Suppose that two American friends are traveling together in Italy. They go to see Michelangelo's "David," and when they finally come face-to-face with the statue, they both freeze dead in their tracks. The first guy -- we'll call him Adam -- is transfixed by the beauty of the perfect human form. The second guy -- we'll call him Bill -- is transfixed by embarrassment, at staring at the thing there in the center. So here's my question for you: Which one of these two guys was more likely to have voted for George Bush, which for Al Gore?
アメリカ人 ダチ2人でイタリア旅行 ミケランジェロの「ダビデ像」を見に行った ご対面で見事 2人揃って立ちすくんだ 1人目 アダムは 人間の完成美に ただただ愕然 2人目 ビルは 真ん中のモノに ただただ狼狽 さて ここで質問です どちらがジョージ・ブッシュに投票するでしょう? またどちらがアル・ゴアに
I don't need a show of hands, because we all have the same political stereotypes. We all know that it's Bill. And in this case, the stereotype corresponds to reality. It really is a fact that liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called openness to experience. People who are high in openness to experience just crave novelty, variety, diversity, new ideas, travel. People low on it like things that are familiar, that are safe and dependable.
挙手はけっこうです 政治的ステレオタイプは似たり寄ったりですから 言うまでもなく ビルですよね この場合 ステレオタイプと現実は一致します リベラル派の方が 性格特性の1つ― 開放性が段違いに高いのです 開放性が高いと こういうのを求めます 目新しさ 変化 広がり 新思想 旅行 低いと 慣れた安全で信頼できるものを好みます
If you know about this trait, you can understand a lot of puzzles about human behavior, like why artists are so different from accountants. You can predict what kinds of books they like to read, what kinds of places they like to travel to and what kinds of food they like to eat. Once you understand this trait, you can understand why anybody would eat at Applebee's, but not anybody that you know.
これを押さえておくと 人間行動の 多くの謎が解けます― なぜ芸術家と会計士が かくも違うのか... 彼らの好む本や 好きな旅行先 食べ物の好みなどが予想できます すると分かります 皆さんの周りが 人気ファミレス"Applebee's"に行かない理由が
(Laughter)
(笑)
This trait also tells us a lot about politics. The main researcher of this trait, Robert McCrae, says that "Open individuals have an affinity for liberal, progressive, left-wing political views ..." They like a society which is open and changing, "... whereas closed individuals prefer conservative, traditional, right-wing views."
この特性は政治にも影響します 研究の第一人者ロバート・マクレイ曰く “開放的な人がリベラル派 進歩 左派を好むのに対し” オープンで変化する社会ですね “閉鎖的な人は保守派 伝統 右派を好む” この特性は 参加グループにも影響します
This trait also tells us a lot about the kinds of groups people join. Here's the description of a group I found on the web. What kinds of people would join "a global community ... welcoming people from every discipline and culture, who seek a deeper understanding of the world, and who hope to turn that understanding into a better future for us all"? This is from some guy named Ted.
こんなコミュニティをネットで見つけたのですが どんな人が参加しているのでしょう? “人類の より良い未来のため より深く世界を理解したい方は 分野や文化を問わず 大歓迎!” えぇ これTEDが書いてました (笑)
Well, let's see now. If openness predicts who becomes liberal, and openness predicts who becomes a TEDster, then might we predict that most TEDsters are liberal? Let's find out.
さて開放性が リベラルや TED人間になる 決め手なら 大抵のTED人間はリベラル? 調べてみましょう
I'll ask you to raise your hand, whether you are liberal, left of center -- on social issues, primarily -- or conservative. And I'll give a third option, because I know there are libertarians in the audience. So please raise your hand -- in the simulcast rooms too. Let's let everybody see who's here. Please raise your hand if you'd say that you're liberal or left of center. Please raise your hand high right now. OK. Please raise your hand if you'd say you're libertarian. OK. About two dozen. And please raise your hand if you'd say you are right of center or conservative. One, two, three, four, five -- about eight or 10.
先程の社会問題に対して リベラル/中道左派か 保守派かそれから 会場に多い自由主義派かで聞きます いきますよ 手を挙げてください 放送室の方もいいですか では いきます リベラル派/中道左派の方? 高く挙げてください では自由主義派の方? はい...約25人ですね では保守派/中道右派の方? 1 2 3 4 5... 約8人か10人ですね
OK. This is a bit of a problem. Because if our goal is to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder. Because when people all share values, when people all share morals, they become a team. And once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open-minded thinking. When the liberal team loses,
ふむ これはいささか厄介です… TEDのゴールが “より深く世界を理解” することなら モラルの多様性に欠けるとまずいのです 同じ価値観やモラルの人が集まると チームが生まれます チーム心理が芽生えると― 柔軟な思考を妨げます 2004年や おおかた2000年のように敗れると
[United States of Canada / Jesusland]
as it did in 2004, and as it almost did in 2000, we comfort ourselves.
リベラル・チームは慰め合います
(Laughter)
(笑)
We try to explain why half of America voted for the other team. We think they must be blinded by religion
アメリカ半分が 別チームに投票した弁明をします 神がかりにあったかノータリンなんだろう…と話します
[Post-election US map: America / Dumbf*ckistan]
or by simple stupidity.
(笑)
(Laughter)
(Applause)
(拍手)
(Laughter)
ホントにそんな理由で 共和党を
So if you think that half of America votes Republican because they are blinded in this way, then my message to you is that you're trapped in a moral Matrix, in a particular moral Matrix. And by "the Matrix," I mean literally the Matrix, like the movie "The Matrix."
支持しているとお考えなら 失礼ですが モラル・マトリックスに 引っかかっていますよ まさに映画「マトリックス」の”マトリックス”です
But I'm here today to give you a choice. You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions, or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology and step outside the moral Matrix. Now, because I know --
だが 今日ここで選択肢をあげよう この青を飲めば 甘美な妄想は続く この赤を飲めば モラル心理学の何たるかと モラル・マトリックスの外を覗かせよう
(Applause)
(拍手)
I assume that answers my question. I was going to ask which one you picked, but no need. You're all high in openness to experience, and it looks like it might even taste good, and you're all epicures. Anyway, let's go with the red pill, study some moral psychology and see where it takes us.
…多数決を するまでもありませんね 皆さん さすが開放性が高い! それに美食家ですね 赤おいしそう ともあれ 赤を飲みましょう モラル心理学入門のはじまり
Let's start at the beginning: What is morality, where does it come from? The worst idea in all of psychology is the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth. Developmental psychology has shown that kids come into the world already knowing so much about the physical and social worlds and programmed to make it really easy for them to learn certain things and hard to learn others. The best definition of innateness I've seen, which clarifies so many things for me, is from the brain scientist Gary Marcus. He says, "The initial organization of the brain does not depend that much on experience. Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises. 'Built-in' doesn't mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience." OK, so what's on the first draft of the moral mind? To find out, my colleague Craig Joseph and I read through the literature on anthropology, on culture variation in morality and also on evolutionary psychology, looking for matches: What sorts of things do people talk about across disciplines that you find across cultures and even species? We found five best matches, which we call the five foundations of morality.
ここから始めましょう モラリティとは?どこから来るのか? 心理学上最悪の見解は “誕生時 精神は真っ白” です 発達心理学は こう示しています 人は物理・社会的な知識を 多く備えて誕生するため ある種のものは容易に習得できるが その逆も然りである 脳科学者ゲイリー・マーカスが 非常に納得のいく ”生得性”の定義をしています “脳の初期構造は さして経験に根付いていない 先天性が初稿を書き 経験が改訂する 生来は普遍とは違う― それは経験と共に編さんされる” ではモラルの初稿には何が? 私は同僚のクレイグ・ジョセフと共に 人類学の文献を読みました モラル思考様式の差異を調べ 進化心理学の文献を読み漁りました 宗教を超えた普遍的なテーマとは? 文化や種を超えた共通点は? そして 5つのものに行き当たりました 5つのモラリティの根源です
The first one is harm/care. We're all mammals here, we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming that makes us really bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others, especially the weak and vulnerable. It gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm. This moral foundation underlies about 70 percent of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.
1. 危害/親切 人間は神経やホルモンの働きもあって 絆を結んだり 慕ったりします 弱いものには同情します 加害者には 強い感情を抱きます TEDで耳にする モラル発言の 7割はこれに根差しています
The second foundation is fairness/reciprocity. There's actually ambiguous evidence as to whether you find reciprocity in other animals, but the evidence for people could not be clearer. This Norman Rockwell painting is called "The Golden Rule" -- as we heard from Karen Armstrong, it's the foundation of many religions. That second foundation underlies the other 30 percent of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.
2. 公正さ/互恵関係 他の動物に 互恵関係が 認められるかは曖昧ですが 人間に限って言えば 絶対です この絵は ノーマン・ロックウェルの「黄金律」です 絵の中には カレン・アームストロングの 宗教の根底を表す言葉があります TEDのモラル発言の 残り3割はこれです
The third foundation is in-group/loyalty. You do find cooperative groups in the animal kingdom, but these groups are always either very small or they're all siblings. It's only among humans that you find very large groups of people who are able to cooperate and join together into groups, but in this case, groups that are united to fight other groups. This probably comes from our long history of tribal living, of tribal psychology. And this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable that even when we don't have tribes, we go ahead and make them, because it's fun.
3. グループ性/忠誠 動物界にも群れは存在しますが しかし これらは全て― 小規模集団か血縁集団です 巨大な集団を結成し 一丸となるのは人間だけです 戦争には 部族生活と同族意識の 長い歴史が背景にあるのでしょう 同族意識は心地よく― 私達は ことあるごとに 嬉々として部族を結成します
(Laughter)
(笑)
Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient drives.
スポーツと戦争は ポルノと性交の関係と同じです 太古からの欲望を満たしてくれます
The fourth foundation is authority/respect. Here you see submissive gestures from two members of very closely related species. But authority in humans is not so closely based on power and brutality as it is in other primates. It's based on more voluntary deference and even elements of love, at times.
4. 権威/尊敬 霊長類が服従を示していますが 人間にとっての権威は 力や残忍性にでなく 自発的な敬意に基づきます 時には愛の要素も入ります
The fifth foundation is purity/sanctity. This painting is called "The Allegory Of Chastity," but purity is not just about suppressing female sexuality. It's about any kind of ideology, any kind of idea that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body and what you put into your body. And while the political right may moralize sex much more, the political left is doing a lot of it with food. Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays. A lot of it is ideas about purity, about what you're willing to touch or put into your body.
5. 純粋さ/高潔さ この絵は「The Allegory Of Chastity」です ここでの純粋さは 女性の純潔だけでなく 自分の体になす行為の制御ー 摂取するものの制御は 美徳だとする― 価値体系や思想のことです 右派が性のモラルにこだわるよう 左派は食のモラルにこだわります 最近目立つ 食のモラル化は この純粋さが 関係しています
I believe these are the five best candidates for what's written on the first draft of the moral mind. I think this is what we come with, a preparedness to learn all these things. But as my son Max grows up in a liberal college town, how is this first draft going to get revised? And how will it end up being different from a kid born 60 miles south of us, in Lynchburg, Virginia?
以上5つが モラルの初稿に 書かれていると思います 少なくとも この5つを備えて誕生するはずです リベラルな大学都市に暮らす息子の初稿は どう改訂されていくでしょう? 100キロ先のバージニア州リンチバーグで育つのと どんな差が出るのでしょう?
To think about culture variation, let's try a different metaphor. If there really are five systems at work in the mind, five sources of intuitions and emotions, then we can think of the moral mind as one of those audio equalizers that has five channels, where you can set it to a different setting on every channel. My colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham and I made a questionnaire, which we put up on the web at www.YourMorals.org. And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can, too. Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens. On the left are the scores for liberals; on the right, conservatives; in the middle, moderates. The blue line shows people's responses on the average of all the harm questions.
こう考えてみてください 精神上に 直感や感情の源が 5系統あるなら モラルは5チャンネルの イコライザーと言えます 各チャンネルは個々に設定できます 私は同僚のブライアン・ノセクと ジェシー・グラハムと共に アンケートを作りここに公開しました www.YourMorals.org. 既に3万人が回答しています こちらが結果です アメリカ国民 23,000人のデータです 左から リベラル派 穏便派 保守派です 青から見ていきます 青は危害系の平均スコアです
So as you see, people care about harm and care issues. They highly endorse these sorts of statements all across the board, but as you also see, liberals care about it a little more than conservatives; the line slopes down. Same story for fairness. But look at the other three lines. For liberals, the scores are very low. They're basically saying, "This is not morality. In-group, authority, purity -- this has nothing to do with morality. I reject it." But as people get more conservative, the values rise. We can say liberals have a two-channel or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.
皆関心がありますね 三派とも強い支持を示しています 比較すると リベラル派の関心の方が上です 緑の公正さも同様です 残りの3つにご注目ください リベラル派のスコアは低いです リベラル派は “グループ性 権威 純粋さは モラルではない!”と言っています 保守的になるほどスコアは上がります リベラルな人は2チャンネル 2つのモラリティの根源を持ち 保守的な人は 5つのモラリティの根源 5チャンネルを持つわけです
We find this in every country we look at. Here's the data for 1,100 Canadians. I'll flip through a few other slides. The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia. Notice also that on all of these graphs, the slope is steeper on in-group, authority, purity, which shows that, within any country, the disagreement isn't over harm and fairness. I mean, we debate over what's fair, but everybody agrees that harm and fairness matter. Moral arguments within cultures are especially about issues of in-group, authority, purity.
国が違っても同じです カナダ人 1,100人のデータです いくつかスライドをご覧に入れます イギリス… オーストラリアとニュージーランド 西ヨーロッパ 東ヨーロッパです ラテンアメリカ 中東 東アジア 南アジアです お気づきでしょうか どの国でも 同じ3線が急勾配です 逆に言えば危害 公正さに 意見の相違はありません この2つが重要という点においては 皆の意見が一致しています モラル論争の主なテーマは グループ性 権威 純粋さの3点です
This effect is so robust, we find it no matter how we ask the question. In a recent study, we asked people, suppose you're about to get a dog, you picked a particular breed, learned about the breed. Suppose you learn that this particular breed is independent-minded and relates to its owner as a friend and an equal. If you're a liberal, you say, "That's great!" because liberals like to say, "Fetch! Please."
どう質問しても 相違は顕著に表れます これはどうでしょう 犬を飼うとしましょう 好きな犬種を選びました その犬種の特性を調べたら 独立心旺盛で 飼い主を 対等視することが分かりました リベラル派なら “まあ 素敵!” 犬相手でも 公平に “取って来て下さい!”
(Laughter)
(笑)
But if you're a conservative, that's not so attractive. If you're conservative and learn that a dog's extremely loyal to its home and family and doesn't warm up to strangers, for conservatives, loyalty is good; dogs ought to be loyal. But to a liberal, it sounds like this dog is running for the Republican nomination.
保守派なら こんな犬はごめんです 保守派は 飼い主や家には忠実で 他人を警戒する犬がいい “犬たるもの忠実であれ" です ところがリベラル派にはそんな犬… 共和党に立候補しそうで恐ろしい
(Laughter)
(笑)
You might say, OK, there are differences between liberals and conservatives, but what makes the three other foundations moral? Aren't they the foundations of xenophobia, authoritarianism and puritanism? What makes them moral? The answer, I think, is contained in this incredible triptych from Hieronymus Bosch, "The Garden of Earthly Delights." In the first panel, we see the moment of creation. All is ordered, all is beautiful, all the people and animals are doing what they're supposed to be doing, are where they're supposed to be. But then, given the way of the world, things change. We get every person doing whatever he wants, with every aperture of every other person and every other animal. Some of you might recognize this as the '60s.
こうお思いでしょう? “なるほど... リベラル派と保守派が違うのは分かった” “しかし 他の3つは違うだろ?” “ただの 部外者嫌いに 権威主義に 禁欲主義だろ?” “どこがモラル?” 答えとして ヒエロニムス・ボスの3枚のパネル 「快楽の園」をお見せします 1枚目は 天地創造です 調和のとれた美しい世界 人も動物も― 在るべき場所で やるべき事をしています ところが世の習わしで 事態は変化します 誰もが自分勝手になります 動物も人も一緒くたに 快楽追求です 60年代のようとも言えます
(Laughter)
(笑)
But the '60s inevitably gives way to the '70s, where the cuttings of the apertures hurt a little bit more. Of course, Bosch called this hell. So this triptych, these three panels, portray the timeless truth that order tends to decay. The truth of social entropy.
しかし否応なく70年代が訪れます 快楽追求の付けが回ってきます ボスは「地獄」と題しました この3枚が表すのは 秩序崩壊という永遠の真理です 社会衰退の真理です
But lest you think this is just some part of the Christian imagination where Christians have this weird problem with pleasure, here's the same story, the same progression, told in a paper that was published in "Nature" a few years ago, in which Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter had people play a commons dilemma, a game in which you give people money, and then, on each round of the game, they can put money into a common pot, then the experimenter doubles what's there, and then it's all divided among the players. So it's a nice analog for all sorts of environmental issues, where we're asking people to make a sacrifice and they don't really benefit from their own sacrifice. You really want everybody else to sacrifice, but everybody has a temptation to free ride. What happens is that, at first, people start off reasonably cooperative. This is all played anonymously. On the first round, people give about half of the money that they can. But they quickly see other people aren't doing so much. "I don't want to be a sucker. I won't cooperate." So cooperation quickly decays from reasonably good down to close to zero.
しかしこれが 快楽と折り合いの悪い― キリスト教の寓話だと思われないよう もう一つのお話を紹介しましょう 数年前のネイチャー誌に載っていました アーンスト・フェールとサイモン・ガッチャーの 「共有地ジレンマ」ゲームです プレイヤーにお金を渡し ラウンド毎に 共有の壺に入金してもらいます 実験者は 壺内の金額を2倍にし 最後にプレイヤーで等分するというゲームです 環境問題の取り組みに似ていますね 皆の犠牲が必要だが そこに見返りは特に無し 他人には犠牲を奨励するが 自分はただ乗りしたい ゲーム開始直後は 皆わりと協力的です ちなみに匿名での参加です 皆 限度額の半分くらい入金します しかし思います “やっているのは自分だけ... 馬鹿みる前にやめよう” それで協調性は一気に下降 そこへ このトリックが
But then -- and here's the trick -- Fehr and Gächter, on the seventh round, told people, "You know what? New rule. If you want to give some of your own money to punish people who aren't contributing, you can do that." And as soon as people heard about the punishment issue going on, cooperation shoots up. It shoots up and it keeps going up. Lots of research shows that to solve cooperative problems, it really helps. It's not enough to appeal to people's good motives. It helps to have some sort of punishment. Even if it's just shame or embarrassment or gossip, you need some sort of punishment to bring people, when they're in large groups, to cooperate. There's even some recent research suggesting that religion -- priming God, making people think about God -- often, in some situations, leads to more cooperative, more pro-social behavior.
7ラウンド目に登場します “新しいルールです 持ち金で 非協力的なプレイヤーに 罰則を与えることも可能です” 罰則の要素が加わった途端に 協調性は上昇し 壺は潤いました 研究が示すよう 集団を動かすのに 立派な動機だけでは不十分です 何らかの罰の要素― 例えば 恥ずかしさ 決まり悪さ 陰口があると 協調性が高まります 最近の研究では 神について考えるだけで 向社会的な行動を促すことが 分かりました
Some people think that religion is an adaptation evolved both by cultural and biological evolution to make groups to cohere, in part for the purpose of trusting each other and being more effective at competing with other groups. That's probably right, although this is a controversial issue. But I'm particularly interested in religion and the origin of religion and in what it does to us and for us, because I think the greatest wonder in the world is not the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is really simple -- a lot of rock and a lot of water and wind and a lot of time, and you get the Grand Canyon. It's not that complicated. This is what's complicated: that people lived in places like the Grand Canyon, cooperating with each other, or on the savannahs of Africa or the frozen shores of Alaska. And some of these villages grew into the mighty cities of Babylon and Rome and Tenochtitlan. How did this happen? It's an absolute miracle, much harder to explain than the Grand Canyon.
宗教は 信頼関係を築き 集団の結束力を強めようとする― また 他集団に勝ろうとする― 様々な試行錯誤の中で 発展したと考える人もいます 私もそう考えます 論争中の問題ですけどね 私は宗教の起源や 影響や効果に 多大な関心があります グランド・キャニオンが世界の不思議だとは思いません グランド・キャニオンは 至って単純です 大量の岩と水と風 それに時間さえあれば グランド・キャニオンの出来上がりです 簡単です 何が 不思議かと言えば グランド・キャニオンや アフリカのサバンナや アラスカの氷着岸に共同体があったことや バビロンやローマのような都市が登場したことです 一体どうやって? まるで奇跡です!
The answer, I think, is that they used every tool in the toolbox. It took all of our moral psychology to create these cooperative groups. Yes, you need to be concerned about harm, you need a psychology of justice. But it helps to organize a group if you have subgroups, and if those subgroups have some internal structure, and if you have some ideology that tells people to suppress their carnality -- to pursue higher, nobler ends. Now we get to the crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives: liberals reject three of these foundations. They say, "Let's celebrate diversity, not common in-group membership," and, "Let's question authority," and, "Keep your laws off my body."
おそらく あらゆる側面において モラル心理学をフル活用し 共同体を作ったのでしょう 危害や公正への懸念に加え モラル心理学は 集団をサブグループで統制し 価値体系を確立し 肉欲を制御しつつ 生産性を上げるのに 役立ったはずです そういう経緯をたどり 今― 二派の衝突に至っています リベラル派が拒否するからです “多様性を称え 部外者にも門を開こう!” “権威を疑おう!” ”個人に命の選択権を!”
Liberals have very noble motives for doing this. Traditional authority and morality can be quite repressive and restrictive to those at the bottom, to women, to people who don't fit in. Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed. They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. This shirt says, "Stop bitching, start a revolution." If you're high in openness to experience, revolution is good; it's change, it's fun. Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions. They want order, even at some cost, to those at the bottom. The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve. It's precious, and it's really easy to lose. So as Edmund Burke said, "The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights." This was after the chaos of the French Revolution. Once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability, then I think the way is open to step outside the moral Matrix.
これには気高い動機があります 伝統的な権威やモラリティは 時に抑圧的で 下層グループ 女性 はみだし者には窮屈です リベラル派はそれを代弁します 無秩序になろうとも 変革や正義を求めます Tシャツにあります “グチる前に 革命だ” 開放性が高いと 革命は歓迎です 物事が変わって愉快ですから 反して 保守派は制度や伝統の代弁者です 下層グループが犠牲になろうとも 秩序を求めます 秩序が得難いと知っているのです 貴重であり かつ失いやすいものです エドマンド・バーク曰く “制約は 自由と同様 権利として認められるべきだ” フランス革命後 無秩序だったのです お分かりでしょうか 両派が変化と安定の 均衡を保っているのです だから モラルマトリックスから出ましょう
This is the great insight that all the Asian religions have attained. Think about yin and yang. Yin and yang aren't enemies; they don't hate each other. Yin and yang are both necessary, like night and day, for the functioning of the world. You find the same thing in Hinduism. There are many high gods in Hinduism. Two of them are Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer. This image, actually, is both of those gods sharing the same body. You have the markings of Vishnu on the left, so we could think of Vishnu as the conservative god. You have the markings of Shiva on the right -- Shiva's the liberal god. And they work together.
これはアジアの宗教の説くところです “陰陽”を考えてみてください 陰と陽は敵同士ではありません 世の成り立ちに 両方必要です 夜と昼のように ヒンドゥー教においても同様です 世界維持の神 ビシュヌと 崩壊の神 シヴァがいます これは両神が1体をシェアしています 言ってみれば ビシュヌは 保守派の神 シヴァは リベラル派の神で 二神は協力します
You find the same thing in Buddhism. These two stanzas contain, I think, the deepest insights that have ever been attained into moral psychology. From the Zen master Sēngcàn: "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be 'for' or 'against.' The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease." Unfortunately, it's a disease that has been caught by many of the world's leaders. But before you feel superior to George Bush, before you throw a stone, ask yourself: Do you accept this? Do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil? Can you be not for or against anything?
仏教でも同じです モラル心理学の叡智が この2行に凝縮されています 禅師の僧璨の言葉です “真実を掴みたければ 賛成も反対もするな 賛否の論争は 精神を蝕む” まさにその通りです 多くの指導者を蝕みました しかし ジョージ・ブッシュに優越感を覚える前に 自分に問いかけてみましょう 善悪の戦いから 踏み出せますか? 賛成も反対もしないと誓えますか?
So what's the point? What should you do? Well, if you take the greatest insights from ancient Asian philosophies and religions and combine them with the latest research on moral psychology, I think you come to these conclusions: that our righteous minds were designed by evolution to unite us into teams, to divide us against other teams and then to blind us to the truth. So what should you do? Am I telling you to not strive? Am I telling you to embrace Sēngcàn and stop, stop with the struggle of for and against?
では何をしたらいいのでしょう アジアの哲学や宗教の いにしえの教えと モラル心理学の叡智を 合わせるとこうなるでしょう “自分が正しい” と思う人間のさがは 他集団に優る必要性から 発達したものである ではどうしろと? がんばるなということ? 僧璨を受け入れ― 論争をやめろということ?
No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that. This is an amazing group of people who are doing so much, using so much of their talent, their brilliance, their energy, their money, to make the world a better place, to fight wrongs, to solve problems. But as we learned from Samantha Power in her story about Sérgio Vieira de Mello, you can't just go charging in, saying, "You're wrong, and I'm right," because, as we just heard, everybody thinks they are right.
違います そうではありません ご来場の皆さんは 偉業を成す素晴らしい集団です 才能 才気 そして活力 財力を使い 世界をより良くし 悪と戦い 問題解決に挑みます サマンサ・パワーのセルジオ・ヴィエイラ・デ・メロの話にあるよう こういうことは言えないのです― “あなたは間違っていて 私が正しい” 皆自分が正しいと思っていますから
A lot of the problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are -- understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we're right -- and then step out, even if it's just for a moment, step out -- check in with Sēngcàn. Step out of the moral Matrix, just try to see it as a struggle playing out, in which everybody thinks they're right, and even if you disagree with them, everybody has some reasons for what they're doing. Step out. And if you do that, that's the essential move to cultivate moral humility, to get yourself out of this self-righteousness, which is the normal human condition. Think about the Dalai Lama. Think about the enormous moral authority of the Dalai Lama. It comes from his moral humility.
私達の抱える問題の多くは 人を変えなければ解決しません 人を変えるのであれば まずは 己を知り 己のモラル心理を知ることです 自分が正しいと思う 人間のさがを理解し たとえ一瞬だけでも 僧璨を思い出し モラルマトリックスの外へ出てください 渦中の人物が皆 自分が正しいと主張するのが見えます あなたが賛成するかは別として 皆それなりの理由をもっています 踏み出しましょう それがモラルに対し謙虚になる最善の方法です それが独り善がりに 陥らない鍵です ダライ・ラマを考えてみてください 絶大な道徳的権威です それは彼の謙虚さから来るものです
So I think the point -- the point of my talk and, I think, the point of TED -- is that this is a group that is passionately engaged in the pursuit of changing the world for the better. People here are passionately engaged in trying to make the world a better place. But there is also a passionate commitment to the truth. And so I think the answer is to use that passionate commitment to the truth to try to turn it into a better future for us all.
お伝えしたいのはこれです 私の思う TEDの存在価値は 世界をより良い場所にするため 情熱を傾ける この集団にあります 皆さんとても熱心に 活動しておられる 真理の追求にも熱心です だから その情熱で真理を求め それを持って世界をより良くしてください
Thank you.
ご清聴ありがとうございました
(Applause)
(拍手)