Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

譯者: Coco Shen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

Suppose that two American friends are traveling together in Italy.

想像兩個美國人到意大利旅遊

They go to see Michelangelo's "David,"

一起去看米開朗基羅的名作“大衛”

and when they finally come face-to-face with the statue,

當他們和巨大石雕面對面時

they both freeze dead in their tracks.

兩個人都望著出神

The first guy -- we'll call him Adam --

第一個人﹐我們就叫他亞當吧

is transfixed by the beauty of the perfect human form.

被完美的人體肌理震懾住了

The second guy -- we'll call him Bill --

第二個人 我們就叫他比爾吧

is transfixed by embarrassment, at staring at the thing there in the center.

也嚇傻了 - 被那兩腿間的玩意兒

So here's my question for you:

讓我試問

Which one of these two guys was more likely to have voted for George Bush,

這兩個男人誰比較有可能把票投給小布希

which for Al Gore?

誰投給了高爾﹖

I don't need a show of hands,

大家不用舉手

because we all have the same political stereotypes.

因為我們都有一樣的刻板印象

We all know that it's Bill.

我們都知道是比爾

And in this case, the stereotype corresponds to reality.

在這個例子裡﹐刻板印象反映了事實

It really is a fact that liberals are much higher than conservatives

事實上﹐自由黨員的確比保守黨員

on a major personality trait called openness to experience.

更容易接受新體驗

People who are high in openness to experience

那些喜歡接受新體驗的人

just crave novelty, variety, diversity, new ideas, travel.

渴望新鮮 多樣性 新想法 旅行

People low on it like things that are familiar,

較難接受新體驗的人喜歡熟悉 安全 可靠的事物

that are safe and dependable.

如果你知道這些特性

If you know about this trait,

you can understand a lot of puzzles about human behavior,

你便能了解人類許多難解的行為

了解為什麼藝術家和會計師如此不同

like why artists are so different from accountants.

You can predict what kinds of books they like to read,

你可以預測他們喜歡看的書

他們喜歡去的旅遊點

what kinds of places they like to travel to

甚至他們的飲食偏好

and what kinds of food they like to eat.

只要你了解這個特性﹐你便能理解

Once you understand this trait,

you can understand why anybody would eat at Applebee's,

為什麼這麼多人喜歡去連鎖餐廳吃飯 但你卻一個都不認識

but not anybody that you know.

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

This trait also tells us a lot about politics.

這個特性也讓我們理解政治

The main researcher of this trait, Robert McCrae,

研究這個性格特質的研究者 Robert McCrae 說

says that "Open individuals have an affinity

“開放的人偏向自由 進步 左翼政治思想”

for liberal, progressive, left-wing political views ..."

They like a society which is open and changing,

他們喜歡一個開放 持續改變的社會

“封閉的人偏好保守 傳統 右翼的觀點。”

"... whereas closed individuals prefer

conservative, traditional, right-wing views."

This trait also tells us a lot about the kinds of groups people join.

這個特質也讓我們了解人們所參與的社團組織

Here's the description of a group I found on the web.

這是我在網路上找到的一個組織簡介

What kinds of people would join

怎樣的人會參加一個全球性的社群

"a global community ... welcoming people from every discipline and culture,

歡迎來自各種文化和學科的人

那些想更深刻理解世界的人

who seek a deeper understanding of the world,

同時也是那些想以這些理解讓世界變得更好的人

and who hope to turn that understanding into a better future for us all"?

這是一個叫 TED 的男人寫的

This is from some guy named Ted.

(笑聲)

Well, let's see now.

那麼﹐如果開放性格偏向自由派

If openness predicts who becomes liberal,

and openness predicts who becomes a TEDster,

同時也預知了你會成為 TED 一員

then might we predict that most TEDsters are liberal?

是否大部份的 TED 成員都是自由黨呢﹖

Let's find out.

讓我們試試

請你舉起手﹐不管你是自由黨﹐中間偏左

I'll ask you to raise your hand, whether you are liberal, left of center --

on social issues, primarily --

在我們所討論的議題上

or conservative.

或是保守黨﹐還有一個第三選項

And I'll give a third option,

because I know there are libertarians in the audience.

因為我知道觀眾中還有一些相信自由至上的放任自由主義者

現在﹐舉起你的手來

So please raise your hand -- in the simulcast rooms too.

在聯播臺裡的人也是

讓每個人看看都是誰

Let's let everybody see who's here.

Please raise your hand if you'd say that you're liberal or left of center.

如果你是自由黨或中間偏左﹐請舉起手來

請把你的手舉高﹐好

Please raise your hand high right now. OK.

Please raise your hand if you'd say you're libertarian.

請舉手如果你是放任自由主義者

OK. About two dozen.

好 差不多有二十多人

And please raise your hand if you'd say you are right of center or conservative.

如果你覺得你是中間偏右或保守黨﹐請舉手

1 2 3 4 5 - 大概8 到10人

One, two, three, four, five -- about eight or 10.

OK.

好。這就是問題。

This is a bit of a problem.

如果我們的目標是了解世界

Because if our goal is to seek a deeper understanding of the world,

深刻的進一步了解世界

our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder.

但缺乏道德多樣性讓了解世界變得更難

Because when people all share values, when people all share morals,

因為當每個人都分享一樣的價值觀和道德觀

they become a team.

便成為一個團隊﹐一旦進入團隊心理

And once you engage the psychology of teams,

it shuts down open-minded thinking.

原本開放的思想就會閉塞

When the liberal team loses,

當自由隊在2004年敗選

[United States of Canada / Jesusland]

as it did in 2004, and as it almost did in 2000,

就像在2000年一樣﹐我們自我安慰

we comfort ourselves.

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

We try to explain why half of America voted for the other team.

我們嘗試自我解釋為什麼有一半美國人投給另外一隊

We think they must be blinded by religion

我們想 他們一定是被宗教蒙蔽 或是純粹愚蠢

[Post-election US map: America / Dumbf*ckistan]

or by simple stupidity.

(笑聲)

(Laughter)

(Applause)

(掌聲)

(Laughter)

如果你認為投給共和黨的另一半美國人

So if you think that half of America votes Republican

because they are blinded in this way,

是因為他們被蒙蔽了

then my message to you is that you're trapped in a moral Matrix,

我想告訴你的是你被道德母體限制住了

in a particular moral Matrix.

某一種特別的道德母體

And by "the Matrix," I mean literally the Matrix, like the movie "The Matrix."

所謂的道德母體﹐就像“駭客人物”裡面的大電腦一樣

But I'm here today to give you a choice.

但今日我讓你有個選擇

You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions,

你可以選擇藍色藥丸然後保持在舒適的幻覺中

或是選擇紅色藥丸﹐

or you can take the red pill,

learn some moral psychology

了解道德心理學﹐跨越你的道德母體

and step outside the moral Matrix.

Now, because I know --

因為我知道 --

(Applause)

(掌聲)

I assume that answers my question.

我想這已經回答了我的問題

I was going to ask which one you picked, but no need.

我本來想問你們要選哪一個﹐我想不需要了

You're all high in openness to experience,

你們都很愛接受新體驗﹐更何況

and it looks like it might even taste good, and you're all epicures.

這看起來很可能很可口 能滿足你們的美食主義

總而言之﹐讓我們選擇紅色藥丸

Anyway, let's go with the red pill, study some moral psychology

讓我們學習一些道德心理學﹐看看我們能了解什麼

and see where it takes us.

讓我們從頭開始

Let's start at the beginning: What is morality, where does it come from?

道德是什麼﹖它從哪裡來﹖

The worst idea in all of psychology

心理學中最糟的想法

is the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth.

便是我們像一張白紙一樣出生

Developmental psychology has shown that kids come into the world

發展心理學告訴我們

嬰兒來到世界上時已經知道許多

already knowing so much about the physical and social worlds

有關世界和社會

and programmed to make it really easy for them to learn certain things

讓他們變得更易學習

and hard to learn others.

卻很難向他人學習

The best definition of innateness I've seen,

有關這些與生俱來的天賦

which clarifies so many things for me,

有個人說的很好

is from the brain scientist Gary Marcus.

腦科學家 Gary Marcus

He says, "The initial organization of the brain

他說“腦的初始組織不是來自經驗

does not depend that much on experience.

Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises.

自然提供了第一個版本﹐經驗只能修改

'Built-in' doesn't mean unmalleable;

先建不代表不可塑﹔

it means organized in advance of experience."

而是組織先於經驗。”

OK, so what's on the first draft of the moral mind?

那麼道德的第一個版本是什麼﹖

To find out, my colleague Craig Joseph and I read through the literature

我和同事 Craig Joseph

閱讀了許多人類學的文獻

on anthropology, on culture variation in morality

有關不同文化的道德

and also on evolutionary psychology,

同時也在進化心理學裡找相同處

looking for matches:

跨領域的人談論的時候他們都談論什麼

What sorts of things do people talk about across disciplines

that you find across cultures and even species?

跨文化和跨物種的人又談論什麼﹖

我們總共找到五種

We found five best matches, which we call the five foundations of morality.

我們稱它們為五種道德基礎

The first one is harm/care.

第一種是傷害-照護

We're all mammals here, we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming

我們都是哺乳類﹐我們都有許多神經和荷爾蒙程式

that makes us really bond with others, care for others,

讓我們與他人聯結﹐關懷他人

feel compassion for others, especially the weak and vulnerable.

同情他人﹐尤其那些脆弱容易受傷的人

It gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm.

讓我們對那些造成傷害的人有強烈感覺

這個道德基礎含括了我在TED所聽到的

This moral foundation underlies about 70 percent

of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.

七成的道德陳述

The second foundation is fairness/reciprocity.

第二個道德基礎是公平-相等

There's actually ambiguous evidence

有一些模糊的證據

as to whether you find reciprocity in other animals,

證明你是否能在其他動物身上找到相互性

but the evidence for people could not be clearer.

但在人類身上的例子卻再清楚不過了

This Norman Rockwell painting is called "The Golden Rule" --

這幅 Norman Rockwell 的畫叫做“金科玉律”

Karen Armstrong 也告訴我們

as we heard from Karen Armstrong, it's the foundation of many religions.

這是很多宗教的基礎

That second foundation underlies the other 30 percent

第二哥道德基礎含括了我在TED所聽到的

of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.

另外三成的道德陳訴

The third foundation is in-group/loyalty.

第三個基礎是團隊忠誠

You do find cooperative groups in the animal kingdom,

你可以在動物裡面找到群體

你可以找到合作團隊

but these groups are always either very small or they're all siblings.

但這些組織通常不是很小或是牠們都是兄弟姐妹

It's only among humans that you find very large groups of people

只有在人類的世界裡你看到一大群人

who are able to cooperate and join together into groups,

彼此相處﹐一起合作

but in this case, groups that are united to fight other groups.

但在這例子裡﹐團隊合作是為了和其他團隊鬥爭

This probably comes from our long history of tribal living, of tribal psychology.

這大概是來自我們長時間的部落生態﹐部落心理

And this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable

這種部落心態實在太愉快了

that even when we don't have tribes, we go ahead and make them,

就算我們已經不在部落裡了

我們還是照樣因為好玩

because it's fun.

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Sports is to war as pornography is to sex.

運動和戰爭就像A片和性的關係

We get to exercise some ancient drives.

我們借此發泄那些古老的慾望

第四種道德基礎是權威-尊敬

The fourth foundation is authority/respect.

Here you see submissive gestures

從這裡你可以看到兩種非常接近的物種的服從姿態

from two members of very closely related species.

但人類的權威不是以權力和暴力為基礎

But authority in humans is not so closely based on power and brutality

as it is in other primates.

像其他動物

It's based on more voluntary deference and even elements of love, at times.

而是以自願的服從﹐

有時候甚至是愛的元素

The fifth foundation is purity/sanctity.

第五種基礎是純潔- 神聖

This painting is called "The Allegory Of Chastity,"

這幅畫是“貞節的寓意”

but purity is not just about suppressing female sexuality.

但純潔不只是壓抑女性性慾

It's about any kind of ideology, any kind of idea

而是任何理想﹐任何想法

that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body

告訴你只要控制你的身體

你便可以成善

只要控制進入你身體的東西

and what you put into your body.

And while the political right may moralize sex much more,

右翼喜歡談論性方面的道德

the political left is doing a lot of it with food.

左翼喜歡用食物

Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays.

今日食物變成一種道德指標

A lot of it is ideas about purity,

這些觀點也來自純潔

about what you're willing to touch or put into your body.

有關你願意觸摸和放進身體的東西

I believe these are the five best candidates

我相信這是五個最好的候選人

for what's written on the first draft of the moral mind.

在我們道德思想的初稿上

I think this is what we come with, a preparedness to learn all these things.

我相信這是我們與生俱來的

做好準備要來學習這些東西

But as my son Max grows up in a liberal college town,

但我的兒子 Max 在一個自由派的大學城裡長大

how is this first draft going to get revised?

這個初稿將如何被改寫﹖

And how will it end up being different

和在我們南部六十里的鄉下

from a kid born 60 miles south of us, in Lynchburg, Virginia?

生下來的孩子 又會有什麼不同﹖

To think about culture variation, let's try a different metaphor.

當我們想到這些多樣文化的時候﹐讓我們試試其他隱喻

如果真的有著五種系統在我們想法裡

If there really are five systems at work in the mind,

five sources of intuitions and emotions,

五種情緒和直覺的來源

then we can think of the moral mind as one of those audio equalizers

我們可以把道德感

當做音響有五種頻道的均衡器

that has five channels,

where you can set it to a different setting on every channel.

你可以在不同頻道選擇不同的程度

我的同事 Brian Nosek, Jesse Graham 和我

My colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham and I

做了一個問卷﹐放在www.YourMorals.org網站上

made a questionnaire, which we put up on the web at www.YourMorals.org.

目前為止已經有三萬人填寫了這個問卷﹐你也可以

And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can, too.

Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens.

結果在這裡

這裡是兩萬三千個美國公民的結果

On the left are the scores for liberals;

左邊是自由派的分數

on the right, conservatives; in the middle, moderates.

右邊是保守派的﹐中間是中立

The blue line shows people's responses on the average of all the harm questions.

藍線是你們的回應

在所有有關傷害的問題上

So as you see, people care about harm and care issues.

你可以看到﹐人們真的很關心傷害和照護的問題

They highly endorse these sorts of statements all across the board,

他們很支持這方面的陳述

在整個表上﹐但你也可以看到

but as you also see,

liberals care about it a little more than conservatives; the line slopes down.

自由派比保守派更在乎一些﹐線慢慢降了下來

公平也是一樣

Same story for fairness.

But look at the other three lines.

但看看其他三條線

For liberals, the scores are very low.

自由派的分數非常低

They're basically saying, "This is not morality.

基本上自由派是說“這根本不是道德。

In-group, authority, purity -- this has nothing to do with morality. I reject it."

團體 權威 純潔 - 這些東西和道德一點關係也沒有。我拒絕。”

但當人越保守﹐這些價值便提昇

But as people get more conservative, the values rise.

我們可以說自由派有一種 - 雙頻

We can say liberals have a two-channel or two-foundation morality.

或是雙基礎的道德

Conservatives have more of a five-foundation,

保守派則是有五基礎

或是五頻的道德

or five-channel morality.

We find this in every country we look at.

我們在每個國家都看到一樣的情形

這是一千多個加拿大人的數據

Here's the data for 1,100 Canadians. I'll flip through a few other slides.

我會翻過一些其他的國家

The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe,

英國﹐澳洲 紐西蘭 西歐 東歐

Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia.

拉丁美洲 中東 中亞 和南亞

Notice also that on all of these graphs,

你可以看到在這些圖表上

the slope is steeper on in-group, authority, purity,

在團體 權威 純潔的差異更大

which shows that, within any country,

這告訴我們在任何國家

the disagreement isn't over harm and fairness.

歧見並不是來自傷害和公平

I mean, we debate over what's fair,

我們討論什麼是公平

but everybody agrees that harm and fairness matter.

但每個人都認同傷害和公平是要緊的

Moral arguments within cultures

在文化中的道德討論

are especially about issues of in-group, authority, purity.

通常都與團隊 權威 純潔有關

This effect is so robust, we find it no matter how we ask the question.

無論我們怎麼提出問題﹐效果還是很明顯。

In a recent study, we asked people,

在最近的一項研究中

suppose you're about to get a dog,

我們問人們﹕如果你們要買狗

you picked a particular breed, learned about the breed.

你選擇了一種特別的品種

後來你知道有關這些品種的一些事

Suppose you learn that this particular breed is independent-minded

或許你學到這個特別的品種會獨立思考

and relates to its owner as a friend and an equal.

並且把主人當做平等的朋友

If you're a liberal, you say, "That's great!"

如果你是自由派你會說“哇!那太好了!”

because liberals like to say, "Fetch! Please."

因為自由派喜歡說“去接!”

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

But if you're a conservative, that's not so attractive.

但如果你是保守派﹐這就不是太好

If you're conservative and learn that a dog's extremely loyal

如果你是保守派﹐你知道這只狗對牠的家庭非常忠誠

to its home and family

不會很快地和陌生人混熟

and doesn't warm up to strangers,

for conservatives, loyalty is good; dogs ought to be loyal.

對保守派來說 忠誠很好 狗就是要忠誠

But to a liberal,

但對自由派來說﹐這聽起來

it sounds like this dog is running for the Republican nomination.

像是這隻狗要參加共和黨初選了

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

所以你可能說 好

You might say, OK, there are differences between liberals and conservatives,

這就是保守派和自由派的差異

but what makes the three other foundations moral?

但什麼讓其他三種基礎也成為道德呢﹖

Aren't they the foundations of xenophobia, authoritarianism and puritanism?

難道它們不是只是極權主義

排他主義和清教主義的基礎嗎﹖

What makes them moral?

什麼讓它們變成道德﹖

The answer, I think, is contained in this incredible triptych from Hieronymus Bosch,

答案﹐我想﹐就存在布殊這個三聯圖中

“世俗慾望的樂園。”

"The Garden of Earthly Delights."

在第一幅圖裡﹐我們看到創造世界時

In the first panel, we see the moment of creation.

All is ordered, all is beautiful,

一切都有秩序﹐一些都很美麗﹐所有的人和動物

all the people and animals are doing what they're supposed to be doing,

都在它們應該在的地方做他們應該做的事情

are where they're supposed to be.

But then, given the way of the world, things change.

但因為世俗的一切 事情開始改變

We get every person doing whatever he wants,

人們開始任意而為

with every aperture of every other person and every other animal.

和任何人和任何動物

Some of you might recognize this as the '60s.

在座的某些人可能會發現這是60年代

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

但60年代終究被70年代取代

But the '60s inevitably gives way to the '70s,

where the cuttings of the apertures hurt a little bit more.

這些裂縫開始令人痛苦

Of course, Bosch called this hell.

當然 布殊稱這為地獄

So this triptych, these three panels,

在這個三聯畫中﹐三片圖

描繪了秩序逐漸腐敗的真實

portray the timeless truth that order tends to decay.

The truth of social entropy.

社會消減的事實

But lest you think this is just some part of the Christian imagination

你們可能只會想這只是基督徒的想像

where Christians have this weird problem with pleasure,

因為基督徒老是要跟歡愉過不去

這裡有一個一樣的故事 一樣的演進

here's the same story, the same progression,

told in a paper that was published in "Nature" a few years ago,

在自然雜誌中刊登的一篇文章裡

in which Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter had people play a commons dilemma,

Ernst Fehr 和 Simon Gachter 要人們思考一個常見的難題

a game in which you give people money,

你給人們錢

and then, on each round of the game,

然後在每一輪游戲結束前

they can put money into a common pot,

他們可以把錢放進一個共用壺裡

then the experimenter doubles what's there,

實驗者把裡面的錢變雙份

and then it's all divided among the players.

然後再分給所有玩家

So it's a nice analog for all sorts of environmental issues,

這就像許多環境議題

where we're asking people to make a sacrifice

我們要求人們做出犧牲

and they don't really benefit from their own sacrifice.

他們自己不會從犧牲中得到什麼

You really want everybody else to sacrifice,

但你總是要其他人犧牲

but everybody has a temptation to free ride.

但人總有搭便車的想法

剛開始﹐人們較為合作

What happens is that, at first, people start off reasonably cooperative.

This is all played anonymously.

這是無名制的 --

On the first round, people give about half of the money that they can.

第一輪﹐人們給出一半的錢

But they quickly see other people aren't doing so much.

但他們很快知道”說真的﹐其他人沒有做這麼多。

"I don't want to be a sucker. I won't cooperate."

我才不是笨蛋。我不要合作。“

So cooperation quickly decays

於是合作關係很快的從還不錯﹐落到幾乎沒有

from reasonably good down to close to zero.

But then -- and here's the trick --

但是 - 訣竅在這

Fehr and Gächter, on the seventh round, told people,

Fehr 和 Gachter 在第七輪的時候和每個人說

”好的﹐新規則

"You know what? New rule.

If you want to give some of your own money

如果你要給一些錢

to punish people who aren't contributing,

來懲罰那些沒有貢獻的人﹐你可以這樣做。“

you can do that."

And as soon as people heard about the punishment issue going on,

當人們聽到懲罰的時候

cooperation shoots up.

馬上變得合作

It shoots up and it keeps going up.

不但合作 而且繼續加強

Lots of research shows that to solve cooperative problems, it really helps.

有許多研究表示在解決合作問題上 這有明顯的幫助

It's not enough to appeal to people's good motives.

只靠人們的好心並不夠

It helps to have some sort of punishment.

有些懲罰會更好

Even if it's just shame or embarrassment or gossip,

就算只是羞辱或是被談論

你需要懲罰

you need some sort of punishment

to bring people, when they're in large groups, to cooperate.

讓人們在大的群體裡合作

There's even some recent research suggesting that religion --

甚至有些最近的研究談到宗教

priming God, making people think about God --

讓人們想到神

often, in some situations, leads to more cooperative, more pro-social behavior.

往往讓人們懂得合作 更符合社會期待

Some people think that religion is an adaptation

某些人認為宗教是一種適應作用

evolved both by cultural and biological evolution

來自文化和生理進化

to make groups to cohere,

讓群體可以合作

in part for the purpose of trusting each other

讓人們何以互信

and being more effective at competing with other groups.

在與他人競爭時能夠更有效

That's probably right, although this is a controversial issue.

我想這大概是真的

雖然這是個爭議性很大的話題

But I'm particularly interested in religion and the origin of religion

但我對宗教特別有興趣

宗教的來源﹐他為我們和對我們做了什麼

and in what it does to us and for us,

因為我認為最大的奇景不是大峽谷

because I think the greatest wonder in the world is not the Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon is really simple --

大峽谷很簡單

a lot of rock and a lot of water and wind and a lot of time,

很多石頭 很多水和風 很多時間

and you get the Grand Canyon.

你就能得到大峽谷

It's not that complicated.

一點也不複雜

This is what's complicated:

複雜的是

that people lived in places like the Grand Canyon, cooperating with each other,

那些住在大峽谷這樣的地方的人

彼此合作﹐或在非洲的撒哈拉沙漠

or on the savannahs of Africa or the frozen shores of Alaska.

或在阿拉斯加的冰岸﹐和那些村莊

And some of these villages grew into the mighty cities of Babylon

逐漸變成偉大城市像巴比倫﹐羅馬 湖中之城提诺契特兰

and Rome and Tenochtitlan.

How did this happen?

這是怎麼發生的﹖

It's an absolute miracle, much harder to explain than the Grand Canyon.

這完全是奇跡﹐比大峽谷更難解釋

The answer, I think, is that they used every tool in the toolbox.

答案﹐我想﹐是他們用了所有工具盒裡面的工具

用了所有道德心理學

It took all of our moral psychology to create these cooperative groups.

創造了這些合作團隊

Yes, you need to be concerned about harm, you need a psychology of justice.

是﹐你需要想到傷害

你需要想到正義

But it helps to organize a group if you have subgroups,

但如果你有一些小團隊﹐便很容易組織大團隊

and if those subgroups have some internal structure,

這些小團隊中有一些內部組織

and if you have some ideology that tells people

如果你有一些理想可以告訴人

to suppress their carnality -- to pursue higher, nobler ends.

壓制他們的慾望 去追求更高的 更榮耀的理想

現在我們來到自由派和保守派

Now we get to the crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives:

歧義的交會處

liberals reject three of these foundations.

因為自由派拒絕其中三個基礎

他們說”不﹐我們應該要支持多樣性 不要搞一些小圈圈。“

They say, "Let's celebrate diversity, not common in-group membership,"

他們說”讓我們質疑權威。“

and, "Let's question authority," and, "Keep your laws off my body."

他們說”不要給我這些法律。“

Liberals have very noble motives for doing this.

自由派這樣做有著崇高的動機

Traditional authority and morality can be quite repressive and restrictive

傳統的權威﹐傳統的道德 時常壓制那些

to those at the bottom, to women, to people who don't fit in.

在底層的人 女人 那些不符合社會標準的人

Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed.

所以自由派為了那些受壓迫的弱者說話

They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos.

他們要改變 要正義 就算可能造成混亂

這個人的衣服上說”少放屁﹐去革命“

This shirt says, "Stop bitching, start a revolution."

If you're high in openness to experience, revolution is good; it's change, it's fun.

如果你很喜歡經歷新事 革命是好的

它是改變 它很有趣

Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions.

保守派﹐在另一邊 為傳統和制度發聲

他們要秩序﹐就算有可能要犧牲底層的人

They want order, even at some cost, to those at the bottom.

The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve.

保守派的心理是 秩序是非常難達成的

很珍貴 很容易就失去了

It's precious, and it's really easy to lose.

So as Edmund Burke said, "The restraints on men,

所以 Edmund Burke 說”人們的束縛

as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights."

和他們的自由﹐是在他們的權利上。“

這是在法國大革命的混亂後

This was after the chaos of the French Revolution.

只要你看清這一點

Once you see that liberals and conservatives

自由派和保守派都能有一些貢獻

both have something to contribute,

that they form a balance on change versus stability,

他們能在改變和穩定中找到平衡 --

then I think the way is open to step outside the moral Matrix.

我想重點是試著踏出我們的道德框架

This is the great insight

這是所有亞洲宗教都有的特性

that all the Asian religions have attained.

Think about yin and yang.

想想陰陽

Yin and yang aren't enemies; they don't hate each other.

陰陽不是敵人﹐陰陽不互相仇恨

Yin and yang are both necessary, like night and day,

陰陽都是必須的﹐像日夜

for the functioning of the world.

讓世界繼續轉動

You find the same thing in Hinduism.

你在印度教中也能看到

There are many high gods in Hinduism.

印度教有很多大神

Two of them are Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer.

其中兩位是守護神毗瑟挐﹐和破壞神濕婆

This image, actually, is both of those gods

這個圖片是兩個神使用同一個身體

sharing the same body.

You have the markings of Vishnu on the left,

左邊有毗瑟挐的特質

so we could think of Vishnu as the conservative god.

你可以想他是保護神

You have the markings of Shiva on the right -- Shiva's the liberal god.

右邊有濕婆的特質

濕婆是個自由派 - 祂們一起合作

And they work together.

You find the same thing in Buddhism.

你在佛教裡也可以找到一樣的例子

These two stanzas contain, I think, the deepest insights

這兩個小句有深深的寓意

或許是道德心理學從來沒達到的境界

that have ever been attained into moral psychology.

From the Zen master Sēngcàn:

來自禪宗的僧璨

"If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be 'for' or 'against.'

至道无难，唯嫌拣择。

违顺相争，是为心病。“

The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease."

Unfortunately, it's a disease that has been caught

很不幸的﹐這種心病

許多世界的偉大領袖都有

by many of the world's leaders.

但在你感覺自己比小布希好很多前

But before you feel superior to George Bush,

before you throw a stone, ask yourself:

在你對他扔石頭前﹐先自問﹕我接受嗎﹖

Do you accept this?

Do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil?

我能跨出善惡論嗎﹖

Can you be not for or against anything?

我能不支持和反對任何事情嗎

So what's the point? What should you do?

重點是什麼 我該怎麼做

Well, if you take the greatest insights

你可以在偉大的古代亞洲宗教和哲學裡

from ancient Asian philosophies and religions

找到答案

and combine them with the latest research on moral psychology,

將這些答案加上最新的道德心理學研究

你會有這三個結論﹕

I think you come to these conclusions:

我們的腦子被進化所設計

that our righteous minds were designed by evolution

to unite us into teams,

要我們成為一個團隊 讓我們和其他團隊分開

to divide us against other teams

and then to blind us to the truth.

讓我們無視真理

So what should you do?

你該怎麼做﹖難道我要你放棄努力

Am I telling you to not strive?

Am I telling you to embrace Sēngcàn and stop,

我是要你擁抱僧璨

stop with the struggle of for and against?

然後停止這些支持和反對的想法嗎﹖

No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that.

絕對不是。這不是我要說的

This is an amazing group of people who are doing so much,

有許多了不起的人做了許多事

using so much of their talent,

用他們的才能﹐他們的技能 他們的精力和金錢

their brilliance, their energy, their money,

to make the world a better place,

讓世界變得更好﹐去爭取

to fight wrongs,

打擊錯誤﹐解決問題

to solve problems.

But as we learned from Samantha Power

但就像我們在 Samantha Power 的故事裡學到的

in her story about Sérgio Vieira de Mello,

像 Sergio Vieira de Mello﹐你不能直接殺進去

you can't just go charging in, saying, "You're wrong, and I'm right,"

然後說”你錯了 我對了“

because, as we just heard, everybody thinks they are right.

因為﹐就像我們剛剛聽到的 每個人都以為自己是對的

A lot of the problems we have to solve

有太多我們需要解決的問題

are problems that require us to change other people.

是那些需要我們去改變他人的問題

And if you want to change other people,

如果你想要改變他人﹐一個比較好的方法是

a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are --

先了解我們是誰 -- 了解我們自己的道德心理

understand our moral psychology,

understand that we all think we're right --

了解我們都認為自己是對的﹐然後跨出去

and then step out,

even if it's just for a moment, step out -- check in with Sēngcàn.

就算只是一下子﹐跨出去 想想僧璨

Step out of the moral Matrix,

跨出你的道德框架

just try to see it as a struggle playing out,

嘗試當做這只是每個人認為自己是對的人

in which everybody thinks they're right, and even if you disagree with them,

的一種拔河

每個人﹐就算你不認同他們 都有自己的理由

everybody has some reasons for what they're doing.

每個人做事都有自己的理由

Step out.

跨出去

And if you do that, that's the essential move to cultivate moral humility,

如果你這樣做﹐你便可以培養道德謙遜

to get yourself out of this self-righteousness,

讓你自己離開這個自以為義

一種正常人類的心理

which is the normal human condition.

想想達賴喇嘛

Think about the Dalai Lama.

Think about the enormous moral authority of the Dalai Lama.

想想達賴喇嘛巨大的道德權威

It comes from his moral humility.

這是來自他的道德謙遜

So I think the point --

我想我談話的重點是

the point of my talk and, I think, the point of TED --

TED的重點是

is that this is a group that is passionately engaged

這是一個熱情的想要

in the pursuit of changing the world for the better.

讓世界變得更好的團體

People here are passionately engaged

人們熱情的希望

in trying to make the world a better place.

讓世界變得更好

But there is also a passionate commitment to the truth.

同時也有一種接近真理的希望

And so I think the answer is to use that passionate commitment to the truth

我想答案是保持你的熱情﹐尋找真理

然後把它變成更好的未來

to try to turn it into a better future for us all.

Thank you.

謝謝你。

(Applause)

(掌聲)