ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Jonathan Haidt - Social psychologist
Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral and political creatures.

Why you should listen

By understanding more about our moral psychology and its biases, Jonathan Haidt says we can design better institutions (including companies, universities and democracy itself), and we can learn to be more civil and open-minded toward those who are not on our team.

Haidt is a social psychologist whose research on morality across cultures led to his 2008 TED Talk on the psychological roots of the American culture war, and his 2013 TED Talk on how "common threats can make common ground." In both of those talks he asks, "Can't we all disagree more constructively?" Haidt's 2012 TED Talk explored the intersection of his work on morality with his work on happiness to talk about "hive psychology" -- the ability that humans have to lose themselves in groups pursuing larger projects, almost like bees in a hive. This hivish ability is crucial, he argues, for understanding the origins of morality, politics, and religion. These are ideas that Haidt develops at greater length in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Haidt joined New York University Stern School of Business in July 2011. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, based in the Business and Society Program. Before coming to Stern, Professor Haidt taught for 16 years at the University of Virginia in the department of psychology.

Haidt's writings appear frequently in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. He was named one of the top global thinkers by Foreign Policy magazine and by Prospect magazine. Haidt received a B.A. in Philosophy from Yale University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania.

More profile about the speaker
Jonathan Haidt | Speaker | TED.com
TED2008

Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

Jonathan Haidt 討論自由和保守主義的道德本質

Filmed:
3,635,704 views

心理學家 Jonathan Haidt 研究構成我們政治選擇的五種道德基礎。無論我們是左派﹐右派還是持平。在令人大開眼界的談話中﹐告訴我們自由主義和保守主義在道德上的偏好。
- Social psychologist
Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral and political creatures. Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:19
Suppose假設 that two American美國 friends朋友 are traveling旅行 together一起 in Italy意大利.
0
1000
3000
想像兩個美國人到意大利旅遊
00:22
They go to see Michelangelo's米開朗基羅 "David大衛,"
1
4000
2000
一起去看米開朗基羅的名作“大衛”
00:24
and when they finally最後 come face面對 to face面對 with the statue雕像,
2
6000
2000
當他們和巨大石雕面對面時
00:26
they both freeze凍結 dead in their tracks軌道.
3
8000
2000
兩個人都望著出神
00:28
The first guy -- we'll call him Adam亞當 --
4
10000
2000
第一個人﹐我們就叫他亞當吧
00:30
is transfixed呆若木雞 by the beauty美女 of the perfect完善 human人的 form形成.
5
12000
3000
被完美的人體肌理震懾住了
00:33
The second第二 guy -- we'll call him Bill法案 --
6
15000
2000
第二個人 我們就叫他比爾吧
00:35
is transfixed呆若木雞 by embarrassment困窘, at staring凝視 at the thing there in the center中央.
7
17000
4000
也嚇傻了 - 被那兩腿間的玩意兒
00:40
So here's這裡的 my question for you:
8
22000
2000
讓我試問
00:42
which哪一個 one of these two guys was more likely容易 to have voted for George喬治 Bush襯套,
9
24000
4000
這兩個男人誰比較有可能把票投給小布希
00:46
which哪一個 for Al Gore血塊?
10
28000
2000
誰投給了高爾﹖
00:48
I don't need a show顯示 of hands
11
30000
1000
大家不用舉手
00:49
because we all have the same相同 political政治 stereotypes定型.
12
31000
3000
因為我們都有一樣的刻板印象
00:52
We all know that it's Bill法案.
13
34000
2000
我們都知道是比爾
00:54
And in this case案件, the stereotype鉛板 corresponds對應 to reality現實.
14
36000
4000
在這個例子裡﹐刻板印象反映了事實
00:58
It really is a fact事實 that liberals自由主義者 are much higher更高 than conservatives保守派
15
40000
3000
事實上﹐自由黨員的確比保守黨員
01:01
on a major重大的 personality個性 trait特徵 called openness透明度 to experience經驗.
16
43000
3000
更容易接受新體驗
01:04
People who are high in openness透明度 to experience經驗
17
46000
2000
那些喜歡接受新體驗的人
01:06
just crave渴望 novelty新奇, variety品種, diversity多樣, new ideas思路, travel旅行.
18
48000
4000
渴望新鮮 多樣性 新想法 旅行
01:10
People low on it like things that are familiar, that are safe安全 and dependable可信.
19
52000
5000
較難接受新體驗的人喜歡熟悉 安全 可靠的事物
01:15
If you know about this trait特徵,
20
57000
2000
如果你知道這些特性
01:17
you can understand理解 a lot of puzzles謎題 about human人的 behavior行為.
21
59000
2000
你便能了解人類許多難解的行為
01:19
You can understand理解 why artists藝術家 are so different不同 from accountants會計師.
22
61000
3000
了解為什麼藝術家和會計師如此不同
01:22
You can actually其實 predict預測 what kinds of books圖書 they like to read,
23
64000
2000
你可以預測他們喜歡看的書
01:24
what kinds of places地方 they like to travel旅行 to,
24
66000
2000
他們喜歡去的旅遊點
01:26
and what kinds of food餐飲 they like to eat.
25
68000
2000
甚至他們的飲食偏好
01:28
Once一旦 you understand理解 this trait特徵, you can understand理解
26
70000
3000
只要你了解這個特性﹐你便能理解
01:31
why anybody任何人 would eat at Applebee's阿普爾比的, but not anybody任何人 that you know.
27
73000
4000
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
01:35
(Laughter笑聲)
28
77000
6000
(笑聲)
01:41
This trait特徵 also tells告訴 us a lot about politics政治.
29
83000
2000
這個特性也讓我們理解政治
01:43
The main主要 researcher研究員 of this trait特徵, Robert羅伯特 McCrae麥克雷 says that,
30
85000
3000
研究這個性格特質的研究者 Robert McCrae 說
01:46
"Open打開 individuals個人 have an affinity親和力 for liberal自由主義的, progressive進步, left-wing左翼 political政治 views意見" --
31
88000
4000
“開放的人偏向自由 進步 左翼政治思想”
01:50
they like a society社會 which哪一個 is open打開 and changing改變 --
32
92000
2000
他們喜歡一個開放 持續改變的社會
01:52
"whereas closed關閉 individuals個人 prefer比較喜歡 conservative保守, traditional傳統, right-wing右翼 views意見."
33
94000
5000
“封閉的人偏好保守 傳統 右翼的觀點。”
01:57
This trait特徵 also tells告訴 us a lot about the kinds of groups people join加入.
34
99000
4000
這個特質也讓我們了解人們所參與的社團組織
02:01
So here's這裡的 the description描述 of a group I found發現 on the Web捲筒紙.
35
103000
2000
這是我在網路上找到的一個組織簡介
02:03
What kinds of people would join加入 a global全球 community社區
36
105000
2000
怎樣的人會參加一個全球性的社群
02:05
welcoming歡迎 people from every一切 discipline學科 and culture文化,
37
107000
2000
歡迎來自各種文化和學科的人
02:07
who seek尋求 a deeper更深 understanding理解 of the world世界,
38
109000
2000
那些想更深刻理解世界的人
02:09
and who hope希望 to turn that understanding理解 into a better future未來 for us all?
39
111000
3000
同時也是那些想以這些理解讓世界變得更好的人
02:12
This is from some guy named命名 Ted攤曬.
40
114000
2000
這是一個叫 TED 的男人寫的
02:14
(Laughter笑聲)
41
116000
2000
(笑聲)
02:16
Well, let's see now, if openness透明度 predicts預測 who becomes liberal自由主義的,
42
118000
4000
那麼﹐如果開放性格偏向自由派
02:20
and openness透明度 predicts預測 who becomes a TEDsterTEDster,
43
122000
2000
同時也預知了你會成為 TED 一員
02:22
then might威力 we predict預測 that most TEDstersTEDsters are liberal自由主義的?
44
124000
3000
是否大部份的 TED 成員都是自由黨呢﹖
02:25
Let's find out.
45
127000
1000
讓我們試試
02:26
I'm going to ask you to raise提高 your hand, whether是否 you are liberal自由主義的, left of center中央 --
46
128000
4000
請你舉起手﹐不管你是自由黨﹐中間偏左
02:30
on social社會 issues問題, we're talking about, primarily主要 --
47
132000
2000
在我們所討論的議題上
02:32
or conservative保守, and I'll give a third第三 option選項,
48
134000
2000
或是保守黨﹐還有一個第三選項
02:34
because I know there are a number of libertarians自由主義者 in the audience聽眾.
49
136000
2000
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
02:36
So, right now, please raise提高 your hand --
50
138000
2000
現在﹐舉起你的手來
02:38
down in the simulcast同播 rooms客房, too,
51
140000
1000
在聯播臺裡的人也是
02:39
let's let everybody每個人 see who's誰是 here --
52
141000
2000
讓每個人看看都是誰
02:41
please raise提高 your hand if you would say that you are liberal自由主義的 or left of center中央.
53
143000
3000
如果你是自由黨或中間偏左﹐請舉起手來
02:44
Please raise提高 your hand high right now. OK.
54
146000
3000
請把你的手舉高﹐好
02:48
Please raise提高 your hand if you'd say you're libertarian自由主義者.
55
150000
2000
請舉手如果你是放任自由主義者
02:51
OK, about a -- two dozen.
56
153000
2000
好 差不多有二十多人
02:53
And please raise提高 your hand if you'd say you are right of center中央 or conservative保守.
57
155000
3000
如果你覺得你是中間偏右或保守黨﹐請舉手
02:56
One, two, three, four, five -- about eight or 10.
58
158000
5000
1 2 3 4 5 - 大概8 到10人
03:02
OK. This is a bit of a problem問題.
59
164000
3000
好。這就是問題。
03:05
Because if our goal目標 is to understand理解 the world世界,
60
167000
3000
如果我們的目標是了解世界
03:08
to seek尋求 a deeper更深 understanding理解 of the world世界,
61
170000
2000
深刻的進一步了解世界
03:10
our general一般 lack缺乏 of moral道德 diversity多樣 here is going to make it harder更難.
62
172000
3000
但缺乏道德多樣性讓了解世界變得更難
03:13
Because when people all share分享 values, when people all share分享 morals,
63
175000
4000
因為當每個人都分享一樣的價值觀和道德觀
03:17
they become成為 a team球隊, and once一旦 you engage從事 the psychology心理學 of teams球隊,
64
179000
3000
便成為一個團隊﹐一旦進入團隊心理
03:20
it shuts啟閉 down open-minded思想開明的 thinking思維.
65
182000
2000
原本開放的思想就會閉塞
03:25
When the liberal自由主義的 team球隊 loses失去, as it did in 2004,
66
187000
4000
當自由隊在2004年敗選
03:29
and as it almost幾乎 did in 2000, we comfort安慰 ourselves我們自己.
67
191000
4000
就像在2000年一樣﹐我們自我安慰
03:33
(Laughter笑聲)
68
195000
2000
(笑聲)
03:35
We try to explain說明 why half of America美國 voted for the other team球隊.
69
197000
4000
我們嘗試自我解釋為什麼有一半美國人投給另外一隊
03:39
We think they must必須 be blinded失明 by religion宗教, or by simple簡單 stupidity糊塗事.
70
201000
5000
我們想 他們一定是被宗教蒙蔽 或是純粹愚蠢
03:44
(Laughter笑聲)
71
206000
3000
(笑聲)
03:47
(Applause掌聲)
72
209000
8000
(掌聲)
03:55
So, if you think that half of America美國 votes Republican共和黨人
73
217000
6000
如果你認為投給共和黨的另一半美國人
04:01
because they are blinded失明 in this way,
74
223000
3000
是因為他們被蒙蔽了
04:04
then my message信息 to you is that you're trapped被困 in a moral道德 matrix矩陣,
75
226000
3000
我想告訴你的是你被道德母體限制住了
04:07
in a particular特定 moral道德 matrix矩陣.
76
229000
1000
某一種特別的道德母體
04:08
And by the matrix矩陣, I mean literally按照字面 the matrix矩陣, like the movie電影 "The Matrix矩陣."
77
230000
4000
所謂的道德母體﹐就像“駭客人物”裡面的大電腦一樣
04:12
But I'm here today今天 to give you a choice選擇.
78
234000
2000
但今日我讓你有個選擇
04:14
You can either take the blue藍色 pill and stick to your comforting欣慰的 delusions妄想,
79
236000
4000
你可以選擇藍色藥丸然後保持在舒適的幻覺中
04:18
or you can take the red pill,
80
240000
2000
或是選擇紅色藥丸﹐
04:20
learn學習 some moral道德 psychology心理學 and step outside the moral道德 matrix矩陣.
81
242000
3000
了解道德心理學﹐跨越你的道德母體
04:23
Now, because I know --
82
245000
2000
因為我知道 --
04:25
(Applause掌聲) --
83
247000
3000
(掌聲)
04:28
OK, I assume承擔 that answers答案 my question.
84
250000
2000
我想這已經回答了我的問題
04:30
I was going to ask you which哪一個 one you picked採摘的, but no need.
85
252000
2000
我本來想問你們要選哪一個﹐我想不需要了
04:32
You're all high in openness透明度 to experience經驗, and besides除了,
86
254000
2000
你們都很愛接受新體驗﹐更何況
04:34
it looks容貌 like it might威力 even taste味道 good, and you're all epicures美食家.
87
256000
3000
這看起來很可能很可口 能滿足你們的美食主義
04:37
So anyway無論如何, let's go with the red pill.
88
259000
2000
總而言之﹐讓我們選擇紅色藥丸
04:39
Let's study研究 some moral道德 psychology心理學 and see where it takes us.
89
261000
2000
讓我們學習一些道德心理學﹐看看我們能了解什麼
04:41
Let's start開始 at the beginning開始.
90
263000
2000
讓我們從頭開始
04:43
What is morality道德 and where does it come from?
91
265000
2000
道德是什麼﹖它從哪裡來﹖
04:45
The worst最差 idea理念 in all of psychology心理學
92
267000
2000
心理學中最糟的想法
04:47
is the idea理念 that the mind心神 is a blank空白 slate石板 at birth分娩.
93
269000
3000
便是我們像一張白紙一樣出生
04:50
Developmental發展的 psychology心理學 has shown顯示
94
272000
2000
發展心理學告訴我們
04:52
that kids孩子 come into the world世界 already已經 knowing會心 so much
95
274000
2000
嬰兒來到世界上時已經知道許多
04:54
about the physical物理 and social社會 worlds世界,
96
276000
2000
有關世界和社會
04:56
and programmed程序 to make it really easy簡單 for them to learn學習 certain某些 things
97
278000
4000
讓他們變得更易學習
05:00
and hard to learn學習 others其他.
98
282000
1000
卻很難向他人學習
05:01
The best最好 definition定義 of innateness天賦 I've ever seen看到 --
99
283000
2000
有關這些與生俱來的天賦
05:03
this just clarifies澄清 so many許多 things for me --
100
285000
2000
有個人說的很好
05:05
is from the brain scientist科學家 Gary加里 Marcus馬庫斯.
101
287000
2000
腦科學家 Gary Marcus
05:07
He says, "The initial初始 organization組織 of the brain does not depend依靠 that much on experience經驗.
102
289000
5000
他說“腦的初始組織不是來自經驗
05:12
Nature性質 provides提供 a first draft草案, which哪一個 experience經驗 then revises修改.
103
294000
3000
自然提供了第一個版本﹐經驗只能修改
05:15
Built-in內建的 doesn't mean unmalleableunmalleable;
104
297000
2000
先建不代表不可塑﹔
05:17
it means手段 organized有組織的 in advance提前 of experience經驗."
105
299000
3000
而是組織先於經驗。”
05:20
OK, so what's on the first draft草案 of the moral道德 mind心神?
106
302000
2000
那麼道德的第一個版本是什麼﹖
05:22
To find out, my colleague同事, Craig克雷格 Joseph約瑟夫, and I
107
304000
3000
我和同事 Craig Joseph
05:25
read through通過 the literature文學 on anthropology人類學,
108
307000
2000
閱讀了許多人類學的文獻
05:27
on culture文化 variation變異 in morality道德
109
309000
2000
有關不同文化的道德
05:29
and also on evolutionary發展的 psychology心理學, looking for matches火柴.
110
311000
2000
同時也在進化心理學裡找相同處
05:31
What are the sorts排序 of things that people talk about across橫過 disciplines學科?
111
313000
3000
跨領域的人談論的時候他們都談論什麼
05:34
That you find across橫過 cultures文化 and even across橫過 species種類?
112
316000
2000
跨文化和跨物種的人又談論什麼﹖
05:36
We found發現 five -- five best最好 matches火柴,
113
318000
2000
我們總共找到五種
05:38
which哪一個 we call the five foundations基金會 of morality道德.
114
320000
2000
我們稱它們為五種道德基礎
05:40
The first one is harm危害/care關心.
115
322000
2000
第一種是傷害-照護
05:42
We're all mammals哺乳動物 here, we all have a lot of neural神經 and hormonal激素 programming程序設計
116
324000
4000
我們都是哺乳類﹐我們都有許多神經和荷爾蒙程式
05:46
that makes品牌 us really bond with others其他, care關心 for others其他,
117
328000
2000
讓我們與他人聯結﹐關懷他人
05:48
feel compassion同情 for others其他, especially特別 the weak and vulnerable弱勢.
118
330000
3000
同情他人﹐尤其那些脆弱容易受傷的人
05:51
It gives us very strong強大 feelings情懷 about those who cause原因 harm危害.
119
333000
3000
讓我們對那些造成傷害的人有強烈感覺
05:54
This moral道德 foundation基礎 underliesunderlies about 70 percent百分
120
336000
3000
這個道德基礎含括了我在TED所聽到的
05:57
of the moral道德 statements聲明 I've heard聽說 here at TEDTED.
121
339000
2000
七成的道德陳述
05:59
The second第二 foundation基礎 is fairness公平/reciprocity互惠.
122
341000
3000
第二個道德基礎是公平-相等
06:02
There's actually其實 ambiguous曖昧 evidence證據
123
344000
2000
有一些模糊的證據
06:04
as to whether是否 you find reciprocity互惠 in other animals動物,
124
346000
2000
證明你是否能在其他動物身上找到相互性
06:06
but the evidence證據 for people could not be clearer更清晰.
125
348000
2000
但在人類身上的例子卻再清楚不過了
06:08
This Norman諾曼 Rockwell羅克韋爾 painting繪畫 is called "The Golden金色 Rule規則,"
126
350000
2000
這幅 Norman Rockwell 的畫叫做“金科玉律”
06:10
and we heard聽說 about this from Karen卡倫 Armstrong阿姆斯特朗, of course課程,
127
352000
2000
Karen Armstrong 也告訴我們
06:12
as the foundation基礎 of so many許多 religions宗教.
128
354000
3000
這是很多宗教的基礎
06:15
That second第二 foundation基礎 underliesunderlies the other 30 percent百分
129
357000
2000
第二哥道德基礎含括了我在TED所聽到的
06:17
of the moral道德 statements聲明 I've heard聽說 here at TEDTED.
130
359000
2000
另外三成的道德陳訴
06:19
The third第三 foundation基礎 is in-group在組/loyalty忠誠.
131
361000
2000
第三個基礎是團隊忠誠
06:21
You do find groups in the animal動物 kingdom王國 --
132
363000
2000
你可以在動物裡面找到群體
06:23
you do find cooperative合作社 groups --
133
365000
2000
你可以找到合作團隊
06:25
but these groups are always either very small or they're all siblings兄弟姐妹.
134
367000
3000
但這些組織通常不是很小或是牠們都是兄弟姐妹
06:28
It's only among其中 humans人類 that you find very large groups of people
135
370000
3000
只有在人類的世界裡你看到一大群人
06:31
who are able能夠 to cooperate合作, join加入 together一起 into groups,
136
373000
3000
彼此相處﹐一起合作
06:34
but in this case案件, groups that are united聯合的 to fight鬥爭 other groups.
137
376000
4000
但在這例子裡﹐團隊合作是為了和其他團隊鬥爭
06:38
This probably大概 comes from our long history歷史 of tribal部落的 living活的, of tribal部落的 psychology心理學.
138
380000
4000
這大概是來自我們長時間的部落生態﹐部落心理
06:42
And this tribal部落的 psychology心理學 is so deeply pleasurable愉快的
139
384000
2000
這種部落心態實在太愉快了
06:44
that even when we don't have tribes部落,
140
386000
2000
就算我們已經不在部落裡了
06:46
we go ahead and make them, because it's fun開玩笑.
141
388000
3000
我們還是照樣因為好玩
06:49
(Laughter笑聲)
142
391000
3000
(笑聲)
06:52
Sports體育 is to war戰爭 as pornography色情 is to sex性別.
143
394000
3000
運動和戰爭就像A片和性的關係
06:55
We get to exercise行使 some ancient, ancient drives驅動器.
144
397000
3000
我們借此發泄那些古老的慾望
06:58
The fourth第四 foundation基礎 is authority權威/respect尊重.
145
400000
3000
第四種道德基礎是權威-尊敬
07:01
Here you see submissive服從的 gestures手勢 from two members會員 of very closely密切 related有關 species種類.
146
403000
3000
從這裡你可以看到兩種非常接近的物種的服從姿態
07:04
But authority權威 in humans人類 is not so closely密切 based基於 on power功率 and brutality殘酷,
147
406000
4000
但人類的權威不是以權力和暴力為基礎
07:08
as it is in other primates靈長類動物.
148
410000
2000
像其他動物
07:10
It's based基於 on more voluntary自主性 deference尊重,
149
412000
2000
而是以自願的服從﹐
07:12
and even elements分子 of love, at times.
150
414000
2000
有時候甚至是愛的元素
07:14
The fifth第五 foundation基礎 is purity純度/sanctity尊嚴.
151
416000
2000
第五種基礎是純潔- 神聖
07:16
This painting繪畫 is called "The Allegory寓言 Of Chastity貞潔,"
152
418000
3000
這幅畫是“貞節的寓意”
07:19
but purity's純度的 not just about suppressing抑制 female sexuality性慾.
153
421000
3000
但純潔不只是壓抑女性性慾
07:22
It's about any kind of ideology思想, any kind of idea理念
154
424000
3000
而是任何理想﹐任何想法
07:25
that tells告訴 you that you can attain達到 virtue美德
155
427000
2000
告訴你只要控制你的身體
07:27
by controlling控制 what you do with your body身體,
156
429000
1000
你便可以成善
07:28
by controlling控制 what you put into your body身體.
157
430000
2000
只要控制進入你身體的東西
07:30
And while the political政治 right may可能 moralize說教 sex性別 much more,
158
432000
4000
右翼喜歡談論性方面的道德
07:34
the political政治 left is really doing a lot of it with food餐飲.
159
436000
2000
左翼喜歡用食物
07:36
Food餐飲 is becoming變得 extremely非常 moralized道德化 nowadays如今,
160
438000
2000
今日食物變成一種道德指標
07:38
and a lot of it is ideas思路 about purity純度,
161
440000
2000
這些觀點也來自純潔
07:40
about what you're willing願意 to touch觸摸, or put into your body身體.
162
442000
3000
有關你願意觸摸和放進身體的東西
07:43
I believe these are the five best最好 candidates候選人
163
445000
3000
我相信這是五個最好的候選人
07:46
for what's written書面 on the first draft草案 of the moral道德 mind心神.
164
448000
2000
在我們道德思想的初稿上
07:48
I think this is what we come with, at least最小
165
450000
1000
我相信這是我們與生俱來的
07:49
a preparedness準備 to learn學習 all of these things.
166
451000
3000
做好準備要來學習這些東西
07:52
But as my son兒子, Max馬克斯, grows成長 up in a liberal自由主義的 college學院 town,
167
454000
3000
但我的兒子 Max 在一個自由派的大學城裡長大
07:56
how is this first draft草案 going to get revised修訂?
168
458000
2000
這個初稿將如何被改寫﹖
07:58
And how will it end結束 up being存在 different不同
169
460000
2000
和在我們南部六十里的鄉下
08:00
from a kid孩子 born天生 60 miles英里 south of us in Lynchburg林奇堡, Virginia弗吉尼亞州?
170
462000
3000
生下來的孩子 又會有什麼不同﹖
08:03
To think about culture文化 variation變異, let's try a different不同 metaphor隱喻.
171
465000
2000
當我們想到這些多樣文化的時候﹐讓我們試試其他隱喻
08:05
If there really are five systems系統 at work in the mind心神 --
172
467000
3000
如果真的有著五種系統在我們想法裡
08:08
five sources來源 of intuitions直覺 and emotions情緒 --
173
470000
2000
五種情緒和直覺的來源
08:10
then we can think of the moral道德 mind心神
174
472000
2000
我們可以把道德感
08:12
as being存在 like one of those audio音頻 equalizers均衡器 that has five channels渠道,
175
474000
2000
當做音響有五種頻道的均衡器
08:14
where you can set it to a different不同 setting設置 on every一切 channel渠道.
176
476000
2000
你可以在不同頻道選擇不同的程度
08:16
And my colleagues同事, Brian布賴恩 Nosek諾塞克 and Jesse傑西 Graham格雷厄姆, and I,
177
478000
3000
我的同事 Brian Nosek, Jesse Graham 和我
08:19
made製作 a questionnaire調查問卷, which哪一個 we put up on the Web捲筒紙 at www萬維網.YourMoralsYourMorals.org組織.
178
481000
5000
做了一個問卷﹐放在www.YourMorals.org網站上
08:24
And so far, 30,000 people have taken採取 this questionnaire調查問卷, and you can too.
179
486000
5000
目前為止已經有三萬人填寫了這個問卷﹐你也可以
08:29
Here are the results結果.
180
491000
1000
結果在這裡
08:30
Here are the results結果 from about 23,000 American美國 citizens公民.
181
492000
3000
這裡是兩萬三千個美國公民的結果
08:33
On the left, I've plotted繪製 the scores分數 for liberals自由主義者;
182
495000
2000
左邊是自由派的分數
08:35
on the right, those for conservatives保守派; in the middle中間, the moderates溫和派.
183
497000
2000
右邊是保守派的﹐中間是中立
08:37
The blue藍色 line shows節目 you people's人們 responses回复
184
499000
2000
藍線是你們的回應
08:39
on the average平均 of all the harm危害 questions問題.
185
501000
2000
在所有有關傷害的問題上
08:41
So, as you see, people care關心 about harm危害 and care關心 issues問題.
186
503000
3000
你可以看到﹐人們真的很關心傷害和照護的問題
08:44
They give high endorsement背書 of these sorts排序 of statements聲明
187
506000
2000
他們很支持這方面的陳述
08:46
all across橫過 the board, but as you also see,
188
508000
2000
在整個表上﹐但你也可以看到
08:48
liberals自由主義者 care關心 about it a little more than conservatives保守派 -- the line slopes連續下坡 down.
189
510000
3000
自由派比保守派更在乎一些﹐線慢慢降了下來
08:51
Same相同 story故事 for fairness公平.
190
513000
2000
公平也是一樣
08:53
But look at the other three lines.
191
515000
2000
但看看其他三條線
08:55
For liberals自由主義者, the scores分數 are very low.
192
517000
2000
自由派的分數非常低
08:57
Liberals自由主義者 are basically基本上 saying, "No, this is not morality道德.
193
519000
2000
基本上自由派是說“這根本不是道德。
08:59
In-group在組, authority權威, purity純度 -- this stuff東東 has nothing to do with morality道德. I reject拒絕 it."
194
521000
3000
團體 權威 純潔 - 這些東西和道德一點關係也沒有。我拒絕。”
09:02
But as people get more conservative保守, the values rise上升.
195
524000
2000
但當人越保守﹐這些價值便提昇
09:04
We can say that liberals自由主義者 have a kind of a two-channel雙通道,
196
526000
3000
我們可以說自由派有一種 - 雙頻
09:07
or two-foundation兩基金 morality道德.
197
529000
1000
或是雙基礎的道德
09:08
Conservatives保守黨 have more of a five-foundation五基礎,
198
530000
2000
保守派則是有五基礎
09:10
or five-channel五通道 morality道德.
199
532000
2000
或是五頻的道德
09:12
We find this in every一切 country國家 we look at.
200
534000
1000
我們在每個國家都看到一樣的情形
09:13
Here's這裡的 the data數據 for 1,100 Canadians加拿大人.
201
535000
2000
這是一千多個加拿大人的數據
09:15
I'll just flip翻動 through通過 a few少數 other slides幻燈片.
202
537000
2000
我會翻過一些其他的國家
09:17
The U.K., Australia澳大利亞, New Zealand新西蘭, Western西 Europe歐洲, Eastern Europe歐洲,
203
539000
3000
英國﹐澳洲 紐西蘭 西歐 東歐
09:20
Latin拉丁 America美國, the Middle中間 East, East Asia亞洲 and South Asia亞洲.
204
542000
4000
拉丁美洲 中東 中亞 和南亞
09:24
Notice注意 also that on all of these graphs,
205
546000
2000
你可以看到在這些圖表上
09:26
the slope is steeper陡峭的 on in-group在組, authority權威, purity純度.
206
548000
3000
在團體 權威 純潔的差異更大
09:29
Which哪一個 shows節目 that within any country國家,
207
551000
2000
這告訴我們在任何國家
09:31
the disagreement異議 isn't over harm危害 and fairness公平.
208
553000
3000
歧見並不是來自傷害和公平
09:34
Everybody每個人 -- I mean, we debate辯論 over what's fair公平 --
209
556000
2000
我們討論什麼是公平
09:36
but everybody每個人 agrees同意 that harm危害 and fairness公平 matter.
210
558000
3000
但每個人都認同傷害和公平是要緊的
09:39
Moral道德 arguments參數 within cultures文化
211
561000
2000
在文化中的道德討論
09:41
are especially特別 about issues問題 of in-group在組, authority權威, purity純度.
212
563000
3000
通常都與團隊 權威 純潔有關
09:44
This effect影響 is so robust強大的 that we find it no matter how we ask the question.
213
566000
3000
無論我們怎麼提出問題﹐效果還是很明顯。
09:47
In one recent最近 study研究,
214
569000
2000
在最近的一項研究中
09:49
we asked people to suppose假設 you're about to get a dog.
215
571000
2000
我們問人們﹕如果你們要買狗
09:51
You picked採摘的 a particular特定 breed品種,
216
573000
1000
你選擇了一種特別的品種
09:52
you learned學到了 some new information信息 about the breed品種.
217
574000
2000
後來你知道有關這些品種的一些事
09:54
Suppose假設 you learn學習 that this particular特定 breed品種 is independent-minded獨立思想,
218
576000
3000
或許你學到這個特別的品種會獨立思考
09:57
and relates涉及 to its owner所有者 as a friend朋友 and an equal等於?
219
579000
2000
並且把主人當做平等的朋友
09:59
Well, if you are a liberal自由主義的, you say, "Hey, that's great!"
220
581000
2000
如果你是自由派你會說“哇!那太好了!”
10:01
Because liberals自由主義者 like to say, "Fetch, please."
221
583000
2000
因為自由派喜歡說“去接!”
10:03
(Laughter笑聲)
222
585000
4000
(笑聲)
10:08
But if you're conservative保守, that's not so attractive有吸引力.
223
590000
3000
但如果你是保守派﹐這就不是太好
10:11
If you're conservative保守, and you learn學習 that a dog's小狗 extremely非常 loyal忠誠
224
593000
3000
如果你是保守派﹐你知道這只狗對牠的家庭非常忠誠
10:14
to its home and family家庭, and doesn't warm up quickly很快 to strangers陌生人,
225
596000
2000
不會很快地和陌生人混熟
10:16
for conservatives保守派, well, loyalty忠誠 is good -- dogs小狗 ought應該 to be loyal忠誠.
226
598000
3000
對保守派來說 忠誠很好 狗就是要忠誠
10:19
But to a liberal自由主義的, it sounds聲音 like this dog
227
601000
2000
但對自由派來說﹐這聽起來
10:21
is running賽跑 for the Republican共和黨人 nomination提名.
228
603000
2000
像是這隻狗要參加共和黨初選了
10:23
(Laughter笑聲)
229
605000
1000
(笑聲)
10:24
So, you might威力 say, OK,
230
606000
2000
所以你可能說 好
10:26
there are these differences分歧 between之間 liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派,
231
608000
2000
這就是保守派和自由派的差異
10:28
but what makes品牌 those three other foundations基金會 moral道德?
232
610000
2000
但什麼讓其他三種基礎也成為道德呢﹖
10:30
Aren't是不是 those just the foundations基金會 of xenophobia排外主義
233
612000
2000
難道它們不是只是極權主義
10:32
and authoritarianism獨裁主義 and Puritanism清教?
234
614000
2000
排他主義和清教主義的基礎嗎﹖
10:34
What makes品牌 them moral道德?
235
616000
1000
什麼讓它們變成道德﹖
10:35
The answer回答, I think, is contained in this incredible難以置信 triptych三聯 from Hieronymus海歐納莫斯 Bosch博世,
236
617000
3000
答案﹐我想﹐就存在布殊這個三聯圖中
10:38
"The Garden花園 of Earthly俗世的 Delights美食."
237
620000
2000
“世俗慾望的樂園。”
10:40
In the first panel面板, we see the moment時刻 of creation創建.
238
622000
3000
在第一幅圖裡﹐我們看到創造世界時
10:43
All is ordered有序, all is beautiful美麗, all the people and animals動物
239
625000
4000
一切都有秩序﹐一些都很美麗﹐所有的人和動物
10:47
are doing what they're supposed應該 to be doing, where they're supposed應該 to be.
240
629000
3000
都在它們應該在的地方做他們應該做的事情
10:50
But then, given特定 the way of the world世界, things change更改.
241
632000
3000
但因為世俗的一切 事情開始改變
10:53
We get every一切 person doing whatever隨你 he wants,
242
635000
2000
人們開始任意而為
10:55
with every一切 aperture光圈 of every一切 other person and every一切 other animal動物.
243
637000
3000
和任何人和任何動物
10:58
Some of you might威力 recognize認識 this as the '60s.
244
640000
2000
在座的某些人可能會發現這是60年代
11:00
(Laughter笑聲)
245
642000
1000
(笑聲)
11:01
But the '60s inevitably必將 gives way to the '70s,
246
643000
4000
但60年代終究被70年代取代
11:05
where the cuttings插條 of the apertures hurt傷害 a little bit more.
247
647000
4000
這些裂縫開始令人痛苦
11:09
Of course課程, Bosch博世 called this hell地獄.
248
651000
2000
當然 布殊稱這為地獄
11:11
So this triptych三聯, these three panels面板
249
653000
3000
在這個三聯畫中﹐三片圖
11:14
portray寫真 the timeless永恆 truth真相 that order訂購 tends趨向 to decay衰變.
250
656000
5000
描繪了秩序逐漸腐敗的真實
11:19
The truth真相 of social社會 entropy.
251
661000
2000
社會消減的事實
11:21
But lest免得 you think this is just some part部分 of the Christian基督教 imagination想像力
252
663000
3000
你們可能只會想這只是基督徒的想像
11:24
where Christians基督徒 have this weird奇怪的 problem問題 with pleasure樂趣,
253
666000
2000
因為基督徒老是要跟歡愉過不去
11:26
here's這裡的 the same相同 story故事, the same相同 progression級數,
254
668000
3000
這裡有一個一樣的故事 一樣的演進
11:29
told in a paper that was published發表 in Nature性質 a few少數 years年份 ago,
255
671000
3000
在自然雜誌中刊登的一篇文章裡
11:32
in which哪一個 Ernst恩斯特 Fehr費爾 and Simon西蒙 GachterGachter had people play a commons公地 dilemma困境.
256
674000
4000
Ernst Fehr 和 Simon Gachter 要人們思考一個常見的難題
11:36
A game遊戲 in which哪一個 you give people money,
257
678000
2000
你給人們錢
11:38
and then, on each round回合 of the game遊戲,
258
680000
2000
然後在每一輪游戲結束前
11:40
they can put money into a common共同 pot,
259
682000
2000
他們可以把錢放進一個共用壺裡
11:42
and then the experimenter實驗者 doubles雙打 what's in there,
260
684000
2000
實驗者把裡面的錢變雙份
11:44
and then it's all divided分為 among其中 the players玩家.
261
686000
2000
然後再分給所有玩家
11:46
So it's a really nice不錯 analog類似物 for all sorts排序 of environmental環境的 issues問題,
262
688000
3000
這就像許多環境議題
11:49
where we're asking people to make a sacrifice犧牲
263
691000
2000
我們要求人們做出犧牲
11:51
and they themselves他們自己 don't really benefit效益 from their own擁有 sacrifice犧牲.
264
693000
2000
他們自己不會從犧牲中得到什麼
11:53
But you really want everybody每個人 else其他 to sacrifice犧牲,
265
695000
2000
但你總是要其他人犧牲
11:55
but everybody每個人 has a temptation誘惑 to a free自由 ride.
266
697000
2000
但人總有搭便車的想法
11:57
And what happens發生 is that, at first, people start開始 off reasonably合理 cooperative合作社 --
267
699000
4000
剛開始﹐人們較為合作
12:01
and this is all played發揮 anonymously匿名.
268
703000
2000
這是無名制的 --
12:03
On the first round回合, people give about half of the money that they can.
269
705000
3000
第一輪﹐人們給出一半的錢
12:06
But they quickly很快 see, "You know what, other people aren't doing so much though雖然.
270
708000
3000
但他們很快知道”說真的﹐其他人沒有做這麼多。
12:09
I don't want to be a sucker吸盤. I'm not going to cooperate合作."
271
711000
2000
我才不是笨蛋。我不要合作。“
12:11
And so cooperation合作 quickly很快 decays衰變 from reasonably合理 good, down to close to zero.
272
713000
4000
於是合作關係很快的從還不錯﹐落到幾乎沒有
12:15
But then -- and here's這裡的 the trick --
273
717000
2000
但是 - 訣竅在這
12:17
Fehr費爾 and GachterGachter said, on the seventh第七 round回合, they told people,
274
719000
2000
Fehr 和 Gachter 在第七輪的時候和每個人說
12:19
"You know what? New rule規則.
275
721000
2000
”好的﹐新規則
12:21
If you want to give some of your own擁有 money
276
723000
2000
如果你要給一些錢
12:23
to punish懲治 people who aren't contributing貢獻, you can do that."
277
725000
4000
來懲罰那些沒有貢獻的人﹐你可以這樣做。“
12:27
And as soon不久 as people heard聽說 about the punishment懲罰 issue問題 going on,
278
729000
3000
當人們聽到懲罰的時候
12:30
cooperation合作 shoots up.
279
732000
2000
馬上變得合作
12:32
It shoots up and it keeps保持 going up.
280
734000
2000
不但合作 而且繼續加強
12:34
There's a lot of research研究 showing展示 that to solve解決 cooperative合作社 problems問題, it really helps幫助.
281
736000
3000
有許多研究表示在解決合作問題上 這有明顯的幫助
12:37
It's not enough足夠 to just appeal上訴 to people's人們 good motives動機.
282
739000
2000
只靠人們的好心並不夠
12:39
It really helps幫助 to have some sort分類 of punishment懲罰.
283
741000
2000
有些懲罰會更好
12:41
Even if it's just shame恥辱 or embarrassment困窘 or gossip八卦,
284
743000
2000
就算只是羞辱或是被談論
12:43
you need some sort分類 of punishment懲罰 to bring帶來 people,
285
745000
3000
你需要懲罰
12:46
when they're in large groups, to cooperate合作.
286
748000
2000
讓人們在大的群體裡合作
12:48
There's even some recent最近 research研究 suggesting提示 that religion宗教 --
287
750000
3000
甚至有些最近的研究談到宗教
12:51
priming God, making製造 people think about God --
288
753000
2000
讓人們想到神
12:53
often經常, in some situations情況, leads引線 to more cooperative合作社, more pro-social親社會 behavior行為.
289
755000
5000
往往讓人們懂得合作 更符合社會期待
12:59
Some people think that religion宗教 is an adaptation適應
290
761000
2000
某些人認為宗教是一種適應作用
13:01
evolved進化 both by cultural文化 and biological生物 evolution演化
291
763000
2000
來自文化和生理進化
13:03
to make groups to cohere粘著,
292
765000
2000
讓群體可以合作
13:05
in part部分 for the purpose目的 of trusting信任的 each other,
293
767000
2000
讓人們何以互信
13:07
and then being存在 more effective有效 at competing競爭 with other groups.
294
769000
2000
在與他人競爭時能夠更有效
13:09
I think that's probably大概 right,
295
771000
1000
我想這大概是真的
13:10
although雖然 this is a controversial爭論的 issue問題.
296
772000
2000
雖然這是個爭議性很大的話題
13:12
But I'm particularly尤其 interested有興趣 in religion宗教,
297
774000
2000
但我對宗教特別有興趣
13:14
and the origin起源 of religion宗教, and in what it does to us and for us.
298
776000
3000
宗教的來源﹐他為我們和對我們做了什麼
13:17
Because I think that the greatest最大 wonder奇蹟 in the world世界 is not the Grand盛大 Canyon峽谷.
299
779000
4000
因為我認為最大的奇景不是大峽谷
13:21
The Grand盛大 Canyon峽谷 is really simple簡單.
300
783000
2000
大峽谷很簡單
13:23
It's just a lot of rock, and then a lot of water and wind, and a lot of time,
301
785000
3000
很多石頭 很多水和風 很多時間
13:26
and you get the Grand盛大 Canyon峽谷.
302
788000
2000
你就能得到大峽谷
13:28
It's not that complicated複雜.
303
790000
1000
一點也不複雜
13:29
This is what's really complicated複雜,
304
791000
2000
複雜的是
13:31
that there were people living活的 in places地方 like the Grand盛大 Canyon峽谷,
305
793000
2000
那些住在大峽谷這樣的地方的人
13:33
cooperating合作 with each other, or on the savannahs大草原 of Africa非洲,
306
795000
2000
彼此合作﹐或在非洲的撒哈拉沙漠
13:35
or on the frozen凍結的 shores海岸 of Alaska阿拉斯加州, and then some of these villages村莊
307
797000
3000
或在阿拉斯加的冰岸﹐和那些村莊
13:38
grew成長 into the mighty威武 cities城市 of Babylon巴比倫, and Rome羅馬, and Tenochtitlan特諾奇蒂特蘭城.
308
800000
4000
逐漸變成偉大城市像巴比倫﹐羅馬 湖中之城提诺契特兰
13:42
How did this happen發生?
309
804000
1000
這是怎麼發生的﹖
13:43
This is an absolute絕對 miracle奇蹟, much harder更難 to explain說明 than the Grand盛大 Canyon峽谷.
310
805000
3000
這完全是奇跡﹐比大峽谷更難解釋
13:46
The answer回答, I think, is that they used every一切 tool工具 in the toolbox工具箱.
311
808000
3000
答案﹐我想﹐是他們用了所有工具盒裡面的工具
13:49
It took all of our moral道德 psychology心理學
312
811000
2000
用了所有道德心理學
13:51
to create創建 these cooperative合作社 groups.
313
813000
2000
創造了這些合作團隊
13:53
Yes, you do need to be concerned關心 about harm危害,
314
815000
2000
是﹐你需要想到傷害
13:55
you do need a psychology心理學 of justice正義.
315
817000
1000
你需要想到正義
13:56
But it really helps幫助 to organize組織 a group if you can have sub-groups子組,
316
818000
3000
但如果你有一些小團隊﹐便很容易組織大團隊
13:59
and if those sub-groups子組 have some internal內部 structure結構體,
317
821000
3000
這些小團隊中有一些內部組織
14:02
and if you have some ideology思想 that tells告訴 people
318
824000
2000
如果你有一些理想可以告訴人
14:04
to suppress壓制 their carnality肉慾, to pursue追求 higher更高, nobler高貴 ends結束.
319
826000
4000
壓制他們的慾望 去追求更高的 更榮耀的理想
14:08
And now we get to the crux癥結 of the disagreement異議
320
830000
2000
現在我們來到自由派和保守派
14:10
between之間 liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派.
321
832000
2000
歧義的交會處
14:12
Because liberals自由主義者 reject拒絕 three of these foundations基金會.
322
834000
2000
因為自由派拒絕其中三個基礎
14:14
They say "No, let's celebrate慶祝 diversity多樣, not common共同 in-group在組 membership."
323
836000
3000
他們說”不﹐我們應該要支持多樣性 不要搞一些小圈圈。“
14:17
They say, "Let's question authority權威."
324
839000
2000
他們說”讓我們質疑權威。“
14:19
And they say, "Keep your laws法律 off my body身體."
325
841000
2000
他們說”不要給我這些法律。“
14:21
Liberals自由主義者 have very noble高貴 motives動機 for doing this.
326
843000
3000
自由派這樣做有著崇高的動機
14:24
Traditional傳統 authority權威, traditional傳統 morality道德 can be quite相當 repressive壓制性,
327
846000
3000
傳統的權威﹐傳統的道德 時常壓制那些
14:27
and restrictive限制 to those at the bottom底部, to women婦女, to people that don't fit適合 in.
328
849000
3000
在底層的人 女人 那些不符合社會標準的人
14:30
So liberals自由主義者 speak說話 for the weak and oppressed壓迫.
329
852000
2000
所以自由派為了那些受壓迫的弱者說話
14:32
They want change更改 and justice正義, even at the risk風險 of chaos混沌.
330
854000
2000
他們要改變 要正義 就算可能造成混亂
14:34
This guy's傢伙 shirt襯衫 says, "Stop bitching婊子, start開始 a revolution革命."
331
856000
3000
這個人的衣服上說”少放屁﹐去革命“
14:37
If you're high in openness透明度 to experience經驗, revolution革命 is good,
332
859000
2000
如果你很喜歡經歷新事 革命是好的
14:39
it's change更改, it's fun開玩笑.
333
861000
2000
它是改變 它很有趣
14:41
Conservatives保守黨, on the other hand, speak說話 for institutions機構 and traditions傳統.
334
863000
3000
保守派﹐在另一邊 為傳統和制度發聲
14:44
They want order訂購, even at some cost成本 to those at the bottom底部.
335
866000
4000
他們要秩序﹐就算有可能要犧牲底層的人
14:48
The great conservative保守 insight眼光 is that order訂購 is really hard to achieve實現.
336
870000
2000
保守派的心理是 秩序是非常難達成的
14:50
It's really precious珍貴, and it's really easy簡單 to lose失去.
337
872000
3000
很珍貴 很容易就失去了
14:53
So as Edmund埃德蒙 Burke伯克 said, "The restraints限制 on men男人,
338
875000
2000
所以 Edmund Burke 說”人們的束縛
14:55
as well as their liberties自由, are to be reckoned估摸 among其中 their rights權利."
339
877000
3000
和他們的自由﹐是在他們的權利上。“
14:58
This was after the chaos混沌 of the French法國 Revolution革命.
340
880000
2000
這是在法國大革命的混亂後
15:00
So once一旦 you see this -- once一旦 you see
341
882000
2000
只要你看清這一點
15:02
that liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派 both have something to contribute有助於,
342
884000
3000
自由派和保守派都能有一些貢獻
15:05
that they form形成 a balance平衡 on change更改 versus stability穩定性 --
343
887000
3000
他們能在改變和穩定中找到平衡 --
15:08
then I think the way is open打開 to step outside the moral道德 matrix矩陣.
344
890000
3000
我想重點是試著踏出我們的道德框架
15:11
This is the great insight眼光 that all the Asian亞洲 religions宗教 have attained實現.
345
893000
5000
這是所有亞洲宗教都有的特性
15:16
Think about yin and yang.
346
898000
2000
想想陰陽
15:18
Yin and yang aren't enemies敵人. Yin and yang don't hate討厭 each other.
347
900000
2000
陰陽不是敵人﹐陰陽不互相仇恨
15:20
Yin and yang are both necessary必要, like night and day,
348
902000
2000
陰陽都是必須的﹐像日夜
15:22
for the functioning功能 of the world世界.
349
904000
2000
讓世界繼續轉動
15:24
You find the same相同 thing in Hinduism印度教.
350
906000
2000
你在印度教中也能看到
15:26
There are many許多 high gods in Hinduism印度教.
351
908000
2000
印度教有很多大神
15:28
Two of them are Vishnu毗濕奴, the preserver保護者, and Shiva濕婆, the destroyer驅逐艦.
352
910000
3000
其中兩位是守護神毗瑟挐﹐和破壞神濕婆
15:31
This image圖片 actually其實 is both of those gods sharing分享 the same相同 body身體.
353
913000
3000
這個圖片是兩個神使用同一個身體
15:34
You have the markings標記 of Vishnu毗濕奴 on the left,
354
916000
2000
左邊有毗瑟挐的特質
15:36
so we could think of Vishnu毗濕奴 as the conservative保守 god.
355
918000
3000
你可以想他是保護神
15:39
You have the markings標記 of Shiva濕婆 on the right,
356
921000
2000
右邊有濕婆的特質
15:41
Shiva's濕婆的 the liberal自由主義的 god. And they work together一起.
357
923000
2000
濕婆是個自由派 - 祂們一起合作
15:43
You find the same相同 thing in Buddhism佛教.
358
925000
2000
你在佛教裡也可以找到一樣的例子
15:45
These two stanzas contain包含, I think, the deepest最深 insights見解
359
927000
2000
這兩個小句有深深的寓意
15:47
that have ever been attained實現 into moral道德 psychology心理學.
360
929000
3000
或許是道德心理學從來沒達到的境界
15:50
From the Zen master Seng-ts'an僧ts'an:
361
932000
2000
來自禪宗的僧璨
15:52
"If you want the truth真相 to stand clear明確 before you, never be for or against反對.
362
934000
4000
至道无难,唯嫌拣择。
15:56
The struggle鬥爭 between之間 for and against反對 is the mind's心靈的 worst最差 disease疾病."
363
938000
4000
违顺相争,是为心病。“
16:00
Now unfortunately不幸, it's a disease疾病
364
942000
2000
很不幸的﹐這種心病
16:02
that has been caught抓住 by many許多 of the world's世界 leaders領導者.
365
944000
2000
許多世界的偉大領袖都有
16:04
But before you feel superior優越 to George喬治 Bush襯套,
366
946000
3000
但在你感覺自己比小布希好很多前
16:07
before you throw a stone, ask yourself你自己, do you accept接受 this?
367
949000
4000
在你對他扔石頭前﹐先自問﹕我接受嗎﹖
16:11
Do you accept接受 stepping步進 out of the battle戰鬥 of good and evil邪惡?
368
953000
3000
我能跨出善惡論嗎﹖
16:14
Can you be not for or against反對 anything?
369
956000
3000
我能不支持和反對任何事情嗎
16:18
So, what's the point? What should you do?
370
960000
3000
重點是什麼 我該怎麼做
16:21
Well, if you take the greatest最大 insights見解
371
963000
2000
你可以在偉大的古代亞洲宗教和哲學裡
16:23
from ancient Asian亞洲 philosophies哲學 and religions宗教,
372
965000
2000
找到答案
16:25
and you combine結合 them with the latest最新 research研究 on moral道德 psychology心理學,
373
967000
2000
將這些答案加上最新的道德心理學研究
16:27
I think you come to these conclusions結論:
374
969000
2000
你會有這三個結論﹕
16:29
that our righteous正義 minds頭腦 were designed設計 by evolution演化
375
971000
4000
我們的腦子被進化所設計
16:33
to unite團結 us into teams球隊, to divide劃分 us against反對 other teams球隊
376
975000
3000
要我們成為一個團隊 讓我們和其他團隊分開
16:36
and then to blind us to the truth真相.
377
978000
2000
讓我們無視真理
16:39
So what should you do? Am I telling告訴 you to not strive努力?
378
981000
4000
你該怎麼做﹖難道我要你放棄努力
16:43
Am I telling告訴 you to embrace擁抱 Seng-ts'an僧ts'an and stop,
379
985000
3000
我是要你擁抱僧璨
16:46
stop with this struggle鬥爭 of for and against反對?
380
988000
3000
然後停止這些支持和反對的想法嗎﹖
16:49
No, absolutely絕對 not. I'm not saying that.
381
991000
2000
絕對不是。這不是我要說的
16:51
This is an amazing驚人 group of people who are doing so much,
382
993000
3000
有許多了不起的人做了許多事
16:54
using運用 so much of their talent天賦, their brilliance, their energy能源, their money,
383
996000
4000
用他們的才能﹐他們的技能 他們的精力和金錢
16:58
to make the world世界 a better place地點, to fight鬥爭 --
384
1000000
2000
讓世界變得更好﹐去爭取
17:00
to fight鬥爭 wrongs冤屈, to solve解決 problems問題.
385
1002000
3000
打擊錯誤﹐解決問題
17:04
But as we learned學到了 from Samantha薩曼莎 Power功率, in her story故事
386
1006000
4000
但就像我們在 Samantha Power 的故事裡學到的
17:08
about Sergio塞爾吉奧 Vieira維埃拉 de Mello梅洛, you can't just go charging充電 in,
387
1010000
5000
像 Sergio Vieira de Mello﹐你不能直接殺進去
17:13
saying, "You're wrong錯誤, and I'm right."
388
1015000
2000
然後說”你錯了 我對了“
17:15
Because, as we just heard聽說, everybody每個人 thinks they are right.
389
1017000
4000
因為﹐就像我們剛剛聽到的 每個人都以為自己是對的
17:19
A lot of the problems問題 we have to solve解決
390
1021000
2000
有太多我們需要解決的問題
17:21
are problems問題 that require要求 us to change更改 other people.
391
1023000
3000
是那些需要我們去改變他人的問題
17:24
And if you want to change更改 other people, a much better way to do it
392
1026000
3000
如果你想要改變他人﹐一個比較好的方法是
17:27
is to first understand理解 who we are -- understand理解 our moral道德 psychology心理學,
393
1029000
4000
先了解我們是誰 -- 了解我們自己的道德心理
17:31
understand理解 that we all think we're right -- and then step out,
394
1033000
3000
了解我們都認為自己是對的﹐然後跨出去
17:34
even if it's just for a moment時刻, step out -- check in with Seng-ts'an僧ts'an.
395
1036000
4000
就算只是一下子﹐跨出去 想想僧璨
17:38
Step out of the moral道德 matrix矩陣,
396
1040000
2000
跨出你的道德框架
17:40
just try to see it as a struggle鬥爭 playing播放 out,
397
1042000
2000
嘗試當做這只是每個人認為自己是對的人
17:42
in which哪一個 everybody每個人 does think they're right,
398
1044000
2000
的一種拔河
17:44
and everybody每個人, at least最小, has some reasons原因 -- even if you disagree不同意 with them --
399
1046000
2000
每個人﹐就算你不認同他們 都有自己的理由
17:46
everybody每個人 has some reasons原因 for what they're doing.
400
1048000
2000
每個人做事都有自己的理由
17:48
Step out.
401
1050000
1000
跨出去
17:49
And if you do that, that's the essential必要 move移動 to cultivate培育 moral道德 humility謙遜,
402
1051000
4000
如果你這樣做﹐你便可以培養道德謙遜
17:53
to get yourself你自己 out of this self-righteousness自以為是,
403
1055000
1000
讓你自己離開這個自以為義
17:54
which哪一個 is the normal正常 human人的 condition條件.
404
1056000
2000
一種正常人類的心理
17:56
Think about the Dalai達賴 Lama喇嘛.
405
1058000
2000
想想達賴喇嘛
17:58
Think about the enormous巨大 moral道德 authority權威 of the Dalai達賴 Lama喇嘛 --
406
1060000
3000
想想達賴喇嘛巨大的道德權威
18:01
and it comes from his moral道德 humility謙遜.
407
1063000
2000
這是來自他的道德謙遜
18:05
So I think the point -- the point of my talk,
408
1067000
2000
我想我談話的重點是
18:07
and I think the point of TEDTED --
409
1069000
3000
TED的重點是
18:10
is that this is a group that is passionately熱情 engaged訂婚
410
1072000
3000
這是一個熱情的想要
18:13
in the pursuit追求 of changing改變 the world世界 for the better.
411
1075000
2000
讓世界變得更好的團體
18:15
People here are passionately熱情 engaged訂婚
412
1077000
3000
人們熱情的希望
18:18
in trying to make the world世界 a better place地點.
413
1080000
2000
讓世界變得更好
18:20
But there is also a passionate多情 commitment承諾 to the truth真相.
414
1082000
3000
同時也有一種接近真理的希望
18:23
And so I think that the answer回答 is to use that passionate多情 commitment承諾
415
1085000
4000
我想答案是保持你的熱情﹐尋找真理
18:27
to the truth真相 to try to turn it into a better future未來 for us all.
416
1089000
4000
然後把它變成更好的未來
18:31
Thank you.
417
1093000
1000
謝謝你。
18:32
(Applause掌聲)
418
1094000
3000
(掌聲)
Translated by Coco Shen
Reviewed by Geoff Chen

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Jonathan Haidt - Social psychologist
Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral and political creatures.

Why you should listen

By understanding more about our moral psychology and its biases, Jonathan Haidt says we can design better institutions (including companies, universities and democracy itself), and we can learn to be more civil and open-minded toward those who are not on our team.

Haidt is a social psychologist whose research on morality across cultures led to his 2008 TED Talk on the psychological roots of the American culture war, and his 2013 TED Talk on how "common threats can make common ground." In both of those talks he asks, "Can't we all disagree more constructively?" Haidt's 2012 TED Talk explored the intersection of his work on morality with his work on happiness to talk about "hive psychology" -- the ability that humans have to lose themselves in groups pursuing larger projects, almost like bees in a hive. This hivish ability is crucial, he argues, for understanding the origins of morality, politics, and religion. These are ideas that Haidt develops at greater length in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Haidt joined New York University Stern School of Business in July 2011. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, based in the Business and Society Program. Before coming to Stern, Professor Haidt taught for 16 years at the University of Virginia in the department of psychology.

Haidt's writings appear frequently in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. He was named one of the top global thinkers by Foreign Policy magazine and by Prospect magazine. Haidt received a B.A. in Philosophy from Yale University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania.

More profile about the speaker
Jonathan Haidt | Speaker | TED.com