關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文
在我們的社會(huì)里,任何人都要受法紀(jì)、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(yǔ)美文，供大家欣賞學(xué)習(xí)!
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文篇1
Time to be honest.
誠(chéng)實(shí)是需要時(shí)間的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的實(shí)驗(yàn)卻為我們提供了一種鼓勵(lì)誠(chéng)實(shí)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(xué)的一位心理學(xué)家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科學(xué)》雜志上發(fā)表的一篇論文中所提出的問(wèn)題. Shalvi博士和他的兩位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大學(xué)的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潛在的騙子有時(shí)間對(duì)他們的行為作出充分考慮，他們?nèi)鲋e的沖動(dòng)會(huì)否因此增強(qiáng)或減弱呢?換句話說(shuō)，撒謊究竟是人的一種本能行為，還是經(jīng)過(guò)仔細(xì)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(shí)驗(yàn)選擇了一樣合適的工具—骰子—罪惡活動(dòng)的標(biāo)志。他們想查明的是：人們是在搖骰后立即被詢問(wèn)其結(jié)果時(shí)容易撒謊呢，還是在他們獲得一定的思考余地的時(shí)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(yǔ)美文
在我們的社會(huì)里,任何人都要受法紀(jì)、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(yǔ)美文，供大家欣賞學(xué)習(xí)!
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文篇1
Time to be honest.
誠(chéng)實(shí)是需要時(shí)間的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的實(shí)驗(yàn)卻為我們提供了一種鼓勵(lì)誠(chéng)實(shí)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(xué)的一位心理學(xué)家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科學(xué)》雜志上發(fā)表的一篇論文中所提出的問(wèn)題. Shalvi博士和他的兩位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大學(xué)的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潛在的騙子有時(shí)間對(duì)他們的行為作出充分考慮，他們?nèi)鲋e的沖動(dòng)會(huì)否因此增強(qiáng)或減弱呢?換句話說(shuō)，撒謊究竟是人的一種本能行為，還是經(jīng)過(guò)仔細(xì)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(shí)驗(yàn)選擇了一樣合適的工具—骰子—罪惡活動(dòng)的標(biāo)志。他們想查明的是：人們是在搖骰后立即被詢問(wèn)其結(jié)果時(shí)容易撒謊呢，還是在他們獲得一定的思考余地的時(shí)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(shí)驗(yàn)前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士給作為實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象的76位志愿者每人發(fā)了一個(gè)搖盅和一粒骰子。參加者被告知他們中的一部分被隨機(jī)抽選出來(lái)的，會(huì)依據(jù)其擲出的骰子點(diǎn)數(shù)而得到相應(yīng)數(shù)目的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，每點(diǎn)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(diǎn)數(shù)。然后他們被要求多搖兩次，以讓自己確信骰子中沒(méi)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(diǎn)數(shù)。有一半?yún)⒓诱弑灰笤?0秒內(nèi)完成整個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)流程，而另一半則沒(méi)有時(shí)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(dāng)然無(wú)法知曉每個(gè)參加者實(shí)際擲出點(diǎn)數(shù)。但他們知道，依照統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)規(guī)律，如果所有人都能做到如實(shí)上報(bào)點(diǎn)數(shù)，那么這次實(shí)驗(yàn)的平均擲出點(diǎn)數(shù)應(yīng)為3.5。這就為研究人員提供了一個(gè)測(cè)量參加者誠(chéng)實(shí)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(bào)的擲出點(diǎn)數(shù)平均值為4.6，而另外沒(méi)有時(shí)間壓力的參加者的為3.9.顯然這兩組人都撒謊了，不過(guò)在那些有充分時(shí)間進(jìn)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(shí)驗(yàn)則驗(yàn)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(guò)只擲一次。同上次一樣，他們中一半人被限制了時(shí)間，并且由于此次只需擲一次骰子，時(shí)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(shí)驗(yàn)中，前面有時(shí)間限制的一半人所上報(bào)點(diǎn)數(shù)的平均值為4.4，而沒(méi)有時(shí)間限制的所上報(bào)的平均值為3.4。換言之，后者如實(shí)上報(bào)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(shí)間進(jìn)行考慮的情況下，人們會(huì)進(jìn)入默認(rèn)的"撒謊"模式。然而，如果他們獲得了那樣的考慮時(shí)間，一般會(huì)作出道德上正確的選擇。所以，如果你希望某人對(duì)你誠(chéng)實(shí)，那么千萬(wàn)別逼迫他立即做出出決定啊
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文篇2
道德哲學(xué) 無(wú)關(guān)善惡
Moral philosophy.
道德哲學(xué)。
Goodness has nothing to do with it.
無(wú)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(lái)看，杰里米·貝薩姆和約翰·斯圖阿特·密爾通常都被認(rèn)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(chǔ)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(cuò)，但當(dāng)你開始把這套理論應(yīng)用在具體事件上時(shí)問(wèn)題就出來(lái)了。比方說(shuō)，功利主義者可能贊成對(duì)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(xué)的丹尼爾·巴特爾斯和康奈爾大學(xué)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(duì)生活的看法最接近功利主義這一有趣問(wèn)題。他們的論文最近在認(rèn)知科學(xué)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(cè)量一個(gè)人有多大的意愿以功利主義方式行事的一個(gè)傳統(tǒng)方法是電車實(shí)驗(yàn)。參加者進(jìn)行一個(gè)想象實(shí)驗(yàn)，實(shí)驗(yàn)里有一節(jié)失控的有軌電車或火車車廂。該實(shí)驗(yàn)有很多版本，不管哪一個(gè)都要求參加者進(jìn)行選擇，而且不管怎么選都會(huì)有人死亡。例如：有五個(gè)工人在失控車廂前方的軌道上。如果實(shí)驗(yàn)參加者作為故事中的一個(gè)旁觀者不進(jìn)行干涉這五個(gè)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(gè)身材肥胖的陌生人，同時(shí)參加者知道自己的體重太輕，無(wú)法停止火車，但如果把那個(gè)陌生人推下去，他的巨大身軀將會(huì)停止火車，讓五個(gè)工人得救。不幸的是這么做會(huì)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(huì)拒絕殺死一個(gè)陌生人救出五個(gè)人的功利主義行為。但是之前的研究沒(méi)人提出過(guò)剩下的10%人的性格這一問(wèn)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(gè)研究者對(duì)208個(gè)大學(xué)生進(jìn)行了一系列電車實(shí)驗(yàn)，并以一到四分的機(jī)制來(lái)給他們的答案中的功利主義成分打分。參加者也要進(jìn)行一系列分析個(gè)人心理的測(cè)試。測(cè)試包括這些問(wèn)題，"我喜歡看人打架"，"應(yīng)付別人最好的辦法就是說(shuō)他們想聽的話"，以及"認(rèn)真想想的話，生活沒(méi)什么意思，每天起來(lái)真不值"。參加者要在一個(gè)連續(xù)的尺度上標(biāo)出他們對(duì)每一個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法，從"完全同意"到"完全不同意"。這三個(gè)問(wèn)題按次序分別是為了測(cè)量一個(gè)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(wèn)題也是圍繞著測(cè)量這三個(gè)方面而設(shè)計(jì)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(cè)試和電車實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果的相關(guān)性。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)在面對(duì)道德兩難(將胖子推下去)時(shí)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(méi)意義的想法有很強(qiáng)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(lè)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(cuò)誤的。任何法律的制定-當(dāng)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(gè)比較合理的框架來(lái)決定應(yīng)該犧牲誰(shuí)的利益。不過(guò)巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士的研究提出了應(yīng)該讓哪種人來(lái)制定法律的質(zhì)疑。冷血，厚黑的厭惡人類者?從表面上來(lái)看，是的。
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文篇3
The psychology of morality
道德心理學(xué)
Time to be honest
時(shí)間讓人誠(chéng)實(shí)
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness
由簡(jiǎn)單實(shí)驗(yàn)總結(jié)出讓人誠(chéng)實(shí)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(xué)心理學(xué)家Shaul Shalvi在《心理科學(xué)》期刊上剛發(fā)表的一篇論文談到了這個(gè)問(wèn)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(lái)自以色列Ben-Gurion大學(xué)的同事們 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye希望知道當(dāng)一個(gè)想要撒謊的人如果有時(shí)間對(duì)他的行為思考時(shí)，他們說(shuō)謊的動(dòng)機(jī)是增加還是降低。
Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
換句話說(shuō)，撒謊，是一種應(yīng)激本能還是經(jīng)過(guò)慢慢算計(jì)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(shí)驗(yàn)提供了一個(gè)很合適的實(shí)驗(yàn)工具，賭博用的骰子—本身就象征著罪惡的活動(dòng)。
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(bào)告骰子點(diǎn)數(shù)的情況下還是有足夠的時(shí)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(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)，Ben-Gurion、 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye博士為76個(gè)志愿參與實(shí)驗(yàn)的人每人一個(gè)六面的骰子和一個(gè)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(shí)驗(yàn)的人，他們隨意搖出的骰子的點(diǎn)數(shù)，每一點(diǎn)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(shí)驗(yàn)的人按照規(guī)定搖骰子，檢查這一輪他們搖出的點(diǎn)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(méi)人對(duì)這色子動(dòng)過(guò)手腳，這樣檢查完沒(méi)問(wèn)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(méi)有時(shí)間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.
當(dāng)然研究人員無(wú)從知曉參與者搖出的真實(shí)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(jì)學(xué)理論上來(lái)講，如果人們誠(chéng)實(shí)的話，那么搖出的點(diǎn)數(shù)的平均數(shù)字應(yīng)該是3.5，
This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty.
這個(gè)原理為他們提供了判斷參與實(shí)驗(yàn)的人是否誠(chéng)實(shí)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(bào)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(méi)有時(shí)間限制的人所報(bào)告的平均點(diǎn)數(shù)是3.9。所以，
Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
兩個(gè)組的人都撒謊了，但有時(shí)間考慮的那一半人撒謊的少一些。
A second experiment confirmed this result.
第二個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)也證實(shí)了這個(gè)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(méi)有做時(shí)間限制，
The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
他們想思考多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4.
在這次試驗(yàn)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(shí)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(shuō)，
The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
這一半的人大部分都說(shuō)了實(shí)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(diǎn)數(shù)這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，實(shí)驗(yàn)的結(jié)論是人生來(lái)的確是罪惡的。
Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat.
如果沒(méi)有思考時(shí)間，人們會(huì)被預(yù)設(shè)為貼有欺騙標(biāo)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(shí)間思考，他們通常會(huì)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(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)，千萬(wàn)別為了一個(gè)立即的決定而給他太大壓力。
看了“關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文”的人還看了：
實(shí)驗(yàn)前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士給作為實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象的76位志愿者每人發(fā)了一個(gè)搖盅和一粒骰子。參加者被告知他們中的一部分被隨機(jī)抽選出來(lái)的，會(huì)依據(jù)其擲出的骰子點(diǎn)數(shù)而得到相應(yīng)數(shù)目的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，每點(diǎn)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(diǎn)數(shù)。然后他們被要求多搖兩次，以讓自己確信骰子中沒(méi)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(diǎn)數(shù)。有一半?yún)⒓诱弑灰笤?0秒內(nèi)完成整個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)流程，而另一半則沒(méi)有時(shí)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(dāng)然無(wú)法知曉每個(gè)參加者實(shí)際擲出點(diǎn)數(shù)。但他們知道，依照統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)規(guī)律，如果所有人都能做到如實(shí)上報(bào)點(diǎn)數(shù)，那么這次實(shí)驗(yàn)的平均擲出點(diǎn)數(shù)應(yīng)為3.5。這就為研究人員提供了一個(gè)測(cè)量參加者誠(chéng)實(shí)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(bào)的擲出點(diǎn)數(shù)平均值為4.6，而另外沒(méi)有時(shí)間壓力的參加者的為3.9.顯然這兩組人都撒謊了，不過(guò)在那些有充分時(shí)間進(jìn)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(shí)驗(yàn)則驗(yàn)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(guò)只擲一次。同上次一樣，他們中一半人被限制了時(shí)間，并且由于此次只需擲一次骰子，時(shí)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(shí)驗(yàn)中，前面有時(shí)間限制的一半人所上報(bào)點(diǎn)數(shù)的平均值為4.4，而沒(méi)有時(shí)間限制的所上報(bào)的平均值為3.4。換言之，后者如實(shí)上報(bào)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(shí)間進(jìn)行考慮的情況下，人們會(huì)進(jìn)入默認(rèn)的"撒謊"模式。然而，如果他們獲得了那樣的考慮時(shí)間，一般會(huì)作出道德上正確的選擇。所以，如果你希望某人對(duì)你誠(chéng)實(shí)，那么千萬(wàn)別逼迫他立即做出出決定啊
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文篇2
道德哲學(xué) 無(wú)關(guān)善惡
Moral philosophy.
道德哲學(xué)。
Goodness has nothing to do with it.
無(wú)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(lái)看，杰里米·貝薩姆和約翰·斯圖阿特·密爾通常都被認(rèn)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(chǔ)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(cuò)，但當(dāng)你開始把這套理論應(yīng)用在具體事件上時(shí)問(wèn)題就出來(lái)了。比方說(shuō)，功利主義者可能贊成對(duì)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(xué)的丹尼爾·巴特爾斯和康奈爾大學(xué)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(duì)生活的看法最接近功利主義這一有趣問(wèn)題。他們的論文最近在認(rèn)知科學(xué)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(cè)量一個(gè)人有多大的意愿以功利主義方式行事的一個(gè)傳統(tǒng)方法是電車實(shí)驗(yàn)。參加者進(jìn)行一個(gè)想象實(shí)驗(yàn)，實(shí)驗(yàn)里有一節(jié)失控的有軌電車或火車車廂。該實(shí)驗(yàn)有很多版本，不管哪一個(gè)都要求參加者進(jìn)行選擇，而且不管怎么選都會(huì)有人死亡。例如：有五個(gè)工人在失控車廂前方的軌道上。如果實(shí)驗(yàn)參加者作為故事中的一個(gè)旁觀者不進(jìn)行干涉這五個(gè)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(gè)身材肥胖的陌生人，同時(shí)參加者知道自己的體重太輕，無(wú)法停止火車，但如果把那個(gè)陌生人推下去，他的巨大身軀將會(huì)停止火車，讓五個(gè)工人得救。不幸的是這么做會(huì)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(huì)拒絕殺死一個(gè)陌生人救出五個(gè)人的功利主義行為。但是之前的研究沒(méi)人提出過(guò)剩下的10%人的性格這一問(wèn)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(gè)研究者對(duì)208個(gè)大學(xué)生進(jìn)行了一系列電車實(shí)驗(yàn)，并以一到四分的機(jī)制來(lái)給他們的答案中的功利主義成分打分。參加者也要進(jìn)行一系列分析個(gè)人心理的測(cè)試。測(cè)試包括這些問(wèn)題，"我喜歡看人打架"，"應(yīng)付別人最好的辦法就是說(shuō)他們想聽的話"，以及"認(rèn)真想想的話，生活沒(méi)什么意思，每天起來(lái)真不值"。參加者要在一個(gè)連續(xù)的尺度上標(biāo)出他們對(duì)每一個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法，從"完全同意"到"完全不同意"。這三個(gè)問(wèn)題按次序分別是為了測(cè)量一個(gè)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(wèn)題也是圍繞著測(cè)量這三個(gè)方面而設(shè)計(jì)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(cè)試和電車實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果的相關(guān)性。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)在面對(duì)道德兩難(將胖子推下去)時(shí)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(méi)意義的想法有很強(qiáng)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(lè)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(cuò)誤的。任何法律的制定-當(dāng)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(gè)比較合理的框架來(lái)決定應(yīng)該犧牲誰(shuí)的利益。不過(guò)巴特爾斯博士和皮扎羅博士的研究提出了應(yīng)該讓哪種人來(lái)制定法律的質(zhì)疑。冷血，厚黑的厭惡人類者?從表面上來(lái)看，是的。
關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文篇3
The psychology of morality
道德心理學(xué)
Time to be honest
時(shí)間讓人誠(chéng)實(shí)
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness
由簡(jiǎn)單實(shí)驗(yàn)總結(jié)出讓人誠(chéng)實(shí)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(xué)心理學(xué)家Shaul Shalvi在《心理科學(xué)》期刊上剛發(fā)表的一篇論文談到了這個(gè)問(wèn)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(lái)自以色列Ben-Gurion大學(xué)的同事們 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye希望知道當(dāng)一個(gè)想要撒謊的人如果有時(shí)間對(duì)他的行為思考時(shí)，他們說(shuō)謊的動(dòng)機(jī)是增加還是降低。
Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
換句話說(shuō)，撒謊，是一種應(yīng)激本能還是經(jīng)過(guò)慢慢算計(jì)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(shí)驗(yàn)提供了一個(gè)很合適的實(shí)驗(yàn)工具，賭博用的骰子—本身就象征著罪惡的活動(dòng)。
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(bào)告骰子點(diǎn)數(shù)的情況下還是有足夠的時(shí)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(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)，Ben-Gurion、 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye博士為76個(gè)志愿參與實(shí)驗(yàn)的人每人一個(gè)六面的骰子和一個(gè)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(shí)驗(yàn)的人，他們隨意搖出的骰子的點(diǎn)數(shù)，每一點(diǎn)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(shí)驗(yàn)的人按照規(guī)定搖骰子，檢查這一輪他們搖出的點(diǎn)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(méi)人對(duì)這色子動(dòng)過(guò)手腳，這樣檢查完沒(méi)問(wèn)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(méi)有時(shí)間限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.
當(dāng)然研究人員無(wú)從知曉參與者搖出的真實(shí)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(jì)學(xué)理論上來(lái)講，如果人們誠(chéng)實(shí)的話，那么搖出的點(diǎn)數(shù)的平均數(shù)字應(yīng)該是3.5，
This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty.
這個(gè)原理為他們提供了判斷參與實(shí)驗(yàn)的人是否誠(chéng)實(shí)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(bào)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(méi)有時(shí)間限制的人所報(bào)告的平均點(diǎn)數(shù)是3.9。所以，
Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
兩個(gè)組的人都撒謊了，但有時(shí)間考慮的那一半人撒謊的少一些。
A second experiment confirmed this result.
第二個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)也證實(shí)了這個(gè)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(méi)有做時(shí)間限制，
The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
他們想思考多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4.
在這次試驗(yàn)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(shí)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(shuō)，
The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
這一半的人大部分都說(shuō)了實(shí)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(diǎn)數(shù)這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，實(shí)驗(yàn)的結(jié)論是人生來(lái)的確是罪惡的。
Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat.
如果沒(méi)有思考時(shí)間，人們會(huì)被預(yù)設(shè)為貼有欺騙標(biāo)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(shí)間思考，他們通常會(huì)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(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)，千萬(wàn)別為了一個(gè)立即的決定而給他太大壓力。
看了“關(guān)于道德品行的英語(yǔ)美文”的人還看了：