["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.
[Rebeka Njuberger Goldstajn] [Stiven Pinker] ["Dalekosežnost razuma"] Taksista: Dvadeset dva dolara. Stiven Pinker: Okej. Rebeka Njuberger Goldstajn: Čini se da se teško vreme nadvilo nad razumom: pop kultura pronalazi nove dubine gluposti, a politički diskurs je postao trka do dna. Živimo u vremenu naučnog kreacionizma, teorija zavere o 11. septembru, vidovnjačkih hotlajna i preporoda religijskog fundamentalizma. Ljudi koji suviše dobro promišljaju optuženi su za elitizam, a čak i među akademicima imamo optužbe za logocentrizam, zločin kojim dozvoljavamo logici da dominira našim mišljenjem.
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: No ovo nije nužno loša stvar? Možda je razum precenjen. Mnogi učenjaci su smatrali kako su dobro srce i nepokolebljivost moralne jasnoće superiorni u odnosu na ustrojstva suviše obrazovanih političkih stručnjaka, poput onih slavnih i mudrih koji su nas odvukli u vijetnamske kaljuge. I zar nam razum nije podario sredstva da zagadimo planetu i da pretimo sopstvenoj vrsti oružjem masovnog uništenja? Ukoliko razmišljamo ovako, spasiće nas karakter i savest, a ne hladnokrvni proračuni. Osim toga, ljudsko biće nije mozak na štapu. Moje kolege psiholozi su nam pokazali da smo vođeni našim telima i našim emocijama, a da koristimo svoje slabašne umne moći samo kako bismo racionalizovali svoje instinkte posle učinjenih dela.
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 je moguće da razuman argument logično proizlazi iz neefikasnosti razumnog argumentovanja? Vidi, pokušavaš da nas ubediš u nemoć razuma. Ne pretiš nam, ne potkupljuješ nas pretpostavkama da možemo razrešiti dilemu dizanjem ruku u vis ili izborom za mis. Samim tim što pokušavaš da nas ubediš u svoj stav, prihvataš moć razuma. Ne poseže se ovde za razumom. To je nemoguće. Samo što si se pojavio na toj debati, već si je 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 može li razum da nas vodi u smeru koji bi bio dobar ili pristojan ili moralan? Konačno, kako si istakla, razum je samo sredstvo za postizanje cilja, a cilj zavisi od strasti onog koji misli. Razum može da nacrta mapu puta do mira i harmonije, ukoliko razumno biće želi mir i harmoniju, ali, takođe, može i da nacrta mapu puta do sukoba i nesloge, ukoliko razumno biće uživa u sukobu i neslozi. Može li razum da natera razumnog da poželi manje okrutnosti i manje otpada?
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 bi bio ne ali nije potrebno mnogo da se preokrene u da. Potrebna su ti dva uslova: Prvo, da sva razumna bića mare za sopstvenu dobrobit. To je jedna od strasti koja mora da postoji kako bi razum mogao da funkcioniše i očigledno je prisutna kod svih nas. Svima nam je strasno stalo do sopstvene dobrobiti. Drugi uslov je da su razumna bića članovi društva sačinjenog od razumnih bića unutar koga mogu da utiču na međusobnu dobrobit, da razmenjuju poruke i razumeju razmišljanja drugih. To je zasigurno istinito kada je naša društvena i brbljiva vrsta u pitanju, bogato obdarena 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: To zvuči dobro u teoriji, ali da li se pokazalo tako i u praksi? Naročito, da li može da objasni trenutni istorijski razvoj, o kome sam govorio pre pet godina ovde na TED-u? Prvenstveno se čini kako postajemo sve humaniji. Vekovima unazad, među našim precima bilo je popularno spaljivanje živih mačaka iz zabave. Vitezovi su stalno međusobno ratovali tako što su jedan drugom ubijali što više seljaka. Vlade su ubijale ljude zbog sitnica, poput krađe kupusa ili kritikovanja kraljevske bašte. Pogubljenja su osmišljavana kako bi trajala što duže i uzrokovala što više bola, poput razapinjanja, kasapljenja, rastezanja na točku. Ugledni ljudi su imali robove. Uprkos našim manama, napustili smo ove varvarske običaje.
RNG: So, do you think it's human nature that's changed?
RNG: Da li onda smatraš da se ljudska priroda promenila?
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 i dalje gajimo instinkte koji mogu da uzrokuju nasilje, poput pohlepe, tribalizma, osvete, težnje za dominacijom, sadizma. Ali takođe imamo i instinkte koji mogu da nas usmere na pravi put, poput samokontrole, empatije i pravdoljubivosti, njih je Abraham Linkoln zvao boljim anđelima naše prirode.
RNG: So if human nature didn't change, what invigorated those better angels?
RNG: Ako se ljudska priroda nije promenila, šta je učvrstilo 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: Između ostalog naš empatijski krug se proširio. Godinama unazad, naši preci su saosećali samo sa svojom porodicom i ljudima iz sela. No, s razvojem pismenosti i putovanja, ljudi su počeli da saosećaju sa sve širim i širim krugovima, klanom, pa plemenom, pa nacijom, rasom i možda konačno, sa čitavim čovečanstvom.
RNG: Can hard-headed scientists really give so much credit to soft-hearted empathy?
RNG: Da li tvrdoglavi naučnici zaista mogu tolike zasluge da pripišu 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 hoće. Neurofiziolozi su pronašli neurone u mozgu koji reaguju na tuđe pokrete na isti način kao i na sopstvene. Empatija se pojavljue u ranom uzrastu, možda i pre prvog rođendana. Knjige o empatiji su postale bestseleri, poput "Empatične civilizacije" i "Doba 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, ko nije? No, sama po sebi, čini se slabašnim oruđem moralnog napretka. Ako ništa drugo, po prirodi je pristrasna kada su u pitanju krvne veze, bebe i tople, čupave životinje. Što se empatije tiče, ružni otpadnici mogu da idu dođavola. A čak i naša najveća napregnuća da razvijemo naklonost prema onima koje ne poznajemo daju bedne rezultate, tužna istina o ljudskoj prirodi na koju je ukazao Adam Smit.
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 Smit: Pretpostavimo da je veliko kinesko carstvo iznenada progutao zemljotres, razmotrimo kako bi evropski humanista reagovao saznavši za ovu užasnu nesreću. On bi, pretpostavljam, prvo izrazio svoju duboku tugu zbog zle kobi tog nesrećnog naroda. Izneo bi mnoga melanholična zapažanja o nestalnosti ljudskog postojanja i nakon što bi jasno izrazio ova svoja ljudska osećanja nastavio bi za svojim poslom ili svojim zadovoljstvima sa istom lakoćom i mirom kao da se nesreća nije ni desila. Ukoliko bi trebalo da izgubi svoj mali prst sutra, noćas ne bi ni oka sklopio, no, kako ne poznaje nikog u Kini on će da prespava, ušuškan u svojoj sigurnosti, uništenje stotine miliona svoje braće.
SP: But if empathy wasn't enough to make us more humane, what else was there?
SP: Ali ako empatija nije dovoljna da nas učini humanijima šta nam preostaje?
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 ono što bi moglo da bude naš najefikasniji bolji anđeo: razum. Razum je snažan. Razum je obezbedio podsticaj da se proširi taj krug empatije. Sav ljudski razvoj koji si pomenuo potiče od mislilaca koji su obrazlagali zašto su određeni običaji neodbranivi. Pokazali su da je način na koji ljudi tretiraju određene grupe ljudi logički nepostojan s načinom na koji žele da njih tretiraju.
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: Da li želiš da kažeš kako razum može da promeni umove ljudi? Zar se ljudi ne drže ubeđenja koja služe njihovim interesima i zar se ne pokoravaju 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: Evo jedne zanimljive činjenice o nama: protivrečnosti nas uznemiravaju, barem onda kad smo primorani da se suočimo s njima, što je samo drugi način da kažemo kako smo podložni razumu. I ako posmatraš istoriju moralnog napretka, možeš direktno da pratiš stazu od obrazloženih argumenata do konretnih promena naših osećanja. Iznova, mislilac bi iznosio argumente zašto je neki običaj neodbraniv, iracionalan, neusklađen sa upostavljenim vrednostima. Njihovi eseji bi se širili, prevodili na mnoge jezike, raspravljalo bi se o njima u pabovima, kafanama i salonima, na večernjim zabavama, i uticali bi na vođe, zakonodavce, javno mnenje. Vremenom bi njihovi zaključci bili ugrađeni u zdravorazumsko shvatanje pristojnosti, brišući tako staze originalnog argumenta kojima smo stigli dotle. Nema nas mnogo koji bi doveli u pitanje strogi filozofski argument zašto je robovlasništvo loše, ili javna vešanja ili prebijanje dece. Trenutno, ovo se prosto čini pogrešnim. Ali upravo ti argumenti su morali da nastanu, kao što i jesu, u prošlim vekovima.
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: Hoćeš li da kažeš kako je ljudima bilo potrebno da postupno stignu do argumenta zašto je možda malčice previše pogrešno spaljivanje jeretika na lomači?
RNG: Oh, they did. Here's the French theologian Sebastian Castellio making the case.
RNG: Jeste. Evo kako o tome razmišlja francuski teolog Sebastijan Kastelio.
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.
Sebastijan Kastelio: Kalvin kaže da je u pravu, i druge sekte kažu to isto. Ko će da sudi? Ukoliko je stvar jasna, kome je jasna? Kalvinu? Ali opet, zašto toliko piše o očiglednoj istini. Suočeni s neizvesnošću, moramo da definišemo jeretike prosto kao one sa kojima se ne slažemo. I ako bismo hteli da pobijemo jeretike, logičan rezultat bi bio rat do istrebljenja, jer svako za sebe misli da je u pravu.
SP: Or with hideous punishments like breaking on the wheel?
SP: A odvratne kazne poput rastezanja na točku?
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: Naš ustav je zabranio okrutna i neuobičajena kažnjavanja kao odgovor na pamflet koji je kružio tokom 1764, a napisao ga je italijanski pravnik Ćezare Bekaria.
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.
Ćezare Bekaria: Kako kažnjavanja postaju sve okrutnija, ljudski umovi, koji se poput tečnosti uvek prilagođavaju veličini posude u kojoj su, očvršćavaju i nakon sto godina okrutnog kažnjavanja rastezanje na točku više ne izaziva nimalo veći strah nego što je zatvor nekada. Kako bi kazna postigla svoj cilj, dovoljno je da povreda koju nanosi prevazilazi korist proisteklu iz zločina i u ovaj proračun bi trebalo uračunati izvesnost kazne i lišavanje dobra koje bi provodila komisija za prekršaje. Sve mimo ovoga je izlišno i samim tim tiranija.
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 svakako da su antiratni pokreti zavisili od masovnih demonstracija i zavodljivih melodija folk muzičara i potresnih fotografija ratnih gubitaka u ljudstvu.
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: Nesumnjivo, ali moderni antiratni pokreti sežu do dugog niza mislilaca koji su raspravljali zašto je neophodno da usmeravamo naše emocije protiv rata. Jedan od njih je Erazmo, otac modernizma.
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.
Erazmo: Prednosti mira rasprostranjuju se nadaleko i naširoko i dosežu velike cifre, dok u ratu, ako šta i izađe na dobro, to koristi nekolicini i to onima što ne zaslužuju tu dobit. Sigurnost pojedinca duguje se uništenju drugog. Ono što je za jednog nagrada, opljačkano je od drugog. Razlog za radost na jednoj strani drugoj strani uzrokuje tugu. Sva šteta nastala u ratu uistinu je ozbiljna, a sve ono što, s druge strane, zovemo dobrom srećom, je divlja i okrutna dobra sreća, nedobronamerna sreća što proističe iz tuđeg jada.
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 zavisio od vere i od osećanja. Bio je to pokret koji su predvodili Kvekeri, a tek je postao popularan kada je roman "Čiča Tomina koliba" od Herijet Bičer Stou postao bestseler.
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 lavina se zakotrljala vek ranije. DŽon Lok se suprotstavio milenijumskoj struji koja je smatrala sasvim prirodnim taj običaj. Smatrao je kako je ropstvo protivrečno principima racionalne vladavine.
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.
Džon Lok: Vlada obezbeđuje narodu slobodu donoseći postojane zakone kojima se ljudi vode jednake za sve ljude u tom društvu, a koje određuje legislativno telo proizašlo iz naroda, sloboda da sledim sopstvenu volju svagda osim kad mi zakon preporučuje suprotno, da ne budem predmet nestalne, neizvesne, nepoznate, proizvoljne volje drugog čoveka, jer prirodna sloboda znači jedino biti ograničen zakonima prirode.
SP: Those words sound familiar. Where have I read them before? Ah, yes.
SP: Te reči mi zvuče poznato. Gde li sam ih već čuo? Pa 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?
Meri Astel: Ukoliko apsolutni suverenitet nije nužan za državu, kako to da jeste za porodicu? Ili ako jeste u porodici, zašto nije u državi? Jer nema obrazloženja koje se može navesti za jedno, a da se snažnije ne odnosi na drugo. Ako su svi ljudi rođeni slobodni, kako to da se žene rađaju kao robovi, pošto to i jesu, ako su izložene nestalnoj, neizvesnoj, nepoznatoj, proizvoljnoj volji muškaraca. Nije li to savršen uslov 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: Slična ulančavanja argumenata sva su u službi razuma. Jedan pokret za proširenje prava inspiriše drugi, jer je logika koju sledi ista i jednom kada pronađe svoje utemeljenje postaje sve neprijatnije ignorisati nedoslednosti. Pokret za građanska prava iz 1960-ih inspirisao je pokrete za prava žena, prava dece, prava homoseksualaca, pa čak i prava životinja. No puna dva veka ranije Džeremi Bentam, mislilac prosvetiteljstva izneo je neodbranivost onih običaja kojima se ispoljava okrutnost prema životinjama.
Jeremy Bentham: The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?
DŽeremi Bentam: Ne postavljajmo pitanje, jesu li razumne ili mogu li životinje da govore, već da li osećaju bol?
RNG: And the persecution of homosexuals.
RNG: A šta je sa progonom 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.
DŽB: Ukoliko na to gledamo kao na neposlušnost očigledno je da ona ne povređuje nikoga. Naprotiv, ona stvara zadovoljstvo. Partneri svojevoljno pristaju na to. Ako je jedan od njih primoran, čin se smatra prekršajem, što je u suštini potpuno različito. To je povreda ličnosti. Oblik silovanja. Ako i postoji opasnost mimo nanošenja bola ona je, ako je uopšte i ima, prilično sadržana u nameri iskazanoj u primeru. Ali šta je svrha ovog primera? Da navede druge da upražnjavaju slične sklonosti. Ali upražnjavanje ovih sklonosti ne nanosi nikakav 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, bilo je potrebno da prođe skoro čitav vek kako bi se slični argumenti velikih mislilaca probili i infiltrirali u celokupno društvo. Počneš da se pitaš o svom vremenu. Postoje li neki običaji kojih se držimo, protiv kojih su argumenti više nego očigledni, ali mi ih se ipak pridržavamo?
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 se naši unuci budu osvrtali na nas da li će biti podjednako zgroženi nekim našim postupcima kao što smo mi zgroženi robovlasništvom, spaljivanjem jeretika nasiljem nad ženama, precima što mlate homoseksualce?
SP: I'm sure everyone here could think of an example.
SP: Siguran sam da svako može da nađe neki primer.
RNG: I opt for the mistreatment of animals in factory farms.
RNG: Ja biram loše uslove života životinja na fabričkim farmama.
SP: The imprisonment of nonviolent drug offenders and the toleration of rape in our nation's prisons.
SP: Lišavanje slobode nenasilnih narkomana i tolerancija silovanja unutar državnih zatvora.
RNG: Scrimping on donations to life-saving charities in the developing world.
RNG: Škrtarenje na donacijama udruženjima koja spašavaju živote u nerazvijenom svetu.
SP: The possession of nuclear weapons.
SP: Posedovanje nuklearnog oružja.
RNG: The appeal to religion to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, such as the ban on contraception.
RNG: Sklonost religije da opravda, ono što se ne može opravdati poput zabrane kontracepcije.
SP: What about religious faith in general?
SP: Šta je sa religijom uopšte?
RNG: Eh, I'm not holding my breath.
RNG: Uh, to ne očekujem.
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, ubeđen sam da je razum bolji anđeo kome dugujemo najveću zahvalnost za moralni napredak naše vrste i u njega polažem najveće nade kada je kontinuitet budućeg moralnog napretka u pitanju.
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: Prijatelji, ako uočite grešku u ovom argumentu, zapamtite, oslonićete se na razum kako bi je razotkrili.
Thank you. SP: Thank you.
Hvala. SP: Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)