英国新闻听力 善行本身就是一种回报（在线收听）

There’s a bit in the latest Tom Stoppard play at the National Theatre in which an atheistic scientist dismisses Raphael's famous Madonna and Child painting as: “Woman Maximising Gene Survival”. There is no such thing as altruism, he insists, all human behavior, indeed all animal behavior, is fundamentally self-interested. Genes exist only to maximize their chances of survival and reproduction.

But there is an immediate problem with this familiar hypothesis. On Saturday a terrible earthquake occurred in Nepal. Thousands died and many more were made homeless. In response, throughout this week, people have been donating money to an emergency relief fund – donating money to support people they have never met and for a place that most of us have never visited. If all our behavior is a version of self-interest, why do we do this?

Back in 1964, William Hamilton came up with an explanation called kin selection. He argued that altruism is consistent with the belief that genes are programmed for their own benefit when altruistic behavior is aimed towards those who are genetically similar us, to members of our family for instance. In such circumstances, though we may make an individual sacrifice, we may be furthering the reproductive chances of our own gene pool– and that’s what matters.

But I don’t have any Nepalese relatives. I don’t think I know anyone from Nepal. Indeed - some people even give their money for the care of animals, and I fail to see how this can be seen as a way of maximizing the chances of the donor’s genetic group.

Later, in the 1970’s, another evolutionary biologist came up with the idea that we behave altruistically because it maximizes the chances of others behaving the same way towards us. It’s a sort of tit-for-tat arrangement.

But the Nepalese people are amongst the poorest in the world. I don’t suspect that they’d have much money to offer if an earthquake happened here. And yet still we give.

But Stoppard’s play, The Hard Problem, makes a religious character the central advocate for altruism. And I wish he hadn’t. For despite the fact the most of the world’s religious traditions stress the importance of putting others first, morality does not rely upon God. Indeed, doing good simply for the sake of some postponed heavenly benefit would be to undermine altruism not to support it. Goodness should be its own reward.

Which is why there is no fight here between science and religion. “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish” – no, this is not Augustine on Original Sin. Its Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. And you might be surprised that I agree with him entirely. Biology might fight against altruism. But, as Dawkins says, and as our generosity to Nepal clearly demonstrates, our biology doesn’t have to win.

最近国家大剧院上演了汤姆·斯托帕德最新的剧作，剧中一位无神论科学家对拉斐尔的名作《圣母和圣婴》不屑一顾，称之为“女人使得基因生存实现最大化”。他坚称没有什么利他主义，他认为人类的所有行为，以及动物的所有行为从根本上来说都是自私的，基因的存在只是为了将其存活和繁殖的几率实现最大化。

但是这种熟悉的假设中存在一个摆在眼前的问题。周六，一场可怕的地震袭击了尼泊尔，数千人丧生，更多人沦为无家可归。整个一周，人们都在向紧急援救基金捐款，向那些他们从未见过的人捐款，给那些大多人从未去过的地方捐款。如果我们所有的行为都不过是自私的表现，那么我们为何这么做呢？

1964年，威廉姆·汉密尔顿提出所谓“亲缘选择”的解释，他声称利他主义与这样的信念有关，即基因的设定是为了其自身的利益，利他主义行为的做出是为了那些与我们基因相似的人的，比如为了我们的家人。在这种情况下，尽管我们会做出个人牺牲，我们可能因此增加了我们自己基因库进行繁殖的几率，这才是问题的关键。

我并没有什么尼泊尔的亲戚，我也不认识任何来自尼泊尔的人。确实，有些人为了照顾动物而捐款，我看不出这与将捐赠者基因库最大化的机会有何关系。

后来，在20世纪70年代，另一位演化生物学家提出这样的观点，即我们之所以做出利他主义的行为，是因为这能将他人以同样方式回报我们的机会最大化，这就是一报还一报。

但尼泊尔人是全世界最贫困的人群之一，如果我们这里发生地震，我怀疑他们不会有钱可以捐赠给我们，但我们还是给他们捐款了。

但斯托帕德的剧作《艰难问题》中让一个宗教人物成为利他主义的核心倡导者，我希望我不要这么做。因为尽管全世界大多数宗教传统都强调利他的重要性，但道德并不依赖于上帝。确实，做好事只是为了日后在天堂的好处，这只会有损利他主义，而不是发扬利他主义。善行本身就是一种回报。

为何这里科学和宗教没有矛盾呢？“让我们努力传授慷慨和利他主义，因为我们生来就是自私的”。不，这不是《原罪》里奥古斯丁的观点，而是理查德·道金斯在《自私的基因》里的观点，你可能会吃惊我完全赞同他的看法。生物性可能会与利他主义相矛盾，但正如道金斯所说，以及正如我们对尼泊尔的慷慨所表现的那样，我们的生物性不一定非得取胜。