Steven Pinker and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: The long reach of reason

譯者: Catherine Cai 審譯者: Xiaoou Chen

["Rebecca Newberger Goldstein"]

["瑞貝卡 鈕伯格 戈德斯坦"]

["Steven Pinker"]

["史迪芬 平克"]

["The Long Reach of Reason"]

"理性的長期效應"

Cabbie: Twenty-two dollars. Steven Pinker: Okay.

計程車司機：22美元 史迪芬：好的

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: Reason appears to have fallen on hard times:

瑞貝卡：艱困的時期好像會讓人理智下降

Popular culture plumbs new depths of dumbth

流行文化達到了愚昧的另一種高度

and political discourse has become a race

而政治話語更是變成了

to the bottom.

逐底競爭

We're living in an era of scientific creationism,

我們住在一個科學創造論的時代

9/11 conspiracy theories, psychic hotlines,

911陰謀論、靈媒諮詢熱線

and a resurgence of religious fundamentalism.

還有正在復甦的基本教義派的時代

People who think too well

那些善於思考的人們

are often accused of elitism,

也時常被指控奉行菁英主義

and even in the academy,

甚至在學術界

there are attacks on logocentrism,

也有對義理中心論(logocentrism)的批評

the crime of letting logic dominate our thinking.

也就是讓邏輯引導思考的這項罪名

SP: But is this necessarily a bad thing?

史迪芬：可是這真的是壞事嗎？

Perhaps reason is overrated.

也許理性被高估了

Many pundits have argued that a good heart

很多梵學家都主張一顆善良的心

and steadfast moral clarity

還有堅定的道德意識

are superior to triangulations of overeducated policy wonks,

都比過度教育的政策家所作的三角測量好

like the best and brightest and that dragged us

尤其那些最聰明的政策家還曾經

into the quagmire of Vietnam.

把我們拖進越戰的泥沼裡

And wasn't it reason that gave us the means

而且難道不是理性讓我們

to despoil the planet

去掠奪這個星球

and threaten our species with weapons of mass destruction?

和用毀滅性武器威脅我們同類的嗎？

In this way of thinking, it's character and conscience,

如果這樣想的話，會拯救我們的其實是人格和良心

not cold-hearted calculation, that will save us.

而不是那些實際的計算

Besides, a human being is not a brain on a stick.

再說了，人類又不是一根叉著腦袋的樹枝

My fellow psychologists have shown that we're led

我有一些心理學家的朋友證實了

by our bodies and our emotions

我們是被身體還有情緒引導的

and use our puny powers of reason

而我們只是用理智的微小力量

merely to rationalize our gut feelings after the fact.

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

瑞貝卡：理性思辨怎麼可能在邏輯上

the ineffectiveness of reasoned arguments?

造成其他理性思辨的無效呢？

Look, you're trying to persuade us of reason's impotence.

聽著，你正在試著說服我們理智是無用的

You're not threatening us or bribing us,

但你並不是用威脅或是行賄的方式

suggesting that we resolve the issue

你也沒有提出用舉手表決或舉辦選美比賽

with a show of hands or a beauty contest.

來解決這個爭論

By the very act of trying to reason us into your position,

在你試著理性說服我們認同你的觀點之時

you're conceding reason's potency.

你已間接承認了理智的力量

Reason isn't up for grabs here. It can't be.

理智並不是任何人能夠得到的

You show up for that debate

你出席這場辯論的同時

and you've already lost it.

你就已經輸了

SP: But can reason lead us in directions

但是理性真的能夠引導我們走向

that are good or decent or moral?

良善、合宜、或是符合道德的方向嗎

After all, you pointed out that reason

畢竟，你也指出了理性不過是

is just a means to an end,

達到結果的一個手段

and the end depends on the reasoner's passions.

而結果是好是壞則要取決於學者的熱情

Reason can lay out a road map to peace and harmony

理智能夠鋪出一條通往和平與協調的道路

if the reasoner wants peace and harmony,

只要那是使用者想要的話

but it can also lay out a road map to conflict and strife

但是如果使用者的意圖為衝突和鬥爭

if the reasoner delights in conflict and strife.

理智也可以鋪出通往衝突以及鬥爭的路

Can reason force the reasoner to want

理智能夠一定讓使用者

less cruelty and waste?

比較不殘忍或不無用嗎

RNG: All on its own, the answer is no,

瑞貝卡：如果只有理智的話，答案就是否定的

but it doesn't take much to switch it to yes.

但是不需要太多，答案就可以變成肯定

You need two conditions:

你需要兩個條件：

The first is that reasoners all care

第一個就是所有使用理智的人在乎

about their own well-being.

他們自己的福利

That's one of the passions that has to be present

這是理智要能成功運作

in order for reason to go to work,

所需要的其中一項熱情

and it's obviously present in all of us.

而且很明顯的，我們都擁有這項熱情

We all care passionately

我們全都殷切的

about our own well-being.

關注自己的福利

The second condition is that reasoners

第二個條件就是這些是用理智的人

are members of a community of reasoners

是擁有理智的人的社群中的一員

who can affect one another's well-being,

他們能夠影響彼此的福利

can exchange messages,

能夠交換訊息

and comprehend each other's reasoning.

而且能夠理解彼此的論述

And that's certainly true of our gregarious

而我們這些群居又健談的種族

and loquatious species,

天生就具有語言本能

well endowed with the instinct for language.

完全符合這兩個條件

SP: Well, that sounds good in theory,

史迪芬：好吧，在理論上這聽起來很好

but has it worked that way in practice?

但實際上真的能夠運作嗎

In particular, can it explain

尤其是，它能夠解釋

a momentous historical development

我五年前在TED演講裡提到的

that I spoke about five years ago here at TED?

那個重大的歷史進展嗎？

Namely, we seem to be getting more humane.

也就是，人類似乎往越來越人道的方向發展

Centuries ago, our ancestors would burn cats alive

幾世紀前，把貓活活燒死對我們的祖先來說

as a form of popular entertainment.

是一種大眾娛樂的形式

Knights waged constant war on each other

騎士們利用屠殺盡可能多對手的佃農

by trying to kill as many of each other's peasants as possible.

來對彼此發動戰爭

Governments executed people for frivolous reasons,

以前政府會為了毫無說服力的理由處決人民

like stealing a cabbage

像是偷甘藍菜

or criticizing the royal garden.

或是批評皇家花園

The executions were designed to be as prolonged

那些處決方式更是被設計用來延遲

and as painful as possible, like crucifixion,

被處決者的痛苦，像是釘十字架

disembowelment, breaking on the wheel.

切除內臟、破輪等等

Respectable people kept slaves.

另外，有聲望的人們還會蓄奴

For all our flaws, we have abandoned

對於那些缺點，現在人們已經中止

these barbaric practices.

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

史迪芬：這也不然。我認為我們依舊擁有

that can erupt in violence,

那些能夠導致暴力的天性

like greed, tribalism, revenge, dominance, sadism.

像是貪婪、部落意識、復仇、統治心態、虐待癖好

But we also have instincts that can steer us away,

但我們同時也有能夠讓我們往另一個方向發展的天性

like self-control, empathy, a sense of fairness,

例如自制力、同理心、對公平的追求

what Abraham Lincoln called

也就是亞伯拉罕．林肯所說的

the better angels of our nature.

我們天性中的好天使

RNG: So if human nature didn't change,

瑞貝卡：所以倘若人類的天性沒有變

what invigorated those better angels?

又是什麼鼓舞了那些好天使呢

SP: Well, among other things,

嗯，除了這些之外

our circle of empathy expanded.

重點是我們同理心的範圍會擴增

Years ago, our ancestors would feel the pain

多年以前，我們的祖先只會為了

only of their family and people in their village.

家人或是同村落的人們感到痛苦

But with the expansion of literacy and travel,

但是藉由擴展知識以及旅行

people started to sympathize

人們體諒的對象範圍

with wider and wider circles,

也逐漸地擴展

the clan, the tribe, the nation, the race,

從氏族一路到部落、國家、種族

and perhaps eventually, all of humanity.

說不定最後就會包含整個人類群體

RNG: Can hard-headed scientists

那些講究實際的科學家

really give so much credit to soft-hearted empathy?

真的會認同難以解釋的同理心嗎？

SP: They can and do.

當然可以

Neurophysiologists have found neurons in the brain

神經生理學家在腦中發現了一種神經元

that respond to other people's actions

它們會對別人的行為產生反應

the same way they respond to our own.

就如同對己身的行為產生的反應一樣

Empathy emerges early in life,

同理心在成長過程中很早就形成了

perhaps before the age of one.

也許在一歲之前

Books on empathy have become bestsellers,

關於同理心的書更總是佔據了暢銷書榜

like "The Empathic Civilization"

例如說“同理心的文明”

and "The Age of Empathy."

還有”同理心的年代“

RNG: I'm all for empathy. I mean, who isn't?

瑞貝卡：我崇尚同理心，我是說，誰不呢？

But all on its own, it's a feeble instrument

但如果只有同理心，對於道德的進展

for making moral progress.

它沒有多大的功用

For one thing, it's innately biased

首先，同理心天生就具有偏頗性

toward blood relations, babies

它總是偏袒有血緣關係的對象、或是寶寶

and warm, fuzzy animals.

還有溫暖而毛茸茸的動物

As far as empathy is concerned,

如果只遵從同理心的話

ugly outsiders can go to hell.

那那些醜陋的局外人都可以下地獄了

And even our best attempts to work up sympathy

而且就算我們試著對那些

for those who are unconnected with us

與我們無關的人懷有同理心

fall miserably short, a sad truth about human nature

它也不會維持太久，這就是人類天性的可悲真相

that was pointed out by Adam Smith.

亞當．史密斯也指出了這點

Adam Smith: Let us suppose that the great empire

亞當．史密斯：如果我們假設中國的某個強盛帝國

of China was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake,

一夕之間被一場地震摧毀

and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe

那麼在歐洲某位具有人性的紳士

would react on receiving intelligence

在得知如此慘烈的悲劇後

of this dreadful calamity.

會做出什麼反應呢

He would, I imagine, first of all express very strongly

我想，他一開始會對那些遭遇如此不幸的人們

his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people.

感到深沉的悲傷

He would make many melancholy reflections

他會因此憂鬱地反思

upon the precariousness of human life,

人類生命的不可預測性

and when all these humane sentiments

而當這些人性的感傷

had been once fairly expressed,

被相當地表達過後

he would pursue his business or his pleasure

這位紳士會一如往常般地

with the same ease and tranquility

去追求他的事業或快樂

as if no such accident had happened.

就好像那場地震不存在一樣

If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow,

也就是說，如果他得知明天他會失去小拇指

he would not sleep tonight,

他會輾轉難眠一整晚

but provided he never saw them,

但換個情況

he would snore with the most profound security

當今天他看不見那些因地震受苦的人們時

over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren.

他只會整晚安心的打呼

SP: But if empathy wasn't enough to make us more humane,

史迪芬：但如果同理心不足以讓我們變得更有人性

what else was there?

那又是什麼原因呢

RNG: Well, you didn't mention what might be

你並沒有提到那個也許是

one of our most effective better angels: reason.

我們最有力量的好天使：理智

Reason has muscle.

理智是有肌肉的

It's reason that provides the push to widen

就是它提供了力量

that circle of empathy.

讓我們擴展同理心範圍

Every one of the humanitarian developments

所有你提到過的人道進展

that you mentioned originated with thinkers

都源自於一些思考家

who gave reasons for why some practice

他們能夠給出為什麼有一些行為之所以

was indefensible.

站不住腳的理由

They demonstrated that the way people treated

他們也能指出人們

some particular group of others

對待特定人們的方式

was logically inconsistent

與他們堅持對待自己的方式

with the way they insisted on being treated themselves.

在邏輯上是多麼的不一致

SP: Are you saying that reason

所以你想說的是

can actually change people's minds?

理智能夠改變人心囉？

Don't people just stick with whatever conviction

難道人們不會只偏好自己喜歡的觀點

serves their interests

或只選擇遵從

or conforms to the culture that they grew up in?

自己所接觸的文化規範嗎？

RNG: Here's a fascinating fact about us:

瑞貝卡：人有趣的一點

Contradictions bother us,

就在於我們總是受矛盾所苦

at least when we're forced to confront them,

至少當我們被逼著正視它的時候是如此

which is just another way of saying

這也是我們總是

that we are susceptible to reason.

受到理智影響的另一種面向

And if you look at the history of moral progress,

而當你回顧一些重大的道德進展時

you can trace a direct pathway from reasoned arguments

你可以追蹤到一些理性思辨

to changes in the way that we actually feel.

改變我們感受的蹤跡

Time and again, a thinker would lay out an argument

如同之前提的，一位思考家會提出思辨

as to why some practice was indefensible,

來說明為何有些行為是站不住腳

irrational, inconsistent with values already held.

不理性、並悖離我們既有價值觀的

Their essay would go viral,

這些論述會像病毒般傳播

get translated into many languages,

並被翻譯成許多語言

get debated at pubs and coffee houses and salons,

而且在酒吧、沙龍

and at dinner parties,

或是晚宴上也會被拿出來討論

and influence leaders, legislators,

進一步影響領導者、立法者

popular opinion.

還有大眾意見

Eventually their conclusions get absorbed

就這樣，他們得出的結論

into the common sense of decency,

會融入他們對合宜價值觀的想像

erasing the tracks of the original argument

並消除那個一開始讓我們得出結論的

that had gotten us there.

那些論述的痕跡

Few of us today feel any need to put forth

今天的我們並不需要

a rigorous philosophical argument

藉由一場激烈的邏輯辯論

as to why slavery is wrong

來證明蓄奴、

or public hangings or beating children.

公眾吊死、還有鞭打小孩是錯誤的

By now, these things just feel wrong.

雖然今天的人能自然地覺得這些事不對

But just those arguments had to be made,

但這其實是幾世紀前的那些無數辯論

and they were, in centuries past.

導出的結果

SP: Are you saying that people needed

所以你覺得人們需要

a step-by-step argument to grasp

一步一步的辯論才能夠察覺

why something might be a wee bit wrong

在火形柱上燒死異教徒

with burning heretics at the stake?

這件事中有那麼一丁點不對勁？

RNG: Oh, they did. Here's the French theologian

喔，對啊。法國的神學家塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奧

Sebastian Castellio making the case.

對此事的論述如下：

Sebastian Castellio: Calvin says that he's certain,

塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奧：凱文說他是肯定的，

and other sects say that they are.

其他人也說他們是肯定的。

Who shall be judge?

誰應該被批判呢？

If the matter is certain, to whom is it so? To Calvin?

如果事情是確定的， 對於誰而言的？ 對於凱文？

But then, why does he write so many books about manifest truth?

但是呢， 為什麼他寫了這麼多自我告白真相的書籍？

In view of the uncertainty, we must define heretics

在不確定中， 我們需要定義異教徒

simply as one with whom we disagree.

只是為了看清我們不同意哪些人

And if then we are going to kill heretics,

如果我們將要處死異教徒，

the logical outcome will be a war of extermination,

而每一個人都確定自己是對的，

since each is sure of himself.

那理性的結果是一場滅絕性的戰爭。

SP: Or with hideous punishments

那關於那些像是破輪的

like breaking on the wheel?

殘忍刑罰也是嗎

RNG: The prohibition in our constitution

我們憲法中之所以會禁止

of cruel and unusual punishments

殘忍和不尋常的處罰

was a response to a pamphlet circulated in 1764

也是在1764年流傳了一本由義大利法學家

by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria.

西薩爾·貝卡里亞所著的小冊子的關係

Cesare Beccaria: As punishments become more cruel,

西薩爾·貝卡里亞： 當懲罰變的更加的嚴峻，

the minds of men, which like fluids

人們的思想像是流質一樣

always adjust to the level of the objects

總是適應著

that surround them, become hardened,

圍繞著他們的物體， 然後慢慢堅固

and after a hundred years of cruel punishments,

經過幾百年嚴峻的懲罰，

breaking on the wheel causes no more fear

打破那些圓圈並無法

than imprisonment previously did.

比原來的監禁造成更多的恐慌。

For a punishment to achieve its objective,

對於用懲罰達到目的，

it is only necessary that the harm that it inflicts

只有當犯罪帶來的傷害

outweighs the benefit that derives from the crime,

超過了帶來的好處,

and into this calculation ought to be factored

然後在算式中放入

the certainty of punishment

處罰的确定性

and the loss of the good

和利益的失去

that the commission of the crime will produce.

犯罪的限制才會產生。

Everything beyond this is superfluous,

所有其他的東西都是膚淺的，

and therefore tyrannical.

因此是專制的。

SP: But surely antiwar movements depended

史迪芬：可是反戰運動卻是由

on mass demonstrations

大眾示威、

and catchy tunes by folk singers

民謠歌手創作的朗朗上口音樂、

and wrenching photographs of the human costs of war.

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

沒錯，不過現代的反戰運動

reach back to a long chain of thinkers

可以回朔到一連串的思考家

who had argued as to why we ought to mobilize

他們提出為什麼我們應該動員我們的情緒

our emotions against war,

來達到反戰的目的

such as the father of modernity, Erasmus.

其中一個例子就是現代之父：伊拉斯謨

Erasmus: The advantages derived from peace

伊拉斯謨：來自和平地好處

diffuse themselves far and wide,

逐漸影響深遠，

and reach great numbers,

和多數的人，

while in war, if anything turns out happily,

戰爭時期， 如果任何事情有好的結局，

the advantage redounds only to a few,

好處儘儘去到了少數人手裡

and those unworthy of reaping it.

和那些不值得擁有的人收獲著勝利的果實。

One man's safety is owing to the destruction of another.

一個人的安全來自於另外一個人的毀滅

One man's prize is derived from the plunder of another.

一個人的獎勵來自於另外一個人的損失。

The cause of rejoicings made by one side

一個對於一方是值得慶賀的事情

is to the other a cause of mourning.

對於另外一方是值得弔唁的事情。

Whatever is unfortunate in war,

不管戰爭多麼的不幸，

is severely so indeed,

他們是真實而嚴重的存在，

and whatever, on the contrary,

但是不管如何， 另外一方，

is called good fortune,

都會叫做勝利，

is a savage and a cruel good fortune,

是一個野蠻而殘酷的勝利，

an ungenerous happiness deriving its existence from another's woe.

一個建立在他人悲哀上的不善的幸福

SP: But everyone knows that the movement

史迪芬： 但是每個人都應該知道這個運動

to abolish slavery depended on faith and emotion.

是靠信念和情感除去奴役。

It was a movement spearheaded by the Quakers,

這是一個貴格會教徒帶領的運動，

and it only became popular when Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel

但是它開始流行是因為哈裡特比奇托斯的小說

"Uncle Tom's Cabin" became a bestseller.

”湯姆叔叔的小屋“成為了最佳小說。

RNG: But the ball got rolling a century before.

瑞貝卡： 但是這個思想是一個世紀以前就有的了

John Locke bucked the tide of millennia

約翰洛克頂住了幾千年來的浪潮

that had regarded the practice as perfectly natural.

把這個思想看作完全正常的想法。

He argued that it was inconsistent

他爭辯道這是不一致的

with the principles of rational government.

根據理性領導的原則

John Locke: Freedom of men under government

約翰 洛克：在管理下的人類的自由

is to have a standing rule to live by

是為了人們能夠有生存的準則

common to everyone of that society

於社會上的每一個人都有一個共同的認知

and made by the legislative power erected in it,

和法制的力量去剔除不同的，

a liberty to follow my own will in all things

追隨自己的內心的自由

where that rule prescribes not,

在一個制度控制的環境不允許，

not to be subject to the inconstant,

不經受他人專制形成的不穩定

uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man,

不確定， 未知， 專制的想法。

as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint

自然的自由是不被約束的

but the law of nature.

這是自然的法則。

SP: Those words sound familiar.

史迪芬： 這些話聽起來很耳熟

Where have I read them before? Ah, yes.

我一定在那裡聽過。啊，是的

Mary Astell: If absolute sovereignty be not necessary

瑪麗： 如果一個國家不需要一個統治者

in a state, how comes it to be so in a family?

為什麼在家庭裡需要？

Or if in a family, why not in a state?

或如果家庭需要，為何國家不需要？

Since no reason can be alleged for the one

既然沒有任何理由

that will not hold more strongly for the other,

證明一種比另一種更好，

if all men are born free,

如果所有的人天生都是自由的，

how is it that all women are born slaves,

為什麼所有的女人生下來就是奴隸

as they must be if being subjected

如同她們必須經受

to the inconstant, uncertain,

不穩定，不確定， 和未知的

unknown, arbitrary will of men

男性的專制

be the perfect condition of slavery?

成為完美的奴隸？

RNG: That sort of co-option

瑞貝卡：這種接納、同化

is all in the job description of reason.

就是理性的一種作用。

One movement for the expansion of rights

一個權益擴張的運動啓發了另外一個

inspires another because the logic is the same,

因為他們的理念是一样的，

and once that's hammered home,

當它開始震撼我們原來的想法，

it becomes increasingly uncomfortable

逐漸變成了

to ignore the inconsistency.

無法忽視的不穩定。

In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement

在20世紀60年代， 公民權利運動

inspired the movements for women's rights,

啓發了婦女權利運動，

children's rights, gay rights and even animal rights.

兒童權利，同性戀權利， 甚至是動物權利。

But fully two centuries before,

但是兩個世紀以前，

the Enlightenment thinker Jeremy Bentham

啓蒙思想家傑諾米邊沁

had exposed the indefensibility

披露了習慣行為的無法防衛

of customary practices such as

披露了習慣行為的無法防衛

the cruelty to animals.

比如說人類對動物的殘暴。

Jeremy Bentham: The question is not, can they reason,

潔里米邊沁： 問題不是， 他們是否能爭辯，

nor can they talk, but can they suffer?

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,

潔里米邊沁： 如同任何一個主要惡作劇，

it's evident that it produces no pain in anyone.

這個證明是沒有帶給任何人疼痛。

On the contrary, it produces pleasure.

相反的， 它帶來的是歡愉。

The partners are both willing.

雙方相互願意。

If either of them be unwilling,

如果他們的任何一方不願意，

the act is an offense,

那這個將是一種犯罪，

totally different in its nature of effects.

完全於自然的影響相反。

It's a personal injury. It's a kind of rape.

是一種個人的受傷。 是強姦的其中一種。

As to the any danger exclusive of pain,

如同任何一個只有疼痛的危險，

the danger, if any, much consist

危險，如果有任何，大部份是由

in the tendency of the example.

前例的趨勢組成。

But what is the tendency of this example?

但是什麼是前例的趨勢呢？

To dispose others to engage in the same practices.

來使其他的人來加入同樣的行為。

But this practice produces not pain of any kind

但是這個行為帶來的

to anyone.

不是任何的疼痛。

SP: Still, in every case, it took at least a century

史迪芬：儘管如此， 在每一個例子中，這偉大思想家們的爭論

for the arguments of these great thinkers

至少會延續一個世紀

to trickle down and infiltrate the population as a whole.

去滲透和影響所有的人。

It kind of makes you wonder about our own time.

這些讓你思考你自己的時代。

Are there practices that we engage in

是否我們的行為作風

where the arguments against them are there for all to see

被爭議所指責

but nonetheless we persist in them?

但我們也會繼續堅持？

RNG: When our great grandchildren look back at us,

瑞貝卡：當我們的子孫後代回想起我們，

will they be as appalled by some of our practices

他們是否會對一些我們的行為覺得是吸引人的

as we are by our slave-owning, heretic-burning,

如果我們對於我們奴役占有，燒死異教徒，

wife-beating, gay-bashing ancestors?

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

瑞貝卡： 我選擇在工業農場裡對

in factory farms.

動物的不公。

SP: The imprisonment of nonviolent drug offenders

史迪芬： 監禁不暴力的毒品罪犯

and the toleration of rape in our nation's prisons.

和對我們國家監獄內的強姦的忽視。

RNG: Scrimping on donations to life-saving charities

瑞貝卡：對那些在發展中國家救命的

in the developing world.

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

瑞貝卡：利用宗教來用其他方式無法證明

the otherwise unjustifiable,

是正當行為的，

such as the ban on contraception.

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

史迪芬：但是， 我開始信服

that reason is a better angel

理智是一個最好的天使

that deserves the greatest credit

值得獲得贊許

for the moral progress our species has enjoyed

為了我族類所享受的道德進步

and that holds out the greatest hope

和擁有的巨大的希望

for continuing moral progress in the future.

對於未來道德的發展。

RNG: And if, our friends,

瑞貝卡： 如果，朋友們，

you detect a flaw in this argument,

你察覺到這個爭辯裡的缺陷，

just remember you'll be depending on reason

記得你將會依靠理智

to point it out.

去指出這些缺陷

Thank you. SP: Thank you.

謝謝。 史迪芬：謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）