→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト
No.06
We find this in every country we look at. Here’s the data for 1,100 Canadians. I’ll just flip through a few other slides. The U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia. Notice also that on all of these graphs, the slope is steeper on in-group, authority, purity. Which shows that within any country, the disagreement isn’t over harm and fairness. Everybody — I mean, we debate over what’s fair — but everybody agrees that harm and fairness matter. Moral arguments within cultures are especially about issues of in-group, authority, purity.
This effect is so robust that we find it no matter how we ask the question. In one recent study, we asked people to suppose you’re about to get a dog. You picked a particular breed, you learned some new information about the breed. Suppose you learn that this particular breed is independent-minded, and relates to its owner as a friend and an equal? Well, if you are a liberal, you say, “Hey, that’s great!” Because liberals like to say, “Fetch, please.” (Laughter) But if you’re conservative, that’s not so attractive. If you’re conservative, and you learn that a dog’s extremely loyal to its home and family, and doesn’t warm up quickly to strangers, for conservatives, well, loyalty is good — dogs ought to be loyal. But to a liberal, it sounds like this dog is running for the Republican nomination. (Laughter)
So, you might say, OK, there are these differences between liberals and conservatives, but what makes those three other foundations moral? Aren’t those just the foundations of xenophobia and authoritarianism and Puritanism? What makes them moral? The answer, I think, is contained in this incredible triptych from Hieronymus Bosch, “The Garden of Earthly Delights.” In the first panel, we see the moment of creation. All is ordered, all is beautiful, all the people and animals are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, where they’re supposed to be. But then, given the way of the world, things change. We get every person doing whatever he wants, with every aperture of every other person and every other animal. Some of you might recognize this as the ’60s. (Laughter) But the ’60s inevitably gives way to the ’70s, where the cuttings of the apertures hurt a little bit more. Of course, Bosch called this hell.
ボキャブラリー
We find this in every country we look at. Here’s the data for 1,100 Canadians. I’ll just flip through a few other slides. The U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia. Notice also that on all of these graphs, the slope is steeper on in-group, authority, purity. Which shows that within any country, the disagreement isn’t over harm and fairness. Everybody — I mean, we debate over what’s fair — but everybody agrees that harm and fairness matter. Moral arguments within cultures are especially about issues of in-group, authority, purity.
This effect is so robust that we find it no matter how we ask the question. In one recent study, we asked people to suppose you’re about to get a dog. You picked a particular breed, you learned some new information about the breed. Suppose you learn that this particular breed is independent-minded, and relates to its owner as a friend and an equal? Well, if you are a liberal, you say, “Hey, that’s great!” Because liberals like to say, “Fetch, please.” (Laughter) But if you’re conservative, that’s not so attractive. If you’re conservative, and you learn that a dog’s extremely loyal to its home and family, and doesn’t warm up quickly to strangers, for conservatives, well, loyalty is good — dogs ought to be loyal. But to a liberal, it sounds like this dog is running for the Republican nomination. (Laughter)
So, you might say, OK, there are these differences between liberals and conservatives, but what makes those three other foundations moral? Aren’t those just the foundations of xenophobia and authoritarianism and Puritanism? What makes them moral? The answer, I think, is contained in this incredible triptych from Hieronymus Bosch, “The Garden of Earthly Delights.” In the first panel, we see the moment of creation. All is ordered, all is beautiful, all the people and animals are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, where they’re supposed to be. But then, given the way of the world, things change. We get every person doing whatever he wants, with every aperture of every other person and every other animal. Some of you might recognize this as the ’60s. (Laughter) But the ’60s inevitably gives way to the ’70s, where the cuttings of the apertures hurt a little bit more. Of course, Bosch called this hell.
flip through ~: 〜をパラパラめくる、（テレビのチャンネル・スライドなど）を素早く変える
notice: vt. （〜だという事実に）気が付く
graph: n. グラフ、図式
slope: n. 傾斜、傾き、勾配、坂
steep: a. 急な、険しい、急勾配の
disagreement: n. 不一致、相違
debate: vi. 議論する、論争する、ディベートする
matter: vi. 重要である、問題である
robust: a. 強い、堅固な、強固な、頑丈な
breed: n. 品種、種類、種族
suppose: vt. 〜だと仮定［想定・推定］する
independent-minded: a. 独立心がある、主体的な
fetch: vt. 〜を持って来る、取って来る、連れて来る
attractive: a. 魅力的な、感じが良い；人を惹きつける、興味をそそる；色っぽい
extremely: adv. 極度に、非常に、とても、大いに
loyal: a. 忠実な、忠誠心のある、誠実な、信義に厚い
warm up: 好意を寄せる、同情的になる
Republican nomination: 共和党（候補者）指名
xenophobia: n. 外国（人）嫌い、外来者［外国人］恐怖症
authoritarianism: n. 権威主義
Puritanism: n. 清教主義、ピューリタニズム（カルバン主義の流れをくみ、聖書の示す神との契約に基づく新たな社会の実現を目指す思想。また、その生活態度。）
contain: vt. 〜を含む
triptych: n. 〔美術・音楽・文学などの〕三連作、三部作、トリブティック；３枚続きの絵画、３連の祭壇画
Hieronymus Bosch: ヒエルニムス・ボス
The Garden of Earthly Delights: 『快楽の園』
aperture: n. （小さい）穴、すきま、割れ目；（カメラなどの）絞り、（レンズの）口径
recognize: vt. 〜を認識する、判別する、識別する
give way to ~: 〜に取って代わられる、〜に移行する、〜に譲り渡す
cutting: n. 切断、切ること；切り取った部分
解説
ヒエロニムス・ボス
（本名:Jeroen van Aken、1450年頃- 1516年8月9日）は、ルネサンス期のネーデルラント（フランドル）の画家。初期フランドル派に分類される。「ヒエロニムス」は本名であるイェルーン（Jeroen）のラテン語読み、「ボス」は街の名前から。オランダ語でイェロニムス・ボス、ドイツ語でヒエローニュムス・ボシュと発音するが、日本では「ヒエロニムス・ボッシュ」と表記されることもある。
『快楽の園』または『悦楽の園』
初期フランドル派の画家ヒエロニムス・ボスが描いた三連祭壇画。ボスが40歳から50歳の1490年から1510年の10年間のいずれかの時期の作品で、1939年からマドリードのプラド美術館に所蔵されている。ボスの作品の中でも最も有名な作品で、かつ最も大がかりな作品である。