I'm going to speak today about the relationship between science and human values. Now, it's generally understood that questions of morality -- questions of good and evil and right and wrong -- are questions about which science officially has no opinion. It's thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. And, consequently, most people -- I think most people probably here -- think that science will never answer the most important questions in human life: questions like, "What is worth living for?" "What is worth dying for?" "What constitutes a good life?"
今日我要讨论科学和人类价值观 之间的关系 我们一般认为 有关道德问题 善恶对错的概念 是科学所不能解决和参与讨论的 人们认为科学可以帮助我们 得到我们所想要的 却永远无法告诉我们什么是重要的 于是大部分的人,甚至今日坐在这里的各位 认为科学永远无法回答 人类生命中的重要问题 像是”我们为了什么活着?“ ”我们应该为什么牺牲?“ ”什么样的生活,是一个幸福的生活?“
So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion -- that the separation between science and human values is an illusion -- and actually quite a dangerous one at this point in human history. Now, it's often said that science cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values, because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there's no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
我想告诉大家 把科学和人类价值观做分隔 是一种人为假象 是一个非常危险的假象 尤其是在我们的今日社会 人们常说科学 不能作为道德和价值观的基础 因为科学讲求实证 而事实和价值似乎是两种不同层次的事 人们认为,就算把世界的模样 描绘出来 也不能带我们走到乌托邦 但我认为这很明显是错误的 价值自然是一种实证 是人类如何可以获得幸福生活的实证
Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity and the possibilities of experience well then we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.
为什么我们对石头没有任何道德要求? 为什么我们对石头没有仁爱之情? 因为我们不认为石头会受折磨 如果和昆虫做比较 我们比较关心我们自己的物种 那是因为我们认为我们比昆虫 能感受到更大程度的快乐或痛苦 其中的意义是 这个说法是有实证的 这中间是有对错的 如果我们在生物复杂性和知觉体验的关系上 做出了错误的推估 那代表我们有可能错估了昆虫的内心生活
And there's no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I've ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes. Even if you get your values from religion, even if you think that good and evil ultimately relate to conditions after death -- either to an eternity of happiness with God or an eternity of suffering in hell -- you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes. And to say that such changes can persist after death is itself a factual claim, which, of course, may or may not be true.
但是我发觉 从没有一种道德 和价值观 是和人类的感知体验 和尝试改变这感知体验的可能性 无关的 就算你的价值观来自宗教 就算你认为善恶 和死后的结果有关联 永远和神在快乐的国度里逍遥 或是永远在地狱之火中燃烧 这仍然两种不同的感知体验有关 认为这些体验会一直持续到死后的世界 也是在追求一种实证 虽然谁也不知道死后的世界会如何
Now, to speak about the conditions of well-being in this life, for human beings, we know that there is a continuum of such facts. We know that it's possible to live in a failed state, where everything that can go wrong does go wrong -- where mothers cannot feed their children, where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration, where people are murdered indiscriminately. And we know that it's possible to move along this continuum towards something quite a bit more idyllic, to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable.
谈到幸福生活的基础 身为人类,在此生 我们知道有些事实一直存在 我们知道你有可能会住在一个失序的国家 所有东西都有可能出错 母亲无法喂养她们的孩子 人们找不到一个能保障和平的共识 人们被不分青红地谋杀 我们知道我们可以解决这些持续已久的问题 走向一个较为理想的状况 像我们现在这样,齐聚一堂,和平讨论
And we know -- we know -- that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space. Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not. Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye, so that when bad things happened to them they immediately blame their neighbors? Probably not. There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths.
我们知道,清楚知道 想要达到这样的境界 有对的,也有错误的方法 在水中加入霍乱病毒是对的吗? 大概不是 每个人都相信邪恶之眼的魔力 于是当某些不幸事件发生 他们马上就开始怪罪他们的邻舍?大概也不是 我们应该去理解 人类社群迈向繁荣的方法 无论我们现在能不能理解 或把这些事实和道德做联结
So, in talking about values we are talking about facts. Now, of course our situation in the world can be understood at many levels -- from the level of the genome on up to the level of economic systems and political arrangements. But if we're going to talk about human well-being we are, of necessity, talking about the human brain. Because we know that our experience of the world and of ourselves within it is realized in the brain --
当我们讨论价值,我们就是在讨论事实 世界的现况可以用很多不同层次来看 从染色体的层次 一直到经济体系 和政治协议的层次 但如果我们回去思考人类幸福的议题 我们必须谈到人类的大脑 因为我们知道我们对世界的看法、我们的体验和感知 都是由大脑建构的
whatever happens after death. Even if the suicide bomber does get 72 virgins in the afterlife, in this life, his personality -- his rather unfortunate personality -- is the product of his brain. So the contributions of culture -- if culture changes us, as indeed it does, it changes us by changing our brains. And so therefore whatever cultural variation there is in how human beings flourish can, at least in principle, be understood in the context of a maturing science of the mind -- neuroscience, psychology, etc.
无论死后会怎样 就算背着炸弹自杀死后能得到72个处女 在此生,他的人格 这令人遗憾的人格 也是由他的大脑所产出 于是,文化的贡献是 - 是因为文化会改变我们的想法 也就是改变我们大脑的思考模式 于是不管有多少不同文化 对人类的幸福有多少不同想法 都可以原则性地 以成熟的闹内科学作为理解的办法 神经科学、心理学等等
So, what I'm arguing is that value's reduced to facts -- to facts about the conscious experience of conscious beings. And we can therefore visualize a space of possible changes in the experience of these beings. And I think of this as kind of a moral landscape, with peaks and valleys that correspond to differences in the well-being of conscious creatures, both personal and collective. And one thing to notice is that perhaps there are states of human well-being that we rarely access, that few people access. And these await our discovery. Perhaps some of these states can be appropriately called mystical or spiritual. Perhaps there are other states that we can't access because of how our minds are structured but other minds possibly could access them.
我想说的是 价值观可以以事实 有关人类感知体验的事实 作为准则 我们才有可能想象在某个情况下 来改变这些人的体验 这就像一片道德风景 有不同的山巅和峡谷 像是人类对于幸福生活的不同感知 无论是个人或群体的 我们该注意的是 或许有个人类幸福的所在 是我们从来没有去过的,很少人能达到的体验 正在等待我们去发掘 或许这些体验就是我们所说的 神秘或灵性的体验 或许有些是我们根本无法体验的 因为我们的大脑有自己的回路 但其它人却有可能可以到达
Now, let me be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that science is guaranteed to map this space, or that we will have scientific answers to every conceivable moral question. I don't think, for instance, that you will one day consult a supercomputer to learn whether you should have a second child, or whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, or whether you can deduct the full cost of TED as a business expense. (Laughter) But if questions affect human well-being then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them. And just admitting this -- just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish -- will change the way we talk about morality, and will change our expectations of human cooperation in the future.
我必须澄清,我并不是说 科学可以完全地为我们画出这份幸福地图 或是科学可以回答所有的 道德争议 举例来说,我并不认为 某天我们会和电脑商量我们是不是该生第二胎 或是我们是不是应该轰炸伊朗的核子设备 或是参加TED演讲的经费是不是可以向公司报账 (大笑) 但如果这个问题是影响到人身幸福的 他们是有答案的,无论我们找不着得到 承认吧 当我们尝试解决人类幸福的问题 是可能会有错误答案的 承认这个事实能改变我们讨论道德的方法 也会改变我们在合作共创未来时 所期待的结果
For instance, there are 21 states in our country where corporal punishment in the classroom is legal, where it is legal for a teacher to beat a child with a wooden board, hard, and raising large bruises and blisters and even breaking the skin. And hundreds of thousands of children, incidentally, are subjected to this every year. The locations of these enlightened districts, I think, will fail to surprise you. We're not talking about Connecticut.
举例来说,在美国还有21个州 在课堂上进行体罚是合法的 老师可以合法的用木板 把孩子打得瘀伤、起水泡、甚至破皮 每年有千百个孩子 都在遭受这样的待遇 而且我认为,你会很吃惊,这都是些什么省份 不是康涅狄格州
And the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious. The creator of the universe himself has told us not to spare the rod, lest we spoil the child -- this is in Proverbs 13 and 20, and I believe, 23. But we can ask the obvious question: Is it a good idea, generally speaking, to subject children to pain and violence and public humiliation as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development and good behavior? (Laughter) Is there any doubt that this question has an answer, and that it matters?
宗教往往是这些做法背后的理由 创造宇宙的造物主说 告诉我们不要”不忍用仗“ 不然会宠坏孩子 这是《旧约箴言》第13章20,和23节 我们可以问一个简单的问题 以常理判断 让孩子经历这样的痛苦 暴力和在众人面前被羞辱 会带来健康的情绪发展 和良好行为模式吗? (笑声) 我们之中有人怀疑 这个问题不但有解答 而且对我们来说很重要?
Now, many of you might worry that the notion of well-being is truly undefined, and seemingly perpetually open to be re-construed. And so, how therefore can there be an objective notion of well-being? Well, consider by analogy, the concept of physical health. The concept of physical health is undefined. As we just heard from Michael Specter, it has changed over the years. When this statue was carved the average life expectancy was probably 30. It's now around 80 in the developed world. There may come a time when we meddle with our genomes in such a way that not being able to run a marathon at age 200 will be considered a profound disability. People will send you donations when you're in that condition. (Laughter)
或许在你们之中,有许多人会担心 这所谓的幸福该如何界定 这似乎没有一定的标准 而且,怎么可能有一种完全客观的 ”人身幸福“的标准存在呢? 如果是这样,难道因为对身体健康的概念 没有一个真正的定论 如同 Michael Specter 适才说道,这些概念也会改变 在这个雕像产生的年代 人类的平均寿命是30 现在已发展国家的平均寿命是80 也许有一天,因为我们对基因的研究 200岁不能跑马拉松 是一种残疾 如果你有这种状况,人们会捐钱给你 (笑声)
Notice that the fact that the concept of health is open, genuinely open for revision, does not make it vacuous. The distinction between a healthy person and a dead one is about as clear and consequential as any we make in science. Another thing to notice is there may be many peaks on the moral landscape: There may be equivalent ways to thrive; there may be equivalent ways to organize a human society so as to maximize human flourishing.
我们知道健康的观念会改变 随时都可以重新思考 这不代表这些讨论是毫无意义的 一个健康的人和一个死人 之间的差别 在科学或理论里是一样的 另外一个该注意的事情是道德地图上虽然有很多山巅 是有可能可以一起努力 一起找出一个管理人类社会的方法 一起找出最大的幸福
Now, why wouldn't this undermine an objective morality? Well think of how we talk about food: I would never be tempted to argue to you that there must be one right food to eat. There is clearly a range of materials that constitute healthy food. But there's nevertheless a clear distinction between food and poison. The fact that there are many right answers to the question, "What is food?" does not tempt us to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition. Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions.
为什么我们不能将这个 当作客观道德的基础? 想象我们讨论食物的方式 我永远不会和你争辩 人类应该有吃的自由 一个健康的饮食方式中 有许多不同食物 但从没有人会把食物和毒物 搞错 当我们问”什么是食物?“的时候 有许多正确答案 并不会阻止我们 去研究营养学,找出更多事实 许多人担心 普世道德必须有一种 严厉的基本教义,不允许例外
So, for instance, if it's really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie, and if you can find an exception, well then there's no such thing as moral truth. Why would we think this? Consider, by analogy, the game of chess. Now, if you're going to play good chess, a principle like, "Don't lose your Queen," is very good to follow. But it clearly admits some exceptions. There are moments when losing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do. There are moments when it is the only good thing you can do. And yet, chess is a domain of perfect objectivity. The fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all.
比如说,说谎是错误的 说谎永远是错误的 如果你能找到例外的话 这就不是真正的道德 为什么我们会这样想 让我们以国际象棋为例 如果你想玩一盘漂亮的国际象棋 ”别失去你的皇后“ 是一个很好的原则 但它也有例外 在某些时候牺牲皇后是一种很漂亮的打法 在某些必要时刻,那是你唯一能做的 但国际象棋是一个绝对客观的游戏 就算在棋局中允许例外 也不会改变这个事实
Now, this brings us to the sorts of moves that people are apt to make in the moral sphere. Consider the great problem of women's bodies: What to do about them? Well this is one thing you can do about them: You can cover them up. Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that while we may not like this, we might think of this as "wrong" in Boston or Palo Alto, who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags? And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong to beat them with lengths of steel cable, or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?
在这个道德的场域里 有些事是我们应该做的 想想女性身体政治 我们该怎么做? 有个方法是 你可以把它们盖起来 普遍来说,我们的学术界是这样想的 虽然我们不喜欢这样 我们觉得这样是错误的 在波士顿或帕羅奧多 但我们怎么能说 这些古老文化的骄傲后裔 不应该强迫它们的妻子和女儿 住在衣袋里? 我们怎么能说,他们是错误的 当他们用钢索痛打她们 或是把强酸泼到她们脸上 如果她们拒绝被这样对待?
Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well-being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this? I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil -- women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?
我们凭什么可以这样说呢? 我们怎么可以装作 我们完全不了解人类的幸福 或是我们应该对此类行为保持中立? 我不是在说那些自发性的蒙头 我认为女人应该想穿什么就穿什么 但自发性是什么意思? 在一个女孩被强暴 他的父亲的第一个反应 往往是谋杀她以免羞愧 的这种社会,自发性是什么意思?
Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her. What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?
让这些事实在你脑中转一转: 你的女儿被强暴了 你的反应竟然是杀掉她 请问你真的觉得这应该是 人类幸福的一个可能吗?
Now, to say this is not to say that we have got the perfect solution in our own society. For instance, this is what it's like to go to a newsstand almost anywhere in the civilized world. Now, granted, for many men it may require a degree in philosophy to see something wrong with these images. (Laughter) But if we are in a reflective mood, we can ask, "Is this the perfect expression of psychological balance with respect to variables like youth and beauty and women's bodies?" I mean, is this the optimal environment in which to raise our children? Probably not. OK, so perhaps there's some place on the spectrum between these two extremes that represents a place of better balance. (Applause) Perhaps there are many such places --
我这么说,并不是说我们的社会 有最完美的解答 举例来说 现在你到任何文明国家的报摊 都可以看到这样的景象 我必须承认,对大部分的男人来说 可能需要有博士学位才会觉得这有什么不对 (笑声) 但在我们自省的时候 我们也可以想 “这样的东西会让我们 学习尊重不同女性的 年龄和肉体吗?” 难道我们会希望我们的孩子 生在在这种视觉环境里吗? 大概不会。 于是在这两个极端中 应该有一个中间点 能带来一种比较健康的平衡 (掌声) 或许这个平衡点不止一个
again, given other changes in human culture there may be many peaks on the moral landscape. But the thing to notice is that there will be many more ways not to be on a peak. Now the irony, from my perspective, is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues of one form or another.
在这个多元的世界里 我们的道德地图应该有许多不同的山峰 但重点是 这世界上还有许多不是这些山峰的地方 在我看来,讽刺的事情是 一般会认同我说法的 那些觉得道德争议是有正确和错误答案的 大都是一些宗教家
And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being. In fact, the endurance of religion as a lens through which most people view moral questions has separated most moral talk from real questions of human and animal suffering. This is why we spend our time talking about things like gay marriage and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation or poverty or any other hugely consequential issue. But the demagogues are right about one thing: We need a universal conception of human values.
他们当然会觉得道德争议有正确答案 因为他们已经在神秘之声中听到这些答案了 而不是因为他们理智思考和分析过这些议题 人类和动物的幸福快乐 事实上,在许久以来 宗教成为人们关注道德的角度 让所有的道德议题 都和人类和动物的痛苦脱钩 这就是为什么我们花费精神 讨论同性恋是不是应该结婚 而不是种族灭绝或是核子武器激增 或是贫穷和其它一样严重的议题 但这些宗教煽动者说对了一件事 我们需要一个普世价值
Now, what stands in the way of this? Well, one thing to notice is that we do something different when talking about morality -- especially secular, academic, scientist types. When talking about morality we value differences of opinion in a way that we don't in any other area of our lives. So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning meditating on compassion, and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component of human happiness. On the other hand, we have someone like Ted Bundy; Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping and torturing and killing young women.
为什么这会这么困难? 其中一件是就是当我们讨论道德 我们这些没有特殊宗教的、学术的、科学家型的人 就会产生差别待遇 当我们讨论道德,我们就开始尊重不同意见 但我们在其它方面不会这样做 举例来说,达赖喇嘛每天早上起来 思考仁爱精神 他认为帮助其它人类是 带来人类快乐的一部分 另外一边我们有 Ted Bundy 他的兴趣是绑架和强暴 虐待和杀害这些年轻女孩
So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion about how to profitably use one's time. (Laughter) Most Western intellectuals look at this situation and say, "Well, there's nothing for the Dalai Lama to be really right about -- really right about -- or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that admits of a real argument that potentially falls within the purview of science. He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla. There's nothing that one should be able to say to the other that should persuade the other." Notice that we don't do this in science.
很明显的,这里我们看到每个人对打发时间 都有不同的看法 (笑声) 大部分的西方学者 看到这个状况 会说,“嗯事实上达赖喇嘛也不是 完全正确,绝对正确 Ted Bundy 也不是绝对错误 这其中没有真正的讨论价值 这是科学范畴的事 他喜欢巧克力,他喜欢香草 无论跟他们说什么 都不能改变他们。” 但我们不会这样讨论科学
On the left you have Edward Witten. He's a string theorist. If you ask the smartest physicists around who is the smartest physicist around, in my experience half of them will say Ed Witten. The other half will tell you they don't like the question. (Laughter) So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,"String theory is bogus. It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I'm not a fan." (Laughter) Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist; I don't understand string theory. I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory. (Laughter) I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.
左边这位是爱德华·威滕 他是弦理论的专家 如果你问你旁边最聪明的物理学家 谁是世界上最聪明的物理学家 我的经验是一半都会说是爱德华·威滕 另外一半会告诉你”她们不喜欢这个问题“ (笑声) 那么,如果我出现在一个物理研讨会 然后说”弦理论是个假货 我对它没有感觉,这不是我选择 的宇宙观 我不是那派的。“ (笑声) 什么都不会发生,因为我不是物理学家 我不懂弦理论 我是弦理论的 Ted Bundy (笑声) 我不想加入任何愿意接受我的弦理论社团
But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count. How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering? Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. (Laughter) How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human well-being? (Applause)
这就是重点 当我们谈论事实 我们必须排除某些意见 那就是为什么我们有专业 那就是为什么我们应该依靠知识 无论我们怎么和自己说 在道德里没有所谓的道德专家 道德人才,或甚至道德天才 为什么我们要说服自己 所有的意见都应该纳入考虑? 我们是怎么说服自己 所有的文化对这些事情都有自己的观点 而我们都应该把他们纳入考量? 难道塔利班 对物理学的意见 也值得我们考虑吗?不。 (笑声) 但他们对幸福的无知 和他们对物理的无知有什么不同? (掌声)
So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures, to care about the wrong things, which is to say that it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality. We live in a world in which the boundaries between nations mean less and less, and they will one day mean nothing.
现在世界所需要的是 像我们这样的人们承认 在人类的幸福问题中 是有正确和错误答案的 以及道德 是和事实有直接关联的 个人 或整个文化 过分关心某些错误议题是绝对可能的 他们的信仰和想法也绝对有可能 为人类带来 无必要的痛苦 承认这些事实会改变我们讨论道德的方式 在今日世界中 国界的意义不断减弱 有一天国界将没有任何意义
We live in a world filled with destructive technology, and this technology cannot be uninvented; it will always be easier to break things than to fix them. It seems to me, therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers. Thank you very much. (Applause)
我们住在一个充满危险科技的世界 这些科技可以不要被发明 因为捣毁一样事情 永远比重建容易 我认为,很明显地 我们不能再 尊重和容忍这些 对人类幸福的不同观点 就像我们不会尊重和容忍 传染病的散播 或是建筑和飞机的安全标准 我们必须承认,这些问题 能找到解答,才有可能 回答人类生命中最重要的这些问题。 谢谢大家。 (掌声)
Chris Anderson: So, some combustible material there. Whether in this audience or people elsewhere in the world, hearing some of this, may well be doing the screaming-with-rage thing, after as well, some of them.
Chris Anderson:让我提出一些争议性的问题 这里有某些人,或现在在世界上别的角落 可能有人听见这个 然后愤怒或尖叫。某些人。
Language seems to be really important here. When you're talking about the veil, you're talking about women dressed in cloth bags. I've lived in the Muslim world, spoken with a lot of Muslim women. And some of them would say something else. They would say, "No, you know, this is a celebration of female specialness, it helps build that and it's a result of the fact that" -- and this is arguably a sophisticated psychological view -- "that male lust is not to be trusted." I mean, can you engage in a conversation with that kind of woman without seeming kind of cultural imperialist?
语言似乎是个很重要的元素 但你提到面罩的时候 你是说那些把全身蒙住的女人吗 我曾在回教国家居住,和许多回教妇女谈话 她们可能会有别种想法。她们会说 ”不,这是对女性的一种礼赞 凸显我们是特别的, 这帮助我们这个,而且是因为那个……“ 当然这不是一种非常可靠的心理学论点 ”你不能信任男人的情欲“ 我们是否可以用一种 不带着文化帝国主义的角度和这些女人讨论这些问题
Sam Harris: Yeah, well I think I tried to broach this in a sentence, watching the clock ticking, but the question is: What is voluntary in a context where men have certain expectations, and you're guaranteed to be treated in a certain way if you don't veil yourself? And so, if anyone in this room wanted to wear a veil, or a very funny hat, or tattoo their face -- I think we should be free to voluntarily do whatever we want, but we have to be honest about the constraints that these women are placed under. And so I think we shouldn't be so eager to always take their word for it, especially when it's 120 degrees out and you're wearing a full burqa.
Sam Harris:让我一边看着秒针 一边尝试简短回答这个问题 真正的问题是 这真的是她们的个人意愿吗 在男人期待你戴上面罩 如果不戴就必须承受某种后果 的状况下? 如果在这个房间里 有任何人想要戴面罩 一个非常可笑的帽子,或是在脸上刺青 我想每个人应该做我们想做的,在自愿的情况下 但我们必须诚实面对 这些女人的处境 我认为我们不应该太快地 接受她们的说法 尤其在120度高温 而你竟然必须蒙住全身的状况下
CA: A lot of people want to believe in this concept of moral progress. But can you reconcile that? I think I understood you to say that you could reconcile that with a world that doesn't become one dimensional, where we all have to think the same. Paint your picture of what rolling the clock 50 years forward, 100 years forward, how you would like to think of the world, balancing moral progress with richness.
许多人想要相信 道德进步的这个概念 但是这有可能达到和谐吗? 我想我了解你所说的 不要让世界变得只有一种道德 也不需要大家都只有一种想法 你可以告诉我们 如果我们快转到50年后 100年后,你希望我们的世界 能如何在道德进步和多元文化中 找到平衡
SH: Well, I think once you admit that we are on the path toward understanding our minds at the level of the brain in some important detail, then you have to admit that we are going to understand all of the positive and negative qualities of ourselves in much greater detail. So, we're going to understand positive social emotion like empathy and compassion, and we're going to understand the factors that encourage it -- whether they're genetic, whether they're how people talk to one another, whether they're economic systems, and insofar as we begin to shine light on that we are inevitably going to converge on that fact space.
一旦我们承认 我们走在解构理性的路上 以理解大脑运作的方法 那么你也必须承认 我们将会更明白 我们身上的这些 正面和负面的特质 我们会理解正面的社群特质 像是同情心、仁爱心 我们将会了解是怎样的元素 帮助我们有这些特质 - 无论是基因 是人们对话的方式 是经济体系 我们正要开始发现 并无可避免的步向 这些事实
So, everything is not going to be up for grabs. It's not going to be like veiling my daughter from birth is just as good as teaching her to be confident and well-educated in the context of men who do desire women. I mean I don't think we need an NSF grant to know that compulsory veiling is a bad idea -- but at a certain point we're going to be able to scan the brains of everyone involved and actually interrogate them. Do people love their daughters just as much in these systems? And I think there are clearly right answers to that.
我们不能再自由心证 为了得到男人的青睐 就让我刚出生的女儿蒙头 或是教导她成为一个 自信而有教养的女性 是完全不同的两件事 我想我们不需要国家科学基金会特别拨款 才能发现强制女人蒙头很不好 到了某种程度 我们可以扫描每个人的头脑 并研究它们 人们真的爱它们的女儿吗 就算在那样的文化下? 我想这些问题是有正确答案的。
CA: And if the results come out that actually they do, are you prepared to shift your instinctive current judgment on some of these issues?
C.A.:如果结论是她们真的快乐 你准备好改变你现在的直观判断了吗 在这些议题上
SH: Well yeah, modulo one obvious fact, that you can love someone in the context of a truly delusional belief system. So, you can say like, "Because I knew my gay son was going to go to hell if he found a boyfriend, I chopped his head off. And that was the most compassionate thing I could do." If you get all those parts aligned, yes I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of love. But again, then we have to talk about well-being in a larger context. It's all of us in this together, not one man feeling ecstasy and then blowing himself up on a bus.
S.H.:举个真实案例 就算在一个虚假的道德体系里 你还是可以爱人 你会说,“因为我爱我的儿子, 我不想他因为他的男朋友下地狱 于是我把他的头砍下来,这就是我对他的爱 如果你能找到一个均衡 是的你仍然可以感觉到一种爱 但是我们也必须把幸福 放到更大的背景下来谈 这是我们共同的功课 不是一个男人进入一种狂喜状态 就可以在巴士上把自己炸掉
CA: Sam, this is a conversation I would actually love to continue for hours. We don't have that, but maybe another time. Thank you for coming to TED.
C.A.:我很希望这个对话可以继续 几个小时 虽然现在不行,或许在不远的将来。谢谢你来 TED 演讲
SH: Really an honor. Thank you. (Applause)
S.H.:是我的荣幸,谢谢你。 (掌声)