英国新闻听力 犯错后如何改正错误（在线收听）

Good morning. Scotland awoke yesterday a broken-hearted and bewildered nation. On Sunday afternoon in the rugby world cup quarter-final the national team, who weren’t given a cat’s chance by anybody, were leading the mighty Australia with a minute to go. A borderline penalty was given against them, which wasn’t referred to the television referee for a second opinion, and they lost by a single point.

In every sport-addicted sitting room there’s the same conversation. ‘The game’s over. Why’re you still watching?’ The answer is, the chat. The after-game is half the fun. The chat often settles on blaming the referee. One pundit says, ‘What we’re looking for is consistency. Last week the ref didn’t give a penalty; this time he did. We just need the same rules for everybody.’ The other pundit says, ‘Yes, what we need is common sense. Why follow the letter of the law? You should let the game flow and not blow the whistle all the time.’

What the pundits seldom realise is that they’re expressing the two rival schools of ethics. One school is about right and wrong, about things being good or bad, regardless of circumstances. The other school is about outcomes – setting aside anxiety about right and wrong, and instead evaluating which course of action is likely to produce the most positive consequences.

What rugby, like many walks of life, is trying to do is introduce technology to ensure mistakes don’t happen. So everyone on Sunday quickly agreed that the ref should have employed the technology to turn a borderline decision into a conclusive one. But it turns out the regulations state the technology is only to be used in the case of try-scoring or foul play. So to find the truth the referee would have had to bend the rules.

A minute later, at the end of the game, the referee bolted off the field – as if in panic at what he’d done. However much ethicists deliberate and pundits pronounce, we’re still fallible. Those who stayed watching for the after-game chat on Sunday were rewarded with the extraordinary dignity of the Scots’ coach and captain expressing sadness without blame.

Jesus was especially close to two of his followers: John seems to have had a special place in his heart. Meanwhile Peter was passionate but unreliable. Jesus chose to found the church on Peter – the one who made terrible mistakes, yet allowed those mistakes to be exposed and forgiven.

No system of ethics, no code of rules will stop us getting things wrong. No sophisticated technology can ultimately prevent us suffering the consequences of other people getting things wrong where we’re involved. Life isn’t about not making mistakes: it’s about what we do when we’ve made them.

早上好。昨天，苏格兰整个国家都陷入心碎和迷茫。周日下午，在英式橄榄球世界杯四分之一决赛中，原本没有任何悬念，离比赛结束一分钟的时候还领先于强大的澳大利亚。他们被判边界发球，并没有向电视裁判征求意见，他们以一分之差落败。

在每个沉迷体育的客厅里都进行着同样的对话。“比赛已经结束了。你还在看什么？”答案是，聊天。比赛后的讨论也有一半的乐趣。聊天的焦点通常是谴责裁判。一位评论员说，“我们寻找的是一致性。上周裁判没有判罚球，这次却判了。我们只是想要所有人遵守同样的规则。”另外一位评论员说，“是的，我们所需要的就是共同感。我们为什么遵守法律条文？你应该让比赛顺畅地进行下去，而不是总是吹哨。”

而评论员们很少意识到的是，他们表达的是两种敌对的伦理学派。一个学派是关于对和错的，关于事情是好是坏，而不论环境如何。另外一个学派是关于结果的——抛开关于对错多的焦虑，而是评估哪种行为可能产生最积极的影响。

就像生活中的许多方面一样，英式橄榄球努力想要引进技术，确保错误不会发生。这样，周日的时候，每个人都会很快达成一致，认为裁判应该采用科技，让边线罚球决定变成不容置疑的。但是管理规定，科技只用于判分或犯规动作中。所以，为了寻求真相，裁判不得不根据经验进行随机应变。

一分钟后，比赛结束时，裁判关闭了比赛场地——就像平时混乱发生时一样。无论伦理学家如何商讨，评论员如何宣称，我们仍然容易犯错。周日一直观看赛后讨论的人得到了回报——苏格兰教练和队长毫无愧疚地表达悲伤之情。

耶稣和他的两个追随者非常亲密：John在他的心中有着特殊的位置。而Peter充满激情却不可靠。耶稣选择将教堂交给Peter——曾经犯过可怕的错误，却允许错误暴露出来得到宽恕的人。

任何道德体系，任何规章制度都不能阻止事情出错。任何成熟的技术最终都不能防止我们承受相关的人犯错带来的后果。生活并不是说不犯错误，而是犯错后怎么做。