Science can answer moral questions | Sam Harris

譯者: Coco Shen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

I'm going to speak today about the relationship

今日我要討論科學和價值觀

between science and human values.

之間的關係

Now, it's generally understood that

我們一般認為

questions of morality --

有關道德問題

questions of good and evil and right and wrong --

善惡對錯的概念

are questions about which science officially has no opinion.

是科學所不能解決和參與討論的

It's thought that science can help us

人們認為科學可以幫助我們

get what we value,

得到我們所想要的

but it can never tell us what we ought to value.

卻永遠無法告訴我們什麼是重要的

And, consequently, most people -- I think most people

於是大部分的人，甚至今日坐在這裏的各位

probably here -- think that science will never answer

認為科學永遠無法回答

the most important questions in human life:

人類生命中的重要問題

questions like, "What is worth living for?"

像是“我們為了什麼活著？”

"What is worth dying for?"

“我們應該為什麼犧牲？”

"What constitutes a good life?"

“什麼樣的生活，是一個幸福的生活？”

So, I'm going to argue

我想告訴大家

that this is an illusion -- that the separation between

把科學和人類價值觀做分隔

science and human values is an illusion --

是一種人為假像

and actually quite a dangerous one

是一個非常危險的假像

at this point in human history.

尤其是在我們的今日社會

Now, it's often said that science

人們常說科學

cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values,

不能作為道德和價值觀的基礎

because science deals with facts,

因為科學講求實證

and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres.

而事實和價值似乎是兩種不同層次的事

It's often thought that there's no description

人們認為，就算把世界的模樣

of the way the world is

描繪出來

that can tell us how the world ought to be.

也不能帶我們走到烏托邦

But I think this is quite clearly untrue.

但我認為這很明顯是錯誤的

Values are a certain kind of fact.

價值自然是一種實證

They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

是人類如何可以獲得幸福生活的實證

Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks?

為什麼我們對石頭沒有任何道德要求？

Why don't we feel compassion for rocks?

為什麼我們對石頭沒有仁愛之情？

It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more

因為我們不認為石頭會受折磨

concerned about our fellow primates

如果和昆蟲做比較

than we are about insects, as indeed we are,

我們比較關心我們自己的物種

it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range

那是因為我們認為我們比昆蟲

of potential happiness and suffering.

能感受到更大程度的快樂或痛苦

Now, the crucial thing to notice here

其中的意義是

is that this is a factual claim:

這個說法是有實證的

This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we

這中間是有對錯的

have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity

如果我們在生物複雜性和知覺體驗的關係上

and the possibilities of experience

做出了錯誤的推估

well then we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.

那代表我們有可能錯估了昆蟲的內心生活

And there's no notion,

但是我發覺

no version of human morality

從沒有一種道德

and human values that I've ever come across

和價值觀

that is not at some point reducible

是和人類的感知體驗

to a concern about conscious experience

和嘗試改變這感知體驗的可能性

and its possible changes.

無關的

Even if you get your values from religion,

就算你的價值觀來自宗教

even if you think that good and evil ultimately

就算你認為善惡

relate to conditions after death --

和死後的結果有關聯

either to an eternity of happiness with God

永遠和神在快樂的國度裏逍遙

or an eternity of suffering in hell --

或是永遠在地獄之火中燃燒

you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes.

這仍然兩種不同的感知體驗有關

And to say that such changes can persist after death

認為這些體驗會一直持續到死後的世界

is itself a factual claim,

也是在追求一種實證

which, of course, may or may not be true.

雖然誰也不知道死後的世界會如何

Now, to speak about the conditions of well-being

談到幸福生活的基礎

in this life, for human beings,

身為人類，在此生

we know that there is a continuum of such facts.

我們知道有些事實一直存在

We know that it's possible to live in a failed state,

我們知道你有可能會住在一個失序的國家

where everything that can go wrong does go wrong --

所有東西都有可能出錯

where mothers cannot feed their children,

母親無法餵養她們的孩子

where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration,

人們找不到一個能保障和平的共識

where people are murdered indiscriminately.

人們被不分青紅地謀殺

And we know that it's possible to move along this continuum

我們知道我們可以解決這些持續已久的問題

towards something quite a bit more idyllic,

走向一個較為理想的狀況

to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable.

像我們現在這樣，齊聚一堂，和平討論

And we know -- we know --

我們知道，清楚知道

that there are right and wrong answers

想要達到這樣的境界

to how to move in this space.

有對的，也有錯誤的方法

Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea?

在水中加入霍亂病毒是對的嗎？

Probably not.

大概不是

Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye,

每個人都相信邪惡之眼的魔力

so that when bad things happened to them

於是，當某些不幸事件發生

they immediately blame their neighbors? Probably not.

他們馬上就開始怪罪他們的鄰舍？大概也不是

There are truths to be known

我們應該去理解

about how human communities flourish,

人類社群邁向繁榮的方法

whether or not we understand these truths.

無論我們現在能不能理解

And morality relates to these truths.

或把這些事實和道德做連結

So, in talking about values we are talking about facts.

當我們討論價值，我們就是在討論事實

Now, of course our situation in the world can be understood at many levels --

世界的現況可以用很多不同層次來看

from the level of the genome

從染色體的層次

on up to the level of economic systems

一直到經濟體系

and political arrangements.

和政治協定的層次

But if we're going to talk about human well-being

但如果我們回去思考人類幸福的議題

we are, of necessity, talking about the human brain.

我們必須談到人類的大腦

Because we know that our experience of the world and of ourselves within it

因為我們知道我們對世界的看法、我們的體驗和感知

is realized in the brain --

都是由大腦建構的

whatever happens after death.

無論死後會怎樣

Even if the suicide bomber does get 72 virgins in the afterlife,

就算背著炸彈自殺死後能得到72個處女

in this life, his personality --

在此生，他的人格

his rather unfortunate personality --

這令人遺憾的人格

is the product of his brain.

也是由他的大腦所產出

So the contributions of culture --

於是，文化的貢獻是 －

if culture changes us, as indeed it does,

是因為文化會改變我們的想法

it changes us by changing our brains.

也就是改變我們大腦的思考模式

And so therefore whatever cultural variation there is

於是不管有多少不同文化

in how human beings flourish

對人類的幸福有多少不同想法

can, at least in principle, be understood

都可以原則性地

in the context of a maturing science of the mind --

以成熟的腦內科學作為理解的辦法

neuroscience, psychology, etc.

神經科學、心理學等等

So, what I'm arguing is that

我想說的是

value's reduced to facts --

價值觀可以以事實

to facts about the conscious experience

有關人類感知體驗的事實

of conscious beings.

作為準則

And we can therefore visualize a space

我們才有可能想像在某個情況下

of possible changes in the experience of these beings.

來改變這些人的體驗

And I think of this as kind of a moral landscape,

這就像一片道德風景

with peaks and valleys that correspond

有不同的山巔和峽谷

to differences in the well-being of conscious creatures,

像是人類對於幸福生活的不同感知

both personal and collective.

無論是個人或群體的

And one thing to notice is that perhaps

我們該注意的是

there are states of human well-being

或許有個人類幸福的所在

that we rarely access, that few people access.

是我們從來沒有去過的，很少人能達到的體驗

And these await our discovery.

正在等待我們去發掘

Perhaps some of these states can be appropriately called

或許這些體驗就是我們所說的

mystical or spiritual.

神秘或靈性的體驗

Perhaps there are other states that we can't access

或許有些是我們根本無法體驗的

because of how our minds are structured

因為我們的大腦有自己的迴路

but other minds possibly could access them.

但其他人卻可能可以到達

Now, let me be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying

我必須澄清，我並不是說

that science is guaranteed to map this space,

科學可以完全為我們畫出這份幸福地圖

or that we will have scientific answers to every

或是科學可以回答

conceivable moral question.

所有道德爭議

I don't think, for instance, that you will one day consult

舉例來說，我並不認為

a supercomputer to learn whether you should have a second child,

某天我們會和電腦商量我們是不是該生第二胎

or whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities,

或是我們是不是應該轟炸伊朗的核子設備

or whether you can deduct the full cost of TED as a business expense.

或是參加TED演講的經費是不是可以向公司報賬

(Laughter)

（大笑）

But if questions affect human well-being

但如果這個問題是影響到人身幸福的

then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them.

他們是有答案的，無論我們找不著得到

And just admitting this --

承認吧

just admitting that there are right and wrong answers

當我們嘗試解決人類幸福的問題

to the question of how humans flourish --

是可能會有錯誤答案的

will change the way we talk about morality,

承認這個事實能改變我們討論道德的方法

and will change our expectations

也會改變我們在合作共創未來時

of human cooperation in the future.

所期待的結果

For instance, there are 21 states in our country

舉例來說，在美國還有21省

where corporal punishment in the classroom is legal,

課堂上的體罰是合法的

where it is legal for a teacher to beat a child with a wooden board, hard,

這個老師可以合法使用木板

and raising large bruises and blisters and even breaking the skin.

把孩子打得瘀傷、起水泡、甚至破皮

And hundreds of thousands of children, incidentally,

每年有千百個孩子

are subjected to this every year.

都在遭受這樣的待遇

The locations of these enlightened districts, I think, will fail to surprise you.

而且我認為，你會很吃驚，這都是些什麼省份

We're not talking about Connecticut.

不是康乃迪克州

And the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious.

宗教往往是這些做法背後的理由

The creator of the universe himself

創造宇宙的造物主說

has told us not to spare the rod,

告訴我們不要“不忍用仗”

lest we spoil the child --

不然會寵壞孩子

this is in Proverbs 13 and 20, and I believe, 23.

這是《舊約箴言》第13章20、和23節

But we can ask the obvious question:

我們可以問一個簡單的問題

Is it a good idea, generally speaking,

以常理判斷

to subject children to pain

讓孩子經歷這樣的痛苦

and violence and public humiliation

暴力和在眾人面前被羞辱

as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development

會帶來健康的情緒發展

and good behavior?

和良好行為模式嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Is there any doubt

我們之中有人懷疑

that this question has an answer,

這個問題不但有解答

and that it matters?

而且對我們來說很重要？

Now, many of you might worry

或許在你們之中，有許多人會擔心

that the notion of well-being is truly undefined,

這所謂的幸福該如何界定

and seemingly perpetually open to be re-construed.

這似乎沒有一定的標準

And so, how therefore can there be an

而且，怎麼可能有一種完全客觀的

objective notion of well-being?

“人身幸福”的標準存在呢？

Well, consider by analogy, the concept of physical health.

如果是這樣，難道因為對身體健康的概念

The concept of physical health is undefined.

沒有一個真正的定論

As we just heard from Michael Specter, it has changed over the years.

如同 Michael Specter 适才說道，這些概念也會改變

When this statue was carved

在這個雕像產生的年代

the average life expectancy was probably 30.

人類的平均壽命是30

It's now around 80 in the developed world.

現在已發展國家的平均壽命是80

There may come a time when we meddle with our genomes

也許有一天，因為我們對基因的研究

in such a way that not being able to run a marathon

200歲不能跑馬拉松

at age 200 will be considered a profound disability.

是一種殘疾

People will send you donations when you're in that condition.

如果你有這種狀況，人們會捐錢給你

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Notice that the fact that the concept of health

我們知道健康的觀念會改變

is open, genuinely open for revision,

隨時都可以重新思考

does not make it vacuous.

這不代表這些討論是毫無意義的

The distinction between a healthy person

一個健康的人和一個死人

and a dead one

之間的差別

is about as clear and consequential as any we make in science.

在科學或理論裏是一樣的

Another thing to notice is there may be many peaks on the moral landscape:

另外一個該注意的事情是道德地圖上雖然有很多山巔

There may be equivalent ways to thrive;

是有可能可以一起努力

there may be equivalent ways to organize a human society

一起找出一個管理人類社會的方法

so as to maximize human flourishing.

一起找出最大的幸福

Now, why wouldn't this

為什麼我們不能將這個

undermine an objective morality?

當作客觀道德的基礎？

Well think of how we talk about food:

想像我們討論食物的方式

I would never be tempted to argue to you

我永遠不會和你爭辯

that there must be one right food to eat.

人類應該有吃的自由

There is clearly a range of materials

一個健康的飲食方式中

that constitute healthy food.

有許多不同食物

But there's nevertheless a clear distinction

但從沒有人會把食物和毒物

between food and poison.

搞錯

The fact that there are many right answers

當我們問“什麼是食物？”的時候

to the question, "What is food?"

有許多正確答案

does not tempt us

並不會阻止我們

to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition.

去研究營養學，找出更多事實

Many people worry

許多人擔心

that a universal morality would require

普世道德必須有一種

moral precepts that admit of no exceptions.

嚴厲的基本教義，不允許例外

So, for instance, if it's really wrong to lie,

比如說，說謊是錯誤的

it must always be wrong to lie,

說謊永遠是錯誤的

and if you can find an exception,

如果你能找到例外的話

well then there's no such thing as moral truth.

這就不是真正的道德

Why would we think this?

為什麼我們會這樣想？

Consider, by analogy, the game of chess.

讓我們以西洋棋為例

Now, if you're going to play good chess,

如果你想打一盤漂亮的西洋棋

a principle like, "Don't lose your Queen,"

“別失去你的皇后”

is very good to follow.

是一個很好的原則

But it clearly admits some exceptions.

但它也有例外

There are moments when losing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do.

在某些時候犧牲皇后是一種很漂亮的打法

There are moments when it is the only good thing you can do.

在某些必要時刻，那是你唯一能做的

And yet, chess is a domain of perfect objectivity.

但西洋棋是一個絕對客觀的遊戲

The fact that there are exceptions here does not

就算在棋局中允許例外

change that at all.

也不會改變這個事實

Now, this brings us to the sorts of moves

在這個道德的場域裏

that people are apt to make in the moral sphere.

有些事是我們應該做的

Consider the great problem of women's bodies:

想想女性身體政治

What to do about them?

我們該怎麼做？

Well this is one thing you can do about them:

有個方法是

You can cover them up.

你可以把它們蓋起來

Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community

普遍來說，我們的學術界是這樣想的

that while we may not like this,

雖然我們不喜歡這樣

we might think of this as "wrong"

我們覺得這樣是錯誤的

in Boston or Palo Alto,

在波士頓或帕羅奧多

who are we to say

但我們怎麼能說

that the proud denizens of an ancient culture

這些古老文化的驕傲後裔

are wrong to force their wives and daughters

不應該強迫它們的妻子和女兒

to live in cloth bags?

住在衣袋裏？

And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong

我們怎麼能說，他們是錯誤的

to beat them with lengths of steel cable,

當他們用鋼索痛打她們

or throw battery acid in their faces

或是把強酸潑到她們臉上

if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?

如果她們拒絕被這樣對待？

Well, who are we not to say this?

我們憑什麼可以這樣說呢？

Who are we to pretend

我們怎麼可以裝作

that we know so little about human well-being

我們完全不瞭解人類的幸福

that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?

或是我們應該對此類行為保持中立？

I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil --

我不是在說那些自發性的蒙頭

women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned.

我認為女人應該想穿什麼就穿什麼

But what does voluntary mean

但自發性是什麼意思？

in a community where,

在一個女孩被強暴

when a girl gets raped,

他的父親的第一個反應

her father's first impulse,

往往是謀殺她以免羞愧

rather often, is to murder her out of shame?

的這種社會？自發性是什麼意思？

Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute:

讓這些事實在你腦中轉一轉：

Your daughter gets raped,

你的女兒被強暴了

and what you want to do is kill her.

你的反應竟然是殺掉她

What are the chances that represents

請問你真的覺得這應該是

a peak of human flourishing?

人類幸福的一個可能嗎？

Now, to say this is not to say that we have got the

我這麼說，並不是說我們的社會

perfect solution in our own society.

有最完美的解答

For instance,

舉例來說

this is what it's like to go to a newsstand almost anywhere

現在你到任何文明國家的報攤

in the civilized world.

都可以看到這樣的景象

Now, granted, for many men

我必須承認，對大部分的男人來說

it may require a degree in philosophy to see something wrong with these images.

可能需要有某種程度的哲學修為，才會覺得這有什麼不對

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But if we are in a reflective mood,

但當我們自省的時候

we can ask,

我們也可以想

"Is this the perfect expression

“這樣的東西會讓我們

of psychological balance

完美學習尊重不同女性的

with respect to variables like youth and beauty and women's bodies?"

年齡和肉體嗎？”

I mean, is this the optimal environment

難道我們會希望我們的孩子

in which to raise our children?

生在在這種視覺環境裏嗎？

Probably not. OK, so perhaps there's some place

大概不會。於是在這兩個極端中

on the spectrum

.

between these two extremes

應該有一個中間點

that represents a place of better balance.

能帶來一種比較健康的平衡

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Perhaps there are many such places --

或許這個平衡點不止一個

again, given other changes in human culture

在這個多元的世界裏

there may be many peaks on the moral landscape.

我們的道德地圖應該有許多不同的山峰

But the thing to notice is that there will be

但重點是

many more ways not to be on a peak.

這世界上還有許多不是這些山峰的地方

Now the irony, from my perspective,

在我看來，諷刺的事情是

is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me

一般會認同我說法的

and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions

那些覺得道德爭議是有正確和錯誤答案的

are religious demagogues of one form or another.

大都是一些宗教家

And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions

他們當然會覺得道德爭議有正確答案

because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind,

因為他們已經在神秘之聲中聽到這些答案了

not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes

而不是因為他們理智思考和分析過這些議題

and condition of human and animal well-being.

人類和動物的幸福快樂

In fact, the endurance of religion

事實上，在許久以來

as a lens through which most people view moral questions

宗教成為人們關注道德的角度

has separated most moral talk

讓所有的道德議題

from real questions of human and animal suffering.

都和人類和動物的痛苦脫鉤

This is why we spend our time

這就是為什麼我們花費精神

talking about things like gay marriage

討論同性戀是不是應該結婚

and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation

而不是種族屠殺或是核子武器激增

or poverty or any other hugely consequential issue.

或是貧窮和其他一樣嚴重的議題

But the demagogues are right about one thing: We need

但這些宗教煽動者說對了一件事

a universal conception of human values.

我們需要一個普世價值

Now, what stands in the way of this?

為什麼這會這麼困難？

Well, one thing to notice is that we

其中一件是就是當我們討論道德

do something different when talking about morality --

我們這些沒有特殊宗教的、學術的、科學家型的人

especially secular, academic, scientist types.

就會產生差別待遇

When talking about morality we value differences of opinion

當我們討論道德，我們就開始尊重不同意見

in a way that we don't in any other area of our lives.

但我們在其他方面不會這樣做

So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning

舉例來說，達賴喇嘛每天早上起來

meditating on compassion,

思考仁愛精神

and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component

他認為幫助其他人類是帶來人類快樂的一部分

of human happiness.

.

On the other hand, we have someone like Ted Bundy;

另外一邊我們有 Ted Bundy

Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping

他的興趣是綁架和強暴

and torturing and killing young women.

虐待和殺害這些年輕女孩

So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion

很明顯的，這裏我們看到每個人對打發時間

about how to profitably use one's time.

都有不同的看法

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Most Western intellectuals

大部分的西方學者

look at this situation

看到這個狀況

and say, "Well, there's nothing for the Dalai Lama

會說，“嗯事實上達賴喇嘛也不是

to be really right about -- really right about --

完全正確，絕對正確

or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about

Ted Bundy 也不是絕對錯誤

that admits of a real argument

這其中沒有真正的討論價值

that potentially falls within the purview of science.

這是科學範疇的事

He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla.

他喜歡巧克力，他喜歡香草

There's nothing that one should be able to say to the other

無論跟他們說什麼

that should persuade the other."

都不能改變他們。”

Notice that we don't do this in science.

但我們不會這樣討論科學

On the left you have Edward Witten.

左邊這位是愛德華·威滕

He's a string theorist.

他是弦理論的專家

If you ask the smartest physicists around

如果你問你旁邊最聰明的物理學家

who is the smartest physicist around,

誰是世界上最聰明的物理學家

in my experience half of them will say Ed Witten.

我的經驗是一半都會說是愛德華·威滕

The other half will tell you they don't like the question.

另外一半會告訴你“這個問題很不正確”

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference

那麼，如果我出現在一個物理研討會

and said,"String theory is bogus.

然後說“弦理論是個假貨

It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to

我對它沒有感覺，這不是我選擇

view the universe at a small scale.

的宇宙觀

I'm not a fan."

我不是那派的。”

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist;

什麼都不會發生，因為我不是物理學家

I don't understand string theory.

我不懂弦理論

I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory.

我是弦理論的 Ted Bundy

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.

我不想加入任何願意接受我的弦理論社團

But this is just the point.

這就是重點

Whenever we are talking about facts

當我們談論事實

certain opinions must be excluded.

我們必須排除某些意見

That is what it is to have a domain of expertise.

那就是為什麼我們有專業

That is what it is for knowledge to count.

那就是為什麼我們應該依靠知識

How have we convinced ourselves

無論我們怎麼和自己說

that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise,

在道德裏沒有所謂的道德專家

or moral talent, or moral genius even?

道德人才，或甚至道德天才

How have we convinced ourselves

為什麼我們要說服自己

that every opinion has to count?

所有的意見都應該納入考慮？

How have we convinced ourselves

我們是怎麼說服自己

that every culture has a point of view

所有的文化對這些事情都有自己的觀點

on these subjects worth considering?

而我們都應該把他們納入考量？

Does the Taliban

難道塔利班

have a point of view on physics

對物理學的意見

that is worth considering? No.

也值得我們考慮嗎？不。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

How is their ignorance any less obvious

但他們對幸福的無知

on the subject of human well-being?

和他們對物理的無知有什麼不同？

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So, this, I think, is what the world needs now.

現在世界所需要的是

It needs people like ourselves to admit

像我們這樣的人們承認

that there are right and wrong answers

在人類的幸福問題中

to questions of human flourishing,

是有正確和錯誤答案的

and morality relates

以及道德

to that domain of facts.

是和事實有直接關聯的

It is possible

個人

for individuals, and even for whole cultures,

或整個文化

to care about the wrong things,

過分關心某些錯誤議題是絕對可能的

which is to say that it's possible for them

他們的信仰和想法也絕對有可能

to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead

為人類帶來無益的痛苦

to needless human suffering.

.

Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality.

承認這些事實會改變我們討論道德的方式

We live in a world in which

在今日世界中

the boundaries between nations mean less and less,

國界的意義不斷減弱

and they will one day mean nothing.

有一天國界將沒有任何意義

We live in a world filled with destructive technology,

我們生活在一個充滿毀滅性科技的世界

and this technology cannot be uninvented;

這些技術可以不被發明

it will always be easier

搗毀一樣事情

to break things than to fix them.

永遠比重建來的容易

It seems to me, therefore, patently obvious

我認為，很明顯地

that we can no more

我們不能再

respect and tolerate

尊重和容忍這些

vast differences in notions of human well-being

對人類幸福的不同觀點

than we can respect or tolerate vast differences

就像我們不會尊重和容忍

in the notions about how disease spreads,

傳染病的散播

or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes.

或是建築和飛機的安全標準

We simply must converge

我們必須承認，這些問題

on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life.

能找到解答，才有可能

And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers.

回答人類生命中最重要的這些問題。

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: So, some combustible material there.

Chris Anderson：讓我提出一些爭議性的問題

Whether in this audience or people elsewhere in the world,

這裏有某些人，或現在在世界上別的角落

hearing some of this, may well be doing the

可能有人聽見這個

screaming-with-rage thing, after as well, some of them.

然後憤怒或尖叫。某些人。

Language seems to be really important here.

語言似乎是個很重要的元素

When you're talking about the veil,

但你提到面罩的時候

you're talking about women dressed in cloth bags.

你是說那些把全身蒙住的女人嗎

I've lived in the Muslim world, spoken with a lot of Muslim women.

我曾在回教國家居住，和許多回教婦女談話

And some of them would say something else. They would say,

她們可能會有別種想法。她們會說

"No, you know, this is a celebration

“不，這是對女性的一種禮贊

of female specialness,

凸顯我們是特別的，

it helps build that and it's a result of the fact that" --

這幫助我們這個，而且是因為那個……“

and this is arguably a sophisticated psychological view --

當然這不是一種非常可靠的心理學論點

"that male lust is not to be trusted."

“你不能信任男人的情欲”

I mean, can you engage in a conversation

我們是否可以用一種

with that kind of woman without seeming kind of cultural imperialist?

不帶著文化帝國主義的角度和這些女人討論這些問題

Sam Harris: Yeah, well I think I tried to broach this in a sentence,

Sam Harris：讓我一邊看著秒針

watching the clock ticking,

一邊嘗試簡短回答這個問題

but the question is:

真正的問題是

What is voluntary in a context

這真的是她們的個人意願嗎

where men have certain expectations,

在男人期待你戴上面罩

and you're guaranteed to be treated in a certain way

如果不戴就必須承受某種後果

if you don't veil yourself?

的狀況下？

And so, if anyone in this room

如果在這個房間裏

wanted to wear a veil,

有任何人想要戴面罩

or a very funny hat, or tattoo their face --

一個非常可笑的帽子，或是在臉上刺青

I think we should be free to voluntarily do whatever we want,

我想每個人應該做我們想做的，在自願的情況下

but we have to be honest about

但我們必須誠實面對

the constraints that these women are placed under.

這些女人的處境

And so I think we shouldn't be so eager

我認為我們不應該太快地

to always take their word for it,

接受她們的說法

especially when it's 120 degrees out

尤其在120度高溫

and you're wearing a full burqa.

而你竟然必須蒙住全身的狀況下

CA: A lot of people want to believe in this

C.A.：許多人想要相信

concept of moral progress.

道德進步的這個概念

But can you reconcile that?

但是這有可能達到和諧嗎？

I think I understood you to say that you could

我想我瞭解你所說的

reconcile that with a world that doesn't become

不要讓世界變得只有一種道德

one dimensional, where we all have to think the same.

也不需要大家都只有一種想法

Paint your picture of what

你可以告訴我們

rolling the clock 50 years forward,

如果我們快轉到50年後

100 years forward, how you would like to think of

100年後，你希望我們的世界

the world, balancing moral progress

能如何在道德進步和多元文化中

with richness.

找到平衡

SH: Well, I think once you admit

S.H.：一旦我們承認

that we are on the path toward understanding our minds

我們正走在了解我們理智的路上

at the level of the brain in some important detail,

透過理解大腦運作的方法，

then you have to admit

那麼你也必須承認

that we are going to understand all of the positive

我們將會更明白我們身上的這些

and negative qualities

正面和負面的特質

of ourselves in much greater detail.

.

So, we're going to understand positive social emotion

我們會理解正面的社群特質

like empathy and compassion,

像是同情心、仁愛心

and we're going to understand the factors

我們將會瞭解是怎樣的元素

that encourage it -- whether they're genetic,

幫助我們有這些特質 － 無論是基因

whether they're how people talk to one another,

是人們對話的方式

whether they're economic systems,

是經濟體系

and insofar as we begin to shine light on that

我們正要開始發現

we are inevitably going to converge

並無可避免的步向

on that fact space.

這些事實

So, everything is not going to be up for grabs.

我們不能再自由心證

It's not going to be like

為了得到男人的青睞

veiling my daughter from birth

就讓我剛出生的女兒蒙頭

is just as good as teaching her

或是教導她成為一個

to be confident and well-educated

自信而有教養的女性

in the context of men who do desire women.

是完全不同的兩件事

I mean I don't think we need an NSF grant to know

我想我們不需要國家科學基金會特別撥款

that compulsory veiling is a bad idea --

才能發現強制女人蒙頭很不好

but at a certain point

到了某種程度

we're going to be able to scan the brains of everyone involved

我們可以掃描每個人的頭腦

and actually interrogate them.

並研究它們

Do people love their daughters

人們真的愛它們的女兒嗎

just as much in these systems?

就算在那樣的文化下？

And I think there are clearly right answers to that.

我想這些問題是有正確答案的。

CA: And if the results come out that actually they do,

C.A.：如果結論是她們真的快樂

are you prepared to shift your instinctive current judgment

你準備好改變你現在的直觀判斷了嗎

on some of these issues?

在這些議題上

SH: Well yeah, modulo one obvious fact,

S.H.：舉個真實案例

that you can love someone

就算在一個虛假的道德體系裏

in the context of a truly delusional belief system.

你還是可以愛人

So, you can say like, "Because I knew my gay son

你會說，“因為我愛我的兒子，

was going to go to hell if he found a boyfriend,

我不想他因為他的男朋友下地獄

I chopped his head off. And that was the most compassionate thing I could do."

於是我把他的頭砍下來，這就是我對他的愛

If you get all those parts aligned,

如果你能找到一個均衡

yes I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of love.

是的你仍然可以感覺到一種愛

But again, then we have to talk about

但是我們也必須把幸福

well-being in a larger context.

放到更大的背景下來談

It's all of us in this together,

這是我們共同的功課

not one man feeling ecstasy

不是一個男人進入一種狂喜狀態

and then blowing himself up on a bus.

就可以在巴士上把自己炸掉

CA: Sam, this is a conversation I would actually love to

C.A.：我很希望這個對話可以繼續

continue for hours.

幾個小時

We don't have that, but maybe another time. Thank you for coming to TED.

雖然現在不行，或許在不遠的將來。謝謝你來 TED 演講

SH: Really an honor. Thank you.

S.H.：是我的榮幸，謝謝你。

(Applause)

（掌聲）