["Rebecca Newberger Goldstein"] ["Steven Pinker"] ["The Long Reach of Reason"] Cabbie: Twenty-two dollars. Steven Pinker: Okay. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: Reason appears to have fallen on hard times: Popular culture plumbs new depths of dumbth and political discourse has become a race to the bottom. We're living in an era of scientific creationism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, psychic hotlines, and a resurgence of religious fundamentalism. People who think too well are often accused of elitism, and even in the academy, there are attacks on logocentrism, the crime of letting logic dominate our thinking.
["Rebecca Newberger Goldstein"] ["Steven Pinker"] ["Dugi Doseg Razuma"] Taksist: Dvadeset i dva dolara. Steven Pinker: U redu. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: Razum je izgleda u problemima: Popularna kultura stvara nove dubine gluposti i politički diskurs je postao utrka prema dnu. Živimo u eri znanstvene kreacije, teorije zavjere 9/11, vidovnjački telefoni, i ponovno pojavljivanje religijskog fundamentalizma. Ljudi koji razmišljaju isuviše dobro su često optuženi za elitizam, i čak i na fakultetima, postoje napadi na logocentrizam, zločin dopuštanja da logika dominira našim razmišljanjem.
SP: But is this necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps reason is overrated. Many pundits have argued that a good heart and steadfast moral clarity are superior to triangulations of overeducated policy wonks, like the best and brightest and that dragged us into the quagmire of Vietnam. And wasn't it reason that gave us the means to despoil the planet and threaten our species with weapons of mass destruction? In this way of thinking, it's character and conscience, not cold-hearted calculation, that will save us. Besides, a human being is not a brain on a stick. My fellow psychologists have shown that we're led by our bodies and our emotions and use our puny powers of reason merely to rationalize our gut feelings after the fact.
SP: Ali je li to nužno loša stvar? Možda je razum precijenjen. Mnogi su tvrdili da dobro srce i ustrajna moralna jasnoća odnose pobjedu nad triangulacijama preeduciranih političkih luđaka, kao što je najbolji i najbistriji i što nas je odvuklo u rat u Vijetnamu. I nije li razum ono što nam je dalo sredstva da opljačkamo planet i zaprijetimo svojoj vrsti oružjim za masovno uništenje? U ovom načinu razmišljanja, karakter i svijest, ne kalkuliranje, spašavaju nas. Osim toga, ljudsko biće nije mozak na štapu. Moji kolege psiholozi pokazali su da smo vođeni našim tijelima i emocijama i koristimo naše majušne moći razuma samo kako bismo racionalizirali naše instiknte.
RNG: How could a reasoned argument logically entail the ineffectiveness of reasoned arguments? Look, you're trying to persuade us of reason's impotence. You're not threatening us or bribing us, suggesting that we resolve the issue with a show of hands or a beauty contest. By the very act of trying to reason us into your position, you're conceding reason's potency. Reason isn't up for grabs here. It can't be. You show up for that debate and you've already lost it.
RNG: Kako bi razumni argument logično mogao zahtijevati neučinkovitost razumnih argumenata? Dakle, pokušavaš nas uvjeriti u impotenciju razuma. Ne prijetiš nam niti nas podmićuješ, predlažući da riješimo problem dizanjem ruku ili natjecanjem ljepote. Samim činom da nas urazumiš u svoj položaj, proglašavaš potenciju razuma neuspješnom. Razum nije nadohvat ruke. Ne može biti. Pojaviš se na toj debati i već si ju izgubio.
SP: But can reason lead us in directions that are good or decent or moral? After all, you pointed out that reason is just a means to an end, and the end depends on the reasoner's passions. Reason can lay out a road map to peace and harmony if the reasoner wants peace and harmony, but it can also lay out a road map to conflict and strife if the reasoner delights in conflict and strife. Can reason force the reasoner to want less cruelty and waste?
SP: Ali razum nas može voditi u smjerovima koji su dobri, pristojni ili moralni? Rečeno je da je razum samo sredstvo za postizanje cilja, i da cilj ovisi o strastima onoga koji razmišlja razumno. Razum može napraviti put do mira i sklada ako onaj koji urazumljuje želi to, ali također može napraviti put do sukoba i razmirica ako uživa u sukobu i razmiricama. Može li razum učiniti da želi manje okrutnosti i rasipnosti?
RNG: All on its own, the answer is no, but it doesn't take much to switch it to yes. You need two conditions: The first is that reasoners all care about their own well-being. That's one of the passions that has to be present in order for reason to go to work, and it's obviously present in all of us. We all care passionately about our own well-being. The second condition is that reasoners are members of a community of reasoners who can affect one another's well-being, can exchange messages, and comprehend each other's reasoning. And that's certainly true of our gregarious and loquatious species, well endowed with the instinct for language.
RNG: Sam po sebi, odgovor je ne, ali ne treba puno da se to promijeni u da. Trebaš dva uvjeta: Prvi je da svi koji misle razumno brinu za vlastitu dobrobit. To je jedna od strasti koja mora biti prisutna da bi razum radio, i to je očito prisutno u svima nama. Svi se strastveno brinemo oko svoje dobrobiti. Drugi uvjet je da oni koji urazumljuju su članovi takve zajednice, koja može utjecati na međusobnu dobrobit, koja može razmjenjivati poruke, i razumjeti vlastite razloge. I to je sigurno točno vezano za naše društvene i govorljive vrste, dobro obradene s instinktom za jezik.
SP: Well, that sounds good in theory, but has it worked that way in practice? In particular, can it explain a momentous historical development that I spoke about five years ago here at TED? Namely, we seem to be getting more humane. Centuries ago, our ancestors would burn cats alive as a form of popular entertainment. Knights waged constant war on each other by trying to kill as many of each other's peasants as possible. Governments executed people for frivolous reasons, like stealing a cabbage or criticizing the royal garden. The executions were designed to be as prolonged and as painful as possible, like crucifixion, disembowelment, breaking on the wheel. Respectable people kept slaves. For all our flaws, we have abandoned these barbaric practices.
SP:Pa, to sve dobro zvuči u teoriji, ali je li tako radilo i u praksi? Može li objasniti taj povijesni razvoj o kojem sam pričao otprilike prije pet godina na TED-u? Postajemo sve humaniji. Stoljećima prije, naši preci bi palili žive mačke kao oblik zabave. Vitezovi su stalno ratovali jedni s drugima pokušavajući ubiti što više seljaka. Vlade su pogubljivale ljude zbog smiješnih razloga kao što je krađa kupusa ili kritiziranje kraljevskog vrta. Pogubljenja su osmišljena da bi trajala što duže i bila što bolnija, kao razapinjanje na križ, vađenje crijeva, lomljenje na kotaču. Ugledni ljudi imali su robove. Za sve naše mane, napustili smo te barbarske prakse.
RNG: So, do you think it's human nature that's changed?
RNG: Misliš da se ljudska priroda promijenila?
SP: Not exactly. I think we still harbor instincts that can erupt in violence, like greed, tribalism, revenge, dominance, sadism. But we also have instincts that can steer us away, like self-control, empathy, a sense of fairness, what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.
SP: Ne baš. Mislim da imamo puno instinkta koji može eruptirati u nasilje, kao pohlepa, osveta, dominacija, sadizaim. Ali imamo instinkte i koji nas vode od toga, kao samokontrola, empatija, osjećaj za poštenje, ono što je Abraham Lincoln nazvao boljim anđelima naše prirode.
RNG: So if human nature didn't change, what invigorated those better angels?
RNG: Ako se ljudska priroda nije promijenila, što je potaknulo te bolje anđele?
SP: Well, among other things, our circle of empathy expanded. Years ago, our ancestors would feel the pain only of their family and people in their village. But with the expansion of literacy and travel, people started to sympathize with wider and wider circles, the clan, the tribe, the nation, the race, and perhaps eventually, all of humanity.
SP: Pa, između ostalog, naš krug empatije se proširio. Mnogo godina prije, naši preci bi osjećali bol samo njihove obitelji ili ljudi u selu. Ali proširivanjem pismenosti i putovanja, ljudi su počeli suosjećati sa sve širim i širim krugovima, klan, pleme, nacija, rasa, i možda konačno, svo čovječanstvo.
RNG: Can hard-headed scientists really give so much credit to soft-hearted empathy?
RNG: Mogu li tvrdoglavi znanstvenici dati toliko kredita empatiji mekog srca?
SP: They can and do. Neurophysiologists have found neurons in the brain that respond to other people's actions the same way they respond to our own. Empathy emerges early in life, perhaps before the age of one. Books on empathy have become bestsellers, like "The Empathic Civilization" and "The Age of Empathy."
SP: Mogu i to čine. Neuropsiholozi pronašli su neurone u mozgu koji odgovaraju na akcije drugih ljudi na isti način na koji reagiraju na naše. Empatija se javlja rano u životu, možda i prije prve godine života, Knjige o empatiji postale su bestselleri, kao "Suosjećajna Civilizacija" i "Razdoblje Empatije".
RNG: I'm all for empathy. I mean, who isn't? But all on its own, it's a feeble instrument for making moral progress. For one thing, it's innately biased toward blood relations, babies and warm, fuzzy animals. As far as empathy is concerned, ugly outsiders can go to hell. And even our best attempts to work up sympathy for those who are unconnected with us fall miserably short, a sad truth about human nature that was pointed out by Adam Smith.
RNG: Ja sam za empatiju. Mislim, tko nije? Ali samo za sebe, to je slabašan instrument za moralni napredak. Kao prvo, to je pristrano prema krvnom srodstvu, bebama i toplim, čupavim životinjama. Što se tiče suosjećanja, ružni outsideri mogu ići kvragu. I čak naši najbolji pokušaji da stvorimo simpatije za one koji nisu povezani s nama su neuspješni, tužna istina o ljudskoj prirodi koju je prokazao Adam Smith.
Adam Smith: Let us suppose that the great empire of China was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe would react on receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people. He would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure with the same ease and tranquility as if no such accident had happened. If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep tonight, but provided he never saw them, he would snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren.
Adam Smith: Pretpostavimo da veliko carstvo Kine odjednom proguta potres, i razmislimo kako čovjek iz Europe reagira na primanje informacija o ovoj strašnoj nesreći. On bi, vjerujem, prvo snažno izrazio svoju tugu zbog nesreće tih nesretnih ljudi. Sa sjetom bi se prisjećao krhkosti ljudskog života, i kada svi ovi ljudski osjećaji jednom budu pošteno izraženi, on bi išao svojim poslom ili zadovoljstvom sa istom lakoćom i smirenošću kao da se takva nesreća nije dogodila. Ako bi izgubio prst sutra, ne bi spavao večeras, ali da ih nikad nije vidio, hrkao bi sa najvećom smirenošću zbog uništenja sto milijuna svoje braće.
SP: But if empathy wasn't enough to make us more humane, what else was there?
SP: Ali ako suosjećanje nije dovoljno da nas učini ljudskijima, što još imamo?
RNG: Well, you didn't mention what might be one of our most effective better angels: reason. Reason has muscle. It's reason that provides the push to widen that circle of empathy. Every one of the humanitarian developments that you mentioned originated with thinkers who gave reasons for why some practice was indefensible. They demonstrated that the way people treated some particular group of others was logically inconsistent with the way they insisted on being treated themselves.
RNG: Nisi spomenuo što bi moglo biti jedno od naših najučinkovitijih boljih anđela: razum. Razum ima mišiće. Razum nam daje poticaj da širimo taj krug suosjećanja. Sav humanitarni razvoj koji si spomenuo potekao je od mislioca koji su dali razloge zašto su neke prakse neobranjive. Demonstrirali su da je način na koji su ljudi tretirali neku određenu grupu drugih ljudi je logično nedosljedan naspram načina na koji su htjeli da se prema njima odnosi.
SP: Are you saying that reason can actually change people's minds? Don't people just stick with whatever conviction serves their interests or conforms to the culture that they grew up in?
SP: Želiš li reći da je razum ono što može promijeniti stav ljudi? Ne stoje li ljudi uz ona uvjerenja koja služe njihovim interesima ili su prilagođena kulturi u kojoj su odrasli?
RNG: Here's a fascinating fact about us: Contradictions bother us, at least when we're forced to confront them, which is just another way of saying that we are susceptible to reason. And if you look at the history of moral progress, you can trace a direct pathway from reasoned arguments to changes in the way that we actually feel. Time and again, a thinker would lay out an argument as to why some practice was indefensible, irrational, inconsistent with values already held. Their essay would go viral, get translated into many languages, get debated at pubs and coffee houses and salons, and at dinner parties, and influence leaders, legislators, popular opinion. Eventually their conclusions get absorbed into the common sense of decency, erasing the tracks of the original argument that had gotten us there. Few of us today feel any need to put forth a rigorous philosophical argument as to why slavery is wrong or public hangings or beating children. By now, these things just feel wrong. But just those arguments had to be made, and they were, in centuries past.
RNG: Ovo je fascinantna činjenica o nama: Kontradiktornosti nas smetaju, barem onda kada smo prisiljeni prilagoditii im se, što je drugi način da kažemo da smo povodljivi za razumom. I ako pogledate povijest moralnog napretka, možete pratiti direktan put od razumnih argumenata do promjena koje zaista osjećamo. Uvijek iznova, mislilac bi iznio argument zašto je neka praksa neobranjiva, neracionalna, nedosljedna s postojećim vrijednostima. Njihov esej bi postao viralan, preveden na mnoge jezike, o njemu bi se raspravljalo u pubovima, kafićima i salonima na večerama, i utjecao bi na vođe, zakonodavce, javno mišljenje. S vremenom, njihovi zaključci bi bili absorbirani u zdrav razum pristojnosti, brišući tragove originalne rasprave koja nas je tamo dovela. Malo nas danas ima potrebu pokrenuti žustru filozofsku raspravu zašto je ropstvo pogrešno ili javna vješanja ili kada se tuče djecu. Te stvari su sada krive. Ali te su rasprave morale biti pokrenute, i bile su, u prošlim stoljećima.
SP: Are you saying that people needed a step-by-step argument to grasp why something might be a wee bit wrong with burning heretics at the stake?
SP: Govoriš li da su ljudi trebali raspravu korak po korak da bi shvatili da je nešto mrvicu pogrešno sa spaljivanjem nevjernika na lomači?
RNG: Oh, they did. Here's the French theologian Sebastian Castellio making the case.
RNG: O da. Ovdje je francuski teolog Sebastian Castello koji izlaže taj slučaj.
Sebastian Castellio: Calvin says that he's certain, and other sects say that they are. Who shall be judge? If the matter is certain, to whom is it so? To Calvin? But then, why does he write so many books about manifest truth? In view of the uncertainty, we must define heretics simply as one with whom we disagree. And if then we are going to kill heretics, the logical outcome will be a war of extermination, since each is sure of himself.
Sebastian Castello: Calvin kaže da je siguran, i druge sekte da jesu. Tko će prosuditi? Ako je stvar sigurna, kome je to tako? Kalvinu? Alo onda, zašto piše toliko knjiga o manifestiranju istine? Sa strane nesigurnosti, moramo definirati heretike jednostavno kao nekog s kim se ne slažemo. A ako ćemo potom ubijati heretike, logični ishod je rat do istrebljenja, budući da je svatko siguran u sebe.
SP: Or with hideous punishments like breaking on the wheel?
SP: Ili s užasnim kaznama kao lomljenje na kotaču?
RNG: The prohibition in our constitution of cruel and unusual punishments was a response to a pamphlet circulated in 1764 by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria.
RNG: Zabrana u ustavu koja kaže da nema okrutne i neuobičajene kazne odgovor je na letak koji je kružio 1764. a napravio ga je talijasnki porotnik Cesare Beccaria.
Cesare Beccaria: As punishments become more cruel, the minds of men, which like fluids always adjust to the level of the objects that surround them, become hardened, and after a hundred years of cruel punishments, breaking on the wheel causes no more fear than imprisonment previously did. For a punishment to achieve its objective, it is only necessary that the harm that it inflicts outweighs the benefit that derives from the crime, and into this calculation ought to be factored the certainty of punishment and the loss of the good that the commission of the crime will produce. Everything beyond this is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical.
Cesare Beccaria: Kako kazne postaju sve okrutnije, umovi ljudi, koji kao tekućine uvijek prilagođavaju svoju razinu onoj predmeta koji ih okružuju, postaju tvrđi, i nakon stotinu godina okrutnog kažnjavanja, lomljenje na kotaču ne uzrokuje više straha nego zatvaranje prije. Kako bi kazna postigla svoj cilj, potrebno je samo da je šteta koju nanosi teža od zločina, i u ovu računicu treba ubaciti sigurnost kazne i gubitak dobra koje bi počinjenje zločina stvorilo. Sve više od ovoga je previše, i samim time tiranski.
SP: But surely antiwar movements depended on mass demonstrations and catchy tunes by folk singers and wrenching photographs of the human costs of war.
SP: Ali zasigurno su pokreti protiv rata ovisili o masovnim demonstracijama i pjevnim pjesmama narodnih pjevača i fotografijama ljudskih žrtava u ratu.
RNG: No doubt, but modern anti-war movements reach back to a long chain of thinkers who had argued as to why we ought to mobilize our emotions against war, such as the father of modernity, Erasmus.
RNG: Bez sumnje, no moderni pokreti protiv rata povezani su s dugim lancem mislioca koji su raspravljali zašto bi trebali mobilizirati svoje emocije protiv rata, kao otac modernizma, Erasmus.
Erasmus: The advantages derived from peace diffuse themselves far and wide, and reach great numbers, while in war, if anything turns out happily, the advantage redounds only to a few, and those unworthy of reaping it. One man's safety is owing to the destruction of another. One man's prize is derived from the plunder of another. The cause of rejoicings made by one side is to the other a cause of mourning. Whatever is unfortunate in war, is severely so indeed, and whatever, on the contrary, is called good fortune, is a savage and a cruel good fortune, an ungenerous happiness deriving its existence from another's woe.
Erasmus: Prednost koju dobivamo iz mira širi se naširoko i nadaleko, i doseže velik broj, dok u ratu, ako išta ispadne sretno, prednost se širi na nekolicinu, i to na one koji nisu zavrijedili to. Sigurnost jednog čovjeka duguje uništenju drugog. Nagrada jednog proizvod je nesreće drugog. Razlog za veselje jedne strane je razlog tuge druge. Što god je nesretno u ratu, je zaista snažno tako, a što god, sa druge strane, se zove dobrom srećom, je okrutna i divlja sreća, nevelikodušna sreća stvarajući svoje postojanje iz nesreće drugoga.
SP: But everyone knows that the movement to abolish slavery depended on faith and emotion. It was a movement spearheaded by the Quakers, and it only became popular when Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" became a bestseller.
SP: Ali svi znaju da je pokret za ukidanje ropstva ovisi o vjeri i emociji. To je pokret potaknut Kvejkerima, i tek je postao popularan kada je roman Harriet Beecher Stowe "Čiča Tomina koliba" postao bestseller.
RNG: But the ball got rolling a century before. John Locke bucked the tide of millennia that had regarded the practice as perfectly natural. He argued that it was inconsistent with the principles of rational government.
RNG: Ali da bi pokrenuo loptu prije stoljeća, John Locke borio se s plimom stoljeća koja je smatrala da je ta praksa normalna. Tvrdio je da je nedosljedno sa principima racionalnog vladanja.
John Locke: Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by common to everyone of that society and made by the legislative power erected in it, a liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
John Locke: Sloboda ljudi pod vladom mora imati pravilo po kojem živimo zajedničko svima iz tog društva i određeno zakonskom moći podignutom u njemu, slobodu da slijedim moju volju u svim stvarima gdje to pravilo ne propisuje, ne da budemo predmeti nedosljedne, nesigurne, nepoznate, proizvoljne volje drugog čovjeka, jer sloboda prirode ne smije biti pod ograničenjem osim zakona prirode.
SP: Those words sound familiar. Where have I read them before? Ah, yes.
SP: Te riječi zvuče poznato. Gdje sam ih već pročitao? Ah, da.
Mary Astell: If absolute sovereignty be not necessary in a state, how comes it to be so in a family? Or if in a family, why not in a state? Since no reason can be alleged for the one that will not hold more strongly for the other, if all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves, as they must be if being subjected to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of men be the perfect condition of slavery?
Mary Astell: Ako je potpuna neovisnost nepotrebna u državi, kako je to točno u obitelji? Ako je u obitelji tako, zašto ne i u državi? Kako nema razuma da će jedno biti snažnije podržano od drugog, ako su svi muškarci rođeni slobodni, kako su sve žene rođene robinjama, što zasigurno jesu ako su predmetom nedosljedne, nesigurne, nepoznate, proizvoljne volje muškaraca koja je savršen uvjet za ropstvo?
RNG: That sort of co-option is all in the job description of reason. One movement for the expansion of rights inspires another because the logic is the same, and once that's hammered home, it becomes increasingly uncomfortable to ignore the inconsistency. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement inspired the movements for women's rights, children's rights, gay rights and even animal rights. But fully two centuries before, the Enlightenment thinker Jeremy Bentham had exposed the indefensibility of customary practices such as the cruelty to animals.
RNG: Takva ko opcija je u opisu posla razuma. Jedan pokret za proširenje prava inspirira drugi jer je logika jednaka, i kada je to utemeljeno, postaje sve neugodnije ignorirati nedosljednost. 1960., pokret za ljudska prava inspirirao je pokret za prava žena, prave djece, gay prava i prava životinja. Ali puna dva stoljeća prije, Prosvijetljeni mislioc Jeremy Bentham izložio je neobranjiovst uobičajenih praksi kao što je okrutnost prema životinjama.
Jeremy Bentham: The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?
Jeremy Bentham: Pitanje nije imaju li razum niti mogu li pričati, već mogu li patiti?
RNG: And the persecution of homosexuals.
RNG: I progon homoseksualaca.
JB: As to any primary mischief, it's evident that it produces no pain in anyone. On the contrary, it produces pleasure. The partners are both willing. If either of them be unwilling, the act is an offense, totally different in its nature of effects. It's a personal injury. It's a kind of rape. As to the any danger exclusive of pain, the danger, if any, much consist in the tendency of the example. But what is the tendency of this example? To dispose others to engage in the same practices. But this practice produces not pain of any kind to anyone.
JB: Kao bilo koji prvotni nestašluk, evidentno je da ne stvara bol nikom. Nasuprot, izaziva zadovoljstvo. Partneri su voljni. Da se ijedno od njih protivi, čin je uvreda, potpuno drugačiji po svojoj prirodi. To je osobna ozlijeda, silovanje na neki način. Kao bilo koja opasnost, osim boli, opasnost, ako je ima, sastoji se od tendencije primjera. Ali što je tendencija ovog primjera? Pobrinuti se da drugi ne prakticiraju to. Ali ta praksa ne proizvodi nikakvu bol nikome.
SP: Still, in every case, it took at least a century for the arguments of these great thinkers to trickle down and infiltrate the population as a whole. It kind of makes you wonder about our own time. Are there practices that we engage in where the arguments against them are there for all to see but nonetheless we persist in them?
SP: Ipak, u svakom slučaju, trebalo je skoro stoljeće za argumente ovih velikih mislioca da budu prihvaćeni i infiltriraju populaciju kao cjelinu. Ponekad se zapitamo za vlastito razdoblje. Postoje li prakse u koje smo uključeni gdje su argumenti protiv njih jasno vidljivi, ali ipak ustrajemo u njima?
RNG: When our great grandchildren look back at us, will they be as appalled by some of our practices as we are by our slave-owning, heretic-burning, wife-beating, gay-bashing ancestors?
RNG: Kada naša pra-praunučad bude gledala na nas, hoće li biti sablažnjeni nekim našim praksama kao što smo mi bili robovlasništvom, spaljivanjem nevjernika, zlostavljanjem žena i progonu gay populacije naših predaka?
SP: I'm sure everyone here could think of an example.
SP: Siguran sam da svi ovdje možemo naći primjer.
RNG: I opt for the mistreatment of animals in factory farms.
RNG: Glasam za zlostavljanje životinja na tvorničkim farmama.
SP: The imprisonment of nonviolent drug offenders and the toleration of rape in our nation's prisons.
SP: Zatvaranje nenasilnih korisnika droga i toleriranje silovanja u zatvorima naše nacije.
RNG: Scrimping on donations to life-saving charities in the developing world.
RNG: Uzimanje donacija iz humanitarnih organizacija za svijet u razvoju.
SP: The possession of nuclear weapons.
SP: Posjedovanje nuklearnog oružja.
RNG: The appeal to religion to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, such as the ban on contraception.
RNG: Poziv da religija pravda inače neopravdane stvari, kao što je zabrana kontracepcije.
SP: What about religious faith in general?
SP: Što sa vjerom, općenito?
RNG: Eh, I'm not holding my breath.
RNG: Ah, ne nadam se.
SP: Still, I have become convinced that reason is a better angel that deserves the greatest credit for the moral progress our species has enjoyed and that holds out the greatest hope for continuing moral progress in the future.
SP: Ipak, postao sam uvjeren da je razum bolji anđeo koji zaslužuje najveće zasluge za moralni napredak naše vrste i da je u njemu najveća nada za nastavak moralnog napretka u budućnosti.
RNG: And if, our friends, you detect a flaw in this argument, just remember you'll be depending on reason to point it out.
RNG: I ako vi, naši prijatelji, nađete manu u ovom argumentu, upamtite da ćete ovisiti o razumu kako biste to istakli.
Thank you. SP: Thank you.
Hvala vam. SP: Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)