欧美名人演讲 第68期:同性恋与道德的关系(14)

搜索关注在线英语听力室公众号：tingroom，领取免费英语资料大礼包。

　　从什么时候开始，我们的道德标准是由动物来提供的？特别是性的道德这个领域。

　　I mean, think about this. ok.

　　我们想想。

　　Animals don't become state legislators, either.

　　动物是不会成为州立法委员的。

　　Can we lock Warren Chisum up now?

　　或者换个角度说，我们能把沃伦·奇松关进笼子里吗？

　　But, beyond that, think about the premise¹ behind this claim.

　　更进一步说，想想这种指责的前提。

　　I want to make you a promise.

　　我在此向你们承诺。

　　And I've made this promise to hundreds of audiences, so I've got to follow through on this if it ever happened.

　　我当着你们几百名观众来承诺这点，我说到做到。

　　If I ever encounter Warren Chisum in public, I'm going to get down on the ground and start humping his leg, just to drive home the point that animals do not provide us with our moral standards.

　　以后如果我有机会在公共场合见到沃伦·奇松，我会坐在地上，像动物一样蹭他的腿。让他彻底清楚我们的道德标准从来都不是动物提供的。

　　And even if they did, well then homosexuality wouldn't be a problem because not only do animals engage in homosexual sex, some actually form homosexual pair bonds.

　　退一万步讲，即使真的动物能决定我们的道德标准，同性恋也不是一个问题。因为动物不但会有同性性行为，而且会有牢固的同性恋情感关系。

　　And people are always sending me clips about this kind of thing.

　　我总是能看到别人给我发这种小视屏。

　　You read this stuff in the paper "Gay penguins² in Central Park."

　　你会在报纸上读到关于"中央公园的同性恋企鹅"的报道。

　　I'm not making this up.

　　这可不是我编的。

　　Lesbian seagulls.

　　还有"拉拉海鸥"，不会吧？

　　Do they have short haircuts and Birkenstocks? What does that mean?

　　这些海鸥难道剃短发穿凉鞋吗？这意味着什么？

　　I mean it's all very fascinating, scientifically, but it's not going to answer the moral argument for us.

　　这事情在科学研究说很吸引人，但完全不足以解决我们在道德上是争论。

　　You know what other scientific debate is not going to answer the moral argument for us-that whole nature nurture³ debate.

　　有另外一件事也是在科学上颇多辩论，但同样无法给我们在道德上的争论以答案，那就是"塑造我们的，究竟是先天还是后天？"

　　You know what I'm talking about?

　　想知道我说的是什么意思吗？

　　Back when I started doing this, there was a lot of research going on about the hypothalamus of the brain, and we used to hear this argument.

　　我当年刚开始做现在的事情的时候，有很多针对大脑下丘脑的科学研究。那时候听到了很多关于这个问题的争论。

　　And, it seemed right away that there were two camps that formed.

　　好像人们立刻就分成了两个清晰的阵营。

　　One side says, "I was born this way, therefore it's natural, therefore it's okay," and the other side says, "No, it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural⁴, therefore it's wrong."

　　支持先天论的一方说："同性恋生来如此，因此这就是自然，因此这毫无问题。"而另一方则说："不，同性恋是个选择，因此它是不自然的，因此这是错的。

　　I think those are both really lousy arguments, both of them.

　　我认为双方的论证都很糟糕。

　　Let's take each one.

　　我们一个一个说。

　　I was born this way, therefore it's natural therefore it's okay.

　　"同性恋生来如此，因此这就是自然，因此这毫无问题。

　　Well, first of all, I don't really remember the way the world was when I was born and neither do you.

　　"首先，我根本不记得我出生时世界是个什么样子，你们也一样不记得。

　　I mean the best you can say is that "I've had these feelings as long as I can remember."

　　我们最多可以说："从我可以回忆起来的时候开始，我就有这种情感感受了。"

　　I mean you can't just by some act of introspection see your own genetic⁵ makeup⁶.

　　我的意思是，我们不能通过自我反省的方式来看到我们的基因组成。

　　You've had these feelings for a long time, okay, but just because you've had these feelings for a long time it doesn't mean that you ought to act on them.

　　你长久以来一直有这样的情感感受。好，不过，仅仅因为你一直有这样的情感感受，并不意味着你要将其付诸实践。

　　I might have had violent feelings for as long as I can remember, but if I start hitting the people in the front row, you're not going to say, "He was born that way; it's okay."

　　从我记事起，我大概也有过比较暴力的念头。但是如果我现在开始向前排的观众挥拳，你可不会用"他生来就爱打人，因此这毫无问题"来给我做辩护。

　　We don't judge the moral status of an activity by looking at the cause or origin of the disposition⁷ to that activity.

　　我们不会用某种行为的缘由或者这种行为的倾向来源，来评价这种行为是否道德。

　　On the other hand, there's the side that says, "No, it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural therefore it's wrong."

　　另一方的说法是："同性恋是个选择，因此它是不自然的，因此这是错的。"

分享到：