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?"
今日我要討論科學和價值觀 之間的關係 我們一般認為 有關道德問題 善惡對錯的概念 是科學所不能解決和參與討論的 人們認為科學可以幫助我們 得到我們所想要的 卻永遠無法告訴我們什麼是重要的 於是大部分的人,甚至今日坐在這裏的各位 認為科學永遠無法回答 人類生命中的重要問題 像是“我們為了什麼活著?” “我們應該為什麼犧牲?” “什麼樣的生活,是一個幸福的生活?”
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.
我想告訴大家 把科學和人類價值觀做分隔 是一種人為假像 是一個非常危險的假像 尤其是在我們的今日社會 人們常說科學 不能作為道德和價值觀的基礎 因為科學講求實證 而事實和價值似乎是兩種不同層次的事 人們認為,就算把世界的模樣 描繪出來 也不能帶我們走到烏托邦 但我認為這很明顯是錯誤的 價值自然是一種實證 是人類如何可以獲得幸福生活的實證
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.
為什麼我們對石頭沒有任何道德要求? 為什麼我們對石頭沒有仁愛之情? 因為我們不認為石頭會受折磨 如果和昆蟲做比較 我們比較關心我們自己的物種 那是因為我們認為我們比昆蟲 能感受到更大程度的快樂或痛苦 其中的意義是 這個說法是有實證的 這中間是有對錯的 如果我們在生物複雜性和知覺體驗的關係上 做出了錯誤的推估 那代表我們有可能錯估了昆蟲的內心生活
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.
但是我發覺 從沒有一種道德 和價值觀 是和人類的感知體驗 和嘗試改變這感知體驗的可能性 無關的 就算你的價值觀來自宗教 就算你認為善惡 和死後的結果有關聯 永遠和神在快樂的國度裏逍遙 或是永遠在地獄之火中燃燒 這仍然兩種不同的感知體驗有關 認為這些體驗會一直持續到死後的世界 也是在追求一種實證 雖然誰也不知道死後的世界會如何
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.
談到幸福生活的基礎 身為人類,在此生 我們知道有些事實一直存在 我們知道你有可能會住在一個失序的國家 所有東西都有可能出錯 母親無法餵養她們的孩子 人們找不到一個能保障和平的共識 人們被不分青紅地謀殺 我們知道我們可以解決這些持續已久的問題 走向一個較為理想的狀況 像我們現在這樣,齊聚一堂,和平討論
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.
我們知道,清楚知道 想要達到這樣的境界 有對的,也有錯誤的方法 在水中加入霍亂病毒是對的嗎? 大概不是 每個人都相信邪惡之眼的魔力 於是,當某些不幸事件發生 他們馬上就開始怪罪他們的鄰舍?大概也不是 我們應該去理解 人類社群邁向繁榮的方法 無論我們現在能不能理解 或把這些事實和道德做連結
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 --
當我們討論價值,我們就是在討論事實 世界的現況可以用很多不同層次來看 從染色體的層次 一直到經濟體系 和政治協定的層次 但如果我們回去思考人類幸福的議題 我們必須談到人類的大腦 因為我們知道我們對世界的看法、我們的體驗和感知 都是由大腦建構的
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.
無論死後會怎樣 就算背著炸彈自殺死後能得到72個處女 在此生,他的人格 這令人遺憾的人格 也是由他的大腦所產出 於是,文化的貢獻是 - 是因為文化會改變我們的想法 也就是改變我們大腦的思考模式 於是不管有多少不同文化 對人類的幸福有多少不同想法 都可以原則性地 以成熟的腦內科學作為理解的辦法 神經科學、心理學等等
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.
我想說的是 價值觀可以以事實 有關人類感知體驗的事實 作為準則 我們才有可能想像在某個情況下 來改變這些人的體驗 這就像一片道德風景 有不同的山巔和峽谷 像是人類對於幸福生活的不同感知 無論是個人或群體的 我們該注意的是 或許有個人類幸福的所在 是我們從來沒有去過的,很少人能達到的體驗 正在等待我們去發掘 或許這些體驗就是我們所說的 神秘或靈性的體驗 或許有些是我們根本無法體驗的 因為我們的大腦有自己的迴路 但其他人卻可能可以到達
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.
我必須澄清,我並不是說 科學可以完全為我們畫出這份幸福地圖 或是科學可以回答 所有道德爭議 舉例來說,我並不認為 某天我們會和電腦商量我們是不是該生第二胎 或是我們是不是應該轟炸伊朗的核子設備 或是參加TED演講的經費是不是可以向公司報賬 (大笑) 但如果這個問題是影響到人身幸福的 他們是有答案的,無論我們找不著得到 承認吧 當我們嘗試解決人類幸福的問題 是可能會有錯誤答案的 承認這個事實能改變我們討論道德的方法 也會改變我們在合作共創未來時 所期待的結果
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.
舉例來說,在美國還有21省 課堂上的體罰是合法的 這個老師可以合法使用木板 把孩子打得瘀傷、起水泡、甚至破皮 每年有千百個孩子 都在遭受這樣的待遇 而且我認為,你會很吃驚,這都是些什麼省份 不是康乃迪克州
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?
宗教往往是這些做法背後的理由 創造宇宙的造物主說 告訴我們不要“不忍用仗” 不然會寵壞孩子 這是《舊約箴言》第13章20、和23節 我們可以問一個簡單的問題 以常理判斷 讓孩子經歷這樣的痛苦 暴力和在眾人面前被羞辱 會帶來健康的情緒發展 和良好行為模式嗎? (笑聲) 我們之中有人懷疑 這個問題不但有解答 而且對我們來說很重要?
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)
或許在你們之中,有許多人會擔心 這所謂的幸福該如何界定 這似乎沒有一定的標準 而且,怎麼可能有一種完全客觀的 “人身幸福”的標準存在呢? 如果是這樣,難道因為對身體健康的概念 沒有一個真正的定論 如同 Michael Specter 适才說道,這些概念也會改變 在這個雕像產生的年代 人類的平均壽命是30 現在已發展國家的平均壽命是80 也許有一天,因為我們對基因的研究 200歲不能跑馬拉松 是一種殘疾 如果你有這種狀況,人們會捐錢給你 (笑聲)
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.
我們知道健康的觀念會改變 隨時都可以重新思考 這不代表這些討論是毫無意義的 一個健康的人和一個死人 之間的差別 在科學或理論裏是一樣的 另外一個該注意的事情是道德地圖上雖然有很多山巔 是有可能可以一起努力 一起找出一個管理人類社會的方法 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.
為什麼我們不能將這個 當作客觀道德的基礎? 想像我們討論食物的方式 我永遠不會和你爭辯 人類應該有吃的自由 一個健康的飲食方式中 有許多不同食物 但從沒有人會把食物和毒物 搞錯 當我們問“什麼是食物?”的時候 有許多正確答案 並不會阻止我們 去研究營養學,找出更多事實 許多人擔心 普世道德必須有一種 嚴厲的基本教義,不允許例外
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.
比如說,說謊是錯誤的 說謊永遠是錯誤的 如果你能找到例外的話 這就不是真正的道德 為什麼我們會這樣想? 讓我們以西洋棋為例 如果你想打一盤漂亮的西洋棋 “別失去你的皇后” 是一個很好的原則 但它也有例外 在某些時候犧牲皇后是一種很漂亮的打法 在某些必要時刻,那是你唯一能做的 但西洋棋是一個絕對客觀的遊戲 就算在棋局中允許例外 也不會改變這個事實
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?
在這個道德的場域裏 有些事是我們應該做的 想想女性身體政治 我們該怎麼做? 有個方法是 你可以把它們蓋起來 普遍來說,我們的學術界是這樣想的 雖然我們不喜歡這樣 我們覺得這樣是錯誤的 在波士頓或帕羅奧多 但我們怎麼能說 這些古老文化的驕傲後裔 不應該強迫它們的妻子和女兒 住在衣袋裏? 我們怎麼能說,他們是錯誤的 當他們用鋼索痛打她們 或是把強酸潑到她們臉上 如果她們拒絕被這樣對待?
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?
我們憑什麼可以這樣說呢? 我們怎麼可以裝作 我們完全不瞭解人類的幸福 或是我們應該對此類行為保持中立? 我不是在說那些自發性的蒙頭 我認為女人應該想穿什麼就穿什麼 但自發性是什麼意思? 在一個女孩被強暴 他的父親的第一個反應 往往是謀殺她以免羞愧 的這種社會?自發性是什麼意思?
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?
讓這些事實在你腦中轉一轉: 你的女兒被強暴了 你的反應竟然是殺掉她 請問你真的覺得這應該是 人類幸福的一個可能嗎?
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 --
我這麼說,並不是說我們的社會 有最完美的解答 舉例來說 現在你到任何文明國家的報攤 都可以看到這樣的景象 我必須承認,對大部分的男人來說 可能需要有某種程度的哲學修為,才會覺得這有什麼不對 (笑聲) 但當我們自省的時候 我們也可以想 “這樣的東西會讓我們 完美學習尊重不同女性的 年齡和肉體嗎?” 難道我們會希望我們的孩子 生在在這種視覺環境裏嗎? 大概不會。於是在這兩個極端中 . 應該有一個中間點 能帶來一種比較健康的平衡 (掌聲) 或許這個平衡點不止一個
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.
在這個多元的世界裏 我們的道德地圖應該有許多不同的山峰 但重點是 這世界上還有許多不是這些山峰的地方 在我看來,諷刺的事情是 一般會認同我說法的 那些覺得道德爭議是有正確和錯誤答案的 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.
他們當然會覺得道德爭議有正確答案 因為他們已經在神秘之聲中聽到這些答案了 而不是因為他們理智思考和分析過這些議題 人類和動物的幸福快樂 事實上,在許久以來 宗教成為人們關注道德的角度 讓所有的道德議題 都和人類和動物的痛苦脫鉤 這就是為什麼我們花費精神 討論同性戀是不是應該結婚 而不是種族屠殺或是核子武器激增 或是貧窮和其他一樣嚴重的議題 但這些宗教煽動者說對了一件事 我們需要一個普世價值
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.
為什麼這會這麼困難? 其中一件是就是當我們討論道德 我們這些沒有特殊宗教的、學術的、科學家型的人 就會產生差別待遇 當我們討論道德,我們就開始尊重不同意見 但我們在其他方面不會這樣做 舉例來說,達賴喇嘛每天早上起來 思考仁愛精神 他認為幫助其他人類是帶來人類快樂的一部分 . 另外一邊我們有 Ted Bundy 他的興趣是綁架和強暴 虐待和殺害這些年輕女孩
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.
很明顯的,這裏我們看到每個人對打發時間 都有不同的看法 (笑聲) 大部分的西方學者 看到這個狀況 會說,“嗯事實上達賴喇嘛也不是 完全正確,絕對正確 Ted Bundy 也不是絕對錯誤 這其中沒有真正的討論價值 這是科學範疇的事 他喜歡巧克力,他喜歡香草 無論跟他們說什麼 都不能改變他們。” 但我們不會這樣討論科學
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.
左邊這位是愛德華·威滕 他是弦理論的專家 如果你問你旁邊最聰明的物理學家 誰是世界上最聰明的物理學家 我的經驗是一半都會說是愛德華·威滕 另外一半會告訴你“這個問題很不正確” (笑聲) 那麼,如果我出現在一個物理研討會 然後說“弦理論是個假貨 我對它沒有感覺,這不是我選擇 的宇宙觀 我不是那派的。” (笑聲) 什麼都不會發生,因為我不是物理學家 我不懂弦理論 我是弦理論的 Ted Bundy (笑聲) 我不想加入任何願意接受我的弦理論社團
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)
這就是重點 當我們談論事實 我們必須排除某些意見 那就是為什麼我們有專業 那就是為什麼我們應該依靠知識 無論我們怎麼和自己說 在道德裏沒有所謂的道德專家 道德人才,或甚至道德天才 為什麼我們要說服自己 所有的意見都應該納入考慮? 我們是怎麼說服自己 所有的文化對這些事情都有自己的觀點 而我們都應該把他們納入考量? 難道塔利班 對物理學的意見 也值得我們考慮嗎?不。 (笑聲) 但他們對幸福的無知 和他們對物理的無知有什麼不同? (掌聲)
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.
現在世界所需要的是 像我們這樣的人們承認 在人類的幸福問題中 是有正確和錯誤答案的 以及道德 是和事實有直接關聯的 個人 或整個文化 過分關心某些錯誤議題是絕對可能的 他們的信仰和想法也絕對有可能 為人類帶來無益的痛苦 . 承認這些事實會改變我們討論道德的方式 在今日世界中 國界的意義不斷減弱 有一天國界將沒有任何意義
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)
我們生活在一個充滿毀滅性科技的世界 這些技術可以不被發明 搗毀一樣事情 永遠比重建來的容易 我認為,很明顯地 我們不能再 尊重和容忍這些 對人類幸福的不同觀點 就像我們不會尊重和容忍 傳染病的散播 或是建築和飛機的安全標準 我們必須承認,這些問題 能找到解答,才有可能 回答人類生命中最重要的這些問題。 謝謝大家。 (掌聲)
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:讓我提出一些爭議性的問題 這裏有某些人,或現在在世界上別的角落 可能有人聽見這個 然後憤怒或尖叫。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?
語言似乎是個很重要的元素 但你提到面罩的時候 你是說那些把全身蒙住的女人嗎 我曾在回教國家居住,和許多回教婦女談話 她們可能會有別種想法。她們會說 “不,這是對女性的一種禮贊 凸顯我們是特別的, 這幫助我們這個,而且是因為那個……“ 當然這不是一種非常可靠的心理學論點 “你不能信任男人的情欲” 我們是否可以用一種 不帶著文化帝國主義的角度和這些女人討論這些問題
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:讓我一邊看著秒針 一邊嘗試簡短回答這個問題 真正的問題是 這真的是她們的個人意願嗎 在男人期待你戴上面罩 如果不戴就必須承受某種後果 的狀況下? 如果在這個房間裏 有任何人想要戴面罩 一個非常可笑的帽子,或是在臉上刺青 我想每個人應該做我們想做的,在自願的情況下 但我們必須誠實面對 這些女人的處境 我認為我們不應該太快地 接受她們的說法 尤其在120度高溫 而你竟然必須蒙住全身的狀況下
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.
C.A.:許多人想要相信 道德進步的這個概念 但是這有可能達到和諧嗎? 我想我瞭解你所說的 不要讓世界變得只有一種道德 也不需要大家都只有一種想法 你可以告訴我們 如果我們快轉到50年後 100年後,你希望我們的世界 能如何在道德進步和多元文化中 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.
S.H.:一旦我們承認 我們正走在了解我們理智的路上 透過理解大腦運作的方法, 那麼你也必須承認 我們將會更明白我們身上的這些 正面和負面的特質 . 我們會理解正面的社群特質 像是同情心、仁愛心 我們將會瞭解是怎樣的元素 幫助我們有這些特質 - 無論是基因 是人們對話的方式 是經濟體系 我們正要開始發現 並無可避免的步向 這些事實
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.
我們不能再自由心證 為了得到男人的青睞 就讓我剛出生的女兒蒙頭 或是教導她成為一個 自信而有教養的女性 是完全不同的兩件事 我想我們不需要國家科學基金會特別撥款 才能發現強制女人蒙頭很不好 到了某種程度 我們可以掃描每個人的頭腦 並研究它們 人們真的愛它們的女兒嗎 就算在那樣的文化下? 我想這些問題是有正確答案的。
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.:如果結論是她們真的快樂 你準備好改變你現在的直觀判斷了嗎 在這些議題上
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.:舉個真實案例 就算在一個虛假的道德體系裏 你還是可以愛人 你會說,“因為我愛我的兒子, 我不想他因為他的男朋友下地獄 於是我把他的頭砍下來,這就是我對他的愛 如果你能找到一個均衡 是的你仍然可以感覺到一種愛 但是我們也必須把幸福 放到更大的背景下來談 這是我們共同的功課 不是一個男人進入一種狂喜狀態 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.:我很希望這個對話可以繼續 幾個小時 雖然現在不行,或許在不遠的將來。謝謝你來 TED 演講
SH: Really an honor. Thank you. (Applause)
S.H.:是我的榮幸,謝謝你。 (掌聲)