第2709期:Ethical dilemma: Should knowledge be free?(2)

One answer comes from 19th-century philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. He argues that control over our intellectual creations is crucial to the quest for personal fulfillment. For example, musicians making a new song aren't just mixing their labor with the world— they’re expressing themselves. And Hegel believes creators should have the right to control these creative extensions of their personalities. By using these ideas without permission or credit, we’re reducing a creator’s control over their life and legacy.一位答案来自19世纪的哲学家黑格尔（G.W.F. Hegel）。他认为，对我们智力创作的控制权，对实现个人价值至关重要。例如，音乐人创作一首新歌时，不只是将自己的劳动融入世界——他们是在表达自我。而黑格尔认为，创作者应该拥有控制这些创造性人格延伸的权利。如果我们在未经允许或不给予署名的情况下使用这些作品，就等于削弱了创作者对自己人生与遗产的掌控力。Alternatively, thinkers like Elizabeth Anderson and Michael Sandel have argued that commodifying certain things can debase them. For example, while you might think it’s fine to treat a luxury car as something to be bought and sold, it feels strange to say the same thing about a library card. That attitude feels somehow disrespectful to the pursuit of knowledge. And taken to the extreme, one might conclude that all knowledge should be completely free. But even without compensation, how would you feel if someone copied your work and took credit for it as their own? Outside a world where everyone abandons ownership over their ideas, it’s hard not to feel like some injustice would still be taking place.另一方面，像伊丽莎白·安德森（Elizabeth Anderson）和迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel）这样的思想家则认为，将某些事物商品化，可能会贬低它们的价值。比如，你可能觉得把一辆豪华汽车当作买卖商品是理所当然的，但如果用同样的态度对待一张图书馆借书证，就会显得很奇怪。这种态度似乎在某种程度上对“追求知识”是不敬的。如果将这种观点推向极端，有人可能会得出这样的结论：所有知识都应该完全免费。但即便不涉及报酬，如果有人抄袭了你的作品，并将其据为己有，你会作何感受？在一个人人都放弃对自己思想所有权的理想世界之外，我们很难不觉得这种行为仍然是一种不公正。That said, it also feels extreme to say intellectual property rights should always be respected. Scottish philosopher David Hume famously argued that, in times of famine, the government is justified in forcing wealthy citizens to open their granaries to the public. During the COVID-19 pandemic, similar reasoning led publishing companies to temporarily give free access to journal articles related to the deadly virus. In such an emergency, most agreed it was in everyone’s interest to prioritize saving lives over compensation.话虽如此，但说“知识产权应始终受到尊重”似乎也有些极端。苏格兰哲学家大卫·休谟（David Hume）曾著名地指出，在饥荒时期，政府有正当理由强迫富人向公众开放粮仓。在新冠疫情期间，出于类似的理由，一些出版公司临时免费开放了与病毒相关的学术论文访问权限。在这种紧急情况下，大多数人都同意：与其优先考虑报酬，不如优先拯救生命，这才符合全体利益。But do circumstances need to be this extreme to justify ignoring intellectual property rights? Or is your pursuit of knowledge enough for you to deny these mages their hard-earned coin? Your friend’s archive is waiting...但情势是否非得如此极端，才能成为无视知识产权的正当理由？又或者，仅仅因为你在追求知识，就足以让你否认那些法师辛苦所得的报酬？你朋友的档案馆已经在等待你的选择了……