Ted網站：偏見可能是好事？給看不到Youtube的夥伴)
簡介：
大家常將偏見與成見看做是根深蒂固的無知。但身為心理學家的保羅．布倫試圖說明偏見通常合乎自然與理性。他認為關鍵是要了解自己的偏見如何運作，如此一來，我們就能在偏見出錯時掌控它。
We often think of bias and prejudice as rooted in ignorance. But as psychologist Paul Bloom seeks to show, prejudice is often natural, rational ... even moral. The key, says Bloom, is to understand how our own biases work -- so we can take control when they go wrong.
摘錄：
在思考成見與偏見時， 我們常會想到愚人和壞人 在做蠢事和壞事。 這個想法正好等同 英國評論家威廉．哈茲列特所述：「偏見是無知的產物。」 我想試著在此說服各位 這個說法錯了。 我想試著說服各位 成見與偏見很正常， 通常也很理性， 甚至往往合乎道德， 我認為只要我們理解這點， 就更容易了解偏見， 一旦偏見出錯， 或偏見帶來恐怖後果時， 我們就能更了解該怎麼做。
從刻板印象開始談起。 你看著我，知道我的名字和一些背景， 接著就能做出某些判斷。 你可能會猜測我的種族、 政黨，以及宗教信仰。 而且這些評斷通常都正確。 我們很擅長這種事。 我們很擅於這種事 是因為將人分類的能力 不是什麼心血來潮的事， 而是經過自然形成的真實案例， 那就是我們在世上經歷的人事物 都會被歸類， 我們能依據自己的經驗 分類各種新奇事物。 在座各位都有許多經驗 和椅子、蘋果、小狗有關， 而根據這點， 在你看到許多陌生案例時就能推測， 你能坐上椅子， 可以吃那顆蘋果，那隻狗會吠。 但我們也許錯了。 你如果坐上椅子，它可能就會垮。 蘋果也許有毒，狗也許不會叫， 事實上，這是我的狗泰希，牠不會叫。 但大多數的情況下，我們擅於此事。 通常我們都能猜得八九不離十， 無論是社交或非社交領域， 如果我們不太會猜， 如果我們不能猜出碰到的新事件， 我們就無法生存。 事實上，赫茲利特後來在他的絕佳論文中 承認了這點。 他說：「沒有成見和慣例輔助， 我就找不到穿越房間的路徑； 不知道該如何融入各種環境， 以及如何感受生命中的各種關係。」 以偏見來說， 有時候我們會把世界劃分為你我對立， 劃分成內團體和外團體， 偶爾我們這麼做的時候， 會自知犯了點錯， 而覺得有點難為情。 但有時候我們卻引以為傲。
……
完整英中文字稿：
Can prejudice ever be a good thing?
偏見可能是好事？
00:04
When we think about prejudice and bias, we tend to think about stupid and evil people doing stupid and evil things. And this idea is nicely summarized by the British critic William Hazlitt, who wrote, "Prejudice is the child of ignorance." I want to try to convince you here that this is mistaken. I want to try to convince you that prejudice and bias are natural, they're often rational, and they're often even moral, and I think that once we understand this, we're in a better position to make sense of them when they go wrong, when they have horrible consequences, and we're in a better position to know what to do when this happens.
在思考成見與偏見時， 我們常會想到愚人和壞人 在做蠢事和壞事。 這個想法正好等同 英國評論家威廉．哈茲列特 所述：「偏見是無知的產物。」 我想試著在此說服各位 這個說法錯了。 我想試著說服各位 成見與偏見很正常， 通常也很理性， 甚至往往合乎道德， 我認為只要我們理解這點， 就更容易了解偏見， 一旦偏見出錯， 或偏見帶來恐怖後果時， 我們就能更了解該怎麼做。
00:42
So, start with stereotypes. You look at me, you know my name, you know certain facts about me, and you could make certain judgments. You could make guesses about my ethnicity, my political affiliation, my religious beliefs. And the thing is, these judgments tend to be accurate. We're very good at this sort of thing. And we're very good at this sort of thing because our ability to stereotype people is not some sort of arbitrary quirk of the mind, but rather it's a specific instance of a more general process, which is that we have experience with things and people in the world that fall into categories, and we can use our experience to make generalizations about novel instances of these categories. So everybody here has a lot of experience with chairs and apples and dogs, and based on this, you could see unfamiliar examples and you could guess, you could sit on the chair, you could eat the apple, the dog will bark. Now we might be wrong. The chair could collapse if you sit on it, the apple might be poison, the dog might not bark, and in fact, this is my dog Tessie, who doesn't bark. But for the most part, we're good at this. For the most part, we make good guesses both in the social domain and the non-social domain, and if we weren't able to do so, if we weren't able to make guesses about new instances that we encounter, we wouldn't survive. And in fact, Hazlitt later on in his wonderful essay concedes this. He writes, "Without the aid of prejudice and custom, I should not be able to find my way my across the room; nor know how to conduct myself in any circumstances, nor what to feel in any relation of life." Or take bias. Now sometimes, we break the world up into us versus them, into in-group versus out-group, and sometimes when we do this, we know we're doing something wrong, and we're kind of ashamed of it. But other times we're proud of it. We openly acknowledge it. And my favorite example of this is a question that came from the audience in a Republican debate prior to the last election.
從刻板印象開始談起。 你看著我，知道我的名字和一些背景， 接著就能做出某些判斷。 你可能會猜測我的種族、 政黨，以及宗教信仰。 而且這些評斷通常都正確。 我們很擅長這種事。 我們很擅於這種事 是因為將人分類的能力 不是什麼心血來潮的事， 而是經過自然形成的真實案例， 那就是我們在世上經歷的人事物 都會被歸類， 我們能依據自己的經驗 分類各種新奇事物。 在座各位都有許多經驗 和椅子、蘋果、小狗有關， 而根據這點， 在你看到許多陌生案例時就能推測， 你能坐上椅子， 可以吃那顆蘋果，那隻狗會吠。 但我們也許錯了。 你如果坐上椅子，它可能就會垮。 蘋果也許有毒，狗也許不會叫， 事實上，這是我的狗泰希，牠不會叫。 但大多數的情況下，我們擅於此事。 通常我們都能猜得八九不離十， 無論是社交或非社交領域， 如果我們不太會猜， 如果我們不能猜出碰到的新事件， 我們就無法生存。 事實上，赫茲利特後來在他的絕佳論文中 承認了這點。 他說：「沒有成見和慣例輔助， 我就找不到穿越房間的路徑； 不知道該如何融入各種環境， 以及如何感受生命中的各種關係。」 以偏見來說， 有時候我們會把世界劃分為你我對立， 劃分成內團體和外團體， 偶爾我們這麼做的時候， 會自知犯了點錯， 而覺得有點難為情。 但有時候我們卻引以為傲。 我們勇於承認。 我最愛的例子 是觀眾提出的問題， 場合是共和黨上次選舉前的辯論大會。
02:31
(Video) Anderson Cooper: Gets to your question, the question in the hall, on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.
（影片）安德森．庫珀：下一個問題， 來自在場觀眾詢問對外援助，請說。
02:37
Woman: The American people are suffering in our country right now. Why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?
女士：美國人當前在國內受苦， 為什麼我們不斷對外援助， 協助其它國家？ 我們自己也需要幫助啊！
02:51
AC: Governor Perry, what about that?
安德森：佩里州長，你怎麼看？
02:53
(Applause) Rick Perry: Absolutely, I think it's—
（掌聲） 里克．佩里：當然，我認為那…
02:56
Paul Bloom: Each of the people onstage agreed with the premise of her question, which is as Americans, we should care more about Americans than about other people. And in fact, in general, people are often swayed by feelings of solidarity, loyalty, pride, patriotism, towards their country or towards their ethnic group. Regardless of your politics, many people feel proud to be American, and they favor Americans over other countries. Residents of other countries feel the same about their nation, and we feel the same about our ethnicities.
保羅：每一位在台上的候選人 都同意她的前提， 那就是身為美國人， 我們應該更關心本國人，而非外國人。 事實上，大家常被感覺支配， 像是團結、忠誠、自尊、愛國心， 這類對所屬國家或種族的情感。 不論你的黨派為何， 許多人都以身為美國人為榮， 他們偏愛美國人勝於其它國家。 其它國家的居民對自己國家 有同樣的感覺， 我們對種族淵源也有同樣感受。
03:24
Now some of you may reject this. Some of you may be so cosmopolitan that you think that ethnicity and nationality should hold no moral sway. But even you sophisticates accept that there should be some pull towards the in-group in the domain of friends and family, of people you're close to, and so even you make a distinction between us versus them.
在座有些人可能會不認同。 有些人可能四海為家， 因此認為種族和國籍 不應該有道德羈絆。 但是即使你硬要說 應該有某種影響力 存在你和親友、熟人之間的內團體之中， 你也在我們和他們之間做了區隔。
03:44
Now, this distinction is natural enough and often moral enough, but it can go awry, and this was part of the research of the great social psychologist Henri Tajfel. Tajfel was born in Poland in 1919. He left to go to university in France, because as a Jew, he couldn't go to university in Poland, and then he enlisted in the French military in World War II. He was captured and ended up in a prisoner of war camp, and it was a terrifying time for him, because if it was discovered that he was a Jew, he could have been moved to a concentration camp, where he most likely would not have survived. And in fact, when the war ended and he was released, most of his friends and family were dead. He got involved in different pursuits. He helped out the war orphans. But he had a long-lasting interest in the science of prejudice, and so when a prestigious British scholarship on stereotypes opened up, he applied for it, and he won it, and then he began this amazing career. And what started his career is an insight that the way most people were thinking about the Holocaust was wrong. Many people, most people at the time, viewed the Holocaust as sort of representing some tragic flaw on the part of the Germans, some genetic taint, some authoritarian personality. And Tajfel rejected this. Tajfel said what we see in the Holocaust is just an exaggeration of normal psychological processes that exist in every one of us. And to explore this, he did a series of classic studies with British adolescents. And in one of his studies, what he did was he asked the British adolescents all sorts of questions, and then based on their answers, he said, "I've looked at your answers, and based on the answers, I have determined that you are either" — he told half of them — "a Kandinsky lover, you love the work of Kandinsky, or a Klee lover, you love the work of Klee." It was entirely bogus. Their answers had nothing to do with Kandinsky or Klee. They probably hadn't heard of the artists. He just arbitrarily divided them up. But what he found was, these categories mattered, so when he later gave the subjects money, they would prefer to give the money to members of their own group than members of the other group. Worse, they were actually most interested in establishing a difference between their group and other groups, so they would give up money for their own group if by doing so they could give the other group even less.
這種區隔十分自然， 通常也很合乎道德觀，但卻可能走樣， 這就是偉大心理學家亨利．泰弗爾 研究的一部分。 泰弗爾在 1919 年生於波蘭， 他為了唸大學前往法國， 因為身為猶太人，他不能在波蘭唸大學， 後來他加入法國軍隊， 參與第二次世界大戰。 他被逮捕， 被關進戰俘營， 對他來說那是段恐怖時期， 因為如果有人發現他是猶太人， 他就可能會被送進集中營， 很可能會在裡頭喪命。 其實戰爭結束後，他重獲自由， 大部分的親友都死了。 他開始參與各種活動， 並協助戰時遺孤脫困。 但他一直很有興趣 專研偏見科學， 因此當一份針對刻板印象的 知名英國獎學金開放申請時， 他提出申請後獲選， 就開啟了這美好的職業生涯。 讓他展開這份職業的原因是 他頓悟到大多數人理解的 猶太人大屠殺並不正確。 那時候大多數人 認為猶太人大屠殺 象徵德國人的某種悲慘缺陷， 基因汙點與獨裁人格。 泰弗爾反駁這點。 他說我們在猶太人大屠殺中見到的 只是種正常心理歷程的誇大版， 我們每個人都會有。 為了深入探索， 他做了一系列經典研究， 針對英國青少年。 在一份研究中， 他問英國青少年各種問題， 然後根據他們的答案說： 「我看了你們的答案，根據你的答案， 我認定你要嘛不是…」 他告訴一半的人說： 「你是康丁斯基的粉絲， 超愛康丁斯基的作品， 不然你就是克利的粉絲， 超愛他的作品。」 其實這根本就是場騙局。 他們的答案和康丁斯基或克利毫無關係， 說不定連這兩位藝術家的名字也沒聽過。 他只是任意將他們分類。 但他發現，這樣的分類有意義， 因此當他之後給受試者酬勞， 他們會比較想把錢給和自己同類的人， 不想給和自己不同類的人。 更糟的是，他們其實特別喜歡 突顯團體之間的差異。 他們寧願把錢都給自己的團， 只為了少給別團一點錢。
06:01
This bias seems to show up very early. So my colleague and wife, Karen Wynn, at Yale has done a series of studies with babies where she exposes babies to puppets, and the puppets have certain food preferences. So one of the puppets might like green beans. The other puppet might like graham crackers. They test the babies own food preferences, and babies typically prefer the graham crackers. But the question is, does this matter to babies in how they treat the puppets? And it matters a lot. They tend to prefer the puppet who has the same food tastes that they have, and worse, they actually prefer puppets who punish the puppet with the different food taste. (Laughter)
這種偏見似乎在年幼時就會出現。 我的妻子兼耶魯的同事凱倫．韋恩 對嬰兒做了一系列研究， 她讓嬰兒接觸玩偶， 而每個玩偶都偏好某種食物。 可能某個玩偶喜歡四季豆， 另一個玩偶則喜歡全麥餅乾。 他們測試嬰兒的食物喜好， 嬰兒基本上都比較喜歡全麥餅乾。 但問題是，這會影響嬰兒 對待玩偶的方式嗎？ 答案是大有關聯。 他們較喜歡的是 和自己有同樣口味的玩偶， 更糟的是，他們真的比較樂見 同口味的玩偶處罰不同口味的玩偶。 （笑聲）
06:41
We see this sort of in-group, out-group psychology all the time. We see it in political clashes within groups with different ideologies. We see it in its extreme in cases of war, where the out-group isn't merely given less, but dehumanized, as in the Nazi perspective of Jews as vermin or lice, or the American perspective of Japanese as rats.
我們無時無刻會看到 這種內、外團體的心態。 我們會看到意識型態不同的 團體間有政治衝突。 我們在戰爭中看到極端的例子， 外團體不只是得到較少好處， 還會被眨得連人都不如， 就像納粹人眼中的猶太人是害蟲、蝨子， 或美國人眼中的日本人是卑鄙的老鼠。
07:05
Stereotypes can also go awry. So often they're rational and useful, but sometimes they're irrational, they give the wrong answers, and other times they lead to plainly immoral consequences. And the case that's been most studied is the case of race. There was a fascinating study prior to the 2008 election where social psychologists looked at the extent to which the candidates were associated with America, as in an unconscious association with the American flag. And in one of their studies they compared Obama and McCain, and they found McCain is thought of as more American than Obama, and to some extent, people aren't that surprised by hearing that. McCain is a celebrated war hero, and many people would explicitly say he has more of an American story than Obama. But they also compared Obama to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and they found that Blair was also thought of as more American than Obama, even though subjects explicitly understood that he's not American at all. But they were responding, of course, to the color of his skin.
刻板印象也可能出差錯。 通常刻板印象很理性和有用， 但有時卻不合理， 會提供錯誤答案， 而某些時候 則會引起違反道德的結果。 最常被研究的例子是種族。 在 2008 年大選前有項很吸引人的研究， 社會心理學家檢視 每一位候選人和美國的相關程度， 如同對美國國旗的無意識聯想。 其中一項研究比較了歐巴馬和麥肯， 他們發現大家認為 麥肯比歐巴馬更像美國人， 而且大家聽到這件事也不太驚訝。 麥肯被封為戰時英雄， 很多人會直說 他的故事比歐巴馬更符合美國形象。 但他們也拿歐巴馬 和英國首相東尼．布萊爾比較， 結果發現大家也認為 布萊爾比歐巴馬還像美國人， 即使題目已經明白指出 他根本不是美國人。 但是想當然爾，他們都說 問題出在他的膚色。
08:08
These stereotypes and biases have real-world consequences, both subtle and very important. In one recent study, researchers put ads on eBay for the sale of baseball cards. Some of them were held by white hands, others by black hands. They were the same baseball cards. The ones held by black hands got substantially smaller bids than the ones held by white hands. In research done at Stanford, psychologists explored the case of people sentenced for the murder of a white person. It turns out, holding everything else constant, you are considerably more likely to be executed if you look like the man on the right than the man on the left, and this is in large part because the man on the right looks more prototypically black, more prototypically African-American, and this apparently influences people's decisions over what to do about him.
這些刻板印象和偏見 都會影響現實生活， 無論事情是輕或重。 最近一份報告中， 研究員在拍賣網 eBay 刊登賣棒球卡的廣告。 有些是白人的手持卡， 有些則是黑人持卡。 這些都是一樣的棒球卡。 某些黑人拿的卡 競標價格遠低於 白人拿的卡。 有份史丹佛的報告指出， 心理學家探究 白人被判謀殺罪的案件。 結果出爐，在所有條件相同的情況下， 你極有可能被判死刑， 如果你長得較像右邊這位， 機率高於左邊這位， 主要是因為 右邊這位看來像典型黑人， 較像非裔美國人， 影響人們決定的顯然是這點， 而非他做了什麼事。
09:02
So now that we know about this, how do we combat it? And there are different avenues. One avenue is to appeal to people's emotional responses, to appeal to people's empathy, and we often do that through stories. So if you are a liberal parent and you want to encourage your children to believe in the merits of nontraditional families, you might give them a book like this. ["Heather Has Two Mommies"] If you are conservative and have a different attitude, you might give them a book like this. (Laughter) ["Help! Mom! There Are Liberals under My Bed!"] But in general, stories can turn anonymous strangers into people who matter, and the idea that we care about people when we focus on them as individuals is an idea which has shown up across history. So Stalin apocryphally said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic," and Mother Teresa said, "If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will." Psychologists have explored this. For instance, in one study, people were given a list of facts about a crisis, and it was seen how much they would donate to solve this crisis, and another group was given no facts at all but they were told of an individual and given a name and given a face, and it turns out that they gave far more. None of this I think is a secret to the people who are engaged in charity work. People don't tend to deluge people with facts and statistics. Rather, you show them faces, you show them people. It's possible that by extending our sympathies to an individual, they can spread to the group that the individual belongs to.
但知道了這件事， 我們能如何抵抗？ 有幾種方法。 其一是訴諸大眾的情感反應， 訴諸大眾的同理心， 我們通常透過故事來呈現。 如果你是開明的家長， 你想鼓勵孩子 相信非傳統家庭的價值， 你可能會給他這類的書。 【海瑟有兩個媽咪】 如果你很保守，有不同的看法， 你可能會給孩子這本書。 （笑聲） 【媽呀！我床下有自由黨人！】 但一般來說， 故事能夠將無名人士變得舉足輕重， 我們會在乎、看重某些人 是因為他們在史上留名。 因此傳說史達林提過： 「一個人喪命是悲劇， 一百萬人喪命則是統計數字。」 泰瑞莎修女曾說： 「如果放眼天下，我永遠不會行動。 如果關注個人，我就會起身而行。」 心理學家已探究此事。 例如，某項研究中， 受試者被告知危機事件的細節， 看大家願意捐多少錢 來解決這項危機。 而另一組人則不會知道任何細節， 但他們會得知 受害者的姓名和長相， 結果是這組人會捐得較多。 對慈善團體來說，這不是秘密。 他們比較不會塞一堆 資料和統計數字給大眾， 而是讓他們看見臉龐和真人。 透過延伸對他人的同情心就有機會 將愛心傳到受助者所屬的團體中。
10:33
This is Harriet Beecher Stowe. The story, perhaps apocryphal, is that President Lincoln invited her to the White House in the middle of the Civil War and said to her, "So you're the little lady who started this great war." And he was talking about "Uncle Tom's Cabin." "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not a great book of philosophy or of theology or perhaps not even literature, but it does a great job of getting people to put themselves in the shoes of people they wouldn't otherwise be in the shoes of, put themselves in the shoes of slaves. And that could well have been a catalyst for great social change.
這位是哈里特．比徹．斯托。 有個傳說是 林肯總統在內戰期間邀請她進白宮， 總統對她說： 「你就是那位開啟這場大戰的小姐。」 他指的是《湯姆叔叔的小屋》。 這故事不是什麼人生大道理 或神學故事，甚至稱不上文學， 但這本書卻成功 讓大眾對他們原本不懂的人感同身受， 讓他們理解奴隸。 成功促成了重大的社會變遷。
11:07
More recently, looking at America in the last several decades, there's some reason to believe that shows like "The Cosby Show" radically changed American attitudes towards African-Americans, while shows like "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family" changed American attitudes towards gay men and women. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the major catalyst in America for moral change has been a situation comedy.
看看最近數十年的美國， 有證據顯示， 像《天才老爹》這種節目 徹底改變美國人對非裔美國人的態度， 而像《威爾與格蕾絲》 和《摩登家庭》這類的節目 則改變了美國人 對男同志與女性的態度。 若說美國的道德觀念變遷 歸功於情境喜劇 一點也不誇張。
11:32
But it's not all emotions, and I want to end by appealing to the power of reason. At some point in his wonderful book "The Better Angels of Our Nature," Steven Pinker says, the Old Testament says love thy neighbor, and the New Testament says love thy enemy, but I don't love either one of them, not really, but I don't want to kill them. I know I have obligations to them, but my moral feelings to them, my moral beliefs about how I should behave towards them, aren't grounded in love. What they're grounded in is the understanding of human rights, a belief that their life is as valuable to them as my life is to me, and to support this, he tells a story by the great philosopher Adam Smith, and I want to tell this story too, though I'm going to modify it a little bit for modern times.
但並不全和情感有關， 最後，我想談訴諸理智的力量。 在一本好書 《人性中的善良天使》中 史迪芬．平克提到， 《舊約聖經》說愛鄰舍如同自己， 《新約聖經》說愛敵人如同自己， 但我兩者都不愛，也不是這麼說， 至少我不會想殺他們。 我自知對他們有責任， 但我對他們的道德情感 與我應該怎麼對待他們的道德信念， 並非基於愛。 而是因為我了解人權， 相信對他們而言，生命有價值， 如同我的生命也有價值， 為了支持這個論點， 他提到亞當．斯密說的故事， 我也想分享這個故事， 不過我會稍微修改成現代版本。
12:16
So Adam Smith starts by asking you to imagine the death of thousands of people, and imagine that the thousands of people are in a country you are not familiar with. It could be China or India or a country in Africa. And Smith says, how would you respond? And you would say, well that's too bad, and you'd go on to the rest of your life. If you were to open up The New York Times online or something, and discover this, and in fact this happens to us all the time, we go about our lives. But imagine instead, Smith says, you were to learn that tomorrow you were to have your little finger chopped off. Smith says, that would matter a lot. You would not sleep that night wondering about that. So this raises the question: Would you sacrifice thousands of lives to save your little finger? Now answer this in the privacy of your own head, but Smith says, absolutely not, what a horrid thought. And so this raises the question, and so, as Smith puts it, "When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble?" And Smith's answer is, "It is reason, principle, conscience. [This] calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it."
亞當．斯密請你想像 有數千人死亡， 並想像這數千人 在你不熟悉的國度， 可能是中國、印度， 或是非洲的某個國家。 斯密問，你會有什麼反應？ 你可能會說，好慘啊， 接著就繼續過生活。 如果你上網看紐約時報之類的網站， 會發現這種故事其實常發生， 我們還是繼續過生活。 但斯密請你再想像 自己的小指頭明天會被切斷， 他說這樣你就會很在意了。 你大概會一夜無眠， 只想著那件事。 隨之而來的問題是： 你會願意犧牲上千條人命 來拯救自己的小指頭嗎？ 自己在腦袋裡回答這個問題， 但斯密說，當然不願意， 那種想法太恐怖了。 因此針對那個問題 斯密歸納： 「當我們的被動想法總是 極度可悲與自私時， 我們的主動原則怎能 時常表現得如此大方又高貴呢？」 而斯密回應： 「是因為理性、原則和意識 召喚我們， 用駭人口吻對非常冒失的自己說， 不過是芸芸眾生的我們， 可不比任何人還高尚。」
13:29
And this last part is what is often described as the principle of impartiality. And this principle of impartiality manifests itself in all of the world's religions, in all of the different versions of the golden rule, and in all of the world's moral philosophies, which differ in many ways but share the presupposition that we should judge morality from sort of an impartial point of view.
最後一部分常被稱為 公平原則。 公平原則在世上所有的宗教中 以各種不同版本的黃金法則顯現， 也在世上所有的道德哲學中 以各種方式呈現， 但卻都有同樣的前提， 即我們應該公正無私地衡量道德。
13:51
The best articulation of this view is actually, for me, it's not from a theologian or from a philosopher, but from Humphrey Bogart at the end of "Casablanca." So, spoiler alert, he's telling his lover that they have to separate for the more general good, and he says to her, and I won't do the accent, but he says to her, "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
這種觀點的最佳說法 對我來說其實不是 以神學家或哲學家的身分， 而是以一種亨弗萊．鮑嘉 在《北非諜影》中的說法。 注意我要爆雷了， 他告訴情人，為了大家好， 我們還是分手吧。 我不會模仿他的腔調，他對她說： 「三個小人物的問題 在這瘋狂世界裡根本微不足道。」
14:13
Our reason could cause us to override our passions. Our reason could motivate us to extend our empathy, could motivate us to write a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or read a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and our reason can motivate us to create customs and taboos and laws that will constrain us from acting upon our impulses when, as rational beings, we feel we should be constrained. This is what a constitution is. A constitution is something which was set up in the past that applies now in the present, and what it says is, no matter how much we might to reelect a popular president for a third term, no matter how much white Americans might choose to feel that they want to reinstate the institution of slavery, we can't. We have bound ourselves.
我們的理智可能會讓自己無視熱情。 我們的理智可能會促使自己 變得更有同理心， 可能激勵我們寫本 《湯姆叔叔的小屋》之類的書， 或是讀本那樣的書， 我們的理智可能激勵大家 建立習俗、戒律或法令， 限制自己不會衝動行事， 身為理智的人類， 我們自認應該受限。 憲法即是如此。 憲法是過去建立， 並在當代運用， 憲法明訂 無論我們多想再次投票給 大受歡迎的總統， 讓他做第三任， 不管美國白人多麼想 恢復奴隸制度，我們都無能為力。 我們已限制自己。
14:55
And we bind ourselves in other ways as well. We know that when it comes to choosing somebody for a job, for an award, we are strongly biased by their race, we are biased by their gender, we are biased by how attractive they are, and sometimes we might say, "Well fine, that's the way it should be." But other times we say, "This is wrong." And so to combat this, we don't just try harder, but rather what we do is we set up situations where these other sources of information can't bias us, which is why many orchestras audition musicians behind screens, so the only information they have is the information they believe should matter. I think prejudice and bias illustrate a fundamental duality of human nature. We have gut feelings, instincts, emotions, and they affect our judgments and our actions for good and for evil, but we are also capable of rational deliberation and intelligent planning, and we can use these to, in some cases, accelerate and nourish our emotions, and in other cases staunch them. And it's in this way that reason helps us create a better world.
我們也在其它方面限制自己。 我們知道在談到要選擇某人 任職、獲獎時， 我們會輕易因他們的種族而有偏見， 因他們的性別而有偏見， 因他們的外貌而有偏見， 有時我們會說： 「好吧，事情就該是這樣。」 但有時候我們會說：「那錯了。」 為了抵抗這件事， 我們不只是要更努力， 而是要開創某些情境， 如此其它訊息來源就不會誤導我們， 這也是為何許多管弦樂隊 甄選樂手時要在幕後， 這樣他們接收到的 就只會是重要的訊息。 我認為成見與偏見 闡明了人性根本的二元論。 我們有直覺、本能、情感， 而這些感受都會影響我們的評斷與行動， 不論那是好是壞， 但我們也都有理性深思熟慮的能力， 聰明規畫的能力， 在某些情況下，我們能以此 刺激與培養我們的情緒， 在其它情況下則阻止情緒爆發。 也因此，理智幫助我們 建立更美好的世界。
16:04
Thank you.
謝謝。
16:06
(Applause)
（掌聲）
留言