卓越学院国际课程研修报告
姓名 | 徐铭纯 | 班级 | 多语种国际组织人才实验班 | 专业 | 翻译 |
国际课程修读国家 | 美国 | 修读学校 | 乔治城大学 | 修读日期 | 2018.07.07-2018.08.12 |
修读课程 | 国际关系 International Relations 伦理学入门 Intro to ethics | ||||
研修报告正文：
①研修报告正文请按照以下内容撰写：a.课程学习情况及学习成果（500字左右）；b.针对某一课程内容或相关课题的论文、调研或专题性学习报告（2000字以上）；c.学习期间的心得体会，遇到的问题和困难，建议和意见等（500字左右）。
②纸张不足，可另附页。
③鼓励多附照片，照片要求清晰，并在下方注明照片内容。
a.课程学习情况及学习成果
我在乔治城大学选择了国际关系和伦理学入门两门课程。选择国际关系主要是考虑到自己在卓越学院的方向以及自己感兴趣的领域，很想在大一第一学期的国际关系入门后，有一些对国际关系更加全面和深入的了解。选择伦理学入门是因为很早以前看过Prof. Michael Sandel的哲学课，觉得很有意思。再加上想了解美国人如何思考哲学问题，我就选择了伦理学入门。
国际关系大纲如下：
Introduction, IR Theory and Actors in World Politics
Mon July 9: Introduction and levels of analysis
Tue July 10: Nation-states and great powers
Wed July 11: Non-state actors in international relations.
Thu July 12: Theories of world politics
Mon July 16: Power and influence in international relations
Tue July 17: The international system
Wed July 18: World order and international society
Thu July 19: Foreign policy and decision-making models
Mon July 23: Interdependence, cooperation, and international regimes
前九节课主要讲述国际关系的理论和基础知识。
International Security and International Political Economy
10. Tue July 24: Causes of war
11. Wed July 25: Causes of peace and peaceful change
12. Thu July 26: Nuclear deterrence, arms control, and terrorism
13. Mon July 30: Regional security and the Third World
14. Tue July 31: IPE and the contemporary system
15. Wed Aug 1: North-South relations
这六节课主要给我们介绍一些国际关系的术语、概念和各个学派的全新的研究理论。我们不仅知道了这些理论的原型，还了解了现今学术前沿的研究成果。
Globalization, Global Issues and the Future of World Politics
16. Thu Aug 2: Globalization and international relations
17. Mon Aug 6: Global issues: ecology and demography
18. Tue Aug 7: International ethics and human rights
19. Wed Aug 8: International relations after the Cold War
最后四章主要讲述全球化以后人类面临的挑战和许多现实问题。引导我们自己思考、应用国际关系理论和发现。
20. Thu Aug 9: Final exam
等到期末考试结束，我发现我对于大一上学期的国际关系入门有了更深入的了解。除了之前的理论知识，我们和教授一起领略了国际关系的更多专业知识。这让我以后再看国际问题有了新的切入点。我还拜读了教授写的国际关系作品，并对现在的国际形势有了全新的看法。
伦理学入门大纲如下：
Course Aims:
This course has several purposes. One is to ask, and try to answer, some age-old ethical questions. Why should a person act morally? Is there a universal morality that applies across cultures, or is morality “relative”? How much do we “owe” other people morally, and what does that look like? What criteria do we use to discriminate right from wrong? What happens when those criteria conflict?
Another purpose is to learn about both traditional and contemporary philosophical approaches to ethics. We will read Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, who articulated theories and ideas that continue to inform thinking about moral problems today. We’ll also read the work of many contemporary philosophers.
Third, we’ll investigate some contemporary moral problems facing us as individuals and as members of societies. Topics include collective versus individual responsibility, global poverty, the moral status of nonhuman animals, and race and gender.
The most important aim of the course is to improve your skills in reading, writing, and critical thinking about hard problems. It is not necessary that you agree with any particular author we discuss. Rather, I hope that you will learn to articulate and provide reasons for your own views and charitably engage with other viewpoints.
这节课主在通过课前阅读哲学著作节选和课堂讨论的形式对伦理学的各种学派理论和体系有初步的了解。
学习成果：
2018/07/21
Mingchun Xu
First Short Paper
Prompts:
•Imagine you are in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo has shown up at your door. They demand that you tell them whether you are hiding any Jews. You are. Should you tell the truth? One possible Kantian response to this question might be that you must tell the truth because lying is wrong in any circumstance. Because you cannot make lying a universal maxim, you cannot lie in this case (even though telling the truth will have disastrous consequences). Is this an unacceptable consequence of Kant’s view? Is there a way to rescue Kant (consider different formulations of the maxim that might change whether you can universalize your action)? What should you do?
•Aristotle claims that virtue requires habituation. It is a disposition that we learn via habit and practice. One potential criticism of this view is that it does not seem especially action-guiding. Unlike utilitarianism or Kantianism, it does not give us any precise rules about how to act in situations like the trolley problem, when we seem to have conflicting duties. Is this a problem with the view? How might an Aristotelian respond, and is this response successful?
Paper:
If I encountered the Gestapo back in the Nazi Germany, who asked me if I was hiding any Jews.As opposed to the Kantian response, I would have said no. I would do so because I believe we should not treat people as ends if they treat us as mere means in the first place.
For the purposes of the paper, I will first explain a few definitions. By ‘treating people as mere means’, Kant states that it is one person uses another in a way to which the other could not in principle consent. (O’Neill, “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” 2). In this context, the Gestapo was using me as a mere means because he forced me of telling the truth. And I would have treat the Gestapo in the same way if deceived him, since the scheme requires that he or she did not know what is going on. (O’Neill, “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” 2). By contrary, treating people as ends means that we respect others’ motives and get their consent at the beginning.
I suggest that we should not treat people as ends if they treat us as mere means in the first place because human beings should be treated equally. It is similar to self-defense. A certain reaction from the receiver can be justified as to protect oneself in case of further damage when attacked. For example, if your neighbor hit you in the face heavily without a reason, it is permissible for you to hit him back. If you do not defense yourself, he may hit you harder. Why is self-defense allowed in this world? Because everyone is equal and self-defense gives us a way to protect our equality. We are not allowed to treat others as mere means according to Kant for the same reason. But when others do the unjustified acts, just as your neighbor and the Gestapo in the context, they both broke their equality. Thus people should be allowed to use them as ‘mere means’ such as hitting back or lying to protect their equity. By applying this principle, I would say I am not hiding any Jews. Lying to the Gestapo is my justified reaction and protection to my position.
Another approach to explaining my principle is by applying Christine Korsgaard’s revised theory of Kingdom of Ends. Kant demanded people to act as if we are living in the Kingdom of Ends, in which everyone treat others as ends only. To respect and follow the order, we shall all treat others as ends. Korsgaard stated that this ideal world is something we pursue for instead of we living up to. She said we shall think before we act in order 'not to allow your honesty to be used as a resource of evil’. I agree with her completely. For instance, I know that the Gestapo would definitely kill the Jews if I told them the truth, and I still told them. Justice, I believe in this way, cannot be achieved because everyone else only concern about their own righteousness. In other words, I did not prevent the murder from happening even I had a chance to do so. I would become an evil instrument and an evil pusher to the murder. My action is actually an obstacle on the way to the ideal world. However, the scenario would be different if I tell a lie to the Gestapo.
In conclusion, I believe we should not treat people as ends when others broke the equality first. Furthermore, our righteousness should not be the backfire of that ideal world. So by applying my principle to the question, I would have said no.
2018/07/28
Mingchun Xu
Medium Paper
Paper:
Numerous experiments and facts throughout the history showed that human beings tend to conform and obey the authority even when the actions conflict with our conscience. I believe that human beings have a moral responsibility to overcome this tendency.
Why do we have such a tendency? I think it is because human beings find it much easier and more comfortable to act in accordance with others or orders rather than standing out even when the acts conflict with our conscience. If we conform, we do not need to break up with authority, would not be threatened, or we would feel less isolated and different when we behave the same as others.
Even though it feels better to act this way, I think we should definitely overcome this tendency because our obedience and conformity leads to bad outcomes. And we are actually evil pushers in this progress. For example, Adolph Eichmann, one of the most important German Nazi officer and the major organizer of the Holocaust, stated at his trial that he was not responsible for his inhumane commands to kill the Jews because he was just ‘following orders’ from Hitler. It seemed that he was not responsible because he was not the one who initiated this plan or literally did the killing. But this logic is wrong. It was he who gave up his conscience, who commanded to kill and burn the Jews. It was his responsibility because those Jews would not die if he did not command to do so. He was just like a gear in the engine he might state, but the evil engine would not start without him. He could make a difference by not being a gear this way. In today’s world, we should not be evil pushers like him definitely, otherwise this world will step to the evil side as nobody feels responsible to reject to evil orders.
I think we should also overcome this tendency even when the consequences of conforming is beneficial. The reason is that if we conform or act according to authority without our judgement, we would never be able to find out our mistakes and correct them when the result is good. For example, I was doing a color blindness test. There were four people in a group and we answered the questions in a sequence. I was the fourth one. I felt very strange that their answers were different from mine most of the time, but when I answered differently, they would look at me strangely as if there was something wrong with me. So I gave in, and copied their answers ever since. I passed this color blindness test successfully and never thought about it later. Until one day I drove my car and was stopped by a police. He told me I went through a red light but I thought it was green! It was not until then that I knew I was color blind! And that was why my answers were different from others’ all the time.This theory also applies to things other than tests. Our mistakes, if not corrected, will eventually come to us and hurt us one day when we are judging independently. If we always choose to conform with others, we would never be able to know we are wrong intrinsically. We will enjoy the beneficial results in the first place, but we lose a chance to correct and improve ourselves and may endure higher costs afterwards. So we should overcome this tendency in this sense.
No matter what consequences it costs, if we tend to conform and be obedient, we would gradually lose our own thoughts and values, and eventually be the same with everyone else. I believe thinking independently is one of the most important characteristics of human beings. If we lose this quality, there are no difference between animals and us. When we find it takes less time to decide our actions and makes us feel more comfortable to be the same with the majority when we act in accordance with other people, we would develop that habit of doing what others do. In order words, if we do not overcome this tendency, we will become a clone model of those people in the long run. Because we think it is easier to follow than to decide and analyze the problems we encounter every time by ourselves. So we do not think, do not judge and do not argue. We will not be able to judge the right and wrong gradually as we are assimilated. I believe by conforming, we give up our own characteristics.
Opponents of my view might argue that if we do not conform or obey to authority, the cost may be too high for us to bear. It may be our jobs, money, social status or even our lives. For example, if Adolph Eichmann did not obey Hitler’s commands and decide to protest because he thought these commands were immoral and terrible, he might have gotten killed by the Nazi immediately. No Jews would be saved by his protest because his power was so small and another officer would be promoted to fill in his place. This would made no difference to the world as the outcome was going to be the same. And for Adolph Eichmann, his sacrifice was meaningless in this way as he would not be able to change Hitler’s opinion anyway. People thus would say Adolph Eichmann actually had no choice but to be obedient to authority at that time. As compared to a meaningless death, maybe later on people could secretly compensate for their wrongdoings. This objection seemed appealing because none of us want our effort to be of no use. We want to strive for a better world. But I believe most of us are not willing to sacrifice when the consequence is not guaranteed as our ability is relatively small. So, they would argue, when our protest is obviously meaningless and we may lose the things we value most, it would be better that we conform and wait for better opportunities.
Though their objection seems attractive and convincing, their idea is wrong.
Foremost, although we would avoid the worst consequences if we conform, this act cannot be forgiven. Otherwise, we become utilitarians whose acts simply depend on the consequences. They believe as long as the consequence is for the greater happiness, we do it. However, there are many things more meaningful than our happiness, just like justice, truth, love and so on. Those values may only be achieved when we give up our happiness. In this case, we may have to give up our life for a righteous act instead of cowardly obeying the authority since we know the Holocaust is wrong. We shall not let the Nazi killed those Jews by simply nodding and signing papers. Moreover, as the harm to those victims were done, we can never compensate afterwards no matter what we do. It is just like we would still be accused of stealing even if we returned others’ properties back after we stole them. So are the lives of those Jews and the aftermath of our conformity.
Furthermore, we actually can do better than simply conform. For example, even if we were surrounded by the Nazi back in the Second World War, we could save the Jews by other means. Oskar Schindler is one of the good character. He was in the Nazi party but he saved more than one thousand Jews back then. He did this by forging a name list of Jews and pretended to hire them in his factory. In order to save Jews, he gave up all his property and endured the risk of being discovered. But he did not quit saving the Jews as he knew what was morally right and wrong. John Rabe, another figure in the 1900s, saved more than 250,000 Chinese in Nanjing when he was an officer in the Nazi party. So the obedience of Adolph Eichmann can only prove either he tended to kill the Jews or he was too timid to try the alternatives. Thus both of these reasons cannot justify his obedience.
Even if we have no alternatives other than conformity and sacrifice, we should definitely choose to sacrifice. Because our sacrifice is not meaningless. Instead, it is actually necessary for the progress of a better society. More and more people would be aware of the problem and join the right trend gradually. The American people would not be aware of the mistakes of black slaves if John Brown stayed silent. And today, black people and white people would still be in segregation if they were no Martin Luther King Jr. Both John Brown and Martin Luther King Jr. could live a better life if they conform, but they stood out. Both of them died because of their protests, but our world was changed little by little because of them. And there are numerous of people like them out there which lead to today’s world. So we do have a moral responsibility not to conform and obey, but to do what is correct even at the cost of something valuable.
Therefore, I think we have a moral responsibility to overcome our tendency to conform and obey the authority under all kinds of circumstances. And it is through this conquest of our tendency that makes us who we are and makes the world a better place to live in.
2018/08/03
Mingchun Xu
Second Short Paper
Paper:
Many people in our society today are suffering form famine or diseases while we are living a comfortable life. I think we are obligated to help them as long as it does not affect our life.
Concerning about how much we should help others, Peter Singer argues that if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. (Peter Singer, ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, p235).
I think if everyone contributes to the society as he states above, we would soon be able to alleviate poverty. However, I disagrees with him because I think it is too demanding for ordinary people to do so.
I believe we are obligated to donate goods that would not affect our previous living standard, even it is a rather luxurious life. Peter Singer said we should either reduce ourselves to the level of marginal utility or to have a great change in our way of life(Peter Singer, ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, p241). But I do not think it is a good idea. Foremost, people should be able to enjoy rewards earned by themselves. Everyone in the society make a living by hard work. And the difference between living standards is one of the motivations of our efforts. For example, we teach our kids to be diligent because it pays back, whether it is a good score in an exam or the praise from teachers. It is the same to do with our work. If we eventually live the same in order to help the poor, I believe many people would lose their incentives to work hard and there would be fewer people to create wealth and new things. The world is going backward this way. Furthermore, by alleviating the poor, we are helping others. If this action is affecting our living standard and morally required, it would be a burden instead of an intuition. For instance, we decided to go on a trip and we have been saving money for a long time. Now, we are deprived of the chance to go traveling to relax ourselves because we are required to give the money to the poor. I believe most people will regard donating as a burden. Then, people may try every means to escape this responsibility as they feel they no longer have the right to allocate their own property.
Peter Singer argued we ought to give the money away(Peter Singer, ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, p235). But I believe we are also obligated to help in other ways, for example, by devoting our time and sharing our experiences. There are a lot of reliable programs such as ‘Feeding America’ or foundations that are in want of volunteers to help them pack food, deliver goods to the poor, taking care of them and so on. We may not be able to donate money and food as much as the rich did, but we are able to make these voluntary projects run effectively. This is one of the ways to make contributions. And many of these contributions can not be simply replaced by money. For sharing experience, it is said that to give people fish is not as useful as to teach peopleto fish. By simply giving them money, we are able to save them from hunger nowadays, but by sharing our experiences, we can alleviate poverty in the long run. Bankers can give them advice on how to investigate or how much is the most suitable amount to save each month. People with many kids can recommend the most economical school for their kids’ education. The poor can also consult the community committee to find suitable jobs. They can learn from those who successfully break away from poverty by themselves. These experiences and encouragements can change their outlook on life gradually and make them live on themselves.
As the status quo stated, though we are not morally required to reduce ourselves to the poverty line, I think we should do our best to help others.
b.针对某一课程内容或相关课题的论文、调研或专题性学习报告（2000字以上）
浅谈中国课堂与美国课堂对阅读的要求和讨论方式的不同
我从去年的推送中得知，伦理课授课的主要形式是课堂讨论（主要由老师引导进行讨论），这是我非常喜欢的一种形式，因为哲学的原初就是由有智慧的人进行讨论而形成的。拉丁语里，哲学被叫做philosophia，意思是追求智慧，而追求智慧最好的方式就是大家争辩、交换意见，从而对问题的认识更加全面，能认识到真理，自己的错误也可以被改正。
我在中国课堂里还没有系统地学习过哲学课，这更加让我想在美国乔治城大学一探究竟。想看看成体系的哲学（或是伦理学）应该怎样入门。
上课的第一天，教授给大家发了课程大纲。我发现第一周主要是学习功利主义、道德论和亚里士多德学派。这是哲学里最主要和三个学派，后面的学派大多发源于此。除此之外，教授还给了大家阅读材料的规定进度，并要大家保证来上课前把前一天的阅读材料阅读完毕，最好能有自己的思考和讨论。为了更好地保证大家能认真地对待材料，教授设立了突击测试（即在上课开始的前十分钟里会让大家回答两个问题并上交，或是写下材料的summary、自己觉得重要的部分和自己的疑惑并上交）。
我一开始是因为突击测试的存在，所以每天晚上都会认真地阅读材料，记好笔记，有时遇见了自己不懂的话题和观点，还与教授发邮件，或是与同学讨论。有的时候材料很长，我也因为教授会检查而不得不熬夜读完，第二天早上又要上一早的课。那个时候我还觉得教授的要求太高，毕竟她第二天上课的时候也会再讲一遍，不看完整也能应付，那为什么要这么严格规定呢？
我很快就发现了这个问题的答案。首先，课堂的突击测验如果不阅读就无法完成。但更重要的是，因为这样的阅读对第二天课堂的讨论至关重要。教授上课的时候确实会重复材料中的观点，但是不会说的很仔细，绝大部分材料中的例子也不会进行无谓的重复，除非有其他需要。这样一来，如果对材料的阅读不够充分、光靠上课的重复的话，是很难理解正确的。有一个同学在课堂中就出现过未能正确理解材料的情况，结果被老师质疑材料没有阅读完成，事实也确实是这样。另一点就是，没有这些材料的阅读，在撰写每周的哲学观点文章时就会发生很大的麻烦，因为每篇文章都需要引用，还必须把作者、作品名称、在哪个材料的第几页写明，教授会鼓励我们多用别人的理论来支持自己文章的观点。所以若是没有先前的阅读，在写文章时就不知道该如何入手。
这和中国课堂阅读材料的方式就不太一样。从我自己上课的体验来说，我觉得中国课程的材料阅读更像是拓展阅读。这种阅读是以老师上课所讲的为基础，更加丰富自己的知识，给予自己更多思考的空间。一般来说在下节课和考试中很少涉及，可能这也是为什么同学们真正去阅读的少，只是流于形式。而在美国课堂，阅读材料是老师上课、开展讨论的基础，也是每个同学对于一个新理论的起始点。比如，我是从材料中大致弄懂了功利主义，动物保护主义……像是一个预习一样。上课的时候再由教授的讲解把所有有模糊和歧义的地方解释清楚。这样一来，上课的效率就大大加快了，同学们也因为有知识储备所以更愿意在课堂上表达自己，即所谓参与到课堂中来（engaged in the discussion）。所以我觉得这样的阅读方式其实是非常有收获的。
另外，美国课堂与中国课堂的讨论方式非常不同，可能与这个伦理课的性质也有关。伦理课时，教授要求我们坐成一个圈，这样大家在讨论的时候，可以看到其他同学的脸部表情等，决定自己是不是还要多解释一些自己的观点，也更加尊重每个同学的发言。我了解到，很多美国的课堂以讨论而非老师讲课为主。这种讨论是学生的自由讨论，老师是引导性的。老师会先把基本的概念解释清楚，然后抛砖引玉似的给出一个有争议性的话题，最后老师不会说谁的观点正确，谁的观点错误，要大家自己来判断有没有被说服，而且，哲学本来就是看个人理解的。为保证讨论能有更多人参与，教授还把大家的参与程度计入总分，这样有些本来犹豫自己要不要表达观点的同学的热情就会被激发，从而成为有更多人表达自己的课堂。还有一个和中国课堂的不同是，这里的讨论是可以有回应的。比方说有个同学听了我的发言，觉得他有不同的观点，或是要质疑我的观点，就会举手说出自己所想的。而在他发言之后，我还可以做出我自己的回应。一来一回，我们中间或有人被说服，或是虽然仍然保留自己的观点，但是因为别人的发言丰富了自己的看法。正是因为这样的讨论模式，每个人都会积极地参与进来，每个人也更加认真地听别人在说什么，否则自己的回应就没有依据了。
回到上海以后我认真想了想，其实现在上外的课堂里也有了很多改变。比如我们的联络陪同口译课，老师就会把上课讨论的参与度计入总分，目的不是为了要让大家功力、单纯地获得分数，而是鼓励大家参与进来，积极开动脑筋，课堂才能更好的进行下去，每个同学都能收获更多。我也看到越来越多的课，老师让大家课堂练习之外，会给大家需要在下节课之前阅读完的材料，有的时候，为了保证效果，也会在考试中涉及一些内容。这可能就是中国课堂的一种开始，也这样的尝试，随着时间的推移，肯定会越来越好。
一个课堂不可能由老师全部支撑起来，一定需要同学们的发言和观点。这是美国课堂领先于我们的地方，而我们正在学习。
c.学习期间的心得体会，遇到的问题和困难，建议和意见等
伦理学入门一上来的作业量很大，每天都要读一些艰涩难懂的哲学作品，有些是理论性的，有些是故事性的，主在讨论不同流派的哲学观点。这个作业对于本来就不太熟悉话题的我来说还是有些困难，经常会有看不懂的例子，每天基本上除了上课、睡觉、吃饭就泡在图书馆里看材料。另外对于材料，老师还会有突击检测算进总分，所以每天阅读的时候都必须要做笔记，对于理论要非常留心，经常需要对材料进行讨论，这和在中国课堂里看阅读材料有很大的不同。除此之外，这五周里老师还规定了四篇论文的任务：两篇短论文，一篇长论文和一篇结项论文。但是就像我之前在报告中所写的，这些困难通过自己的努力都可以被克服，我也逐渐找到了阅读材料时学习新知识的快乐。
为了对结项论文有更好的帮助，我和同学选择了当地的community service。在老师的建议下，我们去了food bank of America还去了bread for the city。这两个志愿者服务在华盛顿甚至是全美国的口碑都非常好。前者是一个食物储藏公司，后续会把捐来的食物发给穷人，各取所需。而后者，是开在穷人社区里的服务站，在那里，穷人可以挑选衣物、鞋子、食物、庇护所，还能申请法律援助、找到求职信息，而且是全天都开放的。在志愿者服务里，我们感受到了和中国完全不一样的志愿者模式，感受到了做志愿者的辛苦和快乐，学习了当地的服务方法，这些都是非常难能可贵的体验。我们被这样的志愿者服务所震撼，还想多去几次，帮助可以帮助的人。也借机反思在国内的志愿者是否真正有效地帮助了有需要的人。的可惜在美国上课时间有限，很多其他的志愿者服务也与我们上课的时间冲突，我和同学们没有能体会更多的志愿者服务。如果明年还有同学选择伦理课，我会建议大家能多选择走出课堂，去体验与众不同的社会文化。