A'I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any subject.' That was the founder's motto for Cornell University, and it seems an apt characterization of the different university, also in the USA, where I currently teach philosophy. A student can prepare for a career in resort management, engineering, interior design, accounting, music, law enforcement, you name it. But what would the founders of these two institutions have thought of a course called Arson for Profit ? I kid you not: we have it on the books. Any undergraduates who have met the academic requirements can sign up for the course in our program in 'fire science'.

A “我要建立一所大学以使得所有的人可以学到任何他想学的学科。”这是康奈尔大学的校训，对于这所与众不同的美国大学来说似乎的确是很贴切的描述， 而我现在也在这所大学里任教哲学。学生能够在度假管理、工程、室内设计、会计、音乐、法律执行等方面能够有所收获。但是这两个机构的创始人会怎么想到一门叫做“为利润而纵火”的课程呢？我没有骗你：我们书上是有这个的。任何符合学术要求的本科生都可以报名参加这门叫做“fire science”的课程。

B当然，这门课程最初的目的是为将来的纵火调查人员提供帮助，他们能够学到所有的技巧来侦测是不是故意放火以，是谁放的火，并且能够建立一个能够在法庭上进行有效诉讼的证据链。但是，这难道不是给那些潜在的纵火犯提供了一个很好的课程吗？我的观点并不是批判这门关于火科学的学科：他们非常受欢迎，因为它和其他的职位的专业化越来越高。然而，我们对于一名消防员点燃一栋建筑也并不陌生。这个例子表明，在更高教育的帮助下，不诚实和不合法的行为能够渗入到公共和商业生活的每一个方面。

BNaturally, the course is intended for prospective arson investigators, who can learn all the tricks of the trade for detecting whether a fire was deliberately set, discovering who did it, and establishing a chain of evidence for effective prosecution in a court of law. But wouldn't this also be the perfect course for prospective arsonists to sign up for? My point is not to criticize academic programs in fire science: they are highly welcome as part of the increasing professionalization of this and many other occupations. However, it's not unknown for a firefighter to torch a building. This example suggests how dishonest and illegal behavior, with the help of higher education, can creep into every aspect of public and business life.

C当我被邀请在一次市场营销课上发言时，我再次意识到这一点，这是我们的另一个学位课程。一个合格的指导者是那个能够领会我作为一个哲学家所带来的道德观点的人。我有各种各样的方式去处理这个任务，但是我从这门课程的标题得到了线索：“市场营销的原则”。这让我想到去问学生们：市场是有原则的吗？毕竟，一门学科在编写的时候是有原则有规则的，就像足球和象棋一样，但在道德上是没有原则的。很多学生立刻认定了我所提出的这个问题的答案：市场是没有原则的。只要看看所有阳光下的东西是怎样被推销的；很明显这根本不需要用道德的原则来做这些事情。

D这个是很明显的吗？我所提出的这个想法可能听起来很疯狂，也许市场营销是有原则的。我做出这一判断的灵感来自于哲学家Immanual Kant，他坚称任何知识的主体都包含一个目的和一种手段。

CI realized this anew when I was invited to speak before a class in marketing, which is another of our degree programs. The regular instructor is a colleague who appreciates the kind of ethical perspective I can bring as a philosopher. There are endless ways I could have approached this assignment, but I took my cue from the title of the course: 'Principles of Marketing'. It made me think to ask the students, 'Is marketing principled?' After all, a subject matter can have principles in the sense of being codified, having rules, as with football or chess, without being principled in the sense of being ethical. Many of the students immediately assumed that the answer to my question about marketing principles was obvious: no. Just look at the ways in which everything under the sun has been marketed; obviously it need not be done in a principled (=ethical) fashion.

E让我们把“means”和“end”这两个术语都用到市场营销上。学生参加一门课程目的是来学习如何更有效的进行市场营销。但是，最终目的是什么呢？对于这个问题，似乎有两种主要的态度。其中之一的答案是很明显的：市场营销的目的就是卖东西赚钱。另一种态度是市场营销的目的是无关紧要的：每个人来上课都由他们自己的计划，这些不需要担心能够获得多少关于市场营销的专业知识。我相信，我跟Kant的想法是一样的，这两种态度都没有抓住市场营销方式终结的意义。知识的领域或专业的努力都是由手段和目的决定的；所以两者都值得仔细审查。学生需要去研究怎么样去实现X，也需要去研究X是什么。

F在这一点上，“为利润而纵火”这门课程变得非常重要。这门课程大概都是关于手段的：如何去发现和检举犯罪活动。因此，我们可以去认定在道德层面结局是好的。当我让火科学的学生们去说出他们研究领域的结果或者说目的时，他们最终会归纳为诸如“社会的安全和福利”之类的东西。正如我们所见，有人可以用同样的有关手段的知识来达到一个不是那么高尚的目的，比如通过毁灭性的、危险的、不计后果的活动来获得个人利益。但是我们不会把它叫做防火。我们有另外一个词来称呼它:纵火。同样地，如果你把“市场的原则”用在一个没有原则的方式上，你所做的将不是市场营销。对此我们还有另外一个术语：fraud（欺诈）。Kant举了一个医生和投毒者的例子，他们用同样的知识来达到不同的目的。我们会说，一个是行医，一个是谋杀。

DIs that obvious? I made the suggestion, which may sound downright crazy in light of the evidence, that perhaps marketing is by definition principled. My inspiration for this judgement is the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued that any body of knowledge consists of an end (or purpose ) and a means.

ELet us apply both the terms 'means' and 'end' to marketing. The students have signed up for a course in order to learn how to market effectively. But to what end? There seem to be two main attitudes toward that question. One is that the answer is obvious: the purpose of marketing is to sell things and to make money. The other attitude is that the purpose of marketing is irrelevant: Each person comes to the program and course with his or her own plans, and these need not even concern the acquisition of marketing expertise as such. My proposal, which I believe would also be Kant's, is that neither of these attitudes captures the significance of the end to the means for marketing. A field of knowledge or a professional endeavor is defined by both the means and the end; hence both deserve scrutiny. Students need to study both how to achieve X, and also what X is.

FIt is at this point that 'Arson for Profit' becomes supremely relevant. That course is presumably all about means: how to detect and prosecute criminal activity. It is therefore assumed that the end is good in an ethical sense. When I ask fire science students to articulate the end, or purpose, of their field, they eventually generalize to something like, 'The safety and welfare of society,' which seems right. As we have seen, someone could use the very same knowledge of means to achieve a much less noble end, such as personal profit via destructive, dangerous, reckless activity. But we would not call that firefighting. We have a separate word for it: arson. Similarly, if you employed the 'principles of marketing' in an unprincipled way, you would not be doing marketing. We have another term for it: fraud. Kant gives the example of a doctor and a poisoner, who use the identical knowledge to achieve their divergent ends. We would say that one is practicing medicine, the other, murder.