akioiwai.com

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/7a80470a078265bb16abcabfbfb84def.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/fd5e25c20e4f5dbc69d98c3dcfe2ddaf.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/456bf5b36ed5ed6c3d124679ef09d4bd.mp3]

No.10

So, what’s the point? What should you do? Well, if you take the greatest insights from ancient Asian philosophies and religions, and you combine them with the latest research on moral psychology, I think you come to these conclusions: that our righteous minds were designed by evolution to unite us into teams, to divide us against other teams and then to blind us to the truth. So what should you do? Am I telling you to not strive? Am I telling you to embrace Seng-ts’an and stop, stop with this struggle of for and against? No, absolutely not. I’m not saying that. This is an amazing group of people who are doing so much, using so much of their talent, their brilliance, their energy, their money, to make the world a better place, to fight — to fight wrongs, to solve problems.

But as we learned from Samantha Power, in her story about Sergio Vieira de Mello, you can’t just go charging in, saying, “You’re wrong, and I’m right.” Because, as we just heard, everybody thinks they are right. A lot of the problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are — understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we’re right — and then step out, even if it’s just for a moment, step out — check in with Seng-ts’an. Step out of the moral matrix, just try to see it as a struggle playing out, in which everybody does think they’re right, and everybody, at least, has some reasons — even if you disagree with them — everybody has some reasons for what they’re doing. Step out. And if you do that, that’s the essential move to cultivate moral humility, to get yourself out of this self-righteousness, which is the normal human condition. Think about the Dalai Lama. Think about the enormous moral authority of the Dalai Lama — and it comes from his moral humility.

So I think the point — the point of my talk, and I think the point of TED — is that this is a group that is passionately engaged in the pursuit of changing the world for the better. People here are passionately engaged in trying to make the world a better place. But there is also a passionate commitment to the truth. And so I think that the answer is to use that passionate commitment to the truth to try to turn it into a better future for us all. Thank you. (Applause)

 

ボキャブラリー

So, what’s the point? What should you do? Well, if you take the greatest insights from ancient Asian philosophies and religions, and you combine them with the latest research on moral psychology, I think you come to these conclusions: that our righteous minds were designed by evolution to unite us into teams, to divide us against other teams and then to blind us to the truth. So what should you do? Am I telling you to not strive? Am I telling you to embrace Seng-ts’an and stop, stop with this struggle of for and against? No, absolutely not. I’m not saying that. This is an amazing group of people who are doing so much, using so much of their talent, their brilliance, their energy, their money, to make the world a better place, to fight — to fight wrongs, to solve problems.

But as we learned from Samantha Power, in her story about Sergio Vieira de Mello, you can’t just go charging in, saying, “You’re wrong, and I’m right.” Because, as we just heard, everybody thinks they are right. A lot of the problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are — understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we’re right — and then step out, even if it’s just for a moment, step out — check in with Seng-ts’an. Step out of the moral matrix, just try to see it as a struggle playing out, in which everybody does think they’re right, and everybody, at least, has some reasons — even if you disagree with them — everybody has some reasons for what they’re doing. Step out. And if you do that, that’s the essential move to cultivate moral humility, to get yourself out of this self-righteousness, which is the normal human condition. Think about the Dalai Lama. Think about the enormous moral authority of the Dalai Lama — and it comes from his moral humility.

So I think the point — the point of my talk, and I think the point of TED — is that this is a group that is passionately engaged in the pursuit of changing the world for the better. People here are passionately engaged in trying to make the world a better place. But there is also a passionate commitment to the truth. And so I think that the answer is to use that passionate commitment to the truth to try to turn it into a better future for us all. Thank you. (Applause)

 

ancient: a. 古代の、昔の
philosophy: n. 哲学、哲理、根本原理、価値観
combine: vt. 〜を結合する、混ぜ合わせる、混合する、協力する、結集させる
righteous: a. 正しい、正義の；高潔な；当然な、もっともな
unite: vt. 〜を結合する、合体させる、まとめる、団結させる
divide: vt. 〜を分ける、分割する；〜を分け合う、分担する；〜を分裂させる、意見を異にさせる
blind: vt. 〜を失明させる、〜の視力を失わせる；〜の目をくらませる；〜の理性を失わせる、判断力を奪う
strive: vi. 努力する、奮闘する、励む、懸命になる
embrace: vt. （考え・提案など）を受け入れる、採用する；（教義などを）信奉する、〜に帰依する
absolutely: adv. 完全に、全く、すっかり
No, absolutely not!: まさか［とんでもない］
brilliance: n. 素晴らしさ、技能、才気、さえ、鮮やかさ、華麗さ、輝き
Samantha Power: サマンサ・パワー（1970年9月21日 – ）は、アイルランド生まれの、アメリカ合衆国のジャーナリスト、作家、ハーバード大学ケネディスクール教授。現在、アメリカ合衆国国連大使。
Sergio Viera de Mello: セルジオ・ビエイラ・デメロ。国連事務総長特別代表。8月19日、バグダッドの国連現地本部を狙った爆弾テロ事件で死亡した。
charge in ~: 〜に突入する
for a moment: 少しの間、一瞬
essential: a. 必要不可欠の、必須の；本質的な、根本的な
cultivate: vt. 耕す、養う、育む、高める、磨く、助長する
humility: n. 謙虚さ、謙遜
self-righteousness: n. 独りよがり、独善
the Dalai Lama: ダライ・ラマ〘チベット仏教の教主の称号〙
enormous: a. 巨大な、膨大な；ものすごい、途方もない
passionately: adv. 情熱的に、熱心に、熱烈に；激しく、激怒して
engaged: a. 関係している、参加している、携わっている、従事している
for the better: 良い方向へ
passionate: a. 情熱的な、熱狂的な、熱烈な
commitment: n. 傾倒、献身、取り組み；公約、約束、言質；責任、義務

 

解説

Samantha Powerサマンサ・パワー

サマンサ・パワーのTEDのスピーチはこちら
→https://www.ted.com/talks/samantha_power_on_a_complicated_hero#t-30200

Sergio Viera de Melloセルジオ・ビエイラ・デメロ

ダライ・ラマ
チベット仏教ゲルク派の高位のラマであり、チベット仏教で最上位クラスに位置する化身ラマの名跡。その名は、大海を意味するモンゴル語の「ダライ」と、師を意味するチベット語の「ラマ」とを合わせたもの。

ダライ・ラマ１４世（法名はテンジン・ギャツォ）

ダライ・ラマの著作はこちら→ ダライ・ラマの著作 Amazon

 

ジョナサン・ハイトは今回で最終回です。
TEDで英語学習を読んでくださって、ありがとうございます。
次回もお楽しみに♩

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/684c910132180c6df6bb66dcbcc6e0bc.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/816513e2b0bf497d26807b6edb3b1b5b.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/8aa93f0afa61a292ec2641a263eb8e63.mp3]

No.09

Liberals have very noble motives for doing this. Traditional authority, traditional morality can be quite repressive, and restrictive to those at the bottom, to women, to people that don’t fit in. So liberals speak for the weak and oppressed. They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. This guy’s shirt says, “Stop bitching, start a revolution.” If you’re high in openness to experience, revolution is good, it’s change, it’s fun. Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions. They want order, even at some cost to those at the bottom. The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve. It’s really precious, and it’s really easy to lose. So as Edmund Burke said, “The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.” This was after the chaos of the French Revolution. So once you see this — once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability — then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix.

This is the great insight that all the Asian religions have attained. Think about yin and yang. Yin and yang aren’t enemies. Yin and yang don’t hate each other. Yin and yang are both necessary, like night and day, for the functioning of the world. You find the same thing in Hinduism. There are many high gods in Hinduism. Two of them are Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer. This image actually is both of those gods sharing the same body. You have the markings of Vishnu on the left, so we could think of Vishnu as the conservative god. You have the markings of Shiva on the right, Shiva’s the liberal god. And they work together. You find the same thing in Buddhism. These two stanzas contain, I think, the deepest insights that have ever been attained into moral psychology. From the Zen master Seng-ts’an: “If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between for and against is the mind’s worst disease.” Now unfortunately, it’s a disease that has been caught by many of the world’s leaders. But before you feel superior to George Bush, before you throw a stone, ask yourself, do you accept this? Do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil? Can you be not for or against anything?

 

ボキャブラリー

Liberals have very noble motives for doing this. Traditional authority, traditional morality can be quite repressive, and restrictive to those at the bottom, to women, to people that don’t fit in. So liberals speak for the weak and oppressed. They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. This guy’s shirt says, “Stop bitching, start a revolution.” If you’re high in openness to experience, revolution is good, it’s change, it’s fun. Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions. They want order, even at some cost to those at the bottom. The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve. It’s really precious, and it’s really easy to lose. So as Edmund Burke said, “The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.” This was after the chaos of the French Revolution. So once you see this — once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability — then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix.

This is the great insight that all the Asian religions have attained. Think about yin and yang. Yin and yang aren’t enemies. Yin and yang don’t hate each other. Yin and yang are both necessary, like night and day, for the functioning of the world. You find the same thing in Hinduism. There are many high gods in Hinduism. Two of them are Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer. This image actually is both of those gods sharing the same body. You have the markings of Vishnu on the left, so we could think of Vishnu as the conservative god. You have the markings of Shiva on the right, Shiva’s the liberal god. And they work together. You find the same thing in Buddhism. These two stanzas contain, I think, the deepest insights that have ever been attained into moral psychology. From the Zen master Seng-ts’an: “If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between for and against is the mind’s worst disease.” Now unfortunately, it’s a disease that has been caught by many of the world’s leaders. But before you feel superior to George Bush, before you throw a stone, ask yourself, do you accept this? Do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil? Can you be not for or against anything?

 

noble: a. 気高い、高潔な
motive: n. 動機、真意、誘因
authority: n. 権力、支配権；権力者、支配者
repressive: a. 抑圧的な、弾圧的な
restrictive: a. 制限する、拘束的な、制限的な
at the bottom: 底部の（に）、下部の（に）
fit in: 合わせる、適応する、適合する、調和する；溶け込む、なじむ
oppressed: n. 《the ~》 抑圧された［虐げられた］人々；虐げられた、不公平な扱いを受けた；（人の気分が）憂鬱な
at the risk of ~: 〜の危険を覚悟で［侵して］、〜を犠牲にして
chaos: n. 混沌、大混乱、カオス
bitch: vi. 不平［不満・文句］を言う、愚痴をこぼす
on the other hand: 他方では
speak for ~: 〜の代弁をする、代表する；〜に賛成意見を述べる；〜をかばう［擁護する・弁護する］
institution: n. 制度、慣例
order: n. 秩序、道理；慣例、規則、習慣；体制、治安
achieve: vt. 獲得する、成し遂げる、達成する、実現する
precious: a. 貴重な、大切な、尊い、高価な
Edmund Burke: エドマンド・バーク（1729年1月12日 – 1797年7月9日）アイルランド生まれのイギリスの政治思想家、哲学者、政治家、美学者。
reckon: vt. 見なす、考える、思う
the French Revolution: フランス革命
contribute: vt. 〜に貢献する、寄与する；与える、提供する
versus: prep. 対、〜に対する
attain: vt. 達成する、実現する、手に入れる、成就する
yin and yang: （中国哲学の）陰陽
function: vi. 機能する、作用する
Hinduism: n. ヒンズー教
Vishnu: n. ヴィシュヌ神（保存・維持の神）。Brahma, Siva, Vishnuの三神がヒンドゥー教の三大神。
preserver: n. 保護者、守護者、維持するもの、守るもの
Shiva: n. シヴァ神（破壊・生殖の神）
destroyer: n. 破壊者、破壊するもの
marking: n. 印、模様、標識
Buddhism: n. 仏教
stanza: n. 【韻律】連、節、スタンザ（通例４行以上からなる詩の単位。それぞれのスタンザは同じ行数で同じ脚韻を持つ。）
Zen: n. 禅（宗）（Zen Buddhism）
Seng-ts’an: Sēngcànとも書く。僧璨（そうさん、生年不詳(推定500年～505年頃) – 大業2年10月15日（606年11月20日））は、中国・隋代の僧。禅宗の第三祖（開祖は達磨、二祖は慧可）。 「璨」とは、「美しい珠」、「光り輝く宝玉(宝石)」のことである。唐の玄宗皇帝により『(鑑)智禅師』の諡を賜った。
for: a. 〜に賛成して
against: a. 〜に反対して
step out of ~: 〜の外へ出る

 

解説

Edmund Burke:
エドマンド・バーク
（1729年1月12日 – 1797年7月9日）アイルランド生まれのイギリスの政治思想家、哲学者、政治家、美学者。ホイッグ党の有力指導者。「フランス革命についての省察」で革命を厳しく批判。イギリスの伝統的な政治体制を擁護し，保守主義の理念を提起した。また「崇高」の概念を解明して一八世紀ドイツ美学に影響を与えた。「保守主義の父」として知られる。

陰陽図

ヒンドゥー教の三大神ヒンドゥー教の三大神
(Trinity – Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva)

僧璨
（そうさん、生年不詳(推定500年～505年頃) – 大業2年10月15日（606年11月20日））
中国・隋代の僧。禅宗の第三祖（開祖は達磨、二祖は慧可）。
「璨」とは、「美しい珠」、「光り輝く宝玉(宝石)」のことである。唐の玄宗皇帝により『(鑑)智禅師』の諡を賜った。

『信心銘』
四言一四六字から成る韻文。一巻。北周・隋代の僧璨（そうさん）作。信心不二の禅の極致を説く。
信心銘の内容はこちら→ http://www.shomonji.or.jp/zazen/shinjinmei.pdf

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/8ba30286a21ea18b38ed3ab29dbfe9c8.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/014fed334d2fea00695ca4801dfe9ed1.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/f2855aec98a8e7e5829253adec53e1eb.mp3]

No.08

Some people think that religion is an adaptation evolved both by cultural and biological evolution to make groups to cohere, in part for the purpose of trusting each other, and then being more effective at competing with other groups. I think that’s probably right, although this is a controversial issue. But I’m particularly interested in religion, and the origin of religion, and in what it does to us and for us. Because I think that the greatest wonder in the world is not the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is really simple. It’s just a lot of rock, and then a lot of water and wind, and a lot of time, and you get the Grand Canyon. It’s not that complicated. This is what’s really complicated, that there were people living in places like the Grand Canyon, cooperating with each other, or on the savannahs of Africa, or on the frozen shores of Alaska, and then some of these villages grew into the mighty cities of Babylon, and Rome, and Tenochtitlan. How did this happen? This is an absolute miracle, much harder to explain than the Grand Canyon.

The answer, I think, is that they used every tool in the toolbox. It took all of our moral psychology to create these cooperative groups. Yes, you do need to be concerned about harm, you do need a psychology of justice. But it really helps to organize a group if you can have sub-groups, and if those sub-groups have some internal structure, and if you have some ideology that tells people to suppress their carnality, to pursue higher, nobler ends. And now we get to the crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives. Because liberals reject three of these foundations. They say “No, let’s celebrate diversity, not common in-group membership.” They say, “Let’s question authority.” And they say, “Keep your laws off my body.”

 

ボキャブラリー

Some people think that religion is an adaptation evolved both by cultural and biological evolution to make groups to cohere, in part for the purpose of trusting each other, and then being more effective at competing with other groups. I think that’s probably right, although this is a controversial issue. But I’m particularly interested in religion, and the origin of religion, and in what it does to us and for us. Because I think that the greatest wonder in the world is not the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is really simple. It’s just a lot of rock, and then a lot of water and wind, and a lot of time, and you get the Grand Canyon. It’s not that complicated. This is what’s really complicated, that there were people living in places like the Grand Canyon, cooperating with each other, or on the savannahs of Africa, or on the frozen shores of Alaska, and then some of these villages grew into the mighty cities of Babylon, and Rome, and Tenochtitlan. How did this happen? This is an absolute miracle, much harder to explain than the Grand Canyon.

The answer, I think, is that they used every tool in the toolbox. It took all of our moral psychology to create these cooperative groups. Yes, you do need to be concerned about harm, you do need a psychology of justice. But it really helps to organize a group if you can have sub-groups, and if those sub-groups have some internal structure, and if you have some ideology that tells people to suppress their carnality, to pursue higher, nobler ends. And now we get to the crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives. Because liberals reject three of these foundations. They say “No, let’s celebrate diversity, not common in-group membership.” They say, “Let’s question authority.” And they say, “Keep your laws off my body.”

 

adaptation: n. 適合、適応、順応；脚色、改作、編曲
evolve: vt. （徐々に）発達させる、進化させる、発展させる
cohere: 結合する、まとまる、団結する
in part: 一部分において、一つには、ある程度、いくぶん
for the purpose of ~: 〜の目的で、〜のために
effective: a. 効果的な、効果がある、効き目のある；印象的な、人目を引く
controversial: a. 議論を呼ぶ、議論の余地のある、論争の、異論の多い
issue: n. （議論の）争点、論点；（問題の）核心、急所
the Grand Canyon: グランド・キャニオン【略】GCN
complicated: a. 複雑な、入り組んだ、込み入った；理解しにくい、分かりにくい
savannah: n. サバンナ（熱帯、亜熱帯の草原）
mighty: a. 強力な、強大な
Babylon: バビロン（メソポタミア地方の古代都市。ユーフラテス川の東岸にあったバビロニア地方の古代都市。バビロン第一王朝の首都。新バビロニア時代には世界的都市となる。遺跡はイラクのバグダッドの南ヒラの近くにある。）
Tenochtitlan: テノチティトラン（アステカの首都。アステカAztecaは１４２８年頃から１５２１年まで北米のメキシコ中央部に栄えたメソアメリカ文明の国家。）
absolute: a. 【名詞の前で】まったくの、ひどい；完全な、明白な、確かな、
toolbox: n. 道具箱、工具箱
concerned: a. （について、ということを）心配する、懸念する、気遣う、配慮する（about）
justice: n. 正義、公正、正当性、公平
subgroup: n. 下位集団、小群、下位群、部分群、亜群
suppress: vt. （考えや気持ちを意識的に）抑える、我慢する；鎮圧する、抑圧する；抑制する
carnality: n. 肉欲、身体化、限世欲
pursue: vt. 〜を追求する、追跡する、追いかける
crux: n. (the~) （問題・疑問・議論などの）最重要点、核心 (the crux of the matter 問題の核心)
in-group: n. 排他的な仲間集団、内集団、派閥
question: vt. 〜に疑問を抱く、異議を唱える；〜について尋ねる、を尋問する

 

解説

グランド・キャニオン（Grand Canyon）はアメリカ合衆国アリゾナ州北部にある峡谷である。コロラド高原がコロラド川の浸食作用によって削り出された地形であり、先カンブリア時代からペルム紀までの地層の重なりを目の当たりにできるところでもある。地球の歴史を秘めている価値と共に、その雄大な景観から合衆国の初期の国立公園の一つであるグランド・キャニオン国立公園に含まれている。さらに1979年には世界遺産に登録された。（ウィキペディアより）

バビロン

テノチティトラン

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/26a21c99d66a59d5404caf520dd7edc1.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/a5c8d5b05c0652f0eea97a7d5741bef2.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/473b7581c0762d10b66a97eef33acff2.mp3]

No.07

So this triptych, these three panels portray the timeless truth that order tends to decay. The truth of social entropy. But lest you think this is just some part of the Christian imagination where Christians have this weird problem with pleasure, here’s the same story, the same progression, told in a paper that was published in Nature a few years ago, in which Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter had people play a commons dilemma. A game in which you give people money, and then, on each round of the game, they can put money into a common pot, and then the experimenter doubles what’s in there, and then it’s all divided among the players. So it’s a really nice analog for all sorts of environmental issues, where we’re asking people to make a sacrifice and they themselves don’t really benefit from their own sacrifice. But you really want everybody else to sacrifice, but everybody has a temptation to a free ride. And what happens is that, at first, people start off reasonably cooperative — and this is all played anonymously. On the first round, people give about half of the money that they can. But they quickly see, “You know what, other people aren’t doing so much though. I don’t want to be a sucker. I’m not going to cooperate.” And so cooperation quickly decays from reasonably good, down to close to zero.

 

But then — and here’s the trick — Fehr and Gachter said, on the seventh round, they told people, “You know what? New rule. If you want to give some of your own money to punish people who aren’t contributing, you can do that.” And as soon as people heard about the punishment issue going on, cooperation shoots up. It shoots up and it keeps going up. There’s a lot of research showing that to solve cooperative problems, it really helps. It’s not enough to just appeal to people’s good motives. It really helps to have some sort of punishment. Even if it’s just shame or embarrassment or gossip, you need some sort of punishment to bring people, when they’re in large groups, to cooperate. There’s even some recent research suggesting that religion — priming God, making people think about God — often, in some situations, leads to more cooperative, more prosocial behavior.

 

ボキャブラリー

So this triptych, these three panels portray the timeless truth that order tends to decay. The truth of social entropy. But lest you think this is just some part of the Christian imagination where Christians have this weird problem with pleasure, here’s the same story, the same progression, told in a paper that was published in Nature a few years ago, in which Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter had people play a commons dilemma. A game in which you give people money, and then, on each round of the game, they can put money into a common pot, and then the experimenter doubles what’s in there, and then it’s all divided among the players. So it’s a really nice analog for all sorts of environmental issues, where we’re asking people to make a sacrifice and they themselves don’t really benefit from their own sacrifice. But you really want everybody else to sacrifice, but everybody has a temptation to a free ride. And what happens is that, at first, people start off reasonably cooperative — and this is all played anonymously. On the first round, people give about half of the money that they can. But they quickly see, “You know what, other people aren’t doing so much though. I don’t want to be a sucker. I’m not going to cooperate.” And so cooperation quickly decays from reasonably good, down to close to zero.

 

But then — and here’s the trick — Fehr and Gachter said, on the seventh round, they told people, “You know what? New rule. If you want to give some of your own money to punish people who aren’t contributing, you can do that.” And as soon as people heard about the punishment issue going on, cooperation shoots up. It shoots up and it keeps going up. There’s a lot of research showing that to solve cooperative problems, it really helps. It’s not enough to just appeal to people’s good motives. It really helps to have some sort of punishment. Even if it’s just shame or embarrassment or gossip, you need some sort of punishment to bring people, when they’re in large groups, to cooperate. There’s even some recent research suggesting that religion — priming God, making people think about God — often, in some situations, leads to more cooperative, more prosocial behavior.

 

portray: vt.
timeless: a. 永久の、永遠の
order: n. 秩序、自然の理法、道理；健康な状態、常態
decay: vi. 腐敗する、腐る、悪化する、衰える、崩壊する
entropy: n. 拡散化、一様化、無秩序化、衰退、エントロピー
lest: conj. 〜しないように、〜するといけないから
weird: a. 奇妙な、風変わりな、変な、変わった
progression: n. 進歩、進展、発展、進行、前進
Ernst Fehr: アーンスト・フェール（オーストリアの経済学者。チューリヒ大学教授）
Simon Gachter: サイモン・ゲイシュター（オーストリアの経済学者。ノッティンガム大学教授）
dilemma: n. ジレンマ、板挟み、難問、窮地、困難
round: n. ラウンド、一試合、一勝負
pot: n. ポット、つぼ、かめ、鍋
experimenter: n. 実験者
double: vt. 〜を倍にする
divide: vt. 〜を分ける、分割する、分け合う、分担する
analog: n. 類似物、類似体、類似環境、相似器官
sacrifice: n. 犠牲、いけにえ
make a sacrifice: 犠牲にする
free ride: 無料乗車、ただ乗り
start off: 始める、動き出す、着手する
reasonably: adv. 合理的に、道理にかなって、まずまず、かなり
cooperative: a. 協力的な、助け合う、共同して働く
anonymously: adv. 匿名で
sucker: n. カモ、だまされやすい人、言いなりになる人
trick: n. たくらみ、策略、計略；こつ、うまいやり方、秘訣
punish: vt. 〜を罰する、懲らしめる、罰則を科す
punishment: n. 罰、刑罰、処罰、懲罰
shoot up: 急上昇する、急に成長する、急騰する
appeal to: 〜に訴える、〜の心に訴える、〜に懇願する
motive: n. 動機、真意、誘引、理由
shame: n. 恥、恥ずかしさ、不名誉、羞恥心
embarrassment: n. 決まり悪さ、困惑、狼狽
gossip: n. うわさ、うわさ話、陰口
prime: vt. 〜を準備する、用意する、呼び水を入れる
lead to ~: 〜に通じる、つながる、至る、結局〜となる、〜を引き起こす、もたらす
prosocial: a. 〈行動が〉積極的な、人の力になる、社会的に受け入れる

 

解説

アーンスト・フェールとサイモン・ゲイシュターの論文はこちら → “Altruistic punishment in humans”

 

 

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/d3a77f73ad5d30e06946b7384fa8d1e1.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aa9fd4de57617eee0faa6932b8ed8a78.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/58b16ecf1a960b6aa5ca706f93092f70.mp3]

 

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。

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/?attachment_id=6838] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/?attachment_id=6837] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/?attachment_id=6839]

 

No.05

I believe these are the five best candidates for what’s written on the first draft of the moral mind. I think this is what we come with, at least a preparedness to learn all of these things. But as my son, Max, grows up in a liberal college town, how is this first draft going to get revised? And how will it end up being different from a kid born 60 miles south of us in Lynchburg, Virginia? To think about culture variation, let’s try a different metaphor. If there really are five systems at work in the mind — five sources of intuitions and emotions — then we can think of the moral mind as being like one of those audio equalizers that has five channels, where you can set it to a different setting on every channel. And my colleagues, Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham, and I, made a questionnaire, which we put up on the Web at www.YourMorals.org. And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can too. Here are the results. Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens. On the left, I’ve plotted the scores for liberals; on the right, those for conservatives; in the middle, the moderates. The blue line shows you people’s responses on the average of all the harm questions.

So, as you see, people care about harm and care issues. They give high endorsement of these sorts of statements all across the board, but as you also see, liberals care about it a little more than conservatives — the line slopes down. Same story for fairness. But look at the other three lines. For liberals, the scores are very low. Liberals are basically saying, “No, this is not morality. In-group, authority, purity — this stuff has nothing to do with morality. I reject it.” But as people get more conservative, the values rise. We can say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel, or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.

 

ボキャブラリー

I believe these are the five best candidates for what’s written on the first draft of the moral mind. I think this is what we come with, at least a preparedness to learn all of these things. But as my son, Max, grows up in a liberal college town, how is this first draft going to get revised? And how will it end up being different from a kid born 60 miles south of us in Lynchburg, Virginia? To think about culture variation, let’s try a different metaphor. If there really are five systems at work in the mind — five sources of intuitions and emotions — then we can think of the moral mind as being like one of those audio equalizers that has five channels, where you can set it to a different setting on every channel. And my colleagues, Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham, and I, made a questionnaire, which we put up on the Web at www.YourMorals.org. And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can too. Here are the results. Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens. On the left, I’ve plotted the scores for liberals; on the right, those for conservatives; in the middle, the moderates. The blue line shows you people’s responses on the average of all the harm questions.

So, as you see, people care about harm and care issues. They give high endorsement of these sorts of statements all across the board, but as you also see, liberals care about it a little more than conservatives — the line slopes down. Same story for fairness. But look at the other three lines. For liberals, the scores are very low. Liberals are basically saying, “No, this is not morality. In-group, authority, purity — this stuff has nothing to do with morality. I reject it.” But as people get more conservative, the values rise. We can say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel, or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.

 

candidate: n. 候補者、志願者、候補
at least: 少なくとも、最低でも
preparedness: n. 準備（されていること）、覚悟
liberal: a. リベラルな、自由主義の、自由を認める、進歩的な
revise: vt. （意見など）を変える、改める；（見積もり・計画など）を見直す
end up: 結局［最後には］〜になる、〜で終わる、結局〜と分かる、最後は〜に落ち着く
variation: n. 変化、変動、差異
metaphor: n. 隠喩、暗喩、メタファー
intuition: n. 直感（力）、直観（力）；（直感で得られた）認識、洞察
audio: n., a. 音（の）、音響（の）、音声（の）
equalizer: n. イコライザー、平行装置、等化器、等しくするもの
Brian Nosek: ブライアン・ノセク（バージニア大の心理学教授）
Jesse Graham: ジェシー・グラハム（南カリフォルニア大学の心理学助教）
questionnaire: n. アンケート、質問（書・表）
put up: 示す、掲示する、公開する、発表する、提供する
plot: vt. 〜を座標で示す、〜を描く、書く
score: n. スコア、点数、成績、得点
harm: n. 損害、危害、悪意、悪気
care about: 〜を大切にする、大事に思う、気に掛ける；〜に関心がある、〜を心配する
endorsement: n. (〜の)支持、承認 (of, for)
across the board: 全体にわたって、全体的に、一律に、おしなべて、あまねく
slope down: 下り坂になる、傾斜している
story: n. （経験・事件についての）話、説明
in-group: n. 内集団、排他的な仲間集団、組織内組織、派閥
authority: n. 権威、権力；威厳、威光
have nothing to do with ~:〈人事物が〉〈事〉とは何の関係[かかわり]もない; 〈事が〉〈人〉の知った事ではない
reject: vt. 拒絶する、拒否する、拒む、受け入れない、認めない、退ける
more of ~: いっそう多くの〜、〜よりももっと

 

解説

イコライザー
イコライザー (Equalizer) とは、音声信号の周波数特性を変更する音響機器である。イコライザーを使って、音声信号の特定の周波数帯域 （倍音成分や高調波成分あるいはノイズ成分）を強調したり、逆に減少させる事ができ、全体的な音質の補正（平均化）や改善（音像の明確化など）、あるいは積極的な音作りに使用される。
単語本来の意味は「均一化（equalize）するもの」で、具体例としてマイクロフォンやスピーカーやレコーダー（場合によっては録音環境やリスニング環境全体を含む）の周波数特性の補正や、マスタリングにおける曲毎の音質的差異の平均化 といった例を挙げる事ができる。ただし現在では後述のように、周波数特性の均一化だけでなく、より積極的な音作りにも活用されている。（Wikipediaより）

Macのイコライザー

アンケートの結果（アメリカ人２３０００人）

YourMorals.Orgのサイトはこちら　→　http://www.yourmorals.org/

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/b5ad2e6842c9bb652bb08436a4af520e.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/a3f64389e2e660b0e52a3fb460913714.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/a62e6ff97d6c29cefd8d08f9fa7d154a.mp3]

No.04

The first one is harm/care. We’re all mammals here, we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming that makes us really bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others, especially the weak and vulnerable. It gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm. This moral foundation underlies about 70 percent of the moral statements I’ve heard here at TED.

The second foundation is fairness/reciprocity. There’s actually ambiguous evidence as to whether you find reciprocity in other animals, but the evidence for people could not be clearer. This Norman Rockwell painting is called “The Golden Rule,” and we heard about this from Karen Armstrong, of course, as the foundation of so many religions. That second foundation underlies the other 30 percent of the moral statements I’ve heard here at TED.

The third foundation is in-group/loyalty. You do find groups in the animal kingdom — you do find cooperative groups — but these groups are always either very small or they’re all siblings. It’s only among humans that you find very large groups of people who are able to cooperate, join together into groups, but in this case, groups that are united to fight other groups. This probably comes from our long history of tribal living, of tribal psychology. And this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable that even when we don’t have tribes, we go ahead and make them, because it’s fun. (Laughter) Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient, ancient drives.

The fourth foundation is authority/respect. Here you see submissive gestures from two members of very closely related species. But authority in humans is not so closely based on power and brutality, as it is in other primates. It’s based on more voluntary deference, and even elements of love, at times.

The fifth foundation is purity/sanctity. This painting is called “The Allegory Of Chastity,” but purity’s not just about suppressing female sexuality. It’s about any kind of ideology, any kind of idea that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body, by controlling what you put into your body. And while the political right may moralize sex much more, the political left is really doing a lot of it with food. Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays, and a lot of it is ideas about purity, about what you’re willing to touch, or put into your body.

 

ボキャブラリー

The first one is harm/care. We’re all mammals here, we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming that makes us really bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others, especially the weak and vulnerable. It gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm. This moral foundation underlies about 70 percent of the moral statements I’ve heard here at TED.

The second foundation is fairness/reciprocity. There’s actually ambiguous evidence as to whether you find reciprocity in other animals, but the evidence for people could not be clearer. This Norman Rockwell painting is called “The Golden Rule,” and we heard about this from Karen Armstrong, of course, as the foundation of so many religions. That second foundation underlies the other 30 percent of the moral statements I’ve heard here at TED.

The third foundation is in-group/loyalty. You do find groups in the animal kingdom — you do find cooperative groups — but these groups are always either very small or they’re all siblings. It’s only among humans that you find very large groups of people who are able to cooperate, join together into groups, but in this case, groups that are united to fight other groups. This probably comes from our long history of tribal living, of tribal psychology. And this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable that even when we don’t have tribes, we go ahead and make them, because it’s fun. (Laughter) Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient, ancient drives.

The fourth foundation is authority/respect. Here you see submissive gestures from two members of very closely related species. But authority in humans is not so closely based on power and brutality, as it is in other primates. It’s based on more voluntary deference, and even elements of love, at times.

The fifth foundation is purity/sanctity. This painting is called “The Allegory Of Chastity,” but purity‘s not just about suppressing female sexuality. It’s about any kind of ideology, any kind of idea that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body, by controlling what you put into your body. And while the political right may moralize sex much more, the political left is really doing a lot of it with food. Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays, and a lot of it is ideas about purity, about what you’re willing to touch, or put into your body.

 

mammal: n. 哺乳動物、哺乳類
neural: a. 神経の、神経系の
hormonal : a. ホルモンの
bond: vi. 接着する、結合する；きずなで結ばれる、結束する、まとまる
compassion: n. 思いやり、同情、憐れみ
vulnerable: a. 傷つきやすい、もろい、脆弱な
underlie: vt. 〜の根底にある、基礎にある、根拠をなす
statement: n. 発言、意見；陳述、声明
ambiguous: a. あいまいな、多義的な、不明瞭な
reciprocity: n. 相互関係、互恵
Norman Rockwell: ノーマン・ロックウェル（1894〜1978。アメリカの日常を描いたイラストレーター・画家。
The Golden Rule: 『黄金律』（ノーマン•ロックウェルの作品。解説参照。）
Karen Armstrong: カレン・アームストロング（イギリスの宗教学者。TEDで講演している。）
http://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule?language=ja
the animal kingdom: 動物界
cooperative: a. 協力的な、協同の
sibling: n. （男女の別なく）きょうだい
cooperate: vi. 協力する、協同する
tribal: a. 部族の、種族の
pleasurable: a. 楽しい、愉快な、気持ちのよい
exercise: vt. 〜を働かせる、使う、用いる、発揮する、行使する、発動する
drive: n. 衝動、動因、欲動；気力、意欲、やる気
submissive: a. 服従的な、従順な
brutality: n. 残忍性、蛮行、野蛮、残虐行為
voluntary: a. 自発的な、自由意志の
deference: n. 服従、恭順、敬意、尊敬
element: n. 要素、要因
at times: 時々、時には
The Allegory Of Chastity: ハンス・メムリンクの画。
purity: n. 純潔、清浄、純粋さ
suppress: vt. 〜を鎮圧する、制圧する；〜を規制する；〜を抑える、我慢する、押し殺す
ideology: n. 観念形態、イデオロギー、信条、信念体系
attain: vt. 手に入れる、獲得する；実現する、成就する
virtue: n. 善、美徳、徳、美点；純潔、貞節
political right: 政治的右派
political left: 政治的左派
nowadays: adv. 最近は、近頃は、今日では

 

解説

Norman Rockwell

The Golden Rule

ゴールデン・ルールというと、内容が深遠で、人生にとってこの上なく有益な教訓のことを言う。通例、キリストの山上の垂訓の一節「何事でも人々からしてほしいと望むことは、人々にもそのとおりにせよ」〈マタイによる福音書・七〉を指す。

ノーマン・ロックウェルの絵の中でも、この”The Shinner”は大好きです。

Karen Armstrong カレン・アームストロング

ハンス・メムリンク（Hans Memling, 1430年/1440年頃 – 1494年）15世紀フランドルの画家。

Hans Memling: The Allegory Of Chastity

 

現在「モラル根源理論」として、以下の６つの根源があげられている。

The Six Foundations
1. Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
2. Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
3. Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
4. Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
5. Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
6. Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト

[audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/f2ea5bf0c55cf8641d4916d48b2c9acc.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/d070126c665fe9ad3d777102af72cc52.mp3] [audio:http://akioiwai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/d41fd0b62f205a0572217d04a0a8d92f.mp3]

No.03

But I’m here today to give you a choice. You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions, or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology and step outside the moral matrix. Now, because I know — (Applause) — OK, I assume that answers my question. I was going to ask you which one you picked, but no need. You’re all high in openness to experience, and besides, it looks like it might even taste good, and you’re all epicures. So anyway, let’s go with the red pill. Let’s study some moral psychology and see where it takes us.

Let’s start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from? The worst idea in all of psychology is the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth. Developmental psychology has shown that kids come into the world already knowing so much about the physical and social worlds, and programmed to make it really easy for them to learn certain things and hard to learn others. The best definition of innateness I’ve ever seen — this just clarifies so many things for me — is from the brain scientist Gary Marcus. He says, “The initial organization of the brain does not depend that much on experience. Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises. Built-in doesn’t mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience.” OK, so what’s on the first draft of the moral mind? To find out, my colleague, Craig Joseph, and I read through the literature on anthropology, on culture variation in morality and also on evolutionary psychology, looking for matches. What are the sorts of things that people talk about across disciplines? That you find across cultures and even across species? We found five — five best matches, which we call the five foundations of morality.

 

ボキャブラリー

But I’m here today to give you a choice. You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions, or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology and step outside the moral matrix. Now, because I know — (Applause) — OK, I assume that answers my question. I was going to ask you which one you picked, but no need. You’re all high in openness to experience, and besides, it looks like it might even taste good, and you’re all epicures. So anyway, let’s go with the red pill. Let’s study some moral psychology and see where it takes us.

Let’s start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from? The worst idea in all of psychology is the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth. Developmental psychology has shown that kids come into the world already knowing so much about the physical and social worlds, and programmed to make it really easy for them to learn certain things and hard to learn others. The best definition of innateness I’ve ever seen — this just clarifies so many things for me — is from the brain scientist Gary Marcus. He says, “The initial organization of the brain does not depend that much on experience. Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises. Built-in doesn’t mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience.” OK, so what’s on the first draft of the moral mind? To find out, my colleague, Craig Joseph, and I read through the literature on anthropology, on culture variation in morality and also on evolutionary psychology, looking for matches. What are the sorts of things that people talk about across disciplines? That you find across cultures and even across species? We found five — five best matches, which we call the five foundations of morality.

 

pill: n. 錠剤、丸薬
comforting: a. 安心させる、ほっとさせる、慰めになる
delusion: n. 思い違い、妄想
moral psychology: n. 道徳心理学
step: vi. 一歩進む、歩く、脚を踏み入れる
assume: vt. 〜と仮定する、見なす、思い込む
epicure: n. 美食家、食通；（飲食物にぜいたくな）快楽主義者
blank slate: n. 白紙状態（= tabula rasa：何も書かれていない書板の意。感覚的経験をもつ前の心の状態を比喩的に表現したもの。人間の知識の起源に関し、生得観念を否定する経験論の主張を概括する言葉。）
at birth: 生まれた時に、生まれた時は、出生時における
developmental psychology: n. 発達心理学
program: vt. 〜するように仕組む、プログラムする
innateness: n. 生得的なもの、生まれつき備わっているもの、本質性、内在性
innate: a. （能力・資質などが）生得的な、生まれつき備わっている；（信条などが）生来の、生まれながらの
clarify: vt. 〜を明らかにする、分かりやすくする、明確にする
Gary Marcus: ゲアリー・マーカス。心理学者。ニューヨーク大学教授。同大学幼児言語センター所長。
draft: n. 設計図、下書き、草案、草稿
revise: vt. 変える、見直す、修正する、改める
unmalleable: a. 順応性のない
malleable: a. 〈金属などが〉打ち延ばしできる、可鍛性の、展性のある；〈人の性格などが〉影響を受けやすい、柔軟な、融通が利く
Craig Joseph: クレイグ・ジョーゼフ。
literature: n.〔特定分野の〕文献、論文
anthropology: n. 人類学、文化人類学
evolutionary psychology: n. 進化心理学
match: n. 一致、似合うもの、釣り合ったもの
discipline: n. 訓練、修養、しつけ、鍛錬；学習［訓練・修練］法
species: n. 種；人類、人種
foundation: n. 基礎、根拠、根幹；土台、基礎、基盤
morality: n. 道徳、倫理、道義；道徳性、倫理性、道義性；徳性、倫理観

 

解説

Gary Marcus                                    Craig Joseph