效的利他主义者，因为他想明白了这一点。
04盖茨与巴菲特：历史上最有效的捐赠者
5:15
This is the website of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and if you look at the words on the top right-hand side, it says, "All lives have equal value." That's the understanding, the rational understanding of our situation in the world that has led to these people being the most effective altruists in history, Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. (Applause) No one, not Andrew Carnegie, not John D. Rockefeller, has ever given as much to charity as each one of these three, and they have used their intelligence to make sure that it is highly effective.
这是比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会的网站，如果你看右上角那行字，上面写着：「每个生命都同样宝贵。」正是这种理解——对我们在这个世界上处境的理性理解——让这几个人成为历史上最有效的利他主义者：比尔和梅琳达·盖茨，以及沃伦·巴菲特。（掌声）没有任何人，无论是安德鲁·卡内基还是约翰·D·洛克菲勒，捐给慈善事业的钱，能比得上他们三人中的任何一位，而且他们运用自己的智慧，确保这些钱发挥出极高的效益。
6:04
According to one estimate, the Gates Foundation has already saved 5.8 million lives and many millions more, people, getting diseases that would have made them very sick, even if eventually they survived. Over the coming years, undoubtably the Gates Foundation is going to give a lot more, is going to save a lot more lives. Well, you might say, that's fine if you're a billionaire, you can have that kind of impact. But if I'm not, what can I do? So I'm going to look at four questions that people ask that maybe stand in the way of them giving.
据一项估算，盖茨基金会已经挽救了 580 万人的生命，还让另外数百万人免于患上那些即便最终能活下来、也会让他们病得很重的疾病。在未来这些年里，盖茨基金会无疑还会捐出更多，还会挽救更多的生命。你也许会说，如果你是亿万富翁，那当然没问题，你能产生那样的影响。可我不是，我又能做什么呢？所以接下来我要谈四个人们常问的问题，这些问题也许正是阻碍他们捐赠的原因。
05不必是亿万富翁：Toby Ord 与10%誓言
6:45
They worry how much of a difference they can make. But you don't have to be a billionaire. This is Toby Ord. He's a research fellow in philosophy at the University of Oxford. He became an effective altruist when he calculated that with the money that he was likely to earn throughout his career, an academic career, he could give enough to cure 80,000 people of blindness in developing countries and still have enough left for a perfectly adequate standard of living. So Toby founded an organization called Giving What We Can to spread this information, to unite people who want to share some of their income, and to ask people to pledge to give 10 percent of what they earn over their lifetime to fighting global poverty.
他们担心自己究竟能带来多大的改变。但你并不需要成为亿万富翁。这位是托比·奥德，他是牛津大学的哲学研究员。他成为有效利他主义者，是因为他算了一笔账：以他在整个学术生涯中可能挣到的钱，他可以捐出足够的钱，治好发展中国家 8 万人的失明，同时自己还剩下足够维持完全体面生活的收入。于是托比创立了一个叫「Giving What We Can（我们能捐多少）」的组织来传播这个信息，把那些愿意分享部分收入的人聚在一起，并邀请人们承诺：终身捐出收入的 10%，用于对抗全球贫困。
7:38
Toby himself does better than that. He's pledged to live on 18,000 pounds a year -- that's less than 30,000 dollars -- and to give the rest to those organizations. And yes, Toby is married and he does have a mortgage. This is a couple at a later stage of life, Charlie Bresler and Diana Schott, who, when they were young, when they met, were activists against the Vietnam War, fought for social justice, and then moved into careers, as most people do, didn't really do anything very active about those values, although they didn't abandon them.
托比自己做得比这还多。他承诺每年只靠 1.8 万英镑生活——也就是不到 3 万美元——其余全部捐给这些机构。顺便说一句，托比已婚，而且还背着房贷。这是一对处在人生较晚阶段的夫妇，查理·布雷斯勒和黛安娜·肖特，他们年轻时、刚认识的时候，是反越战的活动人士，为社会公正而奋斗，后来像大多数人一样投入各自的事业，虽然没有放弃那些价值观，但也没再为之做什么积极的行动。
06职业选择：8万小时与「赚钱以捐」
8:19
And then, as they got to the age at which many people start to think of retirement, they returned to them, and they've decided to cut back on their spending, to live modestly, and to give both money and time to helping to fight global poverty. Now, mentioning time might lead you to think, "Well, should I abandon my career and put all of my time into saving some of these 19,000 lives that are lost every day?" One person who's thought quite a bit about this issue of how you can have a career that will have the biggest impact for good in the world is Will Crouch.
然后，当他们到了很多人开始考虑退休的年纪，他们又回到了那些价值观上，并决定削减开支、过简朴的生活，把金钱和时间都投入到帮助消除全球贫困中去。说到时间，你可能会想：「那我是不是该放弃事业，把全部时间投入去拯救每天逝去的那 19,000 条生命中的一部分？」有一个人对「怎样的职业能为世界带来最大的正面影响」这个问题思考得相当深入，他叫威尔·克劳奇。
8:59
He's a graduate student in philosophy, and he's set up a website called 80,000 Hours, the number of hours he estimates most people spend on their career, to advise people on how to have the best, most effective career. But you might be surprised to know that one of the careers that he encourages people to consider, if they have the right abilities and character, is to go into banking or finance. Why? Because if you earn a lot of money, you can give away a lot of money, and if you're successful in that career, you could give enough to an aid organization so that it could employ, let's say, five aid workers in developing countries, and each one of them would probably do about as much good as you would have done.
他是哲学专业的研究生，创办了一个叫「80,000 Hours（八万小时）」的网站，这个数字是他估算的大多数人一生投入工作的小时数，网站为人们提供建议，帮他们选择最好、最有效的职业道路。但你可能会惊讶：他鼓励人们考虑的职业之一，——只要你具备相应的能力和性格——是进入银行业或金融业。为什么？因为如果你挣很多钱，你就能捐很多钱，而如果你在那份职业上做得成功，你捐给援助机构的钱可能足以让它雇用，比方说，五名援助工作者在发展中国家工作，而他们每一个人所做的好事，大概都和你亲自去做的一样多。
9:49
So you can quintuple the impact by leading that kind of career. Here's one young man who's taken this advice. His name is Matt Weiger. He was a student at Princeton in philosophy and math, actually won the prize for the best undergraduate philosophy thesis last year when he graduated. But he's gone into finance in New York. He's already earning enough so that he's giving a six-figure sum to effective charities and still leaving himself with enough to live on. Matt has also helped me to set up an organization that I'm working with that has the name taken from the title of a book I wrote, "The Life You Can Save,"
所以走这样一条职业道路，你可以把影响力放大五倍。这里有一位年轻人就采纳了这个建议。他叫马特·韦格。他曾是普林斯顿大学哲学与数学专业的学生，去年毕业时还拿下了最佳本科哲学论文奖。但他去了纽约做金融。他现在的收入已经足以让他每年向高效慈善机构捐出六位数的金额，同时自己仍然过得很宽裕。马特还帮我创办了一个我目前参与的组织，名字取自我写的一本书的书名，叫「你能拯救的生命」，它试图改变我们的文化，让更多人意识到：如果我们要过一种有道德的生活，
10:33
which is trying to change our culture so that more people think that if we're going to live an ethical life, it's not enough just to follow the thou-shalt-nots and not cheat, steal, maim, kill, but that if we have enough, we have to share some of that with people who have so little. And the organization draws together people of different generations, like Holly Morgan, who's an undergraduate, who's pledged to give 10 percent of the little amount that she has, and on the right, Ada Wan, who has worked directly for the poor, but has now gone to Yale to do an MBA to have more to give.
仅仅遵守那些「不可如何如何」的戒律——不欺骗、不偷窃、不伤害、不杀人——是不够的，而是说，如果我们拥有的足够多，就该把其中一部分分给那些拥有得如此之少的人。这个组织把不同世代的人聚到了一起，比如霍莉·摩根，她还是本科生，承诺把自己那点微薄的收入捐出 10%，还有右边这位温艾达，她曾直接为穷人工作，现在去耶鲁读 MBA，为的是将来能捐得更多。
07慈善效果相差千倍：导盲犬 vs 沙眼手术
11:13
Many people will think, though, that charities aren't really all that effective. So let's talk about effectiveness. Toby Ord is very concerned about this, and he's calculated that some charities are hundreds or even thousands of times more effective than others, so it's very important to find the effective ones. Take, for example, providing a guide dog for a blind person. That's a good thing to do, right? Well, right, it is a good thing to do, but you have to think what else you could do with the resources.
不过，很多人会觉得，慈善机构其实并没有那么有效。那我们就来谈谈「有效性」。托比·奥德非常关注这个问题，他计算出，有些慈善机构的有效程度是另一些的几百倍甚至几千倍，所以找到那些真正有效的机构非常重要。举个例子，为一位盲人提供一条导盲犬。这是件好事，对吧？没错，这确实是件好事，但你必须想想同样的资源还能拿来做什么。
11:45
It costs about 40,000 dollars to train a guide dog and train the recipient so that the guide dog can be an effective help to a blind person. It costs somewhere between 20 and 50 dollars to cure a blind person in a developing country if they have trachoma. So you do the sums, and you get something like that. You could provide one guide dog for one blind American, or you could cure between 400 and 2,000 people of blindness. I think it's clear what's the better thing to do. But if you want to look for effective charities, this is a good website to go to.
训练一条导盲犬、同时训练它的使用者，让导盲犬真正能帮到一位盲人，大约要花 4 万美元。而在发展中国家，治好一位因沙眼致盲的人，大约只需要 20 到 50 美元。你把账一算，就会得到这样的结果。你可以为一位美国盲人提供一条导盲犬，或者你可以治好 400 到 2,000 人的失明。我想，哪一个更值得做，已经很清楚了。如果你想寻找高效的慈善机构，这个网站很值得一看。
12:28
GiveWell exists to really assess the impact of charities, not just whether they're well-run, and it's screened hundreds of charities and currently is recommending only three, of which the Against Malaria Foundation is number one. So it's very tough. If you want to look for other recommendations, thelifeyoucansave.com and Giving What We Can both have a somewhat broader list, but you can find effective organizations, and not just in the area of saving lives from the poor. I'm pleased to say that there is now also a website looking at effective animal organizations.
GiveWell 的存在就是为了真正评估慈善机构的实际成效，而不只是看它们运营得好不好，它已经筛选了数百家慈善机构，而目前只推荐三家，其中排在第一位的就是「对抗疟疾基金会」。所以标准非常严格。如果你想看看别的推荐，thelifeyoucansave.com 和 Giving What We Can 都有一份范围稍广一些的名单，你可以从中找到高效的机构，而且不限于「拯救穷人生命」这个领域。我很高兴地告诉大家，现在也有一个网站在评估高效的动物保护机构了。
08动物福利与人类灭绝风险
13:06
That's another cause that I've been concerned about all my life, the immense amount of suffering that humans inflict on literally tens of billions of animals every year. So if you want to look for effective organizations to reduce that suffering, you can go to Effective Animal Activism. And some effective altruists think it's very important to make sure that our species survives at all. So they're looking at ways to reduce the risk of extinction. Here's one risk of extinction that we all became aware of recently, when an asteroid passed close to our planet.
这是我一生都在关注的另一项事业——人类每年给字面意义上的数百亿只动物所施加的巨大痛苦。所以，如果你想寻找能有效减少这种痛苦的机构，你可以去看看 Effective Animal Activism（有效动物行动主义）。还有一些有效利他主义者认为，确保我们这个物种能够存续下去本身就极其重要。所以他们在研究如何降低人类灭绝的风险。最近我们都意识到了一种灭绝风险，就是当一颗小行星从离地球很近的地方掠过的时候。
09捐赠是负担吗：走出西西弗斯困境
13:41
Possibly research could help us not only to predict the path of asteroids that might collide with us, but actually to deflect them. So some people think that would be a good thing to give to. There's many possibilities. My final question is, some people will think it's a burden to give. I don't really believe it is. I've enjoyed giving all of my life since I was a graduate student. It's been something fulfilling to me. Charlie Bresler said to me that he's not an altruist. He thinks that the life he's saving is his own.
相关研究也许不仅能帮我们预测可能与地球相撞的小行星的轨道，甚至还能让我们把它们偏转开。所以有些人认为，这也是个值得捐助的方向。可能性有很多。我最后一个问题是：有些人会觉得，捐赠是一种负担。我并不这么认为。从读研究生起，我这一生都很享受捐赠这件事。它带给我一种充实感。查理·布雷斯勒对我说，他并不是个利他主义者。他觉得，他所拯救的其实是自己的人生。
14:12
And Holly Morgan told me that she used to battle depression until she got involved with effective altruism, and now is one of the happiest people she knows. I think one of the reasons for this is that being an effective altruist helps to overcome what I call the Sisyphus problem. Here's Sisyphus as portrayed by Titian, condemned by the gods to push a huge boulder up to the top of the hill. Just as he gets there, the effort becomes too much, the boulder escapes, rolls all the way down the hill, he has to trudge back down to push it up again, and the same thing happens again and again for all eternity.
霍莉·摩根告诉我，她曾长期与抑郁症抗争，直到她投身有效利他主义，如今她成了自己认识的人当中最快乐的人之一。我想原因之一在于，做一个有效利他主义者能帮你克服一个我称之为「西西弗斯问题」的困境。这是提香笔下的西西弗斯，他被众神惩罚，要把一块巨石推上山顶。可就在他快要到顶的时候，力气耗尽了，巨石脱手，一路滚回山脚，他只能拖着步子走下去，重新再推一次，同样的事情就这样永无止境地重复下去。
14:52
Does that remind you of a consumer lifestyle, where you work hard to get money, you spend that money on consumer goods which you hope you'll enjoy using? But then the money's gone, you have to work hard to get more, spend more, and to maintain the same level of happiness, it's kind of a hedonic treadmill. You never get off, and you never really feel satisfied. Becoming an effective altruist gives you that meaning and fulfillment. It enables you to have a solid basis for self-esteem on which you can feel your life was really worth living.
这是不是让你想起了消费主义的生活方式——你拼命工作赚钱，然后把钱花在你希望能享受到的消费品上？可钱花完了，你又得拼命工作赚更多、花更多，而且为了维持同样的幸福感，这就像一台享乐跑步机。你永远下不来，也永远得不到真正的满足。而成为一名有效利他主义者，能给你那份意义感和成就感。它让你拥有一个坚实的自尊基础，让你能感到自己的人生真的值得一过。
10捐肾的陌生人：善行的折算与脱身之道
15:28
I'm going to conclude by telling you about an email that I received while I was writing this talk just a month or so ago. It's from a man named Chris Croy, who I'd never heard of. This is a picture of him showing him recovering from surgery. Why was he recovering from surgery? The email began, "Last Tuesday, I anonymously donated my right kidney to a stranger. That started a kidney chain which enabled four people to receive kidneys." There's about 100 people each year in the U.S. and more in other countries who do that.
最后我想跟大家讲一封邮件，是我写这次演讲时收到的，就在大约一个月前。写信的人叫克里斯·克罗伊，我此前从没听说过他。这张照片是他手术后恢复时拍的。他为什么要做手术恢复呢？邮件开头写道：“上周二，我匿名把我的右肾捐给了一个陌生人。这启动了一条肾脏捐赠链，让四个人得到了肾脏。”在美国，每年大概有一百个人这么做，其他国家还有更多。
16:07
I was pleased to read it. Chris went on to say that he'd been influenced by my writings in what he did. Well, I have to admit, I'm also somewhat embarrassed by that, because I still have two kidneys. But Chris went on to say that he didn't think that what he'd done was all that amazing, because he calculated that the number of life-years that he had added to people, the extension of life, was about the same that you could achieve if you gave 5,000 dollars to the Against Malaria Foundation. And that did make me feel a little bit better, because I have given more than 5,000 dollars to the Against Malaria Foundation and to various other effective charities.
读到这些我很高兴。克里斯接着说，他这么做是受了我的著作的影响。不过我得承认，我对此也有点不好意思，因为我还留着两个肾。但克里斯接着说，他并不觉得自己做的事有多了不起，因为他算了一下，他为别人增加的生命年数，也就是延长的寿命，大致相当于你捐五千美元给“抗疟疾基金会”所能达到的效果。这话确实让我心里好受了一点，因为我给“抗疟疾基金会”以及其他各种高效慈善机构捐的钱超过了五千美元。
16:57
So if you're feeling bad because you still have two kidneys as well, there's a way for you to get off the hook. Thank you. (Applause)
所以，如果你也因为自己还留着两个肾而感到内疚，那你还有一条脱身之道。谢谢大家。（掌声）
视频总结 · 一句话概括与核心要点
定位：哲学家彼得·辛格2013年TED演讲，系统阐述「有效利他主义」的为什么与怎么做，回应的核心问题是：面对远方可预防的死亡，我们负有什么义务，以及如何让善行真正有效。
论证脉络：开场播放「小悦悦事件」视频，让听众自我确认「我会停下来帮忙」，随即用UNICEF数据反转——每天19,000名儿童死于可预防疾病，而距离、国籍在道德上「不相关」。由此引出行动方案：把花在瓶装水等无必要消费上的钱捐给对抗疟疾基金会。
接着提出「心与脑」框架：共情提供动机，理性保证效果并扩展道德关怀圈；以盖茨、巴菲特为例说明理性理解（「所有生命等价」）造就了史上最有效的捐赠者。
后半段以「四个阻碍捐赠的问题」组织：（1）我能做多大改变——Toby Ord 的10%誓言与 Bresler 夫妇的中年回归；（2）该不该放弃职业——80,000 Hours 与「赚钱以捐」的五倍逻辑；（3）慈善真的有效吗——导盲犬 vs 沙眼手术的千倍差距，GiveWell 数百家中只推荐三家，并延伸到动物福利与灭绝风险；（4）捐赠是负担吗——关键转折：从义务论证转向自利论证，用西西弗斯与「享乐跑步机」说明消费主义的空转，而利他提供意义与自尊。
收束：陌生人匿名捐肾救四人，却算出约等于捐5,000美元给AMF——用同一尺度折算不同善行，既体现「道德可计算」的方法论，又以「你还有两个肾也有脱身之道」的幽默卸下道德压力。
核心句型 · 8
1. Does it really matter that …? I don't think it does.
“Does it really matter that we're not walking past them in the street? Does it really matter that they're far away? I don't think it does make a morally relevant difference.”
连续自问后自答，用于挑战听众默认假设。适合论证性演讲：先把对方的隐含前提说出来，再否定。仿写时注意 does 的强调用法。
2. before you give yourself too much credit, look at this
“But before you give yourself too much credit, look at this.”
先让对方自我肯定，再用转折引入反例。「give sb. credit」= 认可某人。适合在演讲或写作中制造认知反转。
3. You could A, or you could B. I think it's clear what's the better thing to do.
“You could provide one guide dog for one blind American, or you could cure between 400 and 2,000 people of blindness. I think it's clear what's the better thing to do.”
并列两种选择并让数据自己说话，结论句故意克制。用于对比论证，比直接断言更有说服力。
4. Well, you might say, … But if I'm not, what can I do?
“Well, you might say, that's fine if you're a billionaire, you can have that kind of impact. But if I'm not, what can I do?”
预设听众的反驳（you might say）并替他们说出来，再作答。这是演讲中处理异议的标准结构，可用于任何论证性文本。
5. it's not enough just to …, but … we have to …
“It's not enough just to follow the thou-shalt-nots and not cheat, steal, maim, kill, but that if we have enough, we have to share some of that”
「仅仅……是不够的，还必须……」，用于提高标准或扩展义务范围。注意 not enough just to 后接动词原形。
6. Does that remind you of …, where …?
“Does that remind you of a consumer lifestyle, where you work hard to get money, you spend that money on consumer goods…?”
用反问把神话/故事类比到现实，where 引导定语从句展开细节。适合讲完一个例子后引导听众联想。
7. X does better than that. He's pledged to …
“Toby himself does better than that. He's pledged to live on 18,000 pounds a year”
「做得比这还多」，用于递进举例：先说一般标准，再说某人超越了它。do better than that 是地道口语表达。
8. there's a way for you to get off the hook
“So if you're feeling bad because you still have two kidneys as well, there's a way for you to get off the hook.”
get off the hook 习语，指「脱身、免除责任」。结尾用幽默自嘲收束严肃话题，是英语演讲常见的软着陆技巧。
生词精讲 · 63 · 按出现顺序
unsettled
/ʌnˈsetld/
adj.
0:12
心神不宁的，不安的（此处为动词过去分词：使不安）
footage
/ˈfʊtɪdʒ/
n.
0:12
（影片、视频）片段，镜头
passersby
/ˈpæsərzˌbaɪ/
n.
0:12
路人（passerby 的复数）
graphic
/ˈɡræfɪk/
adj.
0:12
（描绘暴力等）逼真的，血腥露骨的
toddler
/ˈtɑːdlər/
n.
0:12
学步幼儿（约1-3岁）
raised the alarm
phr.
0:47
发出警报，呼救
give yourself too much credit
phr.
0:47
过高评价自己，自我表扬
preventable
/prɪˈventəbl/
adj.
1:30
可预防的
morally relevant
phr.
1:30
在道德上相关的、有实质意义的（伦理学术语）
death toll
n.
2:24
死亡人数
malaria
/məˈleriə/
n.
2:24
疟疾
altruism
/ˈæltruɪzəm/
n.
3:35
利他主义
empathy
/ˈempəθi/
n.
3:35
共情，同理心
well-directed
adj.
3:35
方向正确的，目标明确的
grieve
/ɡriːv/
v.
3:35
悲痛，哀悼（grieve for sb.）
well-being
/ˌwelˈbiːɪŋ/
n.
3:35
福祉，安康
put perspective on
phr.
4:27
客观看待，把……放在全局中审视
remote from
phr.
4:27
与……相距甚远，脱离
nerd
/nɜːrd/
n.
4:27
书呆子，技术宅（口语，可带自嘲）
rational
/ˈræʃənl/
adj.
5:15
理性的，基于推理的
undoubtably
/ʌnˈdaʊtəbli/
adv.
6:04
毫无疑问地（非标准拼法，标准为 undoubtedly）
stand in the way of
phr.
6:04
阻碍，妨碍
research fellow
n.
6:45
（大学）研究员
adequate
/ˈædɪkwət/
adj.
6:45
足够的，尚可的
pledge
/pledʒ/
v.
6:45
承诺，保证（pledge to do）
mortgage
/ˈmɔːrɡɪdʒ/
n.
7:38
房屋抵押贷款
activists
/ˈæktɪvɪsts/
n.
7:38
活动人士，社会运动者
abandon
/əˈbændən/
v.
7:38
放弃，抛弃
cut back on
phr.
8:19
削减，减少（开支等）
live modestly
phr.
8:19
过简朴的生活
graduate student
n.
8:59
研究生
aid organization
n.
8:59
援助机构
quintuple
/kwɪnˈtuːpl/
v.
9:49
使增至五倍
thesis
/ˈθiːsɪs/
n.
9:49
学位论文
six-figure sum
n.
9:49
六位数金额（十万至百万美元）
thou-shalt-nots
n.
10:33
「不可……」的禁令（源自《圣经》十诫的古英语句式）
maim
/meɪm/
v.
10:33
使残废，重伤
draws together
phr.
10:33
聚集，把……汇聚在一起
guide dog
n.
11:13
导盲犬
recipient
/rɪˈsɪpiənt/
n.
11:45
接受者，受赠者
trachoma
/trəˈkoʊmə/
n.
11:45
沙眼（一种致盲性眼部感染）
do the sums
phr.
11:45
算一算账，做加减计算（英式口语）
assess
/əˈses/
v.
12:28
评估
screened
/skriːnd/
v.
12:28
筛选，审查
well-run
adj.
12:28
运营良好的
immense
/ɪˈmens/
adj.
13:06
巨大的
inflict
/ɪnˈflɪkt/
v.
13:06
施加（痛苦、伤害）（inflict sth. on sb.）
extinction
/ɪkˈstɪŋkʃn/
n.
13:06
灭绝
asteroid
/ˈæstərɔɪd/
n.
13:06
小行星
deflect
/dɪˈflekt/
v.
13:41
使偏转，使转向
collide with
phr.
13:41
与……相撞
fulfilling
/fʊlˈfɪlɪŋ/
adj.
13:41
令人有成就感的，充实的
condemned
/kənˈdemd/
v.
14:12
判处，责罚（condemn sb. to do）
boulder
/ˈboʊldər/
n.
14:12
巨石
trudge
/trʌdʒ/
v.
14:12
步履沉重地走
for all eternity
phr.
14:12
永远，直到永恒
hedonic treadmill
/hɪˈdɑːnɪk ˈtredmɪl/
n.
14:52
享乐跑步机（心理学术语：幸福感在境遇改善后回落基线）
self-esteem
/ˌself ɪˈstiːm/
n.
14:52
自尊，自我价值感
worth living
phr.
14:52
值得一过的（a life worth living）
anonymously
/əˈnɑːnɪməsli/
adv.
15:28
匿名地
kidney chain
n.
15:28
肾脏捐赠链（医学术语）
life-years
n.
16:07
生命年（衡量健康干预效果的单位）
get off the hook
phr.
16:57
摆脱困境、免于责任（习语）
理解自测 · 11 题 · 是真懂了，还是以为自己懂
1. 辛格开场播放的视频讲的是什么事件？他为什么要用它开场？
视频是2011年发生在中国佛山的「小悦悦事件」：两岁女童王悦被面包车撞倒后，多名路人经过未施援手，第二辆车又碾过她的腿，最终由清洁工报警，她送医后不治身亡。辛格用它开场（第1-2段），是为了让听众先产生「我不会那样做，我会停下来帮忙」的自我确认——他让大家举手，多数人举了。随后他说「在你过于自我肯定之前，先看看这个」，引出每天19,000名儿童死于可预防疾病的数据，形成认知反转：我们每天都在「走过」远方垂死的孩子。
2. 辛格给出了哪些关键数字来说明「可预防的儿童死亡」问题？
他引用UNICEF数据（第3段）：2011年有690万五岁以下儿童死于可预防的、与贫困相关的疾病，比1990年的1200万稳步下降；但690万换算下来仍是每天19,000名儿童死亡。他又提到（第8段）据估算盖茨基金会已挽救580万人的生命。在慈善效果对比中（第16段），他指出训练一条导盲犬约需4万美元，而在发展中国家治好一位沙眼致盲者只需20到50美元，即同样的钱可以治好400到2,000人。
3. Toby Ord 和 Will Crouch 分别创办了什么组织？各自的核心主张是什么？
Toby Ord 是牛津大学哲学研究员，创办了 Giving What We Can（第9段），邀请人们承诺终身捐出收入的10%对抗全球贫困；他本人承诺每年只靠1.8万英镑（不到3万美元）生活，其余全捐，且已婚有房贷。Will Crouch（即后来的 Will MacAskill）是哲学研究生，创办了 80,000 Hours 网站（第12段），名字来自人一生投入职业的小时数，提供高影响力职业建议，其中包括建议有能力者进入金融业以「赚钱来捐」，因为捐款可雇用多名援助工作者，影响力能放大五倍。
4. 辛格为什么说「距离」和「国籍」在道德上不相关？这一论证依赖什么前提？
辛格在第3段指出，那些孩子不在我们眼前、属于不同国籍或种族，这些事实「在道德上都不相关」。其逻辑是：如果我们承认在街上见死不救是错的，那么使那件事错误的原因——一个孩子本可以被救而没被救——在远方同样成立；距离只改变了我们的感受，没有改变事实本身。这依赖于功利主义的「不偏不倚」前提：每个人的痛苦与福祉权重相同，不因与你的关系远近而打折。第5段他进一步用「理性」支撑这一点：理性让我们看到其他人和我们一样会受苦，父母同样为子女的死悲痛。
5. 辛格所说的「心与脑」框架是什么意思？为什么他认为哲学、经济学、数学背景的人在这场运动中特别多？
「心」指共情——你为那个孩子感到的痛（第5段）；「脑」指理性——确保你的行动有效、方向正确。辛格认为二者缺一不可：光有共情可能把钱捐给低效机构，光有理性则没有行动动机。他在第6段进一步主张，理性不只是达成欲望的「中立工具」，还能让我们「看清处境全貌」，即扩展道德关怀圈。正因如此，善于抽象推理、习惯比较与量化的哲学、经济学、数学背景者更容易接受「所有生命等价」和「按效果分配资源」的结论——他以盖茨（「书呆子」）为例，说盖茨基金会的口号「All lives have equal value」正是这种理性理解的体现。
6. 「赚钱以捐」（进入金融业）的建议背后的推理链是什么？
推理链在第12-13段：（1）如果你在高薪行业成功，你能捐出大量金钱；（2）这些钱足以让援助机构雇用比如五名发展中国家的援助工作者；（3）每名工作者所做的好事大约与你亲自去做的相当；（4）因此你的影响力是直接从事援助工作的五倍。隐含的关键前提是「可替代性」：援助岗位上你不做别人也会做，但你捐的钱是净增量。Matt Weiger 是实例：普林斯顿哲学与数学毕业、获最佳论文奖，却去纽约做金融，每年捐出六位数。辛格强调「如果具备相应能力和性格」，说明这不是对所有人的普遍建议。
7. 辛格用导盲犬与沙眼手术的对比想说明什么？这一对比隐含了什么假设？
他想说明（第15-16段）慈善机构之间的效果差距可达数百甚至数千倍，因此「捐给谁」极其重要。4万美元可以给一位美国盲人配一条导盲犬，也可以治好400到2,000位发展中国家的沙眼盲人；他说「哪个更好已经很清楚」。这一对比隐含的假设是：不同人的福祉可以跨人相加、用同一尺度比较——两千人复明的总收益远大于一人获得导盲犬。它还隐含「美国盲人与非洲盲人的福祉同等重要」，呼应第3段的不偏不倚原则。GiveWell（第17段）正是按这种成本效益而非「运营是否良好」来评估机构的。
8. 辛格如何用「西西弗斯」和「享乐跑步机」回答「捐赠是不是负担」？
这是他的第四个问题（第19-21段）。他先给个人证词：自己从研究生起就享受捐赠；Charlie Bresler 说他拯救的是「自己的人生」；Holly Morgan 曾抑郁，投身有效利他主义后成了最快乐的人之一。然后给出解释：消费主义生活像西西弗斯推石——努力挣钱、消费、钱花完、再挣、再花，幸福感始终回落到原点，这就是心理学所说的「享乐跑步机」，你永远下不来也永远不满足。而有效利他主义提供意义感和成就感，给自尊一个「坚实基础」，让人觉得人生值得一过。因此捐赠不是负担，反而是摆脱空转的出路。
9. 结尾的捐肾故事在整个论证中起什么作用？辛格为何说「这让我好受了一点」？
Chris Croy 匿名捐出右肾，启动了让四人获肾的捐赠链（第22段）。这个故事首先展示有效利他主义可以走到极端的身体牺牲；但辛格的重点在第23段的折算：Croy 自己算出，他为他人增加的生命年数大约等于捐5,000美元给对抗疟疾基金会的效果。辛格说这让他「好受一点」，因为他捐的钱早已超过5,000美元——即他已在做等价的好事，不必因「还有两个肾」而内疚。这个结尾的作用是：一方面用同一尺度（生命年）把捐肾与捐款放在一起比较，再次体现「道德可计算」的思路；另一方面用幽默消解全篇的道德压力，告诉听众有一条容易得多的「脱身之道」。
10. 有人反驳：「把不同人的痛苦折算成数字来比较，是把人当作统计单位，忽视了个体尊严。」辛格会如何回应？
根据演讲中的立场，辛格大概会这样回应：第一，拒绝计算并不能让个体「更有尊严」，只会让更多个体死去——第16段中被导盲犬方案「忽视」的那400到2,000个失明者同样是有尊严的个体，不计算恰恰是对他们的漠视。第二，计算的前提正是尊重每个人（「All lives have equal value」，第7段），拒绝计算往往是在暗中给「离我近的人」更高权重，那才是把远方的人当成统计单位。第三，他会承认（第5段）「心」仍然重要——共情是动机来源，计算只是保证共情不被浪费。他可能补充第23段的例子：捐肾者自己就用生命年折算自己的善行，并不觉得这贬低了自己。
11. 辛格的论证在2013年针对的是「全球贫困」；如果把同样的逻辑用于「资助 AI 安全研究」这种收益高度不确定的领域，还成立吗？
部分成立，部分需要修改。成立的部分：辛格在第18-19段已经把逻辑延伸到「降低人类灭绝风险」（如偏转小行星），承认高影响、低概率的事业也值得投入，这与后来 EA 关注 AI 风险一脉相承。不成立或需修改的部分：辛格对抗疟疾基金会的推荐依赖「可靠证据」（第4段：蚊帐发放后会被使用，死亡率确实下降）和 GiveWell 式的严格筛选（第17段：数百家中只推荐三家）。AI 安全研究缺乏这种可验证的成本效益数据，收益估算依赖主观概率，容易出现「巨大数字乘以微小概率」的推理陷阱。因此按辛格自己的「用脑确保有效」标准，对这类领域应保持更高的证据要求，而不能简单套用「期望值最大化」。
下载便签
手机：长按图片保存
← 上一期 · NO.034Peter Singer | It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire (8/8) | Oxford Union
下一期 · NO.036 →Daniel Dennett on Tools To Transform Our Thinking
苏菲拉底
THE SOPHIE LAB · ASK THE BEST MINDS THE BIG QUESTIONS
内容仅供学习 · thesophielab.com