Paul Bloom: Can prejudice ever be a good thing?

Prevodilac: Ivana Krivokuća Lektor: Mile Živković

When we think about prejudice and bias,

Kada pomislimo na predrasude i pristrasnosti,

we tend to think about stupid and evil people

skloni smo da mislimo na glupe i zle ljude

doing stupid and evil things.

koji rade glupe i zle stvari.

And this idea is nicely summarized

Ovu ideju je lepo sumirao

by the British critic William Hazlitt,

britanski kritičar Vilijem Hezlit,

who wrote, "Prejudice is the child of ignorance."

koji je napisao: "Predrasuda je dete neznanja."

I want to try to convince you here

Želim da pokušam da vas ovde uverim

that this is mistaken.

da je ovo pogrešno.

I want to try to convince you

Želim da pokušam da vas uverim

that prejudice and bias

da su predrasude i pristrasnosti

are natural, they're often rational,

prirodne, često su racionalne,

and they're often even moral,

i često su čak i moralne,

and I think that once we understand this,

i mislim da čim ovo budemo razumeli,

we're in a better position to make sense of them

bićemo u boljem položaju da ih razumemo

when they go wrong,

kada krenu po zlu,

when they have horrible consequences,

kada imaju užasne posledice,

and we're in a better position to know what to do

i bićemo u boljem položaju da znamo šta da radimo

when this happens.

kada se ovo dogodi.

So, start with stereotypes. You look at me,

Dakle, počnimo sa stereotipima. Vi me gledate,

you know my name, you know certain facts about me,

znate moje ime, znate izvesne podatke o meni,

and you could make certain judgments.

i mogli biste da donesete neke zaključke.

You could make guesses about my ethnicity,

Mogli biste da pravite pretpostavke o mojoj nacionalnosti,

my political affiliation, my religious beliefs.

mojoj političkoj pripadnosti, mojim religijskim uverenjima.

And the thing is, these judgments tend to be accurate.

Stvar je u tome da su ove procene uglavnom tačne.

We're very good at this sort of thing.

Mi smo veoma dobri u ovakvim stvarima.

And we're very good at this sort of thing

I veoma smo dobri

because our ability to stereotype people

jer naša sposobnost da stereotipišemo ljude

is not some sort of arbitrary quirk of the mind,

nije samo proizvoljni hir uma,

but rather it's a specific instance

već je pre specifičan primer

of a more general process,

opštijeg procesa,

which is that we have experience

a to je da imamo iskustvo

with things and people in the world

sa stvarima i ljudima u svetu

that fall into categories,

koji upadaju u kategorije,

and we can use our experience to make generalizations

i možemo da koristimo to iskustvo da pravimo generalizacije

about novel instances of these categories.

o novim slučajevima ovih kategorija.

So everybody here has a lot of experience

Svako ovde ima dosta iskustva

with chairs and apples and dogs,

sa stolicama i jabukama i psima,

and based on this, you could see

i na osnovu toga, mogli biste uočiti

unfamiliar examples and you could guess,

nepoznate primere i mogli biste pogoditi,

you could sit on the chair,

možete sedeti na stolici,

you could eat the apple, the dog will bark.

možete pojesti jabuku, pas će lajati.

Now we might be wrong.

Sad, možda grešimo. Stolica bi mogla

The chair could collapse if you sit on it,

da se sruši ako sednete na nju,

the apple might be poison, the dog might not bark,

jabuka bi mogla biti otrovna, pas možda ne bi lajao,

and in fact, this is my dog Tessie, who doesn't bark.

i zapravo, ovo je moj pas Tesi, koji ne laje.

But for the most part, we're good at this.

Ali većim delom, mi smo dobri u ovome.

For the most part, we make good guesses

Većim delom, pravimo dobre pretpostavke

both in the social domain and the non-social domain,

kako u socijalnom tako i u nesocijalnom domenu,

and if we weren't able to do so,

i kad ne bismo mogli da to činimo,

if we weren't able to make guesses about new instances that we encounter,

kad ne bismo mogli da nagađamo o novim slučajevima na koje nailazimo,

we wouldn't survive.

ne bismo preživeli.

And in fact, Hazlitt later on in his wonderful essay

I zapravo, Hezlit kasnije u svom izvrsnom eseju

concedes this.

priznaje ovo.

He writes, "Without the aid of prejudice and custom,

On piše: "Bez pomoći predrasude i navike,

I should not be able to find my way my across the room;

ne bih bio u stanju da pronađem put kroz sobu,

nor know how to conduct myself in any circumstances,

niti da znam kako da se rukovodim u bilo kojim okolnostima,

nor what to feel in any relation of life."

niti šta da osećam u bilo kom životnom pogledu."

Or take bias.

Ili uzmite naklonosti.

Now sometimes, we break the world up into

Ponekad delimo svet na nas protiv njih,

us versus them, into in-group versus out-group,

na unutar grupe protiv van grupe,

and sometimes when we do this,

i ponekad kada ovo činimo,

we know we're doing something wrong,

znamo da radimo nešto pogrešno,

and we're kind of ashamed of it.

i nekako se stidimo toga.

But other times we're proud of it.

Ali u drugim prilikama se ponosimo time.

We openly acknowledge it.

Otvoreno to priznajemo.

And my favorite example of this

Moj omiljeni primer ovoga

is a question that came from the audience

jeste pitanje koje je došlo iz publike

in a Republican debate prior to the last election.

na republikanskoj debati pred poslednje izbore.

(Video) Anderson Cooper: Gets to your question,

(Video) Anderson Kuper: Stižemo do vašeg pitanja,

the question in the hall, on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.

pitanja u sali, u vezi sa inostranom pomoći? Da, gospođo.

Woman: The American people are suffering

Žena: Američki narod pati

in our country right now.

u našoj zemlji baš sada.

Why do we continue to send foreign aid

Zašto nastavljamo da šaljemo inostranu pomoć

to other countries

drugim zemljama

when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?

kada nam je potrebna sva pomoć koju možemo da pribavimo za sebe?

AC: Governor Perry, what about that?

AK: Guverneru Peri, šta kažete na to?

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

Rick Perry: Absolutely, I think it's—

Rik Peri: Apsolutno, ja smatram da -

Paul Bloom: Each of the people onstage

Pol Blum: Svako od ljudi na sceni

agreed with the premise of her question,

se složio sa premisom njenog pitanja,

which is as Americans, we should care more

a to je da bi, kao Amerikanci, trebalo da više brinemo

about Americans than about other people.

o Amerikancima nego o drugim ljudima.

And in fact, in general, people are often swayed

I zapravo, uopšte, ljudima često upravljaju

by feelings of solidarity, loyalty, pride, patriotism,

osećanja solidarnosti, lojalnosti, ponosa, patriotizma,

towards their country or towards their ethnic group.

prema njihovoj zemlji ili prema njihovoj etničkoj grupi.

Regardless of your politics, many people feel proud to be American,

Bez obzira na politiku, mnogi ljudi su ponosni što su Amerikanci,

and they favor Americans over other countries.

i favorizuju Amerikance u odnosu na druge zemlje.

Residents of other countries feel the same about their nation,

Stanovnici drugih zemalja isto osećaju za svoju naciju,

and we feel the same about our ethnicities.

i isto osećamo za naše nacionalnosti.

Now some of you may reject this.

Neki od vas mogu ovo odbaciti.

Some of you may be so cosmopolitan

Neki od vas mogu biti takve kosmopolite

that you think that ethnicity and nationality

da mislite da nacionalnost i državljanstvo

should hold no moral sway.

ne bi trebalo da imaju moralnog uticaja.

But even you sophisticates accept

Ali čak i vi sofisticirani prihvatate

that there should be some pull

da bi trebalo da postoji neka prednost

towards the in-group in the domain of friends and family,

data unutar grupe u domenu prijatelja i porodice,

of people you're close to,

ljudi kojima ste bliski,

and so even you make a distinction

i tako čak i vi pravite razliku

between us versus them.

između nas protiv njih.

Now, this distinction is natural enough

Sad, ova razlika je dovoljno prirodna

and often moral enough, but it can go awry,

i često dovoljno moralna, ali može da pođe naopako,

and this was part of the research

a ovo je bilo deo istraživanja

of the great social psychologist Henri Tajfel.

sjajnog socijalnog psihologa Henrija Tažfela.

Tajfel was born in Poland in 1919.

Tažfel je rođen u Poljskoj 1919. godine.

He left to go to university in France,

Otišao je na univerzitet u Francuskoj,

because as a Jew, he couldn't go to university in Poland,

jer kao Jevrejin nije mogao da ide na univerzitet u Poljskoj,

and then he enlisted in the French military

i zatim se priključio francuskoj vojsci

in World War II.

u Drugom svetskom ratu.

He was captured and ended up

Bio je uhvaćen i završio je

in a prisoner of war camp,

kao zarobljenik ratnog logora,

and it was a terrifying time for him,

i to je bilo zastrašujuće vreme za njega,

because if it was discovered that he was a Jew,

jer ako bi bilo otkriveno da je Jevrejin,

he could have been moved to a concentration camp,

mogao bi biti premešten u koncentracioni logor,

where he most likely would not have survived.

gde najverovatnije ne bi preživeo.

And in fact, when the war ended and he was released,

I zapravo, kada se rat završio i on je bio oslobođen,

most of his friends and family were dead.

većina njegovih prijatelja i porodice su bili mrtvi.

He got involved in different pursuits.

On se uključio u različite poslove.

He helped out the war orphans.

Pomagao je ratnim siročićima.

But he had a long-lasting interest

Ali je imao dugotrajno interesovanje

in the science of prejudice,

za nauku predrasuda,

and so when a prestigious British scholarship

i tako kada se pojavila prestižna britanska stipendija

on stereotypes opened up, he applied for it,

za stereotipe, prijavio se za nju,

and he won it,

i dobio ju je,

and then he began this amazing career.

i onda je započela ova neverovatna karijera.

And what started his career is an insight

A ono čime je počela njegova karijera jeste uvid da je

that the way most people were thinking

način na koji su mnogi ljudi razmišljali

about the Holocaust was wrong.

o holokaustu bio pogrešan.

Many people, most people at the time,

Mnogi ljudi, većina ljudi u to vreme,

viewed the Holocaust as sort of representing

vide holokaust kao nekakvu

some tragic flaw on the part of the Germans,

tragičnu grešku Nemaca,

some genetic taint, some authoritarian personality.

neku genetsku mrlju, neku autoritarnu ličnost.

And Tajfel rejected this.

A Tažfel je ovo odbacio.

Tajfel said what we see in the Holocaust

Tažfel je rekao da je ono što vidimo u holokaustu

is just an exaggeration

samo preuveličavanje

of normal psychological processes

normalnih psiholoških procesa

that exist in every one of us.

koji postoji u svakom od nas.

And to explore this, he did a series of classic studies

I da bi ovo istražio, uradio je seriju klasičnih studija

with British adolescents.

sa britanskim adolescentima.

And in one of his studies, what he did was he asked

U jednoj od tih studija,

the British adolescents all sorts of questions,

britanskim adolescentima je postavljao najrazličitija pitanja,

and then based on their answers, he said,

i zatim je na osnovu odgovora govorio -

"I've looked at your answers, and based on the answers,

"Pogledao sam vaše odgovore, i na osnovu njih,

I have determined that you are either" —

odredio sam da ste ili" -

he told half of them —

polovini je rekao -

"a Kandinsky lover, you love the work of Kandinsky,

"ljubitelj Kandinskog, volite dela Kandinskog,

or a Klee lover, you love the work of Klee."

ili ljubitelj Klea, volite dela Klea."

It was entirely bogus.

To je bilo potpuno izmišljeno.

Their answers had nothing to do with Kandinsky or Klee.

Njihovi odgovori nisu imali veze sa Kandinskim ili Kleom.

They probably hadn't heard of the artists.

Oni verovatno nisu čuli za te umetnike.

He just arbitrarily divided them up.

On ih je samo proizvoljno podelio.

But what he found was, these categories mattered,

Ali ono što je otkrio jeste da su ove kategorije bile od značaja,

so when he later gave the subjects money,

tako da kada je kasnije davao subjektima novac,

they would prefer to give the money

oni su preferirali da daju novac

to members of their own group

članovima sopstvene grupe

than members of the other group.

nego članovima druge grupe.

Worse, they were actually most interested

Još gore, bili su zapravo najzainteresovaniji

in establishing a difference

da utvrde razliku

between their group and other groups,

između njihove grupe i drugih grupa,

so they would give up money for their own group

tako da bi prepustili novac za sopstvenu grupu

if by doing so they could give the other group even less.

ako bi čineći to mogli da daju drugoj grupi još manje.

This bias seems to show up very early.

Čini se da se ova sklonost javlja veoma rano.

So my colleague and wife, Karen Wynn, at Yale

Tako je moja koleginica i žena, Karen Vin, na Jejlu

has done a series of studies with babies

uradila niz istraživanja sa bebama

where she exposes babies to puppets,

gde je izlagala bebe lutkama,

and the puppets have certain food preferences.

i te lutke imaju određene preferencije za hranu.

So one of the puppets might like green beans.

Jedna od lutaka bi mogla da voli boraniju.

The other puppet might like graham crackers.

Druga lutka bi mogla da voli integralne krekere.

They test the babies own food preferences,

Testiraju bebine lične preferencije hrane

and babies typically prefer the graham crackers.

i bebe tipično više vole integralne krekere.

But the question is, does this matter to babies

Ali pitanje je, da li je ovo važno bebama

in how they treat the puppets? And it matters a lot.

u tome kako tretiraju lutke? A znači dosta.

They tend to prefer the puppet

One obično preferiraju lutku

who has the same food tastes that they have,

koja ima isti ukus za hranu kakav one imaju,

and worse, they actually prefer puppets

i još gore, one zapravo preferiraju lutke

who punish the puppet with the different food taste.

koje kažnjavaju lutke sa različitim ukusom za hranu.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

We see this sort of in-group, out-group psychology all the time.

Mi stalno vidimo ovu vrstu unutargrupne, izvangrupne psihologije.

We see it in political clashes

Vidimo je u političkim sukobima

within groups with different ideologies.

unutar grupa sa različitim ideologijama.

We see it in its extreme in cases of war,

Vidimo je u svojoj krajnosti u slučajevima rata,

where the out-group isn't merely given less,

gde spoljnoj grupi ne samo da je dato manje,

but dehumanized,

već je ona dehumanizovana,

as in the Nazi perspective of Jews

kao u nacističkoj perspektivi Jevreja

as vermin or lice,

kao gamadi ili vašaka,

or the American perspective of Japanese as rats.

ili američkoj perspektivi o Japancima kao pacovima.

Stereotypes can also go awry.

Stereotipi takođe mogu da pođu naopako.

So often they're rational and useful,

Dakle, često su racionalni i korisni,

but sometimes they're irrational,

ali ponekad su iracionalni,

they give the wrong answers,

daju pogrešne odgovore,

and other times

a u drugim prilikama

they lead to plainly immoral consequences.

vode do očigledno nemoralnih posledica.

And the case that's been most studied

A slučaj koji je bio najviše izučavan

is the case of race.

je slučaj rase.

There was a fascinating study

Postoji fascinantno istraživanje

prior to the 2008 election

koje je prethodilo izborima 2008. godine

where social psychologists looked at the extent

gde su socijalni psiholozi promatrali opseg

to which the candidates were associated with America,

u kojem su kandidati bili povezivani sa Amerikom,

as in an unconscious association with the American flag.

kao u nesvesnoj asocijaciji sa američkom zastavom.

U jednoj od studija su uporedili

And in one of their studies they compared

Obama and McCain, and they found McCain

Obamu i Mekejna, i pronašli su da je Mekejn

is thought of as more American than Obama,

više smatran Amerikancem nego Obama,

and to some extent, people aren't that surprised by hearing that.

i do izvesne mere, ljudi nisu toliko iznenađeni što to čuju.

McCain is a celebrated war hero,

Mekejn je proslavljeni ratni heroj,

and many people would explicitly say

i mnogi ljudi bi eksplicitno rekli

he has more of an American story than Obama.

da ima više američku priču od Obame.

But they also compared Obama

Ali su takođe uporedili Obamu

to British Prime Minister Tony Blair,

sa britanskim premijerom Tonijem Blerom,

and they found that Blair was also thought of

i otkrili su da je Bler takođe smatran

as more American than Obama,

kao više američki od Obame,

even though subjects explicitly understood

iako su subjekti eksplicitno shvatali

that he's not American at all.

da on uopšte nije Amerikanac.

But they were responding, of course,

Ali oni su reagovali, naravno,

to the color of his skin.

na boju njegove kože.

These stereotypes and biases

Ovi stereotipi i pristrasnosti

have real-world consequences,

imaju posledice u stvarnom svetu,

both subtle and very important.

ujedno suptilne i vrlo značajne.

In one recent study, researchers

U jednoj skorijoj studiji, istraživači

put ads on eBay for the sale of baseball cards.

su stavljali oglase na Ibej za prodaju bejzbol kartica.

Some of them were held by white hands,

Neke od njih su držale bele ruke,

others by black hands.

a druge crne.

They were the same baseball cards.

To su bile iste bejzbol kartice.

The ones held by black hands

One koje su držale crne ruke

got substantially smaller bids

su dobile znatno manje ponude

than the ones held by white hands.

nego one koje su držale bele ruke.

In research done at Stanford,

U istraživanju obavljenom na Stenfordu,

psychologists explored the case of people

psiholozi su ispitivali slučaj ljudi

sentenced for the murder of a white person.

osuđenih zbog ubistva bele osobe.

It turns out, holding everything else constant,

Ispostavilo se, kada se sve ostalo drži konstantnim,

you are considerably more likely to be executed

znatno je verovatnije da ćete biti pogubljeni

if you look like the man on the right

ako izgledate kao čovek sa desne strane

than the man on the left,

nego kao čovek sa leve strane,

and this is in large part because

a to je većim delom jer

the man on the right looks more prototypically black,

čovek desno izgleda više prototipski crno,

more prototypically African-American,

više prototipski afroamerički,

and this apparently influences people's decisions

i ovo očigledno utiče na odluke ljudi

over what to do about him.

o tome šta da urade sa njim.

So now that we know about this,

Sada kada znamo sve ovo,

how do we combat it?

kako da se borimo sa time?

And there are different avenues.

Postoje različiti pristupi.

One avenue is to appeal

Jedan pristup je privući

to people's emotional responses,

emocionalne reakcije ljudi,

to appeal to people's empathy,

privući empatiju ljudi,

and we often do that through stories.

i često to i radimo kroz priče.

So if you are a liberal parent

Tako da ako ste liberalni roditelj

and you want to encourage your children

i želite da podstaknete svoju decu

to believe in the merits of nontraditional families,

da veruju u vrednosti netradicionalnih porodica,

you might give them a book like this. ["Heather Has Two Mommies"]

možda ćete im dati knjigu kao što je ova.

If you are conservative and have a different attitude,

Ako ste konzervativni i imate drugačiji stav,

you might give them a book like this.

možda ćete im dati knjigu kao što je ova.

(Laughter) ["Help! Mom! There Are Liberals under My Bed!"]

(Smeh)

But in general, stories can turn

Ali uopšteno, priče mogu pretvoriti

anonymous strangers into people who matter,

anonimne strance u ljude koji su važni,

and the idea that we care about people

i ideja da nam je stalo do ljudi

when we focus on them as individuals

kada se fokusiramo na njih kao individue

is an idea which has shown up across history.

je ideja koja se javljala kroz istoriju.

So Stalin apocryphally said,

Tako je Staljin navodno rekao:

"A single death is a tragedy,

"Pojedinačna smrt je tragedija,

a million deaths is a statistic,"

milion smrti je statistički podatak",

and Mother Teresa said,

a Majka Tereza je rekla:

"If I look at the mass, I will never act.

"Ako pogledam masu, nikada neću delovati.

If I look at the one, I will."

Ako pogledam pojedinca, hoću."

Psychologists have explored this.

Psiholozi su istraživali ovo.

For instance, in one study,

Na primer, u jednoj studiji,

people were given a list of facts about a crisis,

ljudima su dali listu činjenica o krizi,

and it was seen how much they would donate

i posmatrano je koliko će oni donirati

to solve this crisis,

da bi razrešili krizu,

and another group was given no facts at all

a drugoj grupi nisu dali nikakve činjenice

but they were told of an individual

ali im je govoreno o pojedincu

and given a name and given a face,

i dato im je ime i lice,

and it turns out that they gave far more.

i ispostavlja se da su oni dali daleko više.

None of this I think is a secret

Ništa od ovoga nije tajna za ljude

to the people who are engaged in charity work.

koji su angažovani u dobrotvornom radu.

People don't tend to deluge people

Ljudi nisu skloni da preplave ljude

with facts and statistics.

činjenicama i statistikom.

Rather, you show them faces,

Umesto toga,

you show them people.

pokazujete im lica i ljude.

It's possible that by extending our sympathies

Moguće je da širenjem naših simpatija

to an individual, they can spread

ka pojedincu, one se mogu raširiti

to the group that the individual belongs to.

prema grupi kojoj pojedinac pripada.

This is Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Ovo je Herijet Bičer Stou.

The story, perhaps apocryphal,

Priča, možda izmišljena,

is that President Lincoln invited her

je da ju je predsednik Linkoln pozvao

to the White House in the middle of the Civil War

u Belu Kuću usred Građanskog rata

and said to her,

i rekao joj:

"So you're the little lady who started this great war."

"Dakle, ti si ta mala dama koja je započela ovaj veliki rat."

And he was talking about "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

A govorio je o "Čiča Tominoj kolibi".

"Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not a great book of philosophy

"Čiča Tomina koliba" nije velika knjiga filozofije

or of theology or perhaps not even literature,

ili teologije ili možda čak ni književnosti

but it does a great job

ali je obavila sjajan posao

of getting people to put themselves in the shoes

pridobijanja ljudi da se postave na mesto

of people they wouldn't otherwise be in the shoes of,

ljudi na čijem mestu se inače ne bi našli,

put themselves in the shoes of slaves.

da se postave na mesto robova.

And that could well have been a catalyst

A to je mogao biti katalizator

for great social change.

velike socijalne promene.

More recently, looking at America

U skorije vreme, posmatrajući Ameriku

in the last several decades,

poslednjih nekoliko decenija,

there's some reason to believe that shows like "The Cosby Show"

ima razloga verovati da su programi kao što je "Kozbi Šou"

radically changed American attitudes towards African-Americans,

radikalno izmenili stavove Amerikanaca prema Afroamerikancima,

while shows like "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family"

dok su serije kao što je "Vil i Grejs" i "Moderna porodica"

changed American attitudes

promenile stavove Amerikanaca

towards gay men and women.

prema gej muškarcima i ženama.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say

Mislim da nije preterivanje reći

that the major catalyst in America for moral change

da su važni katalizatori moralne promene u Americi

has been a situation comedy.

bile situacione komedije.

But it's not all emotions,

Ali ne radi se samo o emocijama,

and I want to end by appealing

i želim da završim

to the power of reason.

pozivajući se na moć razuma.

At some point in his wonderful book

U nekom trenutku u njegovoj divnoj knjizi

"The Better Angels of Our Nature,"

"Bolji anđeli naše prirode",

Steven Pinker says,

Stiven Pinker kaže,

the Old Testament says love thy neighbor,

Stari zavet kaže - voli svog bližnjeg,

and the New Testament says love thy enemy,

a Novi zavet kaže - voli svog neprijatelja,

but I don't love either one of them, not really,

ali ja ne volim nikog od njih, ne zaista,

but I don't want to kill them.

ali ne želim da ih ubijem.

I know I have obligations to them,

Znam da imam obaveze prema njima,

but my moral feelings to them, my moral beliefs

ali moja moralna osećanja prema njima, moja moralna uverenja u vezi sa tim

about how I should behave towards them,

kako treba da se ponašam prema njima,

aren't grounded in love.

nisu utemeljena u ljubavi.

What they're grounded in is the understanding of human rights,

Utemeljena su u razumevanju ljudskih prava,

a belief that their life is as valuable to them

verovanju da je njihov život isto toliko

as my life is to me,

vredan za njih koliko i moj život za mene,

and to support this, he tells a story

i da bi ovo odbranio, on priča priču

by the great philosopher Adam Smith,

velikog filozofa Adama Smita,

and I want to tell this story too,

i želim da i ja ispričam ovu priču,

though I'm going to modify it a little bit

mada ću je malčiće izmeniti

for modern times.

zarad savremenog doba.

So Adam Smith starts by asking you to imagine

Adam Smit počinje tražeći da zamislite

the death of thousands of people,

smrt hiljada ljudi,

and imagine that the thousands of people

i zamislite da su te hiljade ljudi

are in a country you are not familiar with.

u zemlji koja vam nije bliska.

It could be China or India or a country in Africa.

To bi mogla biti Kina ili Indija ili neka zemlja u Africi.

And Smith says, how would you respond?

I Smit kaže, kako biste reagovali?

And you would say, well that's too bad,

Vi biste rekli, pa to je šteta,

and you'd go on to the rest of your life.

i nastavili biste dalje sa svojim životom.

If you were to open up The New York Times online or something,

Ako biste otvorili Njujork Tajms onlajn ili tako nešto,

and discover this, and in fact this happens to us all the time,

i otkrili ovo, a to nam se zapravo stalno dešava,

we go about our lives.

idemo dalje našim životima.

But imagine instead, Smith says,

Ali zamislite umesto toga, kaže Smit,

you were to learn that tomorrow

da saznate da će vam sutra

you were to have your little finger chopped off.

odseći mali prst.

Smith says, that would matter a lot.

Smit kaže, to bi bilo veoma bitno.

You would not sleep that night

Ne biste spavali te noći

wondering about that.

pitajući se o tome.

So this raises the question:

Ovo postavlja pitanje:

Would you sacrifice thousands of lives

da li biste žrtvovali hiljade života

to save your little finger?

da biste sačuvali svoj mali prst?

Now answer this in the privacy of your own head,

Sada odgovorite na ovo u privatnosti svoje glave,

but Smith says, absolutely not,

ali Smit kaže, apsolutno ne,

what a horrid thought.

kakva užasna pomisao.

And so this raises the question,

I to onda postavlja pitanje,

and so, as Smith puts it,

i kako Smit to izražava:

"When our passive feelings are almost always

"Kada su naša pasivna osećanja skoro uvek

so sordid and so selfish,

tako grozna i sebična,

how comes it that our active principles

kako to da su naši aktivni principi

should often be so generous and so noble?"

često tako velikodušni i plemeniti?"

And Smith's answer is, "It is reason,

A Smitov odgovor je: "To je razum,

principle, conscience.

princip, savest.

[This] calls to us,

Ovo nas poziva,

with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions,

glasom sposobnim da zaprepasti najdrskiju od naših strasti,

that we are but one of the multitude,

da smo samo jedan u mnoštvu,

in no respect better than any other in it."

ni u kom pogledu bolji nego bilo ko drugi u njemu."

And this last part is what is often described

Ovaj poslednji deo je ono što se često opisuje

as the principle of impartiality.

kao princip nepristrasnosti.

And this principle of impartiality manifests itself

Ovaj princip nepristrasnosti se manifestuje

in all of the world's religions,

u svim svetskim religijama,

in all of the different versions of the golden rule,

u svim različitim verzijama zlatnog pravila,

and in all of the world's moral philosophies,

u svim svetskim moralnim filozofijama, koje se razlikuju

which differ in many ways

na mnogo načina

but share the presupposition that we should judge morality

ali dele pretpostavku da bi trebalo procenjivati moralnost

from sort of an impartial point of view.

sa nepristrasne tačke gledišta.

The best articulation of this view

Najbolja artikulacija ovog stanovišta

is actually, for me, it's not from a theologian or from a philosopher,

nije zapravo, za mene, potekla od teologa ili filozofa,

but from Humphrey Bogart

već od Hemfrija Bogarta

at the end of "Casablanca."

na kraju "Kazablanke".

So, spoiler alert, he's telling his lover

Upozorenje za one koji nisu gledali, on govori svojoj ljubavnici

that they have to separate

da moraju da se razdvoje

for the more general good,

zbog opšteg dobra,

and he says to her, and I won't do the accent,

i kaže joj, a neću da oponašam akcent,

but he says to her, "It doesn't take much to see

no kaže: "Ne treba puno da bismo videli

that the problems of three little people

da problemi tri mala čoveka

don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

nisu ravni brdu pasulja u ovom ludom svetu."

Our reason could cause us to override our passions.

Naš razum može dovesti do toga da pređemo preko naših strasti.

Our reason could motivate us

Naš razum nas može motivisati

to extend our empathy,

da povećamo našu empatiju,

could motivate us to write a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin,"

da napišemo knjigu kao što je "Čiča Tomina koliba",

or read a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin,"

ili je pročitamo,

and our reason can motivate us to create

i naš razum nas može motivisati da stvorimo

customs and taboos and laws

običaje i tabue i zakone

that will constrain us

koji će nas sprečiti

from acting upon our impulses

da postupamo po našim impulsima

when, as rational beings, we feel

kada, kao racionalna bića, osećamo

we should be constrained.

da bi trebalo da budemo zauzdani.

This is what a constitution is.

To je ono što je ustav.

A constitution is something which was set up in the past

Ustav je nešto što je postavljeno u prošlosti

that applies now in the present,

i važi za sadašnjost,

and what it says is,

i ono što on kaže jeste,

no matter how much we might to reelect

bez obzira koliko bismo mogli da ponovo biramo

a popular president for a third term,

popularnog predsednika za treći mandat,

no matter how much white Americans might choose

bez obzira na to koliko beli Amerikanci mogu birati

to feel that they want to reinstate the institution of slavery, we can't.

da misle da žele da obnove instituciju ropstva, ne možemo.

We have bound ourselves.

Obavezali smo se.

And we bind ourselves in other ways as well.

Mi se takođe obavezujemo i na druge načine.

We know that when it comes to choosing somebody

Znamo da kada treba odabrati nekog

for a job, for an award,

za posao, za nagradu,

we are strongly biased by their race,

mi smo snažno pristrasni u odnosu na njihovu rasu,

we are biased by their gender,

pristrasni smo u odnosu na njihov pol,

we are biased by how attractive they are,

u odnosu na to koliko su privlačni,

and sometimes we might say, "Well fine, that's the way it should be."

i nekad možemo reći: "Pa dobro, tako treba da bude."

But other times we say, "This is wrong."

Ali drugi put kažemo: "Ovo je pogrešno."

And so to combat this,

A da bismo se izborili sa ovim,

we don't just try harder,

ne samo da se više trudimo,

but rather what we do is we set up situations

već umesto toga postavljamo situacije

where these other sources of information can't bias us,

gde ovi drugi izvori informacija ne mogu da nas učine pristrasnim,

which is why many orchestras

zbog čega mnogi orkestri

audition musicians behind screens,

slušaju muzičare na audiciji iza paravana,

so the only information they have

tako da imaju jedino

is the information they believe should matter.

informacije za koje veruju da treba da budu značajne.

I think prejudice and bias

Smatram da predrasude i pristrasnosti

illustrate a fundamental duality of human nature.

ilustruju fundamentalnu dvojnost ljudske prirode.

We have gut feelings, instincts, emotions,

Imamo intuiciju, instinkte, emocije,

and they affect our judgments and our actions

i oni utiču na naše rasuđivanje i naše radnje

for good and for evil,

na dobar i loš način,

but we are also capable of rational deliberation

ali smo takođe sposobni za racionalno promišljanje

and intelligent planning,

i inteligentno planiranje,

and we can use these to, in some cases,

i možemo ih koristiti da, u nekim slučajevima,

accelerate and nourish our emotions,

pokrenemo i negujemo naše emocije,

and in other cases staunch them.

a u drugim slučajevima, da ih zaustavimo.

And it's in this way

I na ovaj način

that reason helps us create a better world.

nam razum pomaže da stvorimo bolji svet.

Thank you.

Hvala vam.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)