I'm going to talk about compassion and the golden rule from a secular perspective and even from a kind of scientific perspective. I'm going to try to give you a little bit of a natural history of compassion and the golden rule. So, I'm going to be sometimes using kind of clinical language, and so it's not going to sound as warm and fuzzy as your average compassion talk. I want to warn you about that.
Voi vorbi despre compasiune si despre regula de aur din perspectiva laica si într-un fel din perspectiva stiintifica. Voi incerca sa va ofer un pic din istoria progresiva a compasiunii si a regulii de aur. Uneori voi folosi limbaj clinic asa ca nu va suna recomfortant ca discutiile obisnuite despre compasiune. Vreau sa va previn.
So, I do want to say, at the outset, that I think compassion's great. The golden rule is great. I'm a big supporter of both. And I think it's great that the leaders of the religions of the world are affirming compassion and the golden rule as fundamental principles that are integral to their faiths.
Subliniez de la bun inceput: Compasiunea e minunata. Regula de aur e minunata. Sunt un mare fan al ambelor. Si cred ca e minunat ca religiile lumii, liderii religiilor lumii declara compasiunea si regula de aur ca principii fundamentale indispensabile credintei lor.
At the same time, I think religions don't deserve all the credit. I think nature gave them a helping hand here. I'm going to argue tonight that compassion and the golden rule are, in a certain sense, built into human nature. But I'm also going to argue that once you understand the sense in which they are built into human nature, you realize that just affirming compassion, and affirming the golden rule, is really not enough. There's a lot of work to be done after that.
In acelasi timp nu cred ca religiile merita tot creditul. Natura le-a dat o mana de ajutor aici. Voi demonstra in seara aceasta ca regula de aur si compasiunea sunt, intr-un fel, intrinseci naturii umane. Dar de asemenea voi dovedi ca odata ce intelegem felul in care sunt intrinseci naturii umane realizam ca doar afirmarea compasiunii si a regulii de aur nu e suficienta. Multa munca trebuie sa urmeze.
OK so, a quick natural history, first of compassion. In the beginning, there was compassion, and I mean not just when human beings first showed up, but actually even before that. I think it's probably the case that, in the human evolutionary lineage, even before there were homo sapiens, feelings like compassion and love and sympathy had earned their way into the gene pool, and biologists have a pretty clear idea of how this first happened.
O scurta lectie de istoria compasiunii: La inceput exista compasiunea si nu ma refer doar la momentul aparitiei fiintelor umane, ci chiar inainte de asta. Cred ca, probabil in linia evolutiei umane, inainte chiar de a exista Homo sapiens, sentimente cum ar fi compasiunea, iubirea si simpatia si-au facut oarecum loc in fondul genetic, si biologii au o idee destul de clara cum s-a intamplat asta prima data.
It happened through a principle known as kin selection. And the basic idea of kin selection is that, if an animal feels compassion for a close relative, and this compassion leads the animal to help the relative, then, in the end, the compassion actually winds up helping the genes underlying the compassion itself. So, from a biologist's point of view, compassion is actually a gene's way of helping itself. OK.
S-a intamplat prin aplicarea principiului cunoscut de selectia aproapelui. Ideea de baza a selectiei aproapelui e aceea ca daca un animal simte compasiune pentru o ruda apropiata si aceasta compasiune determina animalul sa-si ajute ruda, atunci, compasiunea va sfarsi prin a ajuta genele în perpetuarea compasiunii. Deci, din punctul de vedere al unui biolog, compasiunea e de fapt modalitatea prin care o gena se ajuta pe sine insasi.
I warned you this was not going to be very warm and fuzzy. I'll get there -- I hope to get a little fuzzier. This doesn't bother me so much, that the underlying Darwinian rationale of compassion is kind of self-serving at the genetic level. Actually, I think the bad news about kin selection is just that it means that this kind of compassion is naturally deployed only within the family. That's the bad news. The good news is compassion is natural. The bad news is that this kin selected compassion is naturally confined to the family.
V-am avertizat ca nu va fi prea placut. Voi ajunge și acolo. Sper sa devina putin mai placut. Pe mine nu ma deranjeaza foarte mult, ca rationamentul darwinist asupra compasiunii e interesul propriu, la nivel genetic. De fapt, vestea proasta in selectia aproapelui e ca acest gen de compasiune e implementat in mod firesc doar in cadrul familiei. Asta-i partea proasta. Partea buna e că această compasiunea e fireasca. Vestea proasta e ca aceasta compasiune ce tine de favorizarea aproapelui e in mod natural limitata la familie.
Now, there's more good news that came along later in evolution, a second kind of evolutionary logic. Biologists call that "reciprocal altruism." OK. And there, the basic idea is that compassion leads you to do good things for people who then will return the favor. Again, I know this is not as inspiring a notion of compassion as you may have heard in the past, but from a biologist's point of view, this reciprocal altruism kind of compassion is ultimately self-serving too. It's not that people think that, when they feel the compassion. It's not consciously self-serving, but to a biologist, that's the logic. And so, you wind up most easily extending compassion to friends and allies.
Mai sunt vesti bune care au aparut de-a lungul evolutiei, un al doilea gen de logica evolutiva. Biologii o numesc altruism reciproc. Aici, ideea principala este: Compasiunea va determina sa faceti lucruri bune pentru persoane care, mai apoi, vor returna favorul. Stiu ca aceasta persectiva asupra compasiunii nu-i exaltantă ca altele auzite in trecut. dar, din perspectiva unui biolog, compasiunea altruismului reciproc opereaza din interes propriu. Oamenii nu sunt constienti de asta cand simt compasiune. Nu opereaza constient din interes propriu, dar pentru un biolog, asta e motivatia. Si astfel, ajungem sa extindem compasiunea asupra prietenilor si aliatilor.
I'm sure a lot of you, if a close friend has something really terrible happen to them, you feel really bad. But if you read in the newspaper that something really horrible happened to somebody you've never heard of, you can probably live with that. That's just human nature. So, it's another good news/bad news story. It's good that compassion was extended beyond the family by this kind of evolutionary logic. The bad news is this doesn't bring us universal compassion by itself. So, there's still work to be done.
Sunt sigur ca, daca unui prieten apropiat i s-ar intampla ceva ingrozitor, multora din voi v-ar parea foarte rau. Dar, daca cititi in ziar ca ceva ingrozitor s-a intamplat cuiva de care n-ati auzit niciodata, probabil nu va afecteaza. Asa e natura umana. Deci, asta-i inca o poveste cu vesti bune si rele. E bine ca aceasta compasiune a fost extinsa in afara familiei de aceasta motivatie evolutiva. Vestea proasta e ca nu aduce cu sine compasiunea universala. Deci, mai avem de lucru.
Now, there's one other result of this dynamic called reciprocal altruism, which I think is kind of good news, which is that the way that this is played out in the human species, it has given people an intuitive appreciation of the golden rule. I don't quite mean that the golden rule itself is written in our genes, but you can go to a hunter gatherer society that has had no exposure to any of the great religious traditions, no exposure to ethical philosophy, and you'll find, if you spend time with these people, that, basically, they believe that one good turn deserves another, and that bad deeds should be punished. And evolutionary psychologists think that these intuitions have a basis in the genes. So, they do understand that if you want to be treated well, you treat other people well. And it's good to treat other people well. That's close to being a kind of built-in intuition.
Mai exista un rezultat al acestei dinamici de altruism reciproc, care cred ca-i o veste buna, anume ca manifestarea altruismului reciproc in specia umana i-a facut pe oameni sa dobandeasca o apreciere intuitiva a regulii de aur. Nu afirm neaparat ca regula de aur e inscrisa in gene, dar poti merge intr-un trib de vanatori-culegatori care n-au fost expusi niciuneia din marile traditii religioase, niciunei etici filozofice, si veti descoperi, daca veti petrece timp cu acesti oameni, ca, in principiu, ei cred ca o fapta buna merita o alta fapta buna, si ca faptele rele ar trebui pedepsite. Psihologii evolutionisti cred ca aceasta intuitie isi are originea in gene. Deci, ei inteleg ca, daca vrei sa fii tratat bine, trebuie sa-i tratezi bine pe ceilalti. Si e benefic sa-i tratezi pe ceilalti bine. E aproape o intuitie innascuta.
So, that's good news. Now, if you've been paying attention, you're probably anticipating that there's bad news here; we still aren't to universal love, and it's true because, although an appreciation of the golden rule is natural, it's also natural to carve out exceptions to the golden rule.
Deci, asta e partea buna. Acum, daca ati fost atenti, probabil ati anticipat ca exista si vesti proaste, ca n-am ajuns inca la iubirea universala, si, e adevarat pentru ca, desi regula de aur e fireasca, tot firesti sunt si exceptiile de la regula de aur.
I mean, for example, none of us, probably, want to go to prison, but we all think that there are some people who should go to prison. Right? So, we think we should treat them differently than we would want to be treated. Now, we have a rationale for that. We say they did these bad things that make it just that they should go to prison.
De exemplu, niciunul din noi nu vrem sa ajungem la inchisoare, dar cu totii credem ca exista oameni care ar trebui inchisi. Adevarat? Deci gândim c-ar trebui sa-i tratam diferit de cum am vrea noi sa fim tratati. Avem si o explicatie pentru asta. Faptele lor rele ne valideaza convingerea ca trebuie sa ajunga la inchisoare.
None of us really extends the golden rule in truly diffuse and universal fashion. We have the capacity to carve out exceptions, put people in a special category. And the problem is that -- although in the case of sending people to prison, you have this impartial judiciary determining who gets excluded from the golden rule -- that in everyday life, the way we all make these decisions about who we're not going to extend the golden rule to, is we use a much rougher and readier formula. Basically it's just like, if you're my enemy, if you're my rival -- if you're not my friend, if you're not in my family -- I'm much less inclined to apply the golden rule to you.
Niciunul nu extindem regula de aur cu adevarat nelimitat si universal. Avem capacitatea de-a evidentia exceptiile, de a-i include pe oameni in categorii speciale. Si problema e ca in cazul trimiterii oamenilor la inchisoare, aveti impartialitatea determinarii juridice, prin intermediul careia stiti cine e exclus de la regula de aur, dar in viata de zi cu zi, in felul in care luam deciziile cu privire la cei carora nu le vom aplica regula de aur folosim o formula mult mai dura si mai excluxiva, care spune, in principiu: daca esti dusmanul meu, rivalul meu, daca nu esti prietenul meu, daca nu esti din familia mea, sunt mai putin inclinat sa-ti aplic regula de aur.
We all do that, and you see it all over the world. You see it in the Middle East: people who, from Gaza, are firing missiles at Israel. They wouldn't want to have missiles fired at them, but they say, "Well, but the Israelis, or some of them have done things that put them in a special category." The Israelis would not want to have an economic blockade imposed on them, but they impose one on Gaza, and they say, "Well, the Palestinians, or some of them, have brought this on themselves."
Cam toti facem lucrul asta, se vede peste tot in lume. Se vede in Orientul Mijlociu. Oameni din Gaza care arunca proiectile in Israel. N-ar vrea ca ei sa fie tinta proiectilelor, dar spun : "Ei bine, israelienii sau o parte din ei au comis fapte care-i includ intr-o categorie speciala." Israelienii nu si-ar dori sa le fie impusa o blocada economica, dar impun una in Gaza si spun : "Ei bine, palestinienii, sau o parte dintre ei, si-au facut-o cu mana lor."
So, it's these exclusions to the golden rule that amount to a lot of the world's trouble. And it's natural to do that. So, the fact that the golden rule is in some sense built in to us is not, by itself, going to bring us universal love. It's not going to save the world.
Prin urmare, aceasta excludere de la regula de aur sporeste necazurile lumii. E natural firii umane sa faca asa. Deci, desi regula de aur e oarecum innascuta ea nu induce singura dragostea universala. Nu va salva lumea.
Now, there's one piece of good news I have that may save the world. Okay. Are you on the edges of your seats here? Good, because before I tell you about that good news, I'm going to have to take a little excursion through some academic terrain. So, I hope I've got your attention with this promise of good news that may save the world.
Dar am o veste buna care ar putea salva lumea. Stati bine pe scaune? Bine, pentru ca, inainte sa va dau vestea buna, va trebui sa fac o incursiune stiintifica intr-un domeniu academic. Deci, sper ca v-am captat atentia cu promisunea vestii bune care poate salva lumea.
It's this non-zero-sumness stuff you just heard a little bit about. It's just a quick introduction to game theory. This won't hurt. Okay. It's about zero-sum and non-zero-sum games. If you ask what kind of a situation is conducive to people becoming friends and allies, the technical answer is a non-zero-sum situation. And if you ask what kind of situation is conducive to people defining people as enemies, it's a zero-sum situation.
E vorba de 'suma nenula' despre care ati mai auzit cate ceva. Sa facem o introducere sumara in teoria jocului. Nu va strica. E vorba de jocurile cu suma nula si suma nenula. Daca intrebati ce fel de situatie ii determina pe oameni sa devina prieteni si aliati, raspunsul expert este: o situatie cu suma nenula. Daca intrebati ce fel de situatie ii determina pe oameni sa-si defineasca semenii ca dusmani, raspunsul e: o situatie cu suma nula.
So, what do those terms mean? Basically, a zero-sum game is the kind you're used to in sports, where there's a winner and a loser. So, their fortunes add up to zero. So, in tennis, every point is either good for you and bad for the other person, or good for them, bad for you. Either way, your fortunes add up to zero. That's a zero-sum game.
Deci, ce inseamna acesti termeni? Un joc de suma nula e adoptat in toate sporturile, in care exista un invingator si un invins. Deci, succesele lor insumeaza zero. Astfel, in tenis, fiecare punct e fie bun pentru tine si rau pentru celalalt, fie bun pentru oponent dar rau pentru tine. Oricum sansele voastre insumeaza zero. Asta e un joc de suma zero.
Now, if you're playing doubles, then the person on your side of the net is in a non-zero-sum relationship with you, because every point is either good for both of you -- positive, win-win -- or bad for both of you, it's lose-lose. That's a non-zero-sum game. And in real life, there are lots of non-zero-sum games. In the realm of economics, say, if you buy something: that means you'd rather have the merchandise than the money, but the merchant would rather have the money than the merchandise. You both feel you've won. In a war, two allies are playing a non-zero-sum game. It's going to either be win-win or lose-lose for them.
Acum, daca jucati la dublu, coechipierul vostru e intr-o relatie de suma nenula cu voi, pentru ca fiecare punct e fie bun pentru amandoi, pozitiv, castigator-castigator, fie rau pentru amandoi, invins-invins. Acesta e un joc de suma nenula. In viata reala exista multe jocuri de suma nenula. In domeniul economic, de ex., daca achizitionati ceva, inseamna ca preferati sa aveti marfa si nu banii, iar comerciantul prefera sa aiba banii si nu marfa. Amandoi simtiti ca ati castigat. In razboi, doi aliati joaca un joc de suma nenula. Se va incheia fie ca invingator-invingator, fie ca invins-invins.
So, there are lots of non-zero-sum games in real life. And you could basically reformulate what I said earlier, about how compassion is deployed and the golden rule is deployed, by just saying, well, compassion most naturally flows along non-zero-sum channels where people perceive themselves as being in a potentially win-win situation with some of their friends or allies. The deployment of the golden rule most naturally happens along these non-zero-sum channels. So, kind of webs of non-zero-sumness are where you would expect compassion and the golden rule to kind of work their magic. With zero-sum channels you would expect something else.
Deci, sunt multe jocuri de suma nenula in viata reala. Si puteti reformula ceea ce am afirmat mai devreme despre modul in care compasiunea si regula de aur sunt aplicate, concluzionand: compasiunea e oferita firesc pe canalele cu suma nenula, in care oamenii se percep intr-o potentiala situatie de castigator-castigator alaturi de unii prieteni sau aliati. Aplicarea regulii de aur are loc natural in situatii cu sume nenule. Asa ca, aceste rețele de sume nenule sunt sferele unde e de asteptat ca regula de aur si compasiunea sa faca minuni. In situatiile cu suma zero asteptarile sunt diferite.
Okay. So, now you're ready for the good news that I said might save the world. And now I can admit that it might not too, now that I've held your attention for three minutes of technical stuff. But it may. And the good news is that history has naturally expanded these webs of non-zero-sumness, these webs that can be these channels for compassion. You can go back all the way to the stone age: technological evolution -- roads, the wheel, writing, a lot of transportation and communication technologies -- has just inexorably made it so that more people can be in more non-zero-sum relationships with more and more people at greater and greater distances. That's the story of civilization. It's why social organization has grown from the hunter-gatherer village to the ancient state, the empire, and now here we are in a globalized world. And the story of globalization is largely a story of non-zero-sumness.
Acum sunteti pregatiti pentru vestea buna care am spus ca poate salva lumea. Acum pot sa admit ca s-ar putea sa n-o salveze, acum ca v-am retinut atentia trei minute cu lectii teoretice. Dar, s-ar putea s-o salveze totusi. Vestea buna e ca istoria a extins natural aceste retele de suma nenula, aceste canale ale compasiunii. Va puteti intoarce in timp pana in epoca de piatra si cred ca, de la revolutia industriala, drumuri, roata, scrisul multe din tehnologiile folosite in transport si comunicare au facut ca, in mod implacabil, mai multi oameni sa poata fi in relatii de suma nenula cu tot mai multi oameni aflati la distante tot mai mari. Cam asta e istoria civilizatiei. Asta-i motivul pentru care organizarea sociala a evoluat de la satul vanator-culegator la statele antice, la imperii, la lumea globala de astazi. Istoria globalizarii e, in mare, o istorie de sume nenule.
You've probably heard the term "interdependence" applied to the modern world. Well, that's just another term for non-zero-sum. If your fortunes are interdependent with somebody, then you live in a non-zero-sum relationship with them. And you see this all the time in the modern world. You saw it with the recent economic crash, where bad things happen in the economy -- bad for everybody, for much of the world. Good things happen, and it's good for much of the world.
Probabil ati auzit termenul interdependenta aplicat lumii moderne. Asta e un alt termen pt. sumele nenule. Daca succesele voastre sunt interdependente cu ale altora atunci sunteti intr-o relatie de suma nenula cu acestia. Vedeti asta mereu in lumea moderna. Ati vazut recent in recenta criza economica, cand lucruri rele s-au intamplat in economie, resimtite de mare parte a planetei. Daca se intampla lucruri bune e bine pentru mare parte a planetei.
And, you know, I'm happy to say, I think there's really evidence that this non-zero-sum kind of connection can expand the moral compass. I mean, if you look at the American attitudes toward Japanese during World War II -- look at the depictions of Japanese in the American media as just about subhuman, and look at the fact that we dropped atomic bombs, really without giving it much of a thought -- and you compare that to the attitude now, I think part of that is due to a kind of economic interdependence.
Sunt fericit sa afirm ca exista dovezi clare ca aceasta conexiune de suma nenula poate extinde principiile moralitatii. Considerati atitudinea americanilor fata de japonezi in al doilea razboi mondial, uitati-va la descrierile japonezilor in presa americana, ca fiind aproape suboameni, si la faptul ca am aruncat bomba atomica, fara sa gandim prea mult. Comparati acea atitudine cu cea de acum. Cred ca in parte se datoreaza interdependentei economice.
Any form of interdependence, or non-zero-sum relationship forces you to acknowledge the humanity of people. So, I think that's good. And the world is full of non-zero-sum dynamics. Environmental problems, in many ways, put us all in the same boat. And there are non-zero-sum relationships that maybe people aren't aware of.
Orice forma de interdependenta, de relatie de suma nenula, te forțeaza sa conștientizezi umanitatea oamenilor. Cred ca asta-i bine. Iar lumea e plina de dinamici de suma nenula. Problemele de mediu, in multe feluri, ne pun in aceeasi barca. Exista relatii de suma nenula de care oamenii poate nu sunt constienti.
For example, probably a lot of American Christians don't think of themselves as being in a non-zero-sum relationship with Muslims halfway around the world, but they really are, because if these Muslims become happier and happier with their place in the world and feel that they have a place in it, that's good for Americans, because there will be fewer terrorists to threaten American security. If they get less and less happy, that will be bad for Americans.
De ex., poate ca multi crestini americani nu gandesc ca sunt intr-o relatie de suma nenula cu musulmanii din cealalta parte a lumii, dar sunt, pentru ca, daca musulmanii devin mai multumiti cu locul lor in lume si simt ca si-au gasit un loc in ea, e bine pentru americani deoarece vor fi mai putini teroristi sa ameninte siguranta americana. Daca devin tot mai nefericiti, va fi rau pentru americani.
So, there's plenty of non-zero-sumness. And so, the question is: If there's so much non-zero-sumness, why has the world not yet been suffused in love, peace, and understanding? The answer's complicated. It's the occasion for a whole other talk. Certainly, a couple of things are that, first of all, there are a lot of zero-sum situations in the world. And also, sometimes people don't recognize the non-zero-sum dynamics in the world. In both of these areas, I think politicians can play a role.
Deci, sunt destule sume nenule. Intrebarea este : daca sunt atatea sume nenule, de ce lumea n-a fost inundata inca de dragoste, pace si intelegere? Raspunsul e complicat. Poate face subiectul unei alte discutii, dar, cu siguranta, exista doua motive: in primul rand exista in lume multe situatii de suma nula. De asemenea, oamenii nu recunosc uneori dinamica sumelor nenule din lume. Cred ca in ambele aspecte, politicienii pot sa joace un rol.
This isn't only about religion. I think politicians can help foster non-zero-sum relationships, Economic engagement is generally better than blockades and so on, in this regard. And politicians can be aware, and should be aware that, when people around the world are looking at them, are looking at their nation and picking up their cues for whether they are in a zero-sum or a non-zero-sum relationship with a nation -- like, say, America, or any other nation -- human psychology is such that they use cues like: Do we feel we're being respected? Because, you know, historically, if you're not being respected, you're probably not going to wind up in a non-zero-sum, mutually profitable relationship with people. So, we need to be aware of what kind of signals we're sending out. And some of this, again, is in the realm of political work.
Nu e vorba doar de religie. Cred ca politicienii pot stimula relatiile de suma nenula, caci parteneriatele economice sunt mai bune decat blocajul in astfel de situatii. Politicienii pot si ar trebui sa fie constienti ca oamenii din intreaga lume se uita la ei, se uita la natiunile lor, si le interpreteaza mesajele ca o relatie de suma nula sau suma nenula cu o natiune. De ex., America, sau oricare alta, psihologia umana foloseste indicii cum ar fi: Simtim ca suntem respectati? Pentru ca istoric, daca nu esti respectat probabil nu vei ajunge intr-o relatie de suma nenula, din care sa profite ambele parti. Deci, trebuie sa fim constienti de semnalele pe care le transmitem. In parte depind de o politica buna.
If there's one thing I can encourage everyone to do, politicians, religious leaders, and us, it would be what I call "expanding the moral imagination" -- that is to say, your ability to put yourself in the shoes of people in very different circumstances. This is not the same as compassion, but it's conducive to compassion. It opens the channels for compassion. And I'm afraid we have another good news/bad news story, which is that the moral imagination is part of human nature. That's good, but again we tend to deploy it selectively.
Un lucru care incurajez pe toti sa-l faca, politicieni, lideri religiosi si noi toti, este acela de-a extinde imaginatia morala. Asta inseamna abilitatea de-a va pune in locul altor oameni in circumstante foarte diferite. Nu e acelasi lucru cu compasiunea, dar e benefic compasiunii. Deschde caile spre compasiune. Si mi-e teama ca aici avem o alta situatie cu vesti bune si vesti rele, anume ca imaginatia morala face parte din natura umana. Asta e bine, dar din nou tindem s-o implementam selectiv.
Once we define somebody as an enemy, we have trouble putting ourselves in their shoes, just naturally. So, if you want to take a particularly hard case for an American: somebody in Iran who is burning an American flag, and you see them on TV. Well, the average American is going to resist the moral exercise of putting themselves in that person's head and is going to resist the idea that they have much in common with that person. And if you tell them, "Well, they think America disrespects them and even wants to dominate them, and they hate America. Has there ever been somebody who disrespected you so much that you kind of hated them briefly"? You know, they'll resist that comparison and that's natural, that's human.
Odata ce definim o persoana ca fiindu-ne dusman, ne e greu sa ne punem in pielea lui in mod firesc. Daca vreti sa luati un caz dificil, de ex., pentru un american, cineva din Iran, care arde un steag american pe care il vedeti la televizor. Americanii obisnuiti vor fi reticenti in exercitiul moral de a se transpune in mintea acelei persoane si nu vor accepta ideea ca au multe in comun cu acea persona. Ei bine, ei considera ca America nu-i respecta, ca vrea sa-i domine si urasc America. A existat vreodata cineva care v-a dispretuit atat de mult incat pe scurt i-ati cam urat? Vor respinge acea comparatie si e natural, e firesc.
And, similarly, the person in Iran: when you try to humanize somebody in America who said that Islam is evil, they'll have trouble with that. So, it's a very difficult thing to get people to expand the moral imagination to a place it doesn't naturally go. I think it's worth the trouble because, again, it just helps us to understand. If you want to reduce the number of people who are burning flags, it helps to understand what makes them do it. And I think it's good moral exercise.
Si, la fel, o persoana din Iran, cand incercati sa umanizati pe cineva din America care a afirmat ca Islamul e malefic, va avea o problema cu asta. Prin urmare e dificil sa determini oamenii sa-si extinda imaginatia morala intr-o arie in care nu apare firesc. Cred ca merita efortul pentru ca ne ajuta sa intelegem, daca vreti sa reduceti numarul celor care ard steaguri, sa intelegem ce-i determina s-o faca. Si cred ca e un bun exercitiu moral.
I would say here is where religious leaders come in, because religious leaders are good at reframing issues for people, at harnessing the emotional centers of the brain to get people to alter their awareness and reframe the way they think. I mean, religious leaders are kind of in the inspiration business. It's their great calling right now, to get people all around the world better at expanding their moral imaginations, appreciating that in so many ways they're in the same boat.
Asta e domeniul in care liderii religiosi pot interveni, pentru ca ei sunt specialisti in a reformula problemele pentru oameni, captand centrul emotional al creierului pentru a-i determina pe oameni sa inteleaga si sa-si reevalueze gandirea. Vreau sa spun ca liderii religiosi fac afaceri cu inspiratia. E marea lor chemare acum sa-i determine pe oamenii din intreaga lume sa-si extinda imaginatia morala constientizand ca din multe puncte de vedere sunt in aceeasi barca.
I would just sum up the way things look, at least from this secular perspective, as far as compassion and the golden rule go, by saying that it's good news that compassion and the golden rule are in some sense built into human nature. It's unfortunate that they tend to be selectively deployed. And it's going to take real work to change that. But, nobody ever said that doing God's work was going to be easy. Thanks. (Applause)
As rezuma aparenta lucrurilor din perspectiva lumeasca, in ce priveste compasiunea si regula de aur, afirmand ca e o veste buna faptul ca regula de aur si compasiunea sunt intr-un fel innascute naturii umane. E regretabil ca tind sa fie implementate selectiv. Va trebui mult efort pentru a schimba asta. Dar nimeni n-a spus ca a face munca lui Dumnezeu va fi usor. Multumesc. Aplauze.