["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.
["瑞貝卡 鈕伯格 戈德斯坦"] ["史迪芬 平克"] "理性的長期效應" 計程車司機:22美元 史迪芬:好的 瑞貝卡:艱困的時期好像會讓人理智下降 流行文化達到了愚昧的另一種高度 而政治話語更是變成了 逐底競爭 我們住在一個科學創造論的時代 911陰謀論、靈媒諮詢熱線 還有正在復甦的基本教義派的時代 那些善於思考的人們 也時常被指控奉行菁英主義 甚至在學術界 也有對義理中心論(logocentrism)的批評 也就是讓邏輯引導思考的這項罪名
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.
史迪芬:可是這真的是壞事嗎? 也許理性被高估了 很多梵學家都主張一顆善良的心 還有堅定的道德意識 都比過度教育的政策家所作的三角測量好 尤其那些最聰明的政策家還曾經 把我們拖進越戰的泥沼裡 而且難道不是理性讓我們 去掠奪這個星球 和用毀滅性武器威脅我們同類的嗎? 如果這樣想的話,會拯救我們的其實是人格和良心 而不是那些實際的計算 再說了,人類又不是一根叉著腦袋的樹枝 我有一些心理學家的朋友證實了 我們是被身體還有情緒引導的 而我們只是用理智的微小力量 僅僅用於事後解釋我們所感受到的一切
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.
瑞貝卡:理性思辨怎麼可能在邏輯上 造成其他理性思辨的無效呢? 聽著,你正在試著說服我們理智是無用的 但你並不是用威脅或是行賄的方式 你也沒有提出用舉手表決或舉辦選美比賽 來解決這個爭論 在你試著理性說服我們認同你的觀點之時 你已間接承認了理智的力量 理智並不是任何人能夠得到的 你出席這場辯論的同時 你就已經輸了
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?
但是理性真的能夠引導我們走向 良善、合宜、或是符合道德的方向嗎 畢竟,你也指出了理性不過是 達到結果的一個手段 而結果是好是壞則要取決於學者的熱情 理智能夠鋪出一條通往和平與協調的道路 只要那是使用者想要的話 但是如果使用者的意圖為衝突和鬥爭 理智也可以鋪出通往衝突以及鬥爭的路 理智能夠一定讓使用者 比較不殘忍或不無用嗎
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.
瑞貝卡:如果只有理智的話,答案就是否定的 但是不需要太多,答案就可以變成肯定 你需要兩個條件: 第一個就是所有使用理智的人在乎 他們自己的福利 這是理智要能成功運作 所需要的其中一項熱情 而且很明顯的,我們都擁有這項熱情 我們全都殷切的 關注自己的福利 第二個條件就是這些是用理智的人 是擁有理智的人的社群中的一員 他們能夠影響彼此的福利 能夠交換訊息 而且能夠理解彼此的論述 而我們這些群居又健談的種族 天生就具有語言本能 完全符合這兩個條件
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.
史迪芬:好吧,在理論上這聽起來很好 但實際上真的能夠運作嗎 尤其是,它能夠解釋 我五年前在TED演講裡提到的 那個重大的歷史進展嗎? 也就是,人類似乎往越來越人道的方向發展 幾世紀前,把貓活活燒死對我們的祖先來說 是一種大眾娛樂的形式 騎士們利用屠殺盡可能多對手的佃農 來對彼此發動戰爭 以前政府會為了毫無說服力的理由處決人民 像是偷甘藍菜 或是批評皇家花園 那些處決方式更是被設計用來延遲 被處決者的痛苦,像是釘十字架 切除內臟、破輪等等 另外,有聲望的人們還會蓄奴 對於那些缺點,現在人們已經中止 那些野蠻的行為了
RNG: So, do you think it's human nature that's changed?
瑞貝卡:所以你認為是人類的天性變了嗎?
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.
史迪芬:這也不然。我認為我們依舊擁有 那些能夠導致暴力的天性 像是貪婪、部落意識、復仇、統治心態、虐待癖好 但我們同時也有能夠讓我們往另一個方向發展的天性 例如自制力、同理心、對公平的追求 也就是亞伯拉罕.林肯所說的 我們天性中的好天使
RNG: So if human nature didn't change, what invigorated those better angels?
瑞貝卡:所以倘若人類的天性沒有變 又是什麼鼓舞了那些好天使呢
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.
嗯,除了這些之外 重點是我們同理心的範圍會擴增 多年以前,我們的祖先只會為了 家人或是同村落的人們感到痛苦 但是藉由擴展知識以及旅行 人們體諒的對象範圍 也逐漸地擴展 從氏族一路到部落、國家、種族 說不定最後就會包含整個人類群體
RNG: Can hard-headed scientists really give so much credit to soft-hearted empathy?
那些講究實際的科學家 真的會認同難以解釋的同理心嗎?
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."
當然可以 神經生理學家在腦中發現了一種神經元 它們會對別人的行為產生反應 就如同對己身的行為產生的反應一樣 同理心在成長過程中很早就形成了 也許在一歲之前 關於同理心的書更總是佔據了暢銷書榜 例如說“同理心的文明” 還有”同理心的年代“
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.
瑞貝卡:我崇尚同理心,我是說,誰不呢? 但如果只有同理心,對於道德的進展 它沒有多大的功用 首先,同理心天生就具有偏頗性 它總是偏袒有血緣關係的對象、或是寶寶 還有溫暖而毛茸茸的動物 如果只遵從同理心的話 那那些醜陋的局外人都可以下地獄了 而且就算我們試著對那些 與我們無關的人懷有同理心 它也不會維持太久,這就是人類天性的可悲真相 亞當.史密斯也指出了這點
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.
亞當.史密斯:如果我們假設中國的某個強盛帝國 一夕之間被一場地震摧毀 那麼在歐洲某位具有人性的紳士 在得知如此慘烈的悲劇後 會做出什麼反應呢 我想,他一開始會對那些遭遇如此不幸的人們 感到深沉的悲傷 他會因此憂鬱地反思 人類生命的不可預測性 而當這些人性的感傷 被相當地表達過後 這位紳士會一如往常般地 去追求他的事業或快樂 就好像那場地震不存在一樣 也就是說,如果他得知明天他會失去小拇指 他會輾轉難眠一整晚 但換個情況 當今天他看不見那些因地震受苦的人們時 他只會整晚安心的打呼
SP: But if empathy wasn't enough to make us more humane, what else was there?
史迪芬:但如果同理心不足以讓我們變得更有人性 那又是什麼原因呢
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.
你並沒有提到那個也許是 我們最有力量的好天使:理智 理智是有肌肉的 就是它提供了力量 讓我們擴展同理心範圍 所有你提到過的人道進展 都源自於一些思考家 他們能夠給出為什麼有一些行為之所以 站不住腳的理由 他們也能指出人們 對待特定人們的方式 與他們堅持對待自己的方式 在邏輯上是多麼的不一致
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?
所以你想說的是 理智能夠改變人心囉? 難道人們不會只偏好自己喜歡的觀點 或只選擇遵從 自己所接觸的文化規範嗎?
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.
瑞貝卡:人有趣的一點 就在於我們總是受矛盾所苦 至少當我們被逼著正視它的時候是如此 這也是我們總是 受到理智影響的另一種面向 而當你回顧一些重大的道德進展時 你可以追蹤到一些理性思辨 改變我們感受的蹤跡 如同之前提的,一位思考家會提出思辨 來說明為何有些行為是站不住腳 不理性、並悖離我們既有價值觀的 這些論述會像病毒般傳播 並被翻譯成許多語言 而且在酒吧、沙龍 或是晚宴上也會被拿出來討論 進一步影響領導者、立法者 還有大眾意見 就這樣,他們得出的結論 會融入他們對合宜價值觀的想像 並消除那個一開始讓我們得出結論的 那些論述的痕跡 今天的我們並不需要 藉由一場激烈的邏輯辯論 來證明蓄奴、 公眾吊死、還有鞭打小孩是錯誤的 雖然今天的人能自然地覺得這些事不對 但這其實是幾世紀前的那些無數辯論 導出的結果
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?
所以你覺得人們需要 一步一步的辯論才能夠察覺 在火形柱上燒死異教徒 這件事中有那麼一丁點不對勁?
RNG: Oh, they did. Here's the French theologian Sebastian Castellio making the case.
喔,對啊。法國的神學家塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奧 對此事的論述如下:
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.
塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奧:凱文說他是肯定的, 其他人也說他們是肯定的。 誰應該被批判呢? 如果事情是確定的, 對於誰而言的? 對於凱文? 但是呢, 為什麼他寫了這麼多自我告白真相的書籍? 在不確定中, 我們需要定義異教徒 只是為了看清我們不同意哪些人 如果我們將要處死異教徒, 而每一個人都確定自己是對的, 那理性的結果是一場滅絕性的戰爭。
SP: Or with hideous punishments like breaking on the wheel?
那關於那些像是破輪的 殘忍刑罰也是嗎
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.
我們憲法中之所以會禁止 殘忍和不尋常的處罰 也是在1764年流傳了一本由義大利法學家 西薩爾·貝卡里亞所著的小冊子的關係
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.
西薩爾·貝卡里亞: 當懲罰變的更加的嚴峻, 人們的思想像是流質一樣 總是適應著 圍繞著他們的物體, 然後慢慢堅固 經過幾百年嚴峻的懲罰, 打破那些圓圈並無法 比原來的監禁造成更多的恐慌。 對於用懲罰達到目的, 只有當犯罪帶來的傷害 超過了帶來的好處, 然後在算式中放入 處罰的确定性 和利益的失去 犯罪的限制才會產生。 所有其他的東西都是膚淺的, 因此是專制的。
SP: But surely antiwar movements depended on mass demonstrations and catchy tunes by folk singers and wrenching photographs of the human costs of war.
史迪芬:可是反戰運動卻是由 大眾示威、 民謠歌手創作的朗朗上口音樂、 還有揭示人類因戰爭付出的代價的相片構成的
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.
沒錯,不過現代的反戰運動 可以回朔到一連串的思考家 他們提出為什麼我們應該動員我們的情緒 來達到反戰的目的 其中一個例子就是現代之父:伊拉斯謨
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.
伊拉斯謨:來自和平地好處 逐漸影響深遠, 和多數的人, 戰爭時期, 如果任何事情有好的結局, 好處儘儘去到了少數人手裡 和那些不值得擁有的人收獲著勝利的果實。 一個人的安全來自於另外一個人的毀滅 一個人的獎勵來自於另外一個人的損失。 一個對於一方是值得慶賀的事情 對於另外一方是值得弔唁的事情。 不管戰爭多麼的不幸, 他們是真實而嚴重的存在, 但是不管如何, 另外一方, 都會叫做勝利, 是一個野蠻而殘酷的勝利, 一個建立在他人悲哀上的不善的幸福
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.
史迪芬: 但是每個人都應該知道這個運動 是靠信念和情感除去奴役。 這是一個貴格會教徒帶領的運動, 但是它開始流行是因為哈裡特比奇托斯的小說 ”湯姆叔叔的小屋“成為了最佳小說。
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.
瑞貝卡: 但是這個思想是一個世紀以前就有的了 約翰洛克頂住了幾千年來的浪潮 把這個思想看作完全正常的想法。 他爭辯道這是不一致的 根據理性領導的原則
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.
約翰 洛克:在管理下的人類的自由 是為了人們能夠有生存的準則 於社會上的每一個人都有一個共同的認知 和法制的力量去剔除不同的, 追隨自己的內心的自由 在一個制度控制的環境不允許, 不經受他人專制形成的不穩定 不確定, 未知, 專制的想法。 自然的自由是不被約束的 這是自然的法則。
SP: Those words sound familiar. Where have I read them before? Ah, yes.
史迪芬: 這些話聽起來很耳熟 我一定在那裡聽過。啊,是的
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?
瑪麗: 如果一個國家不需要一個統治者 為什麼在家庭裡需要? 或如果家庭需要,為何國家不需要? 既然沒有任何理由 證明一種比另一種更好, 如果所有的人天生都是自由的, 為什麼所有的女人生下來就是奴隸 如同她們必須經受 不穩定,不確定, 和未知的 男性的專制 成為完美的奴隸?
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.
瑞貝卡:這種接納、同化 就是理性的一種作用。 一個權益擴張的運動啓發了另外一個 因為他們的理念是一样的, 當它開始震撼我們原來的想法, 逐漸變成了 無法忽視的不穩定。 在20世紀60年代, 公民權利運動 啓發了婦女權利運動, 兒童權利,同性戀權利, 甚至是動物權利。 但是兩個世紀以前, 啓蒙思想家傑諾米邊沁 披露了習慣行為的無法防衛 披露了習慣行為的無法防衛 比如說人類對動物的殘暴。
Jeremy Bentham: The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?
潔里米邊沁: 問題不是, 他們是否能爭辯, 也不是他們能否說話, 而是他們是否能夠煎熬?
RNG: And the persecution of homosexuals.
瑞貝卡: 和處理同性戀問題一樣。
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.
潔里米邊沁: 如同任何一個主要惡作劇, 這個證明是沒有帶給任何人疼痛。 相反的, 它帶來的是歡愉。 雙方相互願意。 如果他們的任何一方不願意, 那這個將是一種犯罪, 完全於自然的影響相反。 是一種個人的受傷。 是強姦的其中一種。 如同任何一個只有疼痛的危險, 危險,如果有任何,大部份是由 前例的趨勢組成。 但是什麼是前例的趨勢呢? 來使其他的人來加入同樣的行為。 但是這個行為帶來的 不是任何的疼痛。
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?
史迪芬:儘管如此, 在每一個例子中,這偉大思想家們的爭論 至少會延續一個世紀 去滲透和影響所有的人。 這些讓你思考你自己的時代。 是否我們的行為作風 被爭議所指責 但我們也會繼續堅持?
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?
瑞貝卡:當我們的子孫後代回想起我們, 他們是否會對一些我們的行為覺得是吸引人的 如果我們對於我們奴役占有,燒死異教徒, 打妻子, 揍同性戀的先人們?
SP: I'm sure everyone here could think of an example.
史迪芬: 我確信每一個這裡的人都能想起一個例子。
RNG: I opt for the mistreatment of animals in factory farms.
瑞貝卡: 我選擇在工業農場裡對 動物的不公。
SP: The imprisonment of nonviolent drug offenders and the toleration of rape in our nation's prisons.
史迪芬: 監禁不暴力的毒品罪犯 和對我們國家監獄內的強姦的忽視。
RNG: Scrimping on donations to life-saving charities in the developing world.
瑞貝卡:對那些在發展中國家救命的 的慈善機構的掠奪。
SP: The possession of nuclear weapons.
史迪芬: 對核武器的癡迷。
RNG: The appeal to religion to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, such as the ban on contraception.
瑞貝卡:利用宗教來用其他方式無法證明 是正當行為的, 比如說禁止使用避孕藥。
SP: What about religious faith in general?
史迪芬: 宗教信仰呢?
RNG: Eh, I'm not holding my breath.
瑞貝卡: 嗯, 我一點都沒有緊張。
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.
史迪芬:但是, 我開始信服 理智是一個最好的天使 值得獲得贊許 為了我族類所享受的道德進步 和擁有的巨大的希望 對於未來道德的發展。
RNG: And if, our friends, you detect a flaw in this argument, just remember you'll be depending on reason to point it out.
瑞貝卡: 如果,朋友們, 你察覺到這個爭辯裡的缺陷, 記得你將會依靠理智 去指出這些缺陷
Thank you. SP: Thank you.
謝謝。 史迪芬:謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)