["Steven Pinker"]

["瑞貝卡 鈕伯格 戈德斯坦"]

["The Long Reach of Reason"]

["史迪芬 平克"]

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

"理性的長期效應"

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

計程車司機：22美元 史迪芬：好的

Popular culture plumbs new depths of dumbth

瑞貝卡：艱困的時期好像會讓人理智下降

and political discourse has become a race

流行文化達到了愚昧的另一種高度

to the bottom.

而政治話語更是變成了

We're living in an era of scientific creationism,

逐底競爭

9/11 conspiracy theories, psychic hotlines,

我們住在一個科學創造論的時代

and a resurgence of religious fundamentalism.

911陰謀論、靈媒諮詢熱線

People who think too well

還有正在復甦的基本教義派的時代

are often accused of elitism,

那些善於思考的人們

and even in the academy,

也時常被指控奉行菁英主義

there are attacks on logocentrism,

甚至在學術界

the crime of letting logic dominate our thinking.

也有對義理中心論(logocentrism)的批評

SP: But is this necessarily a bad thing?

也就是讓邏輯引導思考的這項罪名

Perhaps reason is overrated.

史迪芬：可是這真的是壞事嗎？

Many pundits have argued that a good heart

也許理性被高估了

and steadfast moral clarity

很多梵學家都主張一顆善良的心

are superior to triangulations of overeducated policy wonks,

還有堅定的道德意識

like the best and brightest and that dragged us

都比過度教育的政策家所作的三角測量好

into the quagmire of Vietnam.

尤其那些最聰明的政策家還曾經

And wasn't it reason that gave us the means

把我們拖進越戰的泥沼裡

to despoil the planet

而且難道不是理性讓我們

and threaten our species with weapons of mass destruction?

去掠奪這個星球

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

和用毀滅性武器威脅我們同類的嗎？

not cold-hearted calculation, that will save us.

如果這樣想的話，會拯救我們的其實是人格和良心

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

而不是那些實際的計算

My fellow psychologists have shown that we're led

再說了，人類又不是一根叉著腦袋的樹枝

by our bodies and our emotions

我有一些心理學家的朋友證實了

and use our puny powers of reason

我們是被身體還有情緒引導的

merely to rationalize our gut feelings after the fact.

而我們只是用理智的微小力量

RNG: How could a reasoned argument logically entail

僅僅用於事後解釋我們所感受到的一切

the ineffectiveness of reasoned arguments?

瑞貝卡：理性思辨怎麼可能在邏輯上

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

造成其他理性思辨的無效呢？

You're not threatening us or bribing us,

聽著，你正在試著說服我們理智是無用的

suggesting that we resolve the issue

但你並不是用威脅或是行賄的方式

with a show of hands or a beauty contest.

你也沒有提出用舉手表決或舉辦選美比賽

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

來解決這個爭論

you're conceding reason's potency.

在你試著理性說服我們認同你的觀點之時

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

你已間接承認了理智的力量

You show up for that debate

理智並不是任何人能夠得到的

and you've already lost it.

你出席這場辯論的同時

SP: But can reason lead us in directions

你就已經輸了

that are good or decent or moral?

但是理性真的能夠引導我們走向

After all, you pointed out that reason

良善、合宜、或是符合道德的方向嗎

is just a means to an end,

畢竟，你也指出了理性不過是

and the end depends on the reasoner's passions.

達到結果的一個手段

Reason can lay out a road map to peace and harmony

而結果是好是壞則要取決於學者的熱情

if the reasoner wants peace and harmony,

理智能夠鋪出一條通往和平與協調的道路

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

只要那是使用者想要的話

if the reasoner delights in conflict and strife.

但是如果使用者的意圖為衝突和鬥爭

Can reason force the reasoner to want

理智也可以鋪出通往衝突以及鬥爭的路

less cruelty and waste?

理智能夠一定讓使用者

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

比較不殘忍或不無用嗎

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

瑞貝卡：如果只有理智的話，答案就是否定的

You need two conditions:

但是不需要太多，答案就可以變成肯定

The first is that reasoners all care

你需要兩個條件：

about their own well-being.

第一個就是所有使用理智的人在乎

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

他們自己的福利

in order for reason to go to work,

這是理智要能成功運作

and it's obviously present in all of us.

所需要的其中一項熱情

We all care passionately

而且很明顯的，我們都擁有這項熱情

about our own well-being.

我們全都殷切的

The second condition is that reasoners

關注自己的福利

are members of a community of reasoners

第二個條件就是這些是用理智的人

who can affect one another's well-being,

是擁有理智的人的社群中的一員

can exchange messages,

他們能夠影響彼此的福利

and comprehend each other's reasoning.

能夠交換訊息

And that's certainly true of our gregarious

而且能夠理解彼此的論述

and loquatious species,

而我們這些群居又健談的種族

well endowed with the instinct for language.

天生就具有語言本能

SP: Well, that sounds good in theory,

完全符合這兩個條件

but has it worked that way in practice?

史迪芬：好吧，在理論上這聽起來很好

In particular, can it explain

但實際上真的能夠運作嗎

a momentous historical development

尤其是，它能夠解釋

that I spoke about five years ago here at TED?

我五年前在TED演講裡提到的

Namely, we seem to be getting more humane.

那個重大的歷史進展嗎？

Centuries ago, our ancestors would burn cats alive

也就是，人類似乎往越來越人道的方向發展

as a form of popular entertainment.

幾世紀前，把貓活活燒死對我們的祖先來說

Knights waged constant war on each other

是一種大眾娛樂的形式

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

騎士們利用屠殺盡可能多對手的佃農

Governments executed people for frivolous reasons,

來對彼此發動戰爭

like stealing a cabbage

以前政府會為了毫無說服力的理由處決人民

or criticizing the royal garden.

像是偷甘藍菜

The executions were designed to be as prolonged

或是批評皇家花園

and as painful as possible, like crucifixion,

那些處決方式更是被設計用來延遲

disembowelment, breaking on the wheel.

被處決者的痛苦，像是釘十字架

Respectable people kept slaves.

切除內臟、破輪等等

For all our flaws, we have abandoned

另外，有聲望的人們還會蓄奴

these barbaric practices.

對於那些缺點，現在人們已經中止

RNG: So, do you think it's human nature that's changed?

那些野蠻的行為了

SP: Not exactly. I think we still harbor instincts

瑞貝卡：所以你認為是人類的天性變了嗎？

that can erupt in violence,

史迪芬：這也不然。我認為我們依舊擁有

like greed, tribalism, revenge, dominance, sadism.

那些能夠導致暴力的天性

But we also have instincts that can steer us away,

像是貪婪、部落意識、復仇、統治心態、虐待癖好

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

但我們同時也有能夠讓我們往另一個方向發展的天性

what Abraham Lincoln called

例如自制力、同理心、對公平的追求

the better angels of our nature.

也就是亞伯拉罕．林肯所說的

RNG: So if human nature didn't change,

我們天性中的好天使

what invigorated those better angels?

瑞貝卡：所以倘若人類的天性沒有變

SP: Well, among other things,

又是什麼鼓舞了那些好天使呢

our circle of empathy expanded.

嗯，除了這些之外

Years ago, our ancestors would feel the pain

重點是我們同理心的範圍會擴增

only of their family and people in their village.

多年以前，我們的祖先只會為了

But with the expansion of literacy and travel,

家人或是同村落的人們感到痛苦

people started to sympathize

但是藉由擴展知識以及旅行

with wider and wider circles,

人們體諒的對象範圍

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

也逐漸地擴展

and perhaps eventually, all of humanity.

從氏族一路到部落、國家、種族

RNG: Can hard-headed scientists

說不定最後就會包含整個人類群體

really give so much credit to soft-hearted empathy?

那些講究實際的科學家

SP: They can and do.

真的會認同難以解釋的同理心嗎？

Neurophysiologists have found neurons in the brain

當然可以

that respond to other people's actions

神經生理學家在腦中發現了一種神經元

the same way they respond to our own.

它們會對別人的行為產生反應

Empathy emerges early in life,

就如同對己身的行為產生的反應一樣

perhaps before the age of one.

同理心在成長過程中很早就形成了

Books on empathy have become bestsellers,

也許在一歲之前

like "The Empathic Civilization"

關於同理心的書更總是佔據了暢銷書榜

and "The Age of Empathy."

例如說“同理心的文明”

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

還有”同理心的年代“

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

瑞貝卡：我崇尚同理心，我是說，誰不呢？

for making moral progress.

但如果只有同理心，對於道德的進展

For one thing, it's innately biased

它沒有多大的功用

toward blood relations, babies

首先，同理心天生就具有偏頗性

and warm, fuzzy animals.

它總是偏袒有血緣關係的對象、或是寶寶

As far as empathy is concerned,

還有溫暖而毛茸茸的動物

ugly outsiders can go to hell.

如果只遵從同理心的話

And even our best attempts to work up sympathy

那那些醜陋的局外人都可以下地獄了

for those who are unconnected with us

而且就算我們試著對那些

fall miserably short, a sad truth about human nature

與我們無關的人懷有同理心

that was pointed out by Adam Smith.

它也不會維持太久，這就是人類天性的可悲真相

Adam Smith: Let us suppose that the great empire

亞當．史密斯也指出了這點

of China was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake,

亞當．史密斯：如果我們假設中國的某個強盛帝國

and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe

一夕之間被一場地震摧毀

would react on receiving intelligence

那麼在歐洲某位具有人性的紳士

of this dreadful calamity.

在得知如此慘烈的悲劇後

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

會做出什麼反應呢

his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people.

我想，他一開始會對那些遭遇如此不幸的人們

He would make many melancholy reflections

感到深沉的悲傷

upon the precariousness of human life,

他會因此憂鬱地反思

and when all these humane sentiments

人類生命的不可預測性

had been once fairly expressed,

而當這些人性的感傷

he would pursue his business or his pleasure

被相當地表達過後

with the same ease and tranquility

這位紳士會一如往常般地

as if no such accident had happened.

去追求他的事業或快樂

If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow,

就好像那場地震不存在一樣

he would not sleep tonight,

也就是說，如果他得知明天他會失去小拇指

but provided he never saw them,

他會輾轉難眠一整晚

he would snore with the most profound security

但換個情況

over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren.

當今天他看不見那些因地震受苦的人們時

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

他只會整晚安心的打呼

what else was there?

史迪芬：但如果同理心不足以讓我們變得更有人性

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

那又是什麼原因呢

one of our most effective better angels: reason.

你並沒有提到那個也許是

Reason has muscle.

我們最有力量的好天使：理智

It's reason that provides the push to widen

理智是有肌肉的

that circle of empathy.

就是它提供了力量

Every one of the humanitarian developments

讓我們擴展同理心範圍

that you mentioned originated with thinkers

所有你提到過的人道進展

who gave reasons for why some practice

都源自於一些思考家

was indefensible.

他們能夠給出為什麼有一些行為之所以

They demonstrated that the way people treated

站不住腳的理由

some particular group of others

他們也能指出人們

was logically inconsistent

對待特定人們的方式

with the way they insisted on being treated themselves.

與他們堅持對待自己的方式

SP: Are you saying that reason

在邏輯上是多麼的不一致

can actually change people's minds?

所以你想說的是

Don't people just stick with whatever conviction

理智能夠改變人心囉？

serves their interests

難道人們不會只偏好自己喜歡的觀點

or conforms to the culture that they grew up in?

或只選擇遵從

RNG: Here's a fascinating fact about us:

自己所接觸的文化規範嗎？

Contradictions bother us,

瑞貝卡：人有趣的一點

at least when we're forced to confront them,

就在於我們總是受矛盾所苦

which is just another way of saying

至少當我們被逼著正視它的時候是如此

that we are susceptible to reason.

這也是我們總是

And if you look at the history of moral progress,

受到理智影響的另一種面向

you can trace a direct pathway from reasoned arguments

而當你回顧一些重大的道德進展時

to changes in the way that we actually feel.

你可以追蹤到一些理性思辨

Time and again, a thinker would lay out an argument

改變我們感受的蹤跡

as to why some practice was indefensible,

如同之前提的，一位思考家會提出思辨

irrational, inconsistent with values already held.

來說明為何有些行為是站不住腳

Their essay would go viral,

不理性、並悖離我們既有價值觀的

get translated into many languages,

這些論述會像病毒般傳播

get debated at pubs and coffee houses and salons,

並被翻譯成許多語言

and at dinner parties,

而且在酒吧、沙龍

and influence leaders, legislators,

或是晚宴上也會被拿出來討論

popular opinion.

進一步影響領導者、立法者

Eventually their conclusions get absorbed

還有大眾意見

into the common sense of decency,

就這樣，他們得出的結論

erasing the tracks of the original argument

會融入他們對合宜價值觀的想像

that had gotten us there.

並消除那個一開始讓我們得出結論的

Few of us today feel any need to put forth

那些論述的痕跡

a rigorous philosophical argument

今天的我們並不需要

as to why slavery is wrong

藉由一場激烈的邏輯辯論

or public hangings or beating children.

來證明蓄奴、

By now, these things just feel wrong.

公眾吊死、還有鞭打小孩是錯誤的

But just those arguments had to be made,

雖然今天的人能自然地覺得這些事不對

and they were, in centuries past.

但這其實是幾世紀前的那些無數辯論

SP: Are you saying that people needed

導出的結果

a step-by-step argument to grasp

所以你覺得人們需要

why something might be a wee bit wrong

一步一步的辯論才能夠察覺

with burning heretics at the stake?

在火形柱上燒死異教徒

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

這件事中有那麼一丁點不對勁？

Sebastian Castellio making the case.

喔，對啊。法國的神學家塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奧

Sebastian Castellio: Calvin says that he's certain,

對此事的論述如下：

and other sects say that they are.

塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯特利奧：凱文說他是肯定的，

Who shall be judge?

其他人也說他們是肯定的。

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

誰應該被批判呢？

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

如果事情是確定的， 對於誰而言的？ 對於凱文？

In view of the uncertainty, we must define heretics

但是呢， 為什麼他寫了這麼多自我告白真相的書籍？

simply as one with whom we disagree.

在不確定中， 我們需要定義異教徒

And if then we are going to kill heretics,

只是為了看清我們不同意哪些人

the logical outcome will be a war of extermination,

如果我們將要處死異教徒，

since each is sure of himself.

而每一個人都確定自己是對的，

SP: Or with hideous punishments

那理性的結果是一場滅絕性的戰爭。

like breaking on the wheel?

那關於那些像是破輪的

RNG: The prohibition in our constitution

殘忍刑罰也是嗎

of cruel and unusual punishments

我們憲法中之所以會禁止

was a response to a pamphlet circulated in 1764

殘忍和不尋常的處罰

by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria.

也是在1764年流傳了一本由義大利法學家

Cesare Beccaria: As punishments become more cruel,

西薩爾·貝卡里亞所著的小冊子的關係

the minds of men, which like fluids

西薩爾·貝卡里亞： 當懲罰變的更加的嚴峻，

always adjust to the level of the objects

人們的思想像是流質一樣

that surround them, become hardened,

總是適應著

and after a hundred years of cruel punishments,

圍繞著他們的物體， 然後慢慢堅固

breaking on the wheel causes no more fear

經過幾百年嚴峻的懲罰，

than imprisonment previously did.

打破那些圓圈並無法

For a punishment to achieve its objective,

比原來的監禁造成更多的恐慌。

it is only necessary that the harm that it inflicts

對於用懲罰達到目的，

outweighs the benefit that derives from the crime,

只有當犯罪帶來的傷害

and into this calculation ought to be factored

超過了帶來的好處,

the certainty of punishment

然後在算式中放入

and the loss of the good

處罰的确定性

that the commission of the crime will produce.

和利益的失去

Everything beyond this is superfluous,

犯罪的限制才會產生。

and therefore tyrannical.

所有其他的東西都是膚淺的，

SP: But surely antiwar movements depended

因此是專制的。

on mass demonstrations

史迪芬：可是反戰運動卻是由

and catchy tunes by folk singers

大眾示威、

and wrenching photographs of the human costs of war.

民謠歌手創作的朗朗上口音樂、

RNG: No doubt, but modern anti-war movements

還有揭示人類因戰爭付出的代價的相片構成的

reach back to a long chain of thinkers

沒錯，不過現代的反戰運動

who had argued as to why we ought to mobilize

可以回朔到一連串的思考家

our emotions against war,

他們提出為什麼我們應該動員我們的情緒

such as the father of modernity, Erasmus.

來達到反戰的目的

Erasmus: The advantages derived from peace

其中一個例子就是現代之父：伊拉斯謨

diffuse themselves far and wide,

伊拉斯謨：來自和平地好處