视频库 / NO.034
--:--
点击播放，这里会跟随视频显示当前句的中英字幕。
第 34 期 · 回应 Ⅲ·03「道德可以计算吗？」
Peter Singer | It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire (8/8) | Oxford Union
节目发布 2019-09-05章节 · 点击跳转视频
0:01
开场：为何站在反方
1:34
承认税制理想，但辩题不是它
2:49
辩题的语法：全称现在时
4:08
盖茨与巴菲特：捐赠与改税
5:27
Steyer 夫妇：以政治捐款推动变革
6:39
Moskovitz 夫妇与有效利他主义
8:55
有效捐赠需要时间与研究
10:04
税收替代用途：边境墙与军费
11:15
脱欧顾问费与逐字审题
12:32
放下偏见，就辩题投票
本期讲者
彼得·辛格澳大利亚道德哲学家，普林斯顿大学生物伦理学教授，著有《动物解放》《你能拯救的生命》，是功利主义与有效利他主义运动的代表人物。
01开场：为何站在反方
0:01
[Music]
[音乐]
0:08
and Alex Pisa singer to place the picks for the opposition's fight
有请 Alex Pisa（歌手）为反方一辩发言
0:21
thank you very much Madam President it's a pleasure to be here and to address the Oxford Union now I have to let you in on a little secret as to why I'm speaking against this motion when I was first invited to speak on this topic the committee appeared to believe that I was likely to speak on the affirmative and they sent me this motion which is you remember worded this house believes that it is immoral to be a billionaire and I said look I'm sorry I can't really affirm that motion because it suggests that the moment that you become a billionaire you are immoral even although there are several billionaires they may not be the majority but there are several of them who are thoughtfully giving away 99% of their wealth and thinking about what are the best causes I said if you would change the motion to it is immoral to die a billionaire I will be happy to be on the affirmative and indeed I would have been but the committee in its wisdom chose not to change that motion there would be another possible motion
非常感谢主席女士，很高兴能来到这里，在牛津辩论社发言。我得先告诉大家一个小秘密，说说我为什么会站在反方当我最初受邀就这个话题发言时，委员会似乎认为我很可能会站在正方，他们给我发来的辩题是——你们还记得——本院认为成为亿万富翁是不道德的。我说，抱歉，我实在没法支持这个辩题，因为它意味着，一旦你成为亿万富翁，你就是不道德的。可是确实有好几位亿万富翁，也许他们不占多数，但确实有好几位正在深思熟虑地捐出自己 99% 的财富，并且认真思考什么才是最值得支持的事业。我说，如果你们愿意把辩题改成'作为亿万富翁死去是不道德的'，我很乐意站在正方，而且我确实会那样做。但委员会经过深思，选择不修改这个辩题。还有另一个可能的辩题，
02承认税制理想，但辩题不是它
1:34
that I would have been happy to be on the affirmative and that is it would be better to have a tax system in which it was not possible to become a billionaire and the tax revenue was used for purposes such as helping people in poverty solving climate change and the various other things that have been mentioned on that side that is also not the motion we are debating so with great respect the speech that you just heard from professor Messer Burton is really not to the point I can agree that it would be much better if we had higher taxes and a democratic polity that actually allocated money really effectively to where its most needed to solving homelessness in Oxford as you wish to overcoming climate change to helping people in extreme poverty being that 3.7 billion people who are the poorer half of the world better off all of those things would be good sadly it's not the world we're living in today the world we're living in today is one in which it is possible to become a billionaire and there are many people
我也很乐意为之辩护，那就是：我们最好拥有这样一种税收制度，让人不可能成为亿万富翁，而这些税收被用于诸如帮助贫困人口、解决气候变化等目的，以及对方提到的其他各种事情。但那同样不是我们今天要辩论的辩题。所以恕我直言，你们刚才听到的 Messer Burton 教授的发言，其实并没有切中要点。我可以同意，如果我们有更高的税收，并且有一个真正能把钱高效分配到最需要之处的民主政体，那会好得多解决牛津的无家可归问题，或者你想要的，应对气候变化，帮助那些处于极端贫困中的人们，让那 37 亿人——也就是世界上较贫穷的那一半人——过得更好，所有这些都是好事。可惜的是，我们今天所生活的世界并非如此。我们今天所处的世界是这样一个世界：在这里有可能成为亿万富翁，而且确实有很多人成了亿万富翁。其中有一些人，很多人，你要说大多数人，我也接受，是不道德的，
03辩题的语法：全称现在时
2:49
who have become billionaires and some of them many of them if you like most of them I'll accept are amoral because they are not thinking hard about how to give away their wealth most effectively but the motion that we have before us is in the present tense it says it is immoral that it would be immoral present indicative not not conditional it would be immoral under some other system and it is universal it doesn't say most doesn't say the typical it just says it is immoral to be a billionaire I think with respect to Brian over there I think we have to take that literally right and you should know that as someone doing philosophy we can't just thank you we can't just write into this the idea that somehow we're talking about some average or some stereotype of billionaires we are if you vote for this motion you are condemning all people who are billionaires so let's think about that a little more specific what you're doing you're saying that Bill and Melinda Gates are immoral despite the fact that they set up the
因为他们并没有认真思考如何最有效地把自己的财富捐出去。但是摆在我们面前的这个辩题用的是现在时，它说的是“它是不道德的”，而不是“在另一种制度下它将会是不道德的”——是现在陈述式，不是条件式，而且它是全称的。它没有说“大多数”，也没有说“典型的”，它就是说：成为亿万富翁是不道德的。恕我冒昧，对那边的 Brian，我认为我们必须从字面上理解这句话。你们也应该知道，作为一个搞哲学的人，我们不能——谢谢——我们不能擅自把这样一层意思塞进去，好像我们谈的是某种平均情况或者某种亿万富翁的刻板印象。如果你为这个辩题投赞成票，你就是在谴责所有身为亿万富翁的人。所以让我们更具体地想一想你在做什么：你是在说比尔和梅琳达·盖茨是不道德的，尽管他们设立了盖茨基金会，其运作所依据的
04盖茨与巴菲特：捐赠与改税
4:08
Gates Foundation operating in accordance with the belief which is prominent on their website that all lives are equal they talk about how Bill Gates talks about how horrified he was when he discovered that children were dying from a simpler diseases diarrhea which we know how to cure and he wanted to do something about that the Gates have given so far fifty billion dollars to endow that foundation and there's going to be more to come you're saying that they're immoral although they have undoubtably already saved and the foundation site has been going 19 years now they have that ability already saved several million lives perhaps more than any other living person today you're also saying that Warren Buffett is immoral why Warren Buffett has given more than 30 billion dollars to the Gates Foundation and has said that he plans to give away 99% of his wealth Warren Buffett also set up an organization called responsible wealth which is an advocacy organization for such things as estate taxes death duties
信念——这一点在他们网站上很显眼——是：所有生命都是平等的。他们谈到，比尔·盖茨谈到当他发现儿童死于像腹泻这样再简单不过的疾病时，他有多么震惊——而我们明明知道怎么治。他想为此做点什么。盖茨夫妇迄今已经捐出五百亿美元来资助这个基金会，而且还会有还有更多要说的，你们说他们不道德，尽管他们无疑已经拯救了——盖茨基金会已经运作了19年了——他们已经拯救了数百万人的生命，也许比当今任何在世的人都要多你们同时也在说沃伦·巴菲特不道德，为什么？沃伦·巴菲特已经向盖茨基金会捐了超过300亿美元并且表示他计划捐出自己99%的财富。沃伦·巴菲特还成立了一个叫做"负责任的财富"的组织这是一个倡导遗产税之类事项的倡议组织，换句话说，这是世界上最富有的人之一
05Steyer 夫妇：以政治捐款推动变革
5:27
in other words here's one of the richest men in the world saying it's a scandal that the United States effectively does not have any death duties that that's a fair tax and people who are rich should have to pay you should not be able to pass on vast sums to their heirs Warren Buffett has also gone public in saying that it's a scandal that there are billionaires who can take advantage of tax loopholes and pay an effective rate of tax that is lower than the rate that his secretary pays and he's trying to change that so these are people who are giving who are trying to change the very system that the people on this side of the house are criticizing now perhaps you say well philanthropy is not the right thing we need serious political change to change this system okay but if you vote for this motion you are saying that Tom Styer and his wife Kat Taylor are immoral they are the largest donors to the Democratic Party politics in the United States they have supported they supported both Barack Obama's campaigns
站出来说，美国实际上没有任何遗产税，这是一桩丑闻，遗产税是一种公平的税，富人就应该缴纳，你不应该能够把巨额财富传给继承人。沃伦·巴菲特还公开表示，有些亿万富翁能够钻税收漏洞的空子缴纳的实际税率比他的秘书还低，这是一桩丑闻，而他正试图改变这一点。所以这些人在捐赠，在试图改变这个体制本身，而这个体制正是辩论另一方所批评的。现在，也许你们会说，慈善不是正确的做法，我们需要严肃的政治变革来改变这个体制。好吧，但如果你们投票支持这个动议，你们就是在说汤姆·斯泰尔和他的妻子凯特·泰勒是不道德的。他们是美国民主党政治的最大捐助者，他们支持过——他们非常大力地支持了巴拉克·奥巴马的两次竞选，他们支持了希拉里·克林顿的竞选，他们支持了
06Moskovitz 夫妇与有效利他主义
6:39
very heavily they supported Hillary Clinton's campaigns they have supported a lot of congressional candidates significant number of whom won in the 2018 election they have been particularly concerned about climate change and they have set up a nonprofit organization called next-gen America to try to make sure that climate change is a more prominent issue if possible on the on the political scene and today has also said that he's in favor of raising personal taxes on upper income people so he's trying to change this no thank you you're also condemning as immoral Dustin Moskovitz and Kerry tuna now it's been said on this side that if you become a billionaire you've exploited people in some way Dustin Moskovitz was lucky enough to be a co-founder of Facebook so he was writing some code I guess no thank you he was writing some code and he became very wealthy he became a billionaire those of you who think that Facebook in itself is totally immoral and you should have nothing to do with it and therefore
很多国会候选人，其中相当一部分在2018年选举中获胜。他们尤其关注气候变化，他们成立了一个名为"下一代美国"的非营利组织，努力确保气候变化在政治舞台上尽可能成为一个更受关注的议题。而斯泰尔今天也表示，他赞成提高高收入人群的个人所得税。所以他在努力改变这个体制。不用了，谢谢。你们同时也在谴责达斯汀·莫斯科维茨和卡莉·图纳不道德。现在辩论这一方有人说，如果你成为亿万富翁，你就以某种方式剥削了别人。达斯汀·莫斯科维茨很幸运地成为了Facebook的联合创始人，所以我猜他就是写了些代码。不用了，谢谢。他写了些代码，然后就变得非常富有，成了亿万富翁。你们当中那些认为Facebook本身完全不道德、认为自己应该跟它毫无瓜葛的人，因此从不拥有任何Facebook账号、从不浏览任何Facebook页面的人——如果你觉得
7:53
who do not have any Facebook accounts or go to any Facebook pages if you feel like you wonder what vote for the affirmative because you think anybody who got wealthy through Facebook as a billionaire okay you're entitled to the rest of you I don't think you're in any position to condemn people who made billions through Facebook and like Dustin Moskovitz and Kerry tuna then thought hard about how to give nearly all of it away and what they did is they supported give well which is an organization that assesses the best charities working to reduce global poverty and then they also set up another organization called open philanthropy which is looking at other ways of effecting change not necessarily through standard philanthropy for the poor but perhaps through political change through various other kinds of reforms it's completely open now they have been giving away large amounts of money they've also supported an incidentally the Center for effective altruism here in in Oxford they have been giving away large amounts of money
自己是这样的，那就投赞成票吧，因为你认为任何通过Facebook致富的亿万富翁都……好吧，你有这个资格。其余的人，我认为你们没有任何立场去谴责那些通过Facebook赚到几十亿的人。而像达斯汀·莫斯科维茨和卡莉·图纳这样的人，随后认真思考了如何把几乎全部财富捐出去。他们所做的是支持GiveWell，这是一个评估在减少全球贫困方面做得最好的慈善机构的组织。然后他们还成立了另一个叫"开放慈善"的组织，它着眼于其他促成变革的方式，不一定是通过面向穷人的标准慈善，而可能是通过政治变革，通过各种其他形式的改革，它是完全开放的。他们一直在捐出大笔资金，他们顺带也支持了牛津这里的有效利他主义中心。他们一直在捐出大笔资金
07有效捐赠需要时间与研究
8:55
but they are getting really bright people to research where the best value is so if you vote for this motion you're effectively saying once you've got a billion you've got to get rid of it fast otherwise you're immoral what they're saying is I'm sorry I don't have time what they're saying is it takes thought it takes research to give away billions of dollars effectively you can't just do it all at once you'll end up wasting most of it you want to be sure that you're doing it as well as possible otherwise you're wasting it and that could mean that more people die from preventable diseases it could be that political reforms do not succeed it could be that climate change is climate change continues when it there would be ways of slowing it it takes thought to find these things out and that's the kind of thing that I think we should be respecting those relatively few I admit relatively few billionaires who do this and we should not simply have a blanket condemnation of billionaires that if you vote for
但他们在寻找真正聪明的人来研究哪里最物有所值。所以如果你投票支持这个动议，你就是在实质上说：一旦你有了十亿，你就得赶紧把它散掉，否则你就不道德。而他们所说的是——抱歉我时间不够了——他们所说的是：要有效地捐出几十亿美元，是需要思考、需要研究的，你不能一下子全捐出去，那样你最终会浪费掉其中大部分。你想确保自己尽可能把事情做好，否则就是在浪费，而那可能意味着更多人死于本可预防的疾病，可能意味着政治改革无法成功，可能意味着气候变化继续恶化，而本来是有办法减缓它的。要弄清楚这些事情是需要思考的，而这正是我认为我们应该尊重的那类事情——那些做这些事的亿万富翁，我承认，人数相对较少，我们不应该简单地对亿万富翁一概而论地加以谴责，而如果你投票支持这个动议，你就是在这么做。那么现在
08税收替代用途：边境墙与军费
10:04
this motion you will be having so now one other thing that might be said is I think we're set by our last speaker and we want to build a different system in which the Democratic polity controls where the money goes decides on the best causes and puts it to it fine again let me say I will certainly join you in trying to build that polity which in which we have a good democratic structure we have good taxes we use the revenue for the best purposes and perhaps there are some countries that operate quite well that way perhaps if we were restricting this to Sweden let's say we might think this is good enough already to work with but we're not talking about that we're talking perhaps about the United States where if more money goes into tax revenue what's going to happen with it well Donald Trump will get more money to build his wall that's a great use of money compared to what the Bill and Melinda Gates are doing isn't it or perhaps it'll go into more military spending perhaps will go into more weapons that go to the Saudis who
还有一件可能会被提到的事——我想我们方最后一位发言人提到过——我们想建立一个不同的体制，让民主政体来决定钱流向哪里，决定哪些是最好的事业，并把钱投进去。很好，还是那句话，我一定会加入你们，努力建立那样的政体，一个我们拥有良好民主结构、良好税制、把财政收入用于最佳用途的政体。也许有些国家在这方面运作得相当不错，也许如果我们把讨论限定在瑞典，比方说，我们可能会认为这已经足够好了。但我们谈的不是那个，我们谈的也许是美国。在美国，如果更多的钱进入财政收入，会发生什么呢？唐纳德·特朗普将得到更多的钱去修他的墙，跟比尔和梅琳达·盖茨在做的事情相比，这可真是钱的绝佳用途啊，是吧？或者也许这些钱会流向更多的军费开支，也许会变成更多送给沙特的武器，而他们
09脱欧顾问费与逐字审题
11:15
are currently using American weapons in Yemen in one of the worst Human Rights atrocities we've seen in recent decades that is not the system we're in and I'm happy I have to say but people like gates Buffett and carried tuna and Dustin Moskovitz and Tom Styer and Kate Taylor that they actually have money that they can put two really good causes and it's not just the United States on the day that I arrived in the in the United Kingdom a few days ago I looked at the newspaper and it said that the UK government has paid ninety seven million pounds to advisors for the brexit negotiations well would you really rather tax revenues go to paying their advisers on the brexit negotiations 97 million pounds rather than go to the kinds of causes that I've described that these philanthropies billionaires are carrying out I don't I don't really think we should so I urge you to be reasonably literal-minded in thinking about this motion if this is a house that makes decisions then it should be careful in
目前正在也门使用美国武器，制造我们近几十年来所见最严重的人权暴行之一。那不是我们所处的体制。而我必须说，我很高兴像盖茨、巴菲特、卡莉·图纳、达斯汀·莫斯科维茨、汤姆·斯泰尔和凯特·泰勒这样的人，确实拥有可以投入到真正有价值的事业上的钱。而且这不只是美国的问题。几天前我抵达英国的那天，我看了看报纸，上面说英国政府已经为脱欧谈判向顾问支付了九千七百万英镑。那么你们真的宁愿让税收收入拿去支付脱欧谈判的顾问费九千七百万英镑，而不是投向我所描述的那些由这些慈善家亿万富翁在推动的事业吗？我不觉得，我真的不认为我们应该那样。所以我敦促你们在思考这个动议时保持相当程度的字面理解。如果这是一个作出决定的议院，那么它就应该对自己作出的决定慎重。你们知道，如果我们是一个议会，我们
10放下偏见，就辩题投票
12:32
the decisions that it makes we don't want you know if we're a parliament we wouldn't want to pass legislation that was carelessly drafted and produced outcomes that we don't want to see and I think if we are making statements about morality about morality for people who are actual people who are living in this world today I think we want to be careful before we rush to judgment about all of them and so given the way this motion has been phrased I urge you to think seriously to put aside your progressive ideas which I no doubt share but which might bias you to thinking oh billionaires bad unfair system unjust 26 billionaires have as much as 3.7 billion or whatever it is that's a terrible system we've got a vote for this motion no you've got to say I would like an opportunity to discuss a different motion on another occasion where we can talk about the system
不会希望通过一项起草草率、产生我们不愿看到的后果的立法。而我认为，如果我们要就道德作出论断——关于活在当今这个世界上的真实的人的道德——我认为我们应该慎重，不要仓促地对他们所有人下判断。所以，考虑到这个动议的措辞方式，我敦促你们认真思考，把你们的进步派观念先放在一边——那些观念我无疑也认同但它们可能会让你们产生偏见，让你们觉得：哦，亿万富翁是坏的，体制不公平、不公正，26个亿万富翁的财富抵得上37亿人还是多少，这是个糟糕的体制，我们必须投票支持这个动议。不，你们应该说：我希望有机会在另一个场合讨论一个不同的动议，让我们可以谈谈这个体制
13:43
but today I'm going to vote on the motion before me and that means I have to vote no thank you
但今天，我要就摆在我面前的这个动议投票，而这意味着我必须投反对票。谢谢
14:07
you
（完）
视频总结 · 一句话概括与核心要点
一句话概括
Peter Singer 在牛津联盟辩论中反对"成为亿万富翁是不道德的"这一动议，理由并非为富豪辩护，而是该动议措辞过于绝对（现在时、全称判断），会把盖茨、巴菲特等致力于有效捐出99%财富的人一并定罪；他明确表示若动议改为"死时仍是亿万富翁是不道德的"或"应建立不可能产生亿万富翁的税制"，他会站在正方。
核心要点
- 反对立场源于动议措辞，而非价值分歧。 Singer 透露委员会原以为他会支持正方，但他认为"it is immoral to be a billionaire"是现在时、全称判断（不是"大多数"、不是"在某种制度下"），投赞成票等于谴责所有亿万富翁，包括正在认真捐赠的人。他曾提议改为"死时仍是亿万富翁是不道德的"，委员会未采纳。
- 承认多数亿万富翁确实缺乏道德思考。 他坦言"很多、甚至大多数"亿万富翁是不道德的（amoral），因为他们没有认真考虑如何最有效地捐出财富；但动议不允许把这一"平均值"或"刻板印象"读进去，做哲学的人必须按字面理解。
- 盖茨夫妇：500亿美元捐赠、数百万生命。 盖茨基金会秉持"所有生命平等"的理念，运营19年，已投入500亿美元，估计挽救了数百万生命，可能超过当今任何在世者。Singer 质问：投赞成票就是在说这两人不道德。
- 巴菲特：捐300亿并推动改变制度本身。 巴菲特已向盖茨基金会捐出逾300亿美元，承诺捐出99%财富；他还创立"Responsible Wealth"倡导遗产税，公开批评美国实际上没有遗产税、以及亿万富翁利用税收漏洞使实际税率低于其秘书。也就是说，他在努力改变正方所批判的制度。
- Steyer 夫妇：以政治捐款推动系统性变革。 若认为慈善不够、需要政治变革，那么 Tom Steyer 与 Kat Taylor 是民主党最大捐助者，资助奥巴马、希拉里及多位2018年胜选的国会候选人，创办 NextGen America 推动气候议题，并支持提高高收入者个税。
- Moskovitz 与 Tuna：驳斥"财富必来自剥削"。 Facebook 联合创始人 Dustin Moskovitz "只是写了些代码"就成了亿万富翁；他与妻子 Cari Tuna 资助 GiveWell（评估最有效的扶贫慈善机构）、创办 Open Philanthropy（探索政治改革等非传统路径），还资助牛津的有效利他主义中心。Singer 调侃：除非你完全不用 Facebook，否则没资格谴责靠 Facebook 致富的人。
- 有效捐赠需要时间，不能"快速甩掉"财富。 若动议成立，等于要求一拿到十亿就必须立刻清空。但捐出数十亿需要研究和思考，仓促行事会浪费大部分资金，后果是更多人死于可预防疾病、政治改革失败、气候变化未能减缓。
- 现实税收去向未必优于有效慈善。 他同意理想中应由民主政体通过税收分配资源（瑞典或许已足够好），但现实中若美国税收增加，钱可能流向特朗普的边境墙、军费，或输往沙特用于也门的人权灾难；英国政府则花了9700万英镑请脱欧谈判顾问。相比之下，他"庆幸"这些富豪手中的钱能投向真正有价值的事业。
- 立法式审慎：不要因进步倾向草率投票。 他呼吁把"26个亿万富翁财富等于37亿人"这类对制度不公的愤怒（他本人也认同）放到另一场关于制度的辩论中；今天面对的是这个具体动议，如同议会不应通过措辞粗糙、产生非预期后果的法案。
结论与值得注意的细节
- 结论：Singer 敦促听众"合理地按字面理解"动议并投反对票，理由是全称性的道德谴责会错误地覆盖少数（他承认是"相对少数"）认真践行有效利他主义的亿万富翁。
- 值得注意的细节：
- 这是一场"技术性反对"——Singer 与正方的价值观几乎完全一致（支持高税收、遗产税、消除极端贫困、应对气候变化），分歧仅在动议措辞的普遍性与时态。
- 他点名的每个案例都对应正方的一种论点：慈善有效性（盖茨）、改变税制（巴菲特）、政治变革（Steyer）、反驳"剥削论"（Moskovitz）。
- 他区分了 immoral（不道德）与 amoral（缺乏道德考量），后者用于描述大多数不作为的亿万富翁。
- 演讲中多次出现"no thank you"，是他拒绝听众提出的插话质询（points of information）。
- 他隐含承认理想制度下（如瑞典）动议或可成立，但强调"那不是我们今天生活的世界"。
核心句型 · 8
1. I have to let you in on a little secret as to why …
“I have to let you in on a little secret as to why I'm speaking against this motion”
用“透露秘密”制造亲近感开场；as to why 引出原因。适合演讲开头解释自己立场的由来。
2. If you would change X to Y, I will be happy to …
“If you would change the motion to it is immoral to die a billionaire I will be happy to be on the affirmative”
礼貌的有条件让步：表明自己并非全然反对，只是反对具体措辞。可用于谈判、审稿等场景。
3. That is also not the motion we are debating.
“That is also not the motion we are debating”
用简短否定句把对方论点排除在议题之外，是辩论中“限定战场”的常用句式。
4. With (great) respect, … is really not to the point.
“With great respect the speech that you just heard from professor Messer Burton is really not to the point”
先礼后兵的反驳模板：with respect 缓冲，not to the point 定性。适用于正式讨论中指出对方跑题。
5. If you vote for this motion, you are saying that …
“If you vote for this motion you are saying that Bill and Melinda Gates are immoral”
把抽象立场翻译成具体后果，迫使听众面对反例。仿写：If you accept X, you are committed to Y.
6. I don't think you're in any position to …
“I don't think you're in any position to condemn people who made billions through Facebook”
质疑对方的资格而非观点本身（tu quoque 式反问）。语气较强，用于指出对方言行不一。
7. It takes thought / research to … effectively.
“It takes thought it takes research to give away billions of dollars effectively”
It takes + 名词 + to do 表示“做某事需要……”；重复结构增强节奏，适合强调过程的复杂性。
8. I urge you to … and to put aside …
“I urge you to think seriously to put aside your progressive ideas”
结尾呼吁句式：urge sb to do 正式且有力，put aside 提示听众暂时搁置既有立场。
生词精讲 · 60 · 按出现顺序
motion
/ˈmoʊʃən/
n.
0:21
（辩论/会议中的）动议、辩题
affirmative
/əˈfɜːrmətɪv/
n./adj.
0:21
（辩论中的）正方；肯定的
let you in on a little secret
phr.
0:21
告诉你一个小秘密（口语开场套语）
in its wisdom
phr.
0:21
（反讽）本着其“高明”的判断
tax revenue
n. phr.
1:34
税收收入
polity
/ˈpɑːləti/
n.
1:34
政体、政治组织形式
with great respect
phr.
1:34
恕我直言（礼貌反驳前的铺垫）
to the point
phr.
1:34
切题、中肯
allocated
/ˈæləˌkeɪtɪd/
v.
1:34
分配、拨给
extreme poverty
n. phr.
1:34
极端贫困（世界银行定义为日均生活费低于约1.9美元）
amoral
/eɪˈmɔːrəl/
adj.
2:49
无关道德的、缺乏道德意识的（区别于 immoral 不道德的）
present indicative
n. phr.
2:49
（语法）现在陈述式
conditional
/kənˈdɪʃənəl/
adj./n.
2:49
条件式的；条件句
universal
/ˌjuːnɪˈvɜːrsəl/
adj.
2:49
（逻辑）全称的、普遍适用的
take that literally
phr.
2:49
按字面意思理解
stereotype
/ˈsteriəˌtaɪp/
n.
2:49
刻板印象
condemning
/kənˈdemɪŋ/
v.
2:49
谴责、判定有罪
in accordance with
phr.
4:08
依照、与……一致
prominent
/ˈprɑːmɪnənt/
adj.
4:08
显著的、突出的
horrified
/ˈhɔːrəˌfaɪd/
adj.
4:08
震惊的、惊骇的
endow
/ɪnˈdaʊ/
v.
4:08
捐资设立（基金会等）
undoubtably
/ʌnˈdaʊtəbli/
adv.
4:08
毫无疑问地（标准形式为 undoubtedly）
advocacy organization
n. phr.
4:08
倡导性组织、游说团体
estate taxes
n. phr.
4:08
遗产税（美式说法）
death duties
n. phr.
4:08
遗产税（英式说法）
scandal
/ˈskændəl/
n.
5:27
丑闻；令人愤慨之事
heirs
/erz/
n.
5:27
继承人
gone public
phr.
5:27
公开表态
tax loopholes
n. phr.
5:27
税收漏洞
effective rate of tax
n. phr.
5:27
实际税率
philanthropy
/fɪˈlænθrəpi/
n.
5:27
慈善事业、博爱行为
donors
/ˈdoʊnərz/
n.
5:27
捐助者
congressional candidates
n. phr.
6:39
国会议员候选人
nonprofit organization
n. phr.
6:39
非营利组织
in favor of
phr.
6:39
赞成、支持
upper income
adj. phr.
6:39
高收入的
exploited
/ɪkˈsplɔɪtɪd/
v.
6:39
剥削、利用
co-founder
/ˌkoʊˈfaʊndər/
n.
6:39
联合创始人
entitled to
phr.
7:53
有资格、有权做
in any position to
phr.
7:53
有立场/有资格做（常用于否定）
assesses
/əˈsesɪz/
v.
7:53
评估
effecting change
phr.
7:53
促成变革（effect 作动词，区别于 affect）
effective altruism
n. phr.
7:53
有效利他主义（以证据和理性最大化行善效果的运动）
incidentally
/ˌɪnsɪˈdentəli/
adv.
7:53
顺带一提
get rid of
phr.
8:55
摆脱、处理掉
preventable diseases
n. phr.
8:55
可预防的疾病
blanket condemnation
n. phr.
8:55
一概而论的谴责（blanket 作形容词：总括的、无差别的）
restricting
/rɪˈstrɪktɪŋ/
v.
10:04
限定、限制
military spending
n. phr.
10:04
军费开支
atrocities
/əˈtrɑːsətiz/
n.
11:15
暴行
negotiations
/nɪˌɡoʊʃiˈeɪʃənz/
n.
11:15
谈判
urge
/ɜːrdʒ/
v.
11:15
敦促、力劝
literal-minded
/ˈlɪtərəl ˈmaɪndɪd/
adj.
11:15
拘泥字面的、按字面理解的
legislation
/ˌledʒɪsˈleɪʃən/
n.
12:32
立法、法规
carelessly drafted
phr.
12:32
草率起草的
rush to judgment
phr.
12:32
仓促下结论
phrased
/freɪzd/
v.
12:32
措辞、表述
put aside
phr. v.
12:32
搁置、暂放一边
bias
/ˈbaɪəs/
v./n.
12:32
使有偏见；偏见
unjust
/ʌnˈdʒʌst/
adj.
12:32
不公正的
理解自测 · 11 题 · 是真懂了，还是以为自己懂
1. Singer 原本被邀请站哪一方？他提出了哪两个愿意支持的替代辩题？
委员会最初以为 Singer 会站正方，即支持“成为亿万富翁是不道德的”。他拒绝了，因为该措辞意味着一旦成为亿万富翁就立刻不道德。他提出两个愿意为之辩护的替代辩题：一是“作为亿万富翁死去是不道德的”（呼应生前捐出99%财富的承诺）；二是“最好有一种税制让人不可能成为亿万富翁，税收用于扶贫和应对气候变化”。委员会没有修改辩题，他因此站到反方。这在开场章节交代。
2. Singer 列举了哪些亿万富翁作为反例？他们各自做了什么？
他依次举了四组人：比尔与梅琳达·盖茨，捐出约500亿美元建立基金会，19年间挽救数百万生命；沃伦·巴菲特，向盖茨基金会捐超300亿美元、承诺捐出99%财产，并公开倡导遗产税、批评税收漏洞；Tom Steyer 与 Kat Taylor，民主党最大捐助者，创办 NextGen America 推动气候议题，支持提高富人税；Dustin Moskovitz 与 Cari Tuna，Facebook 联合创始人，资助 GiveWell 和 Open Philanthropy，研究如何最有效地捐出几乎全部财富。
3. Singer 用了哪些具体数字来支撑论点？
关键数字包括：盖茨夫妇捐赠500亿美元；基金会运作19年；巴菲特捐赠超300亿美元并承诺捐出99%；37亿人为世界较穷的一半；26位亿万富翁财富抵得上这37亿人；英国政府为脱欧谈判支付9700万英镑顾问费。前几组数字用于证明部分亿万富翁在有效行善，最后一个用于说明现实中的税收支出未必比慈善更有价值。
4. Singer 为什么强调辩题的语法（现在时、陈述式、全称）？这在论证中起什么作用？
这是他整个反方立场的逻辑支点。他指出辩题说的是“it is immoral”，而非“在另一种制度下 it would be immoral”，也没有“most”或“typical”这类限定词，因此是一个对所有亿万富翁的全称判断。全称判断只需一个反例即可推翻，于是他随后逐一列举盖茨、巴菲特等人作为反例。他同时提醒听众，作为学哲学的人不能擅自把“平均情况”或“刻板印象”读进辩题，投赞成票就等于谴责所有人。这种“逐字审题”策略让他可以承认多数亿万富翁的问题，却仍然反对辩题。
5. Singer 如何区分 amoral 与 immoral？这一区分为何重要？
他承认许多甚至多数亿万富翁是 amoral（缺乏道德意识），因为他们没有认真思考如何最有效地捐出财富；但这不同于辩题所说的 immoral（不道德）。这一区分重要，是因为它让 Singer 得以在不为亿万富翁整体辩护的前提下反对辩题：他并不否认财富集中有问题，只否认“身为亿万富翁本身即不道德”这一普遍判断。这与他的有效利他主义立场一致——道德评价取决于你用财富做了什么，而不是你持有多少。
6. 针对“慈善不如政治变革”的反驳，Singer 是如何回应的？
他先接受这一前提的可能性（“也许你会说我们需要严肃的政治变革”），然后指出这一反驳仍然不能支持辩题：Tom Steyer 与 Kat Taylor 正是通过巨额政治捐款推动变革——支持奥巴马、希拉里及大量国会候选人，创办气候组织，并主张对高收入者加税。巴菲特也在倡导遗产税、堵塞税收漏洞。也就是说，有亿万富翁正在试图改变正方所批评的体制本身，投赞成票就等于把这些人也判为不道德。
7. Singer 为何认为“一有十亿就得赶紧散掉”是错误的要求？
他指出，如果辞题成立，持有十亿本身就不道德，富人就必须尽快把钱散掉。但有效捐赠需要思考和研究，一次性草率捐出会浪费大部分资金；浪费的后果是真实的——更多人死于可预防疾病、政治改革失败、气候变化本可减缓却未减缓。因此 Moskovitz 夫妇雇用聪明人研究“哪里最物有所值”是值得尊敬而非谴责的做法。这是有效利他主义“捐得好比捐得快更重要”的核心主张。
8. Singer 用美国和英国的例子想说明什么？这个比较的逻辑是什么？
他要说明的是：评价慈善时应与现实的替代用途相比，而不是与理想政府相比。在治理良好的瑞典，增税或许足够好；但在美国，更多税收可能流向特朗普的边境墙、军费，或流向在也门制造人道灾难的沙特军售；在英国，政府为脱欧谈判付了9700万英镑顾问费。与之相比，盖茨等人的捐赠显然效用更高。逻辑是：正方假设“钱交给政府会用得更好”，而现实并不保证这一点，所以现阶段他“很高兴”这些钱掌握在能有效使用的人手里。
9. Singer 承认自己也持进步派观点，为何仍要求听众“放下”它？
他明确说这些观念自己“无疑也认同”，但提醒它们可能造成偏见：听众可能因为“体制不公、26人财富等于37亿人”这一整体判断，就顺势为辩题投票，而没有审视辩题的实际措辞。他用议会立法类比：不应通过草率起草、产生非预期后果的法案；对活生生的人做道德判断更应谨慎。结论是：想批评体制，应另择辩题；今天只能就眼前辩题投反对票。这体现了他对论证精确性的坚持高于对政治立场的认同。
10. 如果有人反驳说“亿万富翁的财富本身就来自剥削，捐出去也不能洗白”，Singer 可能如何回应？
从他的发言推断，他会分两步回应。第一，他已经处理了“剥削”指控：以 Moskovitz 为例，他只是写代码创立 Facebook，若你认为 Facebook 本身不道德且从不使用它，你有资格投赞成票，否则你没有立场谴责。第二，他会坚持后果主义视角：即便财富来源有争议，道德评价仍应看这些财富现在被用于什么——挽救数百万生命、推动税制改革——而“洗白”一词预设了道德是身份标签而非行为结果。他也可能重申：讨论财富来源的正当性属于另一个辩题，不是“是否身为亿万富翁即不道德”。
11. 把 Singer 的论证迁移到“持有大量未使用的资源是否不道德”这类更广泛的情境（例如囤积土地、专利），他的论点还成立吗？
部分成立，部分需要修正。成立的部分是他的方法论：全称道德判断要经得起反例检验，且应区分“持有”与“如何使用”；若某人持有土地或专利是为了研究如何最有效地释放其价值，那么按 Singer 的逻辑不应一概谴责。需要修正的是，他的论证高度依赖“真实存在正在有效行善的反例”与“替代用途更糟”这两个经验前提；若在某个情境中，持有者几乎无人积极处置资源，且替代分配机制（如公共部门）明显更有效，那么反例论证会失去力量，他自己也承诺会在那种辩题下站到正方。
下载便签
手机：长按图片保存
← 上一期 · NO.033Roger Penrose - What is Consciousness?
下一期 · NO.035 →Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
苏菲拉底
THE SOPHIE LAB · ASK THE BEST MINDS THE BIG QUESTIONS
内容仅供学习 · thesophielab.com