英文自修160：生来就有的，未必占上风

本系列内容英文原文取自BBC Thought for the Day节目网站。

转载、翻译、中文标题：武太白

------------------------

Thought for the Day 20150428 Giles Fraser

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

汤姆•斯多帕德正于国家剧院上演的新剧里有一小段说到一位无神论科学家，显然是在攻击宗教，他把拉斐尔著名的“圣母与子”的画作说成是：“竭力使（自身）基因生存最大化的女人”。他坚持认为没有什么利他主义，所有人类行为——事实上所有动物行为——根本上都是建立在自身利益之上的。基因存在就是为了最大化其自身生存与再殖。

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 behaviour is a version of self-interest, why do we do this?

但是对于这种并不陌生的假说，马上就可以加以反驳。周六尼泊尔发生了强烈地震。上千人丧生，许多人无家可归。英国人民的反应是，本周一直在向紧急赈灾基金捐款——捐款支援他们从来没有见过的人，援助我们绝大部分人从没去过的地方。如果我们所有行为都是自身利益的不同变体，我们为什么要这样做呢？

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 behaviour is aimed towards those who are genetically similar to 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.

1964年，威廉•汉密尔顿提出了一种解释，称为亲缘选择。他说利他主义与“基因就是为自身利益而编制的”这一信条并没有什么不一致，因为利他主义行为指向的是基因上与我们类似的人，比如，是为我们的亲族服务的。在此类情况下， 尽管我们可能做出了个体的牺牲，却可能是在增进我们基因池的再殖机会——这才是关键。

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.

但我在尼泊尔并没有亲属。我想我也不认识尼泊尔的谁。实际上一些人甚至捐款保护当地的动物，而我可看不出这怎么能被看成是最大化捐献者的基因组的再殖机会。

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.

此后，1970年代，另一位进化生物学家提出了新观点，认为我有利他主义的行为，是因为这样做增大了他人也这样对待我们的几率。这就是一种“投桃报李”的安排。

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.

但是尼泊尔的人们可是世界上最贫困的群体之一。我怀疑如果英国发生地震，他们可能没有多少钱能捐出来。但我们还是捐款（给他们）了。

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.

但是斯多帕德的剧作，《困难的问题》，把一位宗教角色安排成利他主义的热烈拥趸。我却希望不要这样安排。因为尽管事实上全球各种宗教传统都强调先为他人着想，道德却不依赖于上帝。实际上，仅仅为了此后某时的上天回报而为善，会破坏利他主义精神，而不是支持这种精神。为善自身就是回报。

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.

这也就是为什么科学和宗教之间并无冲突。“让我们设法教会人们慷慨、利他，因为我们生来自私”——不，这不是奥古斯丁谈论原罪。这是理查德•道金斯在《自私基因》中所说。而你会感到惊讶的是，我完全赞同他的意见。生物学可能与利他主义有仗要打。但是，如同道金斯所说，也正如我们对尼泊尔的慷慨解囊所展示的，我们生来就有的未必时刻占上风。