維護正義的道德武器

這部電影取材于上世紀30年代發生在美國的真實故事，講的是德州一所黑人學院辯論隊成長的故事。影片中有許多精彩的辯論片段。這里選用的與哈佛的辯論是虛構的，它的故事原型是威利學院辯論隊與南加州大學的辯論，威利學院取得了這場辯論的勝利。

James Farmer: Resolved: Civil 1)disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice. But how can disobedience ever be moral? Well， I guess that depends on one’s definition of the words. Word.

In 1919， in India， 10，000 people gathered in 2)Amritsar to protest the 3)tyranny of British rule. General Reginald Dyer trapped them in a courtyard and ordered his troops to fire into the crowd for ten minutes. Three hundred and seventy-nine died...men， women， children...shot down in cold blood. Dyer said he had taught them a moral lesson. Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence but with an organized campaign of non-cooperation. Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise， even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested， but the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a moral victory. The definition of moral: Dyer’s lesson or Gandhi’s victory? You choose.

Harvard Debater A: From 1914 to 1918， for every single minute the world was at war， four men laid down their lives. Just think of it. Two hundred and forty brave young men were4)hurled into eternity every hour of every day， of every night， for four long years. Thirty-five thousand hours. Eight million two hundred and eighty one thousand casualties. Two hundred and forty. Two hundred and forty. Two hundred and forty.

Here was a 5)slaughter 6)immeasurably greater than what happened at Amritsar. Can there be anything moral about it? Nothing...except that it stopped Germany from 7)enslaving all of Europe.

Civil disobedience isn’t moral because it’s non-violent. Fighting for your country with violence can be deeply moral， demanding the greatest sacrifice of all: Life itself. Non-violence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal its true face: 8)anarchy.

Samantha Booke: Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one’s opponents， even if they are Harvard debaters. Gandhi also believes that lawbreakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions. Does that sound like anarchy?

Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is， after all， an American concept. You see， Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu 9)scripture， but from 10)Henry David Thoreau， who I believe graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.

Harvard Debater B: My opponent is right about one thing. Thoreau was a Harvard grad， and， like many of us， a bit self-righteous. He once said， “Any man more right than his neighbors 11)constitutes a majority of one.” Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words. The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: No idea prevails without the support of the majority. The people decide the moral issues of the day， not a majority of one.

Samantha: Majorities do not decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does. So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislator? No， we must never， ever kneel down before the tyranny of a majority.

Harvard Debater B: We can’t decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could...I’d never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that stands between us and chaos: A police officer. I remember the day his partner， his best friend， was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all， I remember the expression on my dad’s face. Nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral， no matter what name we give it.

James: In Texas...they 12)lynch Negroes. My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire. We drove through a lynch mob， pressed our faces against the floorboard. I looked at my teammates. I saw the fear in their eyes...and worse...the shame.

What was this Negro’s crime that he should be hung， without trial， in a dark forest filled with fog? Was he a thief? Was he a killer? Or just a Negro? Was he a sharecropper? A preacher? Were his children waiting up for him? And who are we to just lie there and do nothing? No matter what he did， the mob was the criminal. But the law did nothing， just left us wondering: “Why?”

My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the13)Jim Crow South， not when Negroes are denied housing， turned away from schools， hospitals， and not when we are lynched. 14)St. Augustine said， “An unjust law is no law at all，” which means I have a right， even a duty， to resist...with violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.

詹姆斯·法默:辯題:非暴力抵抗是維護正義的道德武器，但抵抗又怎么會是道德的呢?我想，那就要取決于你對這些詞的定義了，這個詞。

1919年，印度有一萬人在阿姆利則集會，抗議英國的暴政統治。雷吉諾·戴爾將軍將他們困在一個院子里，然后讓軍隊向人群掃射十分鐘，造成379人死亡。男人，女人，孩子……倒在血泊中。戴爾說他給他們上了一堂道德課。甘地和他的追隨者沒有用暴力回應，而采取了一場有序的不合作運動。他們占領了政府大樓，堵死道路，甚至被警察毆打也堅決不挪開。甘地被逮捕了，但是，沒過多久，英國人就被迫將他釋放。他說這是道德的勝利。道德的定義:戴爾的道德課還是甘地的勝利?你來選。

哈佛辯手甲:從1914年到1918年，世界處于彌漫戰火中，每一分鐘就有四個人倒下。想想吧，長達四年的時間里，每一個晝夜的每一個小時，都有240個勇敢的生命墜入永恒的沉睡。一共是三千五百小時，八百二十八萬一千人喪生。240人。240人。240啊。

這是一場屠殺。死亡人數之多是阿姆利則事件無法比擬的。此事有何道德可言嗎?沒有，除了此舉讓德國不再奴役歐洲。

消極抵抗并非因為其非暴力的特點而稱得上道德。