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?
想象两个美国人到意大利旅游 一起去看米开朗基罗的名作“大卫” 当他们和巨大石雕面对面时 两个人都望着出神 第一个人﹐我们就叫他亚当吧 被完美的人体肌理震慑住了 第二个人 我们就叫他比尔吧 也吓傻了 - 被那两腿间的玩意儿 让我试问 这两个男人谁比较有可能把票投给小布什 谁投给了高尔﹖
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.
大家不用举手 因为我们都有一样的刻板印象 我们都知道是比尔 在这个例子里﹐刻板印象反映了事实 事实上﹐自由党员的确比保守党员 更容易接受新体验 那些喜欢接受新体验的人 渴望新鲜 多样性 新想法 旅行 较难接受新体验的人喜欢熟悉 安全 可靠的事物
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.
如果你知道这些特性 你便能了解人类许多难解的行为 了解为什么艺术家和会计师如此不同 你可以预测他们喜欢看的书 他们喜欢去的旅游点 甚至他们的饮食偏好 只要你了解这个特性﹐你便能理解 为什么这么多人喜欢去连锁餐厅吃饭 但你却一个都不认识
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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."
这个特性也让我们理解政治 研究这个性格特质的研究者 Robert McCrae 说 “开放的人偏向自由 进步 左翼政治思想” 他们喜欢一个开放 持续改变的社会 “封闭的人偏好保守 传统 右翼的观点。” 这个特质也让我们了解人们所参与的社团组织
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.
这是我在网络上找到的一个组织简介 怎样的人会参加一个全球性的社群 欢迎来自各种文化和学科的人 那些想更深刻理解世界的人 同时也是那些想以这些理解让世界变得更好的人 这是一个叫 TED 的男人写的 (笑声)
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.
那么﹐如果开放性格偏向自由派 同时也预知了你会成为 TED 一员 是否大部份的 TED 成员都是自由党呢﹖ 让我们试试
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.
请你举起手﹐不管你是自由党﹐中间偏左 在我们所讨论的议题上 或是保守党﹐还有一个第三选项 因为我知道观众中还有一些相信自由至上的放任自由主义者 现在﹐举起你的手来 在联播台里的人也是 让每个人看看都是谁 如果你是自由党或中间偏左﹐请举起手来 请把你的手举高﹐好 请举手如果你是放任自由主义者 好 差不多有二十多人 如果你觉得你是中间偏右或保守党﹐请举手 1 2 3 4 5 - 大概8 到10人
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,
好。这就是问题。 如果我们的目标是了解世界 深刻的进一步了解世界 但缺乏道德多样性让了解世界变得更难 因为当每个人都分享一样的价值观和道德观 便成为一个团队﹐一旦进入团队心理 原本开放的思想就会闭塞 当自由队在2004年败选
[United States of Canada / Jesusland]
as it did in 2004, and as it almost did in 2000, we comfort ourselves.
就像在2000年一样﹐我们自我安慰
(Laughter)
(笑声)
We try to explain why half of America voted for the other team. We think they must be blinded by religion
我们尝试自我解释为什么有一半美国人投给另外一队 我们想 他们一定是被宗教蒙蔽 或是纯粹愚蠢
[Post-election US map: America / Dumbf*ckistan]
or by simple stupidity.
(笑声)
(Laughter)
(Applause)
(掌声)
(Laughter)
如果你认为投给共和党的另一半美国人
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."
是因为他们被蒙蔽了 我想告诉你的是你被道德母体限制住了 某一种特别的道德母体 所谓的道德母体﹐就像“黑客任务”里面的大计算机一样
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 --
但今日我让你有个选择 你可以选择蓝色药丸然后保持在舒适的幻觉中 或是选择红色药丸﹐ 了解道德心理学﹐跨越你的道德母体 因为我知道 --
(Applause)
(掌声)
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.
我想这已经回答了我的问题 我本来想问你们要选哪一个﹐我想不需要了 你们都很爱接受新体验﹐更何况 这看起来很可能很可口 能满足你们的美食主义 总而言之﹐让我们选择红色药丸 让我们学习一些道德心理学﹐看看我们能了解什么
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.
让我们从头开始 道德是什么﹖它从哪里来﹖ 心理学中最糟的想法 便是我们像一张白纸一样出生 发展心理学告诉我们 婴儿来到世界上时已经知道许多 有关世界和社会 让他们变得更易学习 却很难向他人学习 有关这些与生俱来的天赋 有个人说的很好 脑科学家 Gary Marcus 他说“脑的初始组织不是来自经验 自然提供了第一个版本﹐经验只能修改 先建不代表不可塑﹔ 而是组织先于经验。” 那么道德的第一个版本是什么﹖ 我和同事 Craig Joseph 阅读了许多人类学的文献 有关不同文化的道德 同时也在进化心理学里找相同处 跨领域的人谈论的时候他们都谈论什么 跨文化和跨物种的人又谈论什么﹖ 我们总共找到五种 我们称它们为五种道德基础
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.
第一种是伤害-照护 我们都是哺乳类﹐我们都有许多神经和荷尔蒙程序 让我们与他人联结﹐关怀他人 同情他人﹐尤其那些脆弱容易受伤的人 让我们对那些造成伤害的人有强烈感觉 这个道德基础含括了我在TED所听到的 七成的道德陈述
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.
第二个道德基础是公平-相等 有一些模糊的证据 证明你是否能在其它动物身上找到相互性 但在人类身上的例子却再清楚不过了 这幅 Norman Rockwell 的画叫做“金科玉律” Karen Armstrong 也告诉我们 这是很多宗教的基础 第二哥道德基础含括了我在TED所听到的 另外三成的道德陈诉
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.
第三个基础是团队忠诚 你可以在动物里面找到群体 你可以找到合作团队 但这些组织通常不是很小或是牠们都是兄弟姐妹 只有在人类的世界里你看到一大群人 彼此相处﹐一起合作 但在这例子里﹐团队合作是为了和其它团队斗争 这大概是来自我们长时间的部落生态﹐部落心理 这种部落心态实在太愉快了 就算我们已经不在部落里了 我们还是照样因为好玩
(Laughter)
(笑声)
Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient drives.
运动和战争就像A片和性的关系 我们借此发泄那些古老的欲望
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.
第四种道德基础是权威-尊敬 从这里你可以看到两种非常接近的物种的服从姿态 但人类的权威不是以权力和暴力为基础 像其它动物 而是以自愿的服从﹐ 有时候甚至是爱的元素
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.
第五种基础是纯洁- 神圣 这幅画是“贞节的寓意” 但纯洁不只是压抑女性性欲 而是任何理想﹐任何想法 告诉你只要控制你的身体 你便可以成善 只要控制进入你身体的东西 右翼喜欢谈论性方面的道德 左翼喜欢用食物 今日食物变成一种道德指标 这些观点也来自纯洁 有关你愿意触摸和放进身体的东西
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?
我相信这是五个最好的候选人 在我们道德思想的初稿上 我相信这是我们与生俱来的 做好准备要来学习这些东西 但我的儿子 Max 在一个自由派的大学城里长大 这个初稿将如何被改写﹖ 和在我们南部六十里的乡下 生下来的孩子 又会有什么不同﹖
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.
当我们想到这些多样文化的时候﹐让我们试试其它隐喻 如果真的有着五种系统在我们想法里 五种情绪和直觉的来源 我们可以把道德感 当做音响有五种频道的均衡器 你可以在不同频道选择不同的程度 我的同事 Brian Nosek, Jesse Graham 和我 做了一个问卷﹐放在www.YourMorals.org网站上 目前为止已经有三万人填写了这个问卷﹐你也可以 结果在这里 这里是两万三千个美国公民的结果 左边是自由派的分数 右边是保守派的﹐中间是中立 蓝线是你们的回应 在所有有关伤害的问题上
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.
你可以看到﹐人们真的很关心伤害和照护的问题 他们很支持这方面的陈述 在整个表上﹐但你也可以看到 自由派比保守派更在乎一些﹐线慢慢降了下来 公平也是一样 但看看其它三条线 自由派的分数非常低 基本上自由派是说“这根本不是道德。 团体 权威 纯洁 - 这些东西和道德一点关系也没有。我拒绝。” 但当人越保守﹐这些价值便提升 我们可以说自由派有一种 - 双频 或是双基础的道德 保守派则是有五基础 或是五频的道德
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.
我们在每个国家都看到一样的情形 这是一千多个加拿大人的数据 我会翻过一些其它的国家 英国﹐澳洲 纽西兰 西欧 东欧 拉丁美洲 中东 中亚 和南亚 你可以看到在这些图表上 在团体 权威 纯洁的差异更大 这告诉我们在任何国家 歧见并不是来自伤害和公平 我们讨论什么是公平 但每个人都认同伤害和公平是要紧的 在文化中的道德讨论 通常都与团队 权威 纯洁有关
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."
无论我们怎么提出问题﹐效果还是很明显。 在最近的一项研究中 我们问人们﹕如果你们要买狗 你选择了一种特别的品种 后来你知道有关这些品种的一些事 或许你学到这个特别的品种会独立思考 并且把主人当做平等的朋友 如果你是自由派你会说“哇!那太好了!” 因为自由派喜欢说“去接!”
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
但如果你是保守派﹐这就不是太好 如果你是保守派﹐你知道这只狗对牠的家庭非常忠诚 不会很快地和陌生人混熟 对保守派来说 忠诚很好 狗就是要忠诚 但对自由派来说﹐这听起来 像是这只狗要参加共和党初选了
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
所以你可能说 好 这就是保守派和自由派的差异 但什么让其它三种基础也成为道德呢﹖ 难道它们不是只是极权主义 排他主义和清教主义的基础吗﹖ 什么让它们变成道德﹖ 答案﹐我想﹐就存在布殊这个三联图中 “世俗欲望的乐园。” 在第一幅图里﹐我们看到创造世界时 一切都有秩序﹐一些都很美丽﹐所有的人和动物 都在它们应该在的地方做他们应该做的事情 但因为世俗的一切 事情开始改变 人们开始任意而为 和任何人和任何动物 在座的某些人可能会发现这是60年代
(Laughter)
(笑声)
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.
但60年代终究被70年代取代 这些裂缝开始令人痛苦 当然 布殊称这为地狱 在这个三联画中﹐三片图 描绘了秩序逐渐腐败的真实 社会消减的事实
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.
你们可能只会想这只是基督徒的想象 因为基督徒老是要跟欢愉过不去 这里有一个一样的故事 一样的演进 在自然杂志中刊登的一篇文章里 Ernst Fehr 和 Simon Gachter 要人们思考一个常见的难题 你给人们钱 然后在每一轮游戏结束前 他们可以把钱放进一个共享壶里 实验者把里面的钱变双份 然后再分给所有玩家 这就像许多环境议题 我们要求人们做出牺牲 他们自己不会从牺牲中得到什么 但你总是要其它人牺牲 但人总有搭便车的想法 刚开始﹐人们较为合作 这是无名制的 -- 第一轮﹐人们给出一半的钱 但他们很快知道”说真的﹐其它人没有做这么多。 我才不是笨蛋。我不要合作。“ 于是合作关系很快的从还不错﹐落到几乎没有 但是 - 诀窍在这
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.
Fehr 和 Gachter 在第七轮的时候和每个人说 ”好的﹐新规则 如果你要给一些钱 来惩罚那些没有贡献的人﹐你可以这样做。“ 当人们听到惩罚的时候 马上变得合作 不但合作 而且继续加强 有许多研究表示在解决合作问题上 这有明显的帮助 只靠人们的好心并不够 有些惩罚会更好 就算只是羞辱或是被谈论 你需要惩罚 让人们在大的群体里合作 甚至有些最近的研究谈到宗教 让人们想到神 往往让人们懂得合作 更符合社会期待
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.
某些人认为宗教是一种适应作用 来自文化和生理进化 让群体可以合作 让人们何以互信 在与他人竞争时能够更有效 我想这大概是真的 虽然这是个争议性很大的话题 但我对宗教特别有兴趣 宗教的来源﹐他为我们和对我们做了什么 因为我认为最大的奇景不是大峡谷 大峡谷很简单 很多石头 很多水和风 很多时间 你就能得到大峡谷 一点也不复杂 复杂的是 那些住在大峡谷这样的地方的人 彼此合作﹐或在非洲的撒哈拉沙漠 或在阿拉斯加的冰岸﹐和那些村庄 逐渐变成伟大城市像巴比伦﹐罗马 湖中之城提诺契特兰 这是怎么发生的﹖ 这完全是奇迹﹐比大峡谷更难解释
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."
答案﹐我想﹐是他们用了所有工具盒里面的工具 用了所有道德心理学 创造了这些合作团队 是﹐你需要想到伤害 你需要想到正义 但如果你有一些小团队﹐便很容易组织大团队 这些小团队中有一些内部组织 如果你有一些理想可以告诉人 压制他们的欲望 去追求更高的 更荣耀的理想 现在我们来到自由派和保守派 歧义的交会处 因为自由派拒绝其中三个基础 他们说”不﹐我们应该要支持多样性 不要搞一些小圈圈。“ 他们说”让我们质疑权威。“ 他们说”不要给我这些法律。“
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.
自由派这样做有着崇高的动机 传统的权威﹐传统的道德 时常压制那些 在底层的人 女人 那些不符合社会标准的人 所以自由派为了那些受压迫的弱者说话 他们要改变 要正义 就算可能造成混乱 这个人的衣服上说”少放屁﹐去革命“ 如果你很喜欢经历新事 革命是好的 它是改变 它很有趣 保守派﹐在另一边 为传统和制度发声 他们要秩序﹐就算有可能要牺牲底层的人 保守派的心理是 秩序是非常难达成的 很珍贵 很容易就失去了 所以 Edmund Burke 说”人们的束缚 和他们的自由﹐是在他们的权利上。“ 这是在法国大革命的混乱后 只要你看清这一点 自由派和保守派都能有一些贡献 他们能在改变和稳定中找到平衡 -- 我想重点是试着踏出我们的道德框架
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.
这是所有亚洲宗教都有的特性 想想阴阳 阴阳不是敌人﹐阴阳不互相仇恨 阴阳都是必须的﹐像日夜 让世界继续转动 你在印度教中也能看到 印度教有很多大神 其中两位是守护神毗瑟挐﹐和破坏神湿婆 这个图片是两个神使用同一个身体 左边有毗瑟挐的特质 你可以想他是保护神 右边有湿婆的特质 湿婆是个自由派 - 祂们一起合作
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?
你在佛教里也可以找到一样的例子 这两个小句有深深的寓意 或许是道德心理学从来没达到的境界 来自禅宗的僧璨 至道无难,唯嫌拣择。 违顺相争,是为心病。“ 很不幸的﹐这种心病 许多世界的伟大领袖都有 但在你感觉自己比小布什好很多前 在你对他扔石头前﹐先自问﹕我接受吗﹖ 我能跨出善恶论吗﹖ 我能不支持和反对任何事情吗
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?
重点是什么 我该怎么做 你可以在伟大的古代亚洲宗教和哲学里 找到答案 将这些答案加上最新的道德心理学研究 你会有这三个结论﹕ 我们的脑子被进化所设计 要我们成为一个团队 让我们和其它团队分开 让我们无视真理 你该怎么做﹖难道我要你放弃努力 我是要你拥抱僧璨 然后停止这些支持和反对的想法吗﹖
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.
绝对不是。这不是我要说的 有许多了不起的人做了许多事 用他们的才能﹐他们的技能 他们的精力和金钱 让世界变得更好﹐去争取 打击错误﹐解决问题 但就像我们在 Samantha Power 的故事里学到的 像 Sergio Vieira de Mello﹐你不能直接杀进去 然后说”你错了 我对了“ 因为﹐就像我们刚刚听到的 每个人都以为自己是对的
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.
有太多我们需要解决的问题 是那些需要我们去改变他人的问题 如果你想要改变他人﹐一个比较好的方法是 先了解我们是谁 -- 了解我们自己的道德心理 了解我们都认为自己是对的﹐然后跨出去 就算只是一下子﹐跨出去 想想僧璨 跨出你的道德框架 尝试当做这只是每个人认为自己是对的人 的一种拔河 每个人﹐就算你不认同他们 都有自己的理由 每个人做事都有自己的理由 跨出去 如果你这样做﹐你便可以培养道德谦逊 让你自己离开这个自以为义 一种正常人类的心理 想想达赖喇嘛 想想达赖喇嘛巨大的道德权威 这是来自他的道德谦逊
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.
我想我谈话的重点是 TED的重点是 这是一个热情的想要 让世界变得更好的团体 人们热情的希望 让世界变得更好 同时也有一种接近真理的希望 我想答案是保持你的热情﹐寻找真理 然后把它变成更好的未来
Thank you.
谢谢你。
(Applause)
(掌声)