Both individuals have heard all about each other and they're eager to meet for dinner.

兩個人都聽過彼此的一切，也很期待碰面共進晚餐。

You've just made them a reservation for Friday night, and you're about to text Carey the details when an unsettling thought crosses your mind.

你剛幫他們預約了週五晚上的位置，在要傳簡訊給 Carey 時，腦中突然浮現了令你不安的想法。

Carey is always late.

Carey 總是會遲到。

And not just by 5 minutes; we're talking 20 or even 30 minutes late.

不是只晚到個 5 分鐘，而是遲到 20 甚至 30 分鐘。

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

Carey 似乎將「守時」視為古早時代具壓迫性的遺物。

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

那你如果跟他說晚餐是 6 點開始，而不是 6 點半呢？

That way, they would almost certainly arrive on time.

這樣一來，幾乎可以保證他會準時抵達。

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

你真的很希望他們可以交往，所以說⋯⋯你該說謊嗎？

Take a moment to think; what you would do?

花點時間想一下，你會怎麼做？

Maybe you should lie.

或許你該說謊。

You think this new relationship could be great for Carey, and you don't want them to ruin it before it's even begun.

你覺得這段新關係對 Carey 來說會很棒，也不希望在它開始前就被他毀掉。

Sure, Emerson may eventually learn about their chronic lateness.

沒錯，Emerson 可能終究還是會發現 Carey 的慣性遲到。

But if Carey shows up on time just this once, the relationship will at least have a chance to take root.

但如果 Carey 只要能夠準時出現一次，那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感情鋪路。

And if taking an action will create a better outcome for everyone involved, that's normally a pretty good reason to take it.

而如果採取某個行動能為所有關係人創造更好的結果，那通常就是個夠好的行動動機。

But isn't it morally wrong to lie?

但說謊在道德層面上不是錯的嗎？

The absolutist position on lying, associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant, holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

與德國哲學家 Immanuel Kant 相關的對於說謊絕對主義者認為，說謊不管在什麼狀況下都是不道德的。

In other words, there's a moral rule which forbids lying, and that rule is absolute.

話句話說，存在這一條禁止說謊的道德規劃，而那則規範是絕對的。

You might think, though, that this stance overstates the moral importance of lying.

不過你可能會想，這個立場誇大了說謊之於道德的重要性。

Suppose a murderer were hunting Carey down.

假設有個殺人犯正在追殺 Carey。

If the killer asked you about Carey's whereabouts, it seems odd to say that you must tell the truth at the cost of your friend's life.

如果這個殺人犯問你 Carey 在哪裡，不惜犧牲朋友的生命也堅持要說實話顯得很奇怪。

From this perspective, absolutism seems too rigid.

從這個角度來看， 絕對主義似乎太過僵化。

By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill would say lying is wrong only when it leads to less happiness overall.

相反地，功利主義哲學家 John Stuart Mill 則認為說謊只有在導致整體幸褔消減的狀況下才能算是錯的。

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

平心而論，多數的謊言看似確實容易帶來不快樂。

Someone who accepts a lie believes something which is false, and trying to conduct your life on the basis of false information doesn't usually go well.

某人若接受一個謊言，意味他相信一件虛假的事情，而要以虛假資訊為根基過生活通常不會有好結果。

However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation, lying might produce more happiness overall.

然而在某些狀況下，也許包含你的處境，說謊可能產生更多的整體快樂。

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

在那些案例中，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鬆散。

In other words, perhaps the utilitarian position understates the moral significance of lying.

也就是說，功利主義者的立場或許低估了說謊之於道德的重要性。

Most people generally feel some regret about lying, even when they believe it's the right thing to do.

大多數的人通常都會因說謊而感到些許後悔，就算他們認為自己是在做對的事。

This suggests there's something inherently objectionable about lying, even when it leads to more happiness.

這說明我們天生就對說謊反感，即使它能帶來更多快樂也一樣。

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

在這個案例中，對 Carey 說謊就會是家長作風的立場。

Paternalism is interfering with another person's choices for that person's benefit.

家長作風是指為了某人的利益而干預他的選擇。

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

如果對象真的是個小孩， 那或許是沒關係的。

But it seems disrespectful to treat a peer paternalistically.

但用家長作風的對待同儕顯得不尊重對方。

Lying to Carey would mean taking away their opportunity to handle the situation as they see fit based on their own beliefs and values.

對 Carey 說謊會意味你剝奪了他根據自己的信念與價值判定對這個狀況應採取什麼行動的機會。

Trying to protect Carey from what you consider to be a bad choice would show a lack of respect for their autonomy.

試著保護 Carey 免於你認為的「壞選擇」會顯示你對她的自主權缺乏尊重。

By extension, it might also be disrespectful towards Emerson, since you would be deliberately trying to give him a false impression of Carey's punctuality.

延伸來說，這樣做也可能不尊重 Emerson，因為你故意試著讓他對 Carey 的時間觀念產生錯誤印象。

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 is the heart of moral conduct, while followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness.

Kant 的追隨者會說，尊重他人是道德實踐的中心，而 Mill 的追隨者則會認為， 福祉是首要之務。

But other philosophers believe that such conflicts can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis, depending on various details and on the individuals involved.

但其他哲學家相信，這種衝突只能根據個案一一解決， 視具體細節和參與者而定。

So, what will you do in Carey's case?

那麼，你會怎麼處理 Carey 這個狀況呢？

Keep testing your decision-making skills with another classic ethical dilemma.

快用另一個經典的道德兩難狀況來考驗你的決策技巧吧。

Two ships have sent out distress calls, and you only have enough time to save one.

兩艘船都發出了求救訊號，你的時間只夠拯救其中一艘。

Which ship do you save?

你要救援哪一艘船呢？

Make your choice with this video.

請透過這部影片做出你的決定。