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?
想像兩個美國人到意大利旅遊 一起去看米開朗基羅的名作“大衛” 當他們和巨大石雕面對面時 兩個人都望著出神 第一個人﹐我們就叫他亞當吧 被完美的人體肌理震懾住了 第二個人 我們就叫他比爾吧 也嚇傻了 - 被那兩腿間的玩意兒 讓我試問 這兩個男人誰比較有可能把票投給小布希 誰投給了高爾﹖
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.
大家不用舉手 因為我們都有一樣的刻板印象 我們都知道是比爾 在這個例子裡﹐刻板印象反映了事實 事實上﹐自由黨員的確比保守黨員 更容易接受新體驗 那些喜歡接受新體驗的人 渴望新鮮 多樣性 新想法 旅行 較難接受新體驗的人喜歡熟悉 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.
如果你知道這些特性 你便能了解人類許多難解的行為 了解為什麼藝術家和會計師如此不同 你可以預測他們喜歡看的書 他們喜歡去的旅遊點 甚至他們的飲食偏好 只要你了解這個特性﹐你便能理解 為什麼這麼多人喜歡去連鎖餐廳吃飯 但你卻一個都不認識
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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."
這個特性也讓我們理解政治 研究這個性格特質的研究者 Robert McCrae 說 “開放的人偏向自由 進步 左翼政治思想” 他們喜歡一個開放 持續改變的社會 “封閉的人偏好保守 傳統 右翼的觀點。” 這個特質也讓我們了解人們所參與的社團組織
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.
這是我在網路上找到的一個組織簡介 怎樣的人會參加一個全球性的社群 歡迎來自各種文化和學科的人 那些想更深刻理解世界的人 同時也是那些想以這些理解讓世界變得更好的人 這是一個叫 TED 的男人寫的 (笑聲)
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.
那麼﹐如果開放性格偏向自由派 同時也預知了你會成為 TED 一員 是否大部份的 TED 成員都是自由黨呢﹖ 讓我們試試
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.
請你舉起手﹐不管你是自由黨﹐中間偏左 在我們所討論的議題上 或是保守黨﹐還有一個第三選項 因為我知道觀眾中還有一些相信自由至上的放任自由主義者 現在﹐舉起你的手來 在聯播臺裡的人也是 讓每個人看看都是誰 如果你是自由黨或中間偏左﹐請舉起手來 請把你的手舉高﹐好 請舉手如果你是放任自由主義者 好 差不多有二十多人 如果你覺得你是中間偏右或保守黨﹐請舉手 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。這就是問題。 如果我們的目標是了解世界 深刻的進一步了解世界 但缺乏道德多樣性讓了解世界變得更難 因為當每個人都分享一樣的價值觀和道德觀 便成為一個團隊﹐一旦進入團隊心理 原本開放的思想就會閉塞 當自由隊在2004年敗選
[United States of Canada / Jesusland]
as it did in 2004, and as it almost did in 2000, we comfort ourselves.
就像在2000年一樣﹐我們自我安慰
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
We try to explain why half of America voted for the other team. We think they must be blinded by religion
我們嘗試自我解釋為什麼有一半美國人投給另外一隊 我們想 他們一定是被宗教蒙蔽 或是純粹愚蠢
[Post-election US map: America / Dumbf*ckistan]
or by simple stupidity.
(笑聲)
(Laughter)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
(Laughter)
如果你認為投給共和黨的另一半美國人
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."
是因為他們被蒙蔽了 我想告訴你的是你被道德母體限制住了 某一種特別的道德母體 所謂的道德母體﹐就像“駭客人物”裡面的大電腦一樣
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 --
但今日我讓你有個選擇 你可以選擇藍色藥丸然後保持在舒適的幻覺中 或是選擇紅色藥丸﹐ 了解道德心理學﹐跨越你的道德母體 因為我知道 --
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
我想這已經回答了我的問題 我本來想問你們要選哪一個﹐我想不需要了 你們都很愛接受新體驗﹐更何況 這看起來很可能很可口 能滿足你們的美食主義 總而言之﹐讓我們選擇紅色藥丸 讓我們學習一些道德心理學﹐看看我們能了解什麼
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.
讓我們從頭開始 道德是什麼﹖它從哪裡來﹖ 心理學中最糟的想法 便是我們像一張白紙一樣出生 發展心理學告訴我們 嬰兒來到世界上時已經知道許多 有關世界和社會 讓他們變得更易學習 卻很難向他人學習 有關這些與生俱來的天賦 有個人說的很好 腦科學家 Gary Marcus 他說“腦的初始組織不是來自經驗 自然提供了第一個版本﹐經驗只能修改 先建不代表不可塑﹔ 而是組織先於經驗。” 那麼道德的第一個版本是什麼﹖ 我和同事 Craig Joseph 閱讀了許多人類學的文獻 有關不同文化的道德 同時也在進化心理學裡找相同處 跨領域的人談論的時候他們都談論什麼 跨文化和跨物種的人又談論什麼﹖ 我們總共找到五種 我們稱它們為五種道德基礎
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.
第一種是傷害-照護 我們都是哺乳類﹐我們都有許多神經和荷爾蒙程式 讓我們與他人聯結﹐關懷他人 同情他人﹐尤其那些脆弱容易受傷的人 讓我們對那些造成傷害的人有強烈感覺 這個道德基礎含括了我在TED所聽到的 七成的道德陳述
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.
第二個道德基礎是公平-相等 有一些模糊的證據 證明你是否能在其他動物身上找到相互性 但在人類身上的例子卻再清楚不過了 這幅 Norman Rockwell 的畫叫做“金科玉律” Karen Armstrong 也告訴我們 這是很多宗教的基礎 第二哥道德基礎含括了我在TED所聽到的 另外三成的道德陳訴
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.
第三個基礎是團隊忠誠 你可以在動物裡面找到群體 你可以找到合作團隊 但這些組織通常不是很小或是牠們都是兄弟姐妹 只有在人類的世界裡你看到一大群人 彼此相處﹐一起合作 但在這例子裡﹐團隊合作是為了和其他團隊鬥爭 這大概是來自我們長時間的部落生態﹐部落心理 這種部落心態實在太愉快了 就算我們已經不在部落裡了 我們還是照樣因為好玩
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient drives.
運動和戰爭就像A片和性的關係 我們借此發泄那些古老的慾望
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.
第四種道德基礎是權威-尊敬 從這裡你可以看到兩種非常接近的物種的服從姿態 但人類的權威不是以權力和暴力為基礎 像其他動物 而是以自願的服從﹐ 有時候甚至是愛的元素
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.
第五種基礎是純潔- 神聖 這幅畫是“貞節的寓意” 但純潔不只是壓抑女性性慾 而是任何理想﹐任何想法 告訴你只要控制你的身體 你便可以成善 只要控制進入你身體的東西 右翼喜歡談論性方面的道德 左翼喜歡用食物 今日食物變成一種道德指標 這些觀點也來自純潔 有關你願意觸摸和放進身體的東西
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?
我相信這是五個最好的候選人 在我們道德思想的初稿上 我相信這是我們與生俱來的 做好準備要來學習這些東西 但我的兒子 Max 在一個自由派的大學城裡長大 這個初稿將如何被改寫﹖ 和在我們南部六十里的鄉下 生下來的孩子 又會有什麼不同﹖
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.
當我們想到這些多樣文化的時候﹐讓我們試試其他隱喻 如果真的有著五種系統在我們想法裡 五種情緒和直覺的來源 我們可以把道德感 當做音響有五種頻道的均衡器 你可以在不同頻道選擇不同的程度 我的同事 Brian Nosek, Jesse Graham 和我 做了一個問卷﹐放在www.YourMorals.org網站上 目前為止已經有三萬人填寫了這個問卷﹐你也可以 結果在這裡 這裡是兩萬三千個美國公民的結果 左邊是自由派的分數 右邊是保守派的﹐中間是中立 藍線是你們的回應 在所有有關傷害的問題上
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﹐人們真的很關心傷害和照護的問題 他們很支持這方面的陳述 在整個表上﹐但你也可以看到 自由派比保守派更在乎一些﹐線慢慢降了下來 公平也是一樣 但看看其他三條線 自由派的分數非常低 基本上自由派是說“這根本不是道德。 團體 權威 純潔 - 這些東西和道德一點關係也沒有。我拒絕。” 但當人越保守﹐這些價值便提昇 我們可以說自由派有一種 - 雙頻 或是雙基礎的道德 保守派則是有五基礎 或是五頻的道德
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.
我們在每個國家都看到一樣的情形 這是一千多個加拿大人的數據 我會翻過一些其他的國家 英國﹐澳洲 紐西蘭 西歐 東歐 拉丁美洲 中東 中亞 和南亞 你可以看到在這些圖表上 在團體 權威 純潔的差異更大 這告訴我們在任何國家 歧見並不是來自傷害和公平 我們討論什麼是公平 但每個人都認同傷害和公平是要緊的 在文化中的道德討論 通常都與團隊 權威 純潔有關
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."
無論我們怎麼提出問題﹐效果還是很明顯。 在最近的一項研究中 我們問人們﹕如果你們要買狗 你選擇了一種特別的品種 後來你知道有關這些品種的一些事 或許你學到這個特別的品種會獨立思考 並且把主人當做平等的朋友 如果你是自由派你會說“哇!那太好了!” 因為自由派喜歡說“去接!”
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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﹐這就不是太好 如果你是保守派﹐你知道這只狗對牠的家庭非常忠誠 不會很快地和陌生人混熟 對保守派來說 忠誠很好 狗就是要忠誠 但對自由派來說﹐這聽起來 像是這隻狗要參加共和黨初選了
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
所以你可能說 好 這就是保守派和自由派的差異 但什麼讓其他三種基礎也成為道德呢﹖ 難道它們不是只是極權主義 排他主義和清教主義的基礎嗎﹖ 什麼讓它們變成道德﹖ 答案﹐我想﹐就存在布殊這個三聯圖中 “世俗慾望的樂園。” 在第一幅圖裡﹐我們看到創造世界時 一切都有秩序﹐一些都很美麗﹐所有的人和動物 都在它們應該在的地方做他們應該做的事情 但因為世俗的一切 事情開始改變 人們開始任意而為 和任何人和任何動物 在座的某些人可能會發現這是60年代
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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年代終究被70年代取代 這些裂縫開始令人痛苦 當然 布殊稱這為地獄 在這個三聯畫中﹐三片圖 描繪了秩序逐漸腐敗的真實 社會消減的事實
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.
你們可能只會想這只是基督徒的想像 因為基督徒老是要跟歡愉過不去 這裡有一個一樣的故事 一樣的演進 在自然雜誌中刊登的一篇文章裡 Ernst Fehr 和 Simon Gachter 要人們思考一個常見的難題 你給人們錢 然後在每一輪游戲結束前 他們可以把錢放進一個共用壺裡 實驗者把裡面的錢變雙份 然後再分給所有玩家 這就像許多環境議題 我們要求人們做出犧牲 他們自己不會從犧牲中得到什麼 但你總是要其他人犧牲 但人總有搭便車的想法 剛開始﹐人們較為合作 這是無名制的 -- 第一輪﹐人們給出一半的錢 但他們很快知道”說真的﹐其他人沒有做這麼多。 我才不是笨蛋。我不要合作。“ 於是合作關係很快的從還不錯﹐落到幾乎沒有 但是 - 訣竅在這
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 在第七輪的時候和每個人說 ”好的﹐新規則 如果你要給一些錢 來懲罰那些沒有貢獻的人﹐你可以這樣做。“ 當人們聽到懲罰的時候 馬上變得合作 不但合作 而且繼續加強 有許多研究表示在解決合作問題上 這有明顯的幫助 只靠人們的好心並不夠 有些懲罰會更好 就算只是羞辱或是被談論 你需要懲罰 讓人們在大的群體裡合作 甚至有些最近的研究談到宗教 讓人們想到神 往往讓人們懂得合作 更符合社會期待
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.
某些人認為宗教是一種適應作用 來自文化和生理進化 讓群體可以合作 讓人們何以互信 在與他人競爭時能夠更有效 我想這大概是真的 雖然這是個爭議性很大的話題 但我對宗教特別有興趣 宗教的來源﹐他為我們和對我們做了什麼 因為我認為最大的奇景不是大峽谷 大峽谷很簡單 很多石頭 很多水和風 很多時間 你就能得到大峽谷 一點也不複雜 複雜的是 那些住在大峽谷這樣的地方的人 彼此合作﹐或在非洲的撒哈拉沙漠 或在阿拉斯加的冰岸﹐和那些村莊 逐漸變成偉大城市像巴比倫﹐羅馬 湖中之城提诺契特兰 這是怎麼發生的﹖ 這完全是奇跡﹐比大峽谷更難解釋
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﹐是他們用了所有工具盒裡面的工具 用了所有道德心理學 創造了這些合作團隊 是﹐你需要想到傷害 你需要想到正義 但如果你有一些小團隊﹐便很容易組織大團隊 這些小團隊中有一些內部組織 如果你有一些理想可以告訴人 壓制他們的慾望 去追求更高的 更榮耀的理想 現在我們來到自由派和保守派 歧義的交會處 因為自由派拒絕其中三個基礎 他們說”不﹐我們應該要支持多樣性 不要搞一些小圈圈。“ 他們說”讓我們質疑權威。“ 他們說”不要給我這些法律。“
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.
自由派這樣做有著崇高的動機 傳統的權威﹐傳統的道德 時常壓制那些 在底層的人 女人 那些不符合社會標準的人 所以自由派為了那些受壓迫的弱者說話 他們要改變 要正義 就算可能造成混亂 這個人的衣服上說”少放屁﹐去革命“ 如果你很喜歡經歷新事 革命是好的 它是改變 它很有趣 保守派﹐在另一邊 為傳統和制度發聲 他們要秩序﹐就算有可能要犧牲底層的人 保守派的心理是 秩序是非常難達成的 很珍貴 很容易就失去了 所以 Edmund Burke 說”人們的束縛 和他們的自由﹐是在他們的權利上。“ 這是在法國大革命的混亂後 只要你看清這一點 自由派和保守派都能有一些貢獻 他們能在改變和穩定中找到平衡 -- 我想重點是試著踏出我們的道德框架
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.
這是所有亞洲宗教都有的特性 想想陰陽 陰陽不是敵人﹐陰陽不互相仇恨 陰陽都是必須的﹐像日夜 讓世界繼續轉動 你在印度教中也能看到 印度教有很多大神 其中兩位是守護神毗瑟挐﹐和破壞神濕婆 這個圖片是兩個神使用同一個身體 左邊有毗瑟挐的特質 你可以想他是保護神 右邊有濕婆的特質 濕婆是個自由派 - 祂們一起合作
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?
你在佛教裡也可以找到一樣的例子 這兩個小句有深深的寓意 或許是道德心理學從來沒達到的境界 來自禪宗的僧璨 至道无难,唯嫌拣择。 违顺相争,是为心病。“ 很不幸的﹐這種心病 許多世界的偉大領袖都有 但在你感覺自己比小布希好很多前 在你對他扔石頭前﹐先自問﹕我接受嗎﹖ 我能跨出善惡論嗎﹖ 我能不支持和反對任何事情嗎
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?
重點是什麼 我該怎麼做 你可以在偉大的古代亞洲宗教和哲學裡 找到答案 將這些答案加上最新的道德心理學研究 你會有這三個結論﹕ 我們的腦子被進化所設計 要我們成為一個團隊 讓我們和其他團隊分開 讓我們無視真理 你該怎麼做﹖難道我要你放棄努力 我是要你擁抱僧璨 然後停止這些支持和反對的想法嗎﹖
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.
絕對不是。這不是我要說的 有許多了不起的人做了許多事 用他們的才能﹐他們的技能 他們的精力和金錢 讓世界變得更好﹐去爭取 打擊錯誤﹐解決問題 但就像我們在 Samantha Power 的故事裡學到的 像 Sergio Vieira de Mello﹐你不能直接殺進去 然後說”你錯了 我對了“ 因為﹐就像我們剛剛聽到的 每個人都以為自己是對的
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.
有太多我們需要解決的問題 是那些需要我們去改變他人的問題 如果你想要改變他人﹐一個比較好的方法是 先了解我們是誰 -- 了解我們自己的道德心理 了解我們都認為自己是對的﹐然後跨出去 就算只是一下子﹐跨出去 想想僧璨 跨出你的道德框架 嘗試當做這只是每個人認為自己是對的人 的一種拔河 每個人﹐就算你不認同他們 都有自己的理由 每個人做事都有自己的理由 跨出去 如果你這樣做﹐你便可以培養道德謙遜 讓你自己離開這個自以為義 一種正常人類的心理 想想達賴喇嘛 想想達賴喇嘛巨大的道德權威 這是來自他的道德謙遜
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.
我想我談話的重點是 TED的重點是 這是一個熱情的想要 讓世界變得更好的團體 人們熱情的希望 讓世界變得更好 同時也有一種接近真理的希望 我想答案是保持你的熱情﹐尋找真理 然後把它變成更好的未來
Thank you.
謝謝你。
(Applause)
(掌聲)