關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文
在我們的社會里,任何人都要受法紀、道德的約束,決不允許為所欲為。小編精心收集了關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文，供大家欣賞學習!
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文篇1
Time to be honest.
誠實是需要時間的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一個簡單的實驗卻為我們提供了一種鼓勵誠實的途徑。
"IS SIN original?" That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at theUniversity of Amsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science. Dr Shalvi and hiscolleagues, Ori Eldar and Yoella Bereby-Meyer of Ben-Gurion University in Israel, wanted toknow if the impulse to cheat is something that grows or diminishes when the potential cheaterhas time for reflection on his actions. Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
"人性本‘惡'?"這是由阿姆斯特丹大學的一位心理學家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科學》雜志上發(fā)表的一篇論文中所提出的問題. Shalvi博士和他的兩位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大學的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潛在的騙子有時間對他們的行為作出充分考慮，他們?nèi)鲋e的沖動會否因此增強或減弱呢?換句話說，撒謊究竟是人的一種本能行為，還是經(jīng)過仔細分析后所作出的選擇呢?
Appropriately, the researchers' apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity,the gambling die. They wanted to find out whether people were more likely to lie about theresult of a die roll when asked that result immediately, or when given time to think.
研究人員為他們的實驗選擇了一樣合適的工具—骰子—罪惡活動的標志。他們想查明的是：人們是在搖骰后立即被詢問其結(jié)果時容易撒謊呢，還是在他們獲得一定的思考余地的時候呢?
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76volunteers a six-sided die and a cup. Participants were told that a number of them, chosen atrandom, would earn ten shekels (about
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文
在我們的社會里,任何人都要受法紀、道德的約束,決不允許為所欲為。小編精心收集了關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文，供大家欣賞學習!
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文篇1
Time to be honest.
誠實是需要時間的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一個簡單的實驗卻為我們提供了一種鼓勵誠實的途徑。
"IS SIN original?" That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at theUniversity of Amsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science. Dr Shalvi and hiscolleagues, Ori Eldar and Yoella Bereby-Meyer of Ben-Gurion University in Israel, wanted toknow if the impulse to cheat is something that grows or diminishes when the potential cheaterhas time for reflection on his actions. Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
"人性本‘惡'?"這是由阿姆斯特丹大學的一位心理學家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科學》雜志上發(fā)表的一篇論文中所提出的問題. Shalvi博士和他的兩位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大學的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潛在的騙子有時間對他們的行為作出充分考慮，他們?nèi)鲋e的沖動會否因此增強或減弱呢?換句話說，撒謊究竟是人的一種本能行為，還是經(jīng)過仔細分析后所作出的選擇呢?
Appropriately, the researchers' apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity,the gambling die. They wanted to find out whether people were more likely to lie about theresult of a die roll when asked that result immediately, or when given time to think.
研究人員為他們的實驗選擇了一樣合適的工具—骰子—罪惡活動的標志。他們想查明的是：人們是在搖骰后立即被詢問其結(jié)果時容易撒謊呢，還是在他們獲得一定的思考余地的時候呢?
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76volunteers a six-sided die and a cup. Participants were told that a number of them, chosen atrandom, would earn ten shekels (about $2.50) for each pip of the numeral they rolled on thedie. They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die andremember this roll. Next, they were asked to roll the die two more times, to satisfy themselvesthat it was not loaded, and, that done, to enter the result of the first roll on a computerterminal. Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds whilethe others were given no time limit.
實驗前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士給作為實驗對象的76位志愿者每人發(fā)了一個搖盅和一粒骰子。參加者被告知他們中的一部分被隨機抽選出來的，會依據(jù)其擲出的骰子點數(shù)而得到相應數(shù)目的獎勵，每點10謝克爾(約合2.5美元)。接著他們便按照指示搖盅，開盅查看結(jié)果，記住點數(shù)。然后他們被要求多搖兩次，以讓自己確信骰子中沒有被灌鉛。最后，讓他們自己在電腦終端里輸入第一次所擲出的點數(shù)。有一半?yún)⒓诱弑灰笤?0秒內(nèi)完成整個實驗流程，而另一半則沒有時間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been3.5. This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants' honesty. Those forced toenter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a mean roll of 4.6. Thosewho were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9. Both groups lied, then. Butthose who had had more time for reflection lied less.
研究人員當然無法知曉每個參加者實際擲出點數(shù)。但他們知道，依照統(tǒng)計學規(guī)律，如果所有人都能做到如實上報點數(shù)，那么這次實驗的平均擲出點數(shù)應為3.5。這就為研究人員提供了一個測量參加者誠實程度的依據(jù)。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，那組被要求于20秒內(nèi)輸入結(jié)果的的參加者所上報的擲出點數(shù)平均值為4.6，而另外沒有時間壓力的參加者的為3.9.顯然這兩組人都撒謊了，不過在那些有充分時間進行考慮的參加者中撒謊的較少。
A second experiment confirmed this result. A different bunch of volunteers were asked to rollthe die just once. Again, half were put under time pressure and, since there were noadditional rolls to make, the restriction was changed from 20 seconds to eight. The otherswere allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
第二次實驗則驗證了這一結(jié)果。這次是另一群不同的志愿者被要求擲骰子，不過只擲一次。同上次一樣，他們中一半人被限制了時間，并且由于此次只需擲一次骰子，時間限制也從20s縮短為8s.其余一般則想考慮多久都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4. Those given no time limit reported anaverage of 3.4. The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
在這次實驗中，前面有時間限制的一半人所上報點數(shù)的平均值為4.4，而沒有時間限制的所上報的平均值為3.4。換言之，后者如實上報了數(shù)據(jù)。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeedoriginal. Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled "cheat". Givensuch time, however, they will often do the right thing. If you want someone to be honest, then,do not press him too hard for an immediate decision.
因此，得出的結(jié)論是——至少在此次搖骰作弊的案例中如此—"人性本‘惡'"。在缺少時間進行考慮的情況下，人們會進入默認的"撒謊"模式。然而，如果他們獲得了那樣的考慮時間，一般會作出道德上正確的選擇。所以，如果你希望某人對你誠實，那么千萬別逼迫他立即做出出決定啊
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文篇2
道德哲學 無關(guān)善惡
Moral philosophy.
道德哲學。
Goodness has nothing to do with it.
無關(guān)善惡。
Utilitarians are not nice people.
功利主義者并不是好人。
IN THE grand scheme of things Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are normally thought ofas good guys. Between them, they came up with the ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Thegoal of this theory is encapsulated in Bentham's aphorism that "the greatest happiness of thegreatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."
從歷史洪流的角度來看，杰里米·貝薩姆和約翰·斯圖阿特·密爾通常都被認為是好人。他們一起合作建立了現(xiàn)在被稱為功利主義的道德理論。該理論的核心目的可以被貝薩姆的一句格言很好地概括"道德和立法的基礎在于讓最多的人最大程度的幸福"
Which all sounds fine and dandy until you start applying it to particular cases. A utilitarian, forexample, might approve of the occasional torture of suspected terrorists-for the greaterhappiness of everyone else, you understand. That type of observation has led Daniel Bartelsat Columbia University and David Pizarro at Cornell to ask what sort of people actually do have autilitarian outlook on life. Their answers, just published in Cognition, are not comfortable.
聽上去很不錯，但當你開始把這套理論應用在具體事件上時問題就出來了。比方說，功利主義者可能贊成對恐怖主義疑犯用刑。大家都明白，這是為了其它所有人好。哥倫比亞大學的丹尼爾·巴特爾斯和康奈爾大學的大衛(wèi)·皮扎羅受到類似這樣的觀察啟發(fā)，提出了哪一類型的人對生活的看法最接近功利主義這一有趣問題。他們的論文最近在認知科學上發(fā)表，其中得到的結(jié)論讓人不安。
One of the classic techniques used to measure a person's willingness to behave in autilitarian way is known as trolleyology. The subject of the study is challenged with thoughtexperiments involving a runaway railway trolley or train carriage. All involve choices, each ofwhich leads to people's deaths. For example: there are five railway workmen in the path of arunaway carriage. The men will surely be killed unless the subject of the experiment, abystander in the story, does something. The subject is told he is on a bridge over the tracks.Next to him is a big, heavy stranger. The subject is informed that his own body would be toolight to stop the train, but that if he pushes the stranger onto the tracks, the stranger's largebody will stop the train and save the five lives. That, unfortunately, would kill the stranger.
測量一個人有多大的意愿以功利主義方式行事的一個傳統(tǒng)方法是電車實驗。參加者進行一個想象實驗，實驗里有一節(jié)失控的有軌電車或火車車廂。該實驗有很多版本，不管哪一個都要求參加者進行選擇，而且不管怎么選都會有人死亡。例如：有五個工人在失控車廂前方的軌道上。如果實驗參加者作為故事中的一個旁觀者不進行干涉這五個人就死定了。參加者被告知他在鐵道上方的一座橋上，身邊有一個身材肥胖的陌生人，同時參加者知道自己的體重太輕，無法停止火車，但如果把那個陌生人推下去，他的巨大身軀將會停止火車，讓五個工人得救。不幸的是這么做會殺死該陌生人。
Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro knew from previous research that around 90% of people refuse theutilitarian act of killing one individual to save five. What no one had previously inquired about,though, was the nature of the remaining 10%.
巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士從之前的研究中得知大約90%的參加者會拒絕殺死一個陌生人救出五個人的功利主義行為。但是之前的研究沒人提出過剩下的10%人的性格這一問題。
To find out, the two researchers gave 208 undergraduates a battery of trolleyological tests andmeasured, on a four-point scale, how utilitarian their responses were. Participants were alsoasked to respond to a series of statements intended to get a sense of their individualpsychologies. These statements included, "I like to see fist fights", "The best way to handlepeople is to tell them what they want to hear", and "When you really think about it, life is notworth the effort of getting up in the morning". Each was asked to indicate, for eachstatement, where his views lay on a continuum that had "strongly agree" at one end and"strongly disagree" at the other. These statements, and others like them, were designed tomeasure, respectively, psychopathy, Machiavellianism and a person's sense of how meaningfullife is.
為了找出結(jié)果，這兩個研究者對208個大學生進行了一系列電車實驗，并以一到四分的機制來給他們的答案中的功利主義成分打分。參加者也要進行一系列分析個人心理的測試。測試包括這些問題，"我喜歡看人打架"，"應付別人最好的辦法就是說他們想聽的話"，以及"認真想想的話，生活沒什么意思，每天起來真不值"。參加者要在一個連續(xù)的尺度上標出他們對每一個問題的看法，從"完全同意"到"完全不同意"。這三個問題按次序分別是為了測量一個人的冷血程度，厚黑程度以及他覺得生活是否有意義的程度，其它問題也是圍繞著測量這三個方面而設計的。
Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro then correlated the results from the trolleyology with those from thepersonality tests. They found a strong link between utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas (pushthe fat guy off the bridge) and personalities that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended toview life as meaningless. Utilitarians, this suggests, may add to the sum of human happiness,but they are not very happy people themselves.
巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士然后開始尋找人格測試和電車實驗結(jié)果的相關(guān)性。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)在面對道德兩難(將胖子推下去)時回答體現(xiàn)功利主義的參加者和冷血變態(tài)心理，厚黑主義以及覺得生活沒意義的想法有很強的關(guān)聯(lián)。這表示雖然功利主義者能夠增加人類整體的幸福值，但他們自己并不是什么快樂的人。
That does not make utilitarianism wrong. Crafting legislation-one of the main things thatBentham and Mill wanted to improve-inevitably involves riding roughshod over someone'sinterests. Utilitarianism provides a plausible framework for deciding who should get trampled.The results obtained by Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro do, though, raise questions about the type ofpeople who you want making the laws. Psychopathic, Machiavellian misanthropes? Apparently,yes.
這并不意味著功利主義是錯誤的。任何法律的制定-當年貝薩姆和密爾希望借其理論能夠有所助益的主要行為之一-不可避免的需要犧牲一部分人的利益。功利主義提供了一個比較合理的框架來決定應該犧牲誰的利益。不過巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士的研究提出了應該讓哪種人來制定法律的質(zhì)疑。冷血，厚黑的厭惡人類者?從表面上來看，是的。
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文篇3
The psychology of morality
道德心理學
Time to be honest
時間讓人誠實
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness
由簡單實驗總結(jié)出讓人誠實的方法
IS SIN original?
難道人性本惡?
That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at the University ofAmsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science.
阿姆斯特丹大學心理學家Shaul Shalvi在《心理科學》期刊上剛發(fā)表的一篇論文談到了這個問題。
Dr Shalvi and his colleagues, Ori Eldar and Yoella Bereby-Meyer of Ben-Gurion University inIsrael, wanted to know if the impulse to cheat is something that grows or diminishes when thepotential cheater has time for reflection on his actions.
Shalvi博士和他的來自以色列Ben-Gurion大學的同事們 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye希望知道當一個想要撒謊的人如果有時間對他的行為思考時，他們說謊的動機是增加還是降低。
Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
換句話說，撒謊，是一種應激本能還是經(jīng)過慢慢算計的?
Appropriately, the researchers’apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity, the gambling die.
研究人員為他們的實驗提供了一個很合適的實驗工具，賭博用的骰子—本身就象征著罪惡的活動。
They wanted to find out whether people were more likely to lie about the result of a die rollwhen asked that result immediately, or when given time to think.
他們想看看人們到底是在什么情況下更容易撒謊，是在需要立即報告骰子點數(shù)的情況下還是有足夠的時間的情況下。
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76volunteers a six-sided die and a cup.
為了進行實驗，Ben-Gurion、 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye博士為76個志愿參與實驗的人每人一個六面的骰子和一個杯子。
Participants were told that a number of them, chosen at random, would earn ten shekels foreach pip of the numeral they rolled on the die.
他們告訴參與實驗的人，他們隨意搖出的骰子的點數(shù)，每一點可獲得10謝克爾。
They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die andremember this roll.
然后參與實驗的人按照規(guī)定搖骰子，檢查這一輪他們搖出的點數(shù)并且記住它。
Next, they were asked to roll the die two more times, to satisfy themselves that it was notloaded, and, that done, to enter the result of the first roll on a computer terminal.
他們按照要求再擲兩次色子，好讓他們自己相信沒人對這色子動過手腳，這樣檢查完沒問題之后，他們就把第一次擲出的數(shù)字輸入到電腦終端中去。
Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds while theothers were given no time limit.
他要求一半的參與者在20s之內(nèi)完成，而另一半則沒有時間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.
當然研究人員無從知曉參與者搖出的真實數(shù)字。
But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been3.5.
但是從統(tǒng)計學理論上來講，如果人們誠實的話，那么搖出的點數(shù)的平均數(shù)字應該是3.5，
This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty.
這個原理為他們提供了判斷參與實驗的人是否誠實的基線。
Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a meanroll of 4.6.
那些被要求20秒內(nèi)輸入他們結(jié)果的人所報告的結(jié)果的平均數(shù)是4.6，
Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9.
而沒有時間限制的人所報告的平均點數(shù)是3.9。所以，
Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
兩個組的人都撒謊了，但有時間考慮的那一半人撒謊的少一些。
A second experiment confirmed this result.
第二個實驗也證實了這個結(jié)果。
A different bunch of volunteers were asked to roll the die just once.
另一群志愿者只允許搖一次篩子，與
Again, half were put under time pressure and, since there were no additional rolls to make,the restriction was changed from 20 seconds to eight.
上次相同的是一半人必須在8秒內(nèi)輸入結(jié)果，而另一半則沒有做時間限制，
The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
他們想思考多長時間都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4.
在這次試驗中，前一半人輸入的平均數(shù)字是4.4。
Those given no time limit reported an average of 3.4.
有充足時間思考的另一半人輸入結(jié)果的平均數(shù)字是3.4.換句話說，
The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
這一半的人大部分都說了實話。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeedoriginal.
因此，至少在骰子點數(shù)這個問題上，實驗的結(jié)論是人生來的確是罪惡的。
Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat.
如果沒有思考時間，人們會被預設為貼有欺騙標簽的模式。
Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing.
然而如果給予充足的時間思考，他們通常會選擇做正確的事情。
If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediatedecision.
所以，如果你希望一個誠實，千萬別為了一個立即的決定而給他太大壓力。
看了“關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文”的人還看了：
實驗前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士給作為實驗對象的76位志愿者每人發(fā)了一個搖盅和一粒骰子。參加者被告知他們中的一部分被隨機抽選出來的，會依據(jù)其擲出的骰子點數(shù)而得到相應數(shù)目的獎勵，每點10謝克爾(約合2.5美元)。接著他們便按照指示搖盅，開盅查看結(jié)果，記住點數(shù)。然后他們被要求多搖兩次，以讓自己確信骰子中沒有被灌鉛。最后，讓他們自己在電腦終端里輸入第一次所擲出的點數(shù)。有一半?yún)⒓诱弑灰笤?0秒內(nèi)完成整個實驗流程，而另一半則沒有時間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been3.5. This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants' honesty. Those forced toenter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a mean roll of 4.6. Thosewho were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9. Both groups lied, then. Butthose who had had more time for reflection lied less.
研究人員當然無法知曉每個參加者實際擲出點數(shù)。但他們知道，依照統(tǒng)計學規(guī)律，如果所有人都能做到如實上報點數(shù)，那么這次實驗的平均擲出點數(shù)應為3.5。這就為研究人員提供了一個測量參加者誠實程度的依據(jù)。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，那組被要求于20秒內(nèi)輸入結(jié)果的的參加者所上報的擲出點數(shù)平均值為4.6，而另外沒有時間壓力的參加者的為3.9.顯然這兩組人都撒謊了，不過在那些有充分時間進行考慮的參加者中撒謊的較少。
A second experiment confirmed this result. A different bunch of volunteers were asked to rollthe die just once. Again, half were put under time pressure and, since there were noadditional rolls to make, the restriction was changed from 20 seconds to eight. The otherswere allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
第二次實驗則驗證了這一結(jié)果。這次是另一群不同的志愿者被要求擲骰子，不過只擲一次。同上次一樣，他們中一半人被限制了時間，并且由于此次只需擲一次骰子，時間限制也從20s縮短為8s.其余一般則想考慮多久都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4. Those given no time limit reported anaverage of 3.4. The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
在這次實驗中，前面有時間限制的一半人所上報點數(shù)的平均值為4.4，而沒有時間限制的所上報的平均值為3.4。換言之，后者如實上報了數(shù)據(jù)。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeedoriginal. Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled "cheat". Givensuch time, however, they will often do the right thing. If you want someone to be honest, then,do not press him too hard for an immediate decision.
因此，得出的結(jié)論是——至少在此次搖骰作弊的案例中如此—"人性本‘惡'"。在缺少時間進行考慮的情況下，人們會進入默認的"撒謊"模式。然而，如果他們獲得了那樣的考慮時間，一般會作出道德上正確的選擇。所以，如果你希望某人對你誠實，那么千萬別逼迫他立即做出出決定啊
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文篇2
道德哲學 無關(guān)善惡
Moral philosophy.
道德哲學。
Goodness has nothing to do with it.
無關(guān)善惡。
Utilitarians are not nice people.
功利主義者并不是好人。
IN THE grand scheme of things Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are normally thought ofas good guys. Between them, they came up with the ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Thegoal of this theory is encapsulated in Bentham's aphorism that "the greatest happiness of thegreatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."
從歷史洪流的角度來看，杰里米·貝薩姆和約翰·斯圖阿特·密爾通常都被認為是好人。他們一起合作建立了現(xiàn)在被稱為功利主義的道德理論。該理論的核心目的可以被貝薩姆的一句格言很好地概括"道德和立法的基礎在于讓最多的人最大程度的幸福"
Which all sounds fine and dandy until you start applying it to particular cases. A utilitarian, forexample, might approve of the occasional torture of suspected terrorists-for the greaterhappiness of everyone else, you understand. That type of observation has led Daniel Bartelsat Columbia University and David Pizarro at Cornell to ask what sort of people actually do have autilitarian outlook on life. Their answers, just published in Cognition, are not comfortable.
聽上去很不錯，但當你開始把這套理論應用在具體事件上時問題就出來了。比方說，功利主義者可能贊成對恐怖主義疑犯用刑。大家都明白，這是為了其它所有人好。哥倫比亞大學的丹尼爾·巴特爾斯和康奈爾大學的大衛(wèi)·皮扎羅受到類似這樣的觀察啟發(fā)，提出了哪一類型的人對生活的看法最接近功利主義這一有趣問題。他們的論文最近在認知科學上發(fā)表，其中得到的結(jié)論讓人不安。
One of the classic techniques used to measure a person's willingness to behave in autilitarian way is known as trolleyology. The subject of the study is challenged with thoughtexperiments involving a runaway railway trolley or train carriage. All involve choices, each ofwhich leads to people's deaths. For example: there are five railway workmen in the path of arunaway carriage. The men will surely be killed unless the subject of the experiment, abystander in the story, does something. The subject is told he is on a bridge over the tracks.Next to him is a big, heavy stranger. The subject is informed that his own body would be toolight to stop the train, but that if he pushes the stranger onto the tracks, the stranger's largebody will stop the train and save the five lives. That, unfortunately, would kill the stranger.
測量一個人有多大的意愿以功利主義方式行事的一個傳統(tǒng)方法是電車實驗。參加者進行一個想象實驗，實驗里有一節(jié)失控的有軌電車或火車車廂。該實驗有很多版本，不管哪一個都要求參加者進行選擇，而且不管怎么選都會有人死亡。例如：有五個工人在失控車廂前方的軌道上。如果實驗參加者作為故事中的一個旁觀者不進行干涉這五個人就死定了。參加者被告知他在鐵道上方的一座橋上，身邊有一個身材肥胖的陌生人，同時參加者知道自己的體重太輕，無法停止火車，但如果把那個陌生人推下去，他的巨大身軀將會停止火車，讓五個工人得救。不幸的是這么做會殺死該陌生人。
Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro knew from previous research that around 90% of people refuse theutilitarian act of killing one individual to save five. What no one had previously inquired about,though, was the nature of the remaining 10%.
巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士從之前的研究中得知大約90%的參加者會拒絕殺死一個陌生人救出五個人的功利主義行為。但是之前的研究沒人提出過剩下的10%人的性格這一問題。
To find out, the two researchers gave 208 undergraduates a battery of trolleyological tests andmeasured, on a four-point scale, how utilitarian their responses were. Participants were alsoasked to respond to a series of statements intended to get a sense of their individualpsychologies. These statements included, "I like to see fist fights", "The best way to handlepeople is to tell them what they want to hear", and "When you really think about it, life is notworth the effort of getting up in the morning". Each was asked to indicate, for eachstatement, where his views lay on a continuum that had "strongly agree" at one end and"strongly disagree" at the other. These statements, and others like them, were designed tomeasure, respectively, psychopathy, Machiavellianism and a person's sense of how meaningfullife is.
為了找出結(jié)果，這兩個研究者對208個大學生進行了一系列電車實驗，并以一到四分的機制來給他們的答案中的功利主義成分打分。參加者也要進行一系列分析個人心理的測試。測試包括這些問題，"我喜歡看人打架"，"應付別人最好的辦法就是說他們想聽的話"，以及"認真想想的話，生活沒什么意思，每天起來真不值"。參加者要在一個連續(xù)的尺度上標出他們對每一個問題的看法，從"完全同意"到"完全不同意"。這三個問題按次序分別是為了測量一個人的冷血程度，厚黑程度以及他覺得生活是否有意義的程度，其它問題也是圍繞著測量這三個方面而設計的。
Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro then correlated the results from the trolleyology with those from thepersonality tests. They found a strong link between utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas (pushthe fat guy off the bridge) and personalities that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended toview life as meaningless. Utilitarians, this suggests, may add to the sum of human happiness,but they are not very happy people themselves.
巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士然后開始尋找人格測試和電車實驗結(jié)果的相關(guān)性。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)在面對道德兩難(將胖子推下去)時回答體現(xiàn)功利主義的參加者和冷血變態(tài)心理，厚黑主義以及覺得生活沒意義的想法有很強的關(guān)聯(lián)。這表示雖然功利主義者能夠增加人類整體的幸福值，但他們自己并不是什么快樂的人。
That does not make utilitarianism wrong. Crafting legislation-one of the main things thatBentham and Mill wanted to improve-inevitably involves riding roughshod over someone'sinterests. Utilitarianism provides a plausible framework for deciding who should get trampled.The results obtained by Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro do, though, raise questions about the type ofpeople who you want making the laws. Psychopathic, Machiavellian misanthropes? Apparently,yes.
這并不意味著功利主義是錯誤的。任何法律的制定-當年貝薩姆和密爾希望借其理論能夠有所助益的主要行為之一-不可避免的需要犧牲一部分人的利益。功利主義提供了一個比較合理的框架來決定應該犧牲誰的利益。不過巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士的研究提出了應該讓哪種人來制定法律的質(zhì)疑。冷血，厚黑的厭惡人類者?從表面上來看，是的。
關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文篇3
The psychology of morality
道德心理學
Time to be honest
時間讓人誠實
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness
由簡單實驗總結(jié)出讓人誠實的方法
IS SIN original?
難道人性本惡?
That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at the University ofAmsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science.
阿姆斯特丹大學心理學家Shaul Shalvi在《心理科學》期刊上剛發(fā)表的一篇論文談到了這個問題。
Dr Shalvi and his colleagues, Ori Eldar and Yoella Bereby-Meyer of Ben-Gurion University inIsrael, wanted to know if the impulse to cheat is something that grows or diminishes when thepotential cheater has time for reflection on his actions.
Shalvi博士和他的來自以色列Ben-Gurion大學的同事們 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye希望知道當一個想要撒謊的人如果有時間對他的行為思考時，他們說謊的動機是增加還是降低。
Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
換句話說，撒謊，是一種應激本能還是經(jīng)過慢慢算計的?
Appropriately, the researchers’apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity, the gambling die.
研究人員為他們的實驗提供了一個很合適的實驗工具，賭博用的骰子—本身就象征著罪惡的活動。
They wanted to find out whether people were more likely to lie about the result of a die rollwhen asked that result immediately, or when given time to think.
他們想看看人們到底是在什么情況下更容易撒謊，是在需要立即報告骰子點數(shù)的情況下還是有足夠的時間的情況下。
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76volunteers a six-sided die and a cup.
為了進行實驗，Ben-Gurion、 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye博士為76個志愿參與實驗的人每人一個六面的骰子和一個杯子。
Participants were told that a number of them, chosen at random, would earn ten shekels foreach pip of the numeral they rolled on the die.
他們告訴參與實驗的人，他們隨意搖出的骰子的點數(shù)，每一點可獲得10謝克爾。
They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die andremember this roll.
然后參與實驗的人按照規(guī)定搖骰子，檢查這一輪他們搖出的點數(shù)并且記住它。
Next, they were asked to roll the die two more times, to satisfy themselves that it was notloaded, and, that done, to enter the result of the first roll on a computer terminal.
他們按照要求再擲兩次色子，好讓他們自己相信沒人對這色子動過手腳，這樣檢查完沒問題之后，他們就把第一次擲出的數(shù)字輸入到電腦終端中去。
Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds while theothers were given no time limit.
他要求一半的參與者在20s之內(nèi)完成，而另一半則沒有時間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.
當然研究人員無從知曉參與者搖出的真實數(shù)字。
But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been3.5.
但是從統(tǒng)計學理論上來講，如果人們誠實的話，那么搖出的點數(shù)的平均數(shù)字應該是3.5，
This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty.
這個原理為他們提供了判斷參與實驗的人是否誠實的基線。
Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a meanroll of 4.6.
那些被要求20秒內(nèi)輸入他們結(jié)果的人所報告的結(jié)果的平均數(shù)是4.6，
Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9.
而沒有時間限制的人所報告的平均點數(shù)是3.9。所以，
Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
兩個組的人都撒謊了，但有時間考慮的那一半人撒謊的少一些。
A second experiment confirmed this result.
第二個實驗也證實了這個結(jié)果。
A different bunch of volunteers were asked to roll the die just once.
另一群志愿者只允許搖一次篩子，與
Again, half were put under time pressure and, since there were no additional rolls to make,the restriction was changed from 20 seconds to eight.
上次相同的是一半人必須在8秒內(nèi)輸入結(jié)果，而另一半則沒有做時間限制，
The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
他們想思考多長時間都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4.
在這次試驗中，前一半人輸入的平均數(shù)字是4.4。
Those given no time limit reported an average of 3.4.
有充足時間思考的另一半人輸入結(jié)果的平均數(shù)字是3.4.換句話說，
The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
這一半的人大部分都說了實話。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeedoriginal.
因此，至少在骰子點數(shù)這個問題上，實驗的結(jié)論是人生來的確是罪惡的。
Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat.
如果沒有思考時間，人們會被預設為貼有欺騙標簽的模式。
Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing.
然而如果給予充足的時間思考，他們通常會選擇做正確的事情。
If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediatedecision.
所以，如果你希望一個誠實，千萬別為了一個立即的決定而給他太大壓力。
看了“關(guān)于道德品行的英語美文”的人還看了：