关于道德品行的英语美文
在我们的社会里,任何人都要受法纪、道德的约束,决不允许为所欲为。小编精心收集了关于道德品行的英语美文，供大家欣赏学习!
关于道德品行的英语美文篇1
Time to be honest.
诚实是需要时间的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一个简单的实验却为我们提供了一种鼓励诚实的途径。
"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‘恶'?"这是由阿姆斯特丹大学的一位心理学家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科学》杂志上发表的一篇论文中所提出的问题. Shalvi博士和他的两位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大学的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潜在的骗子有时间对他们的行为作出充分考虑，他们撒谎的冲动会否因此增强或减弱呢?换句话说，撒谎究竟是人的一种本能行为，还是经过仔细分析后所作出的选择呢?
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.
研究人员为他们的实验选择了一样合适的工具—骰子—罪恶活动的标志。他们想查明的是：人们是在摇骰后立即被询问其结果时容易撒谎呢，还是在他们获得一定的思考余地的时候呢?
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
在我们的社会里,任何人都要受法纪、道德的约束,决不允许为所欲为。小编精心收集了关于道德品行的英语美文，供大家欣赏学习!
关于道德品行的英语美文篇1
Time to be honest.
诚实是需要时间的。
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness.
一个简单的实验却为我们提供了一种鼓励诚实的途径。
"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‘恶'?"这是由阿姆斯特丹大学的一位心理学家—— Shaul Shalvi，在《心理科学》杂志上发表的一篇论文中所提出的问题. Shalvi博士和他的两位同事——以色列Ben-Gurion大学的Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meyer，希望知道如果那些潜在的骗子有时间对他们的行为作出充分考虑，他们撒谎的冲动会否因此增强或减弱呢?换句话说，撒谎究竟是人的一种本能行为，还是经过仔细分析后所作出的选择呢?
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.
研究人员为他们的实验选择了一样合适的工具—骰子—罪恶活动的标志。他们想查明的是：人们是在摇骰后立即被询问其结果时容易撒谎呢，还是在他们获得一定的思考余地的时候呢?
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.
实验前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士给作为实验对象的76位志愿者每人发了一个摇盅和一粒骰子。参加者被告知他们中的一部分被随机抽选出来的，会依据其掷出的骰子点数而得到相应数目的奖励，每点10谢克尔(约合2.5美元)。接着他们便按照指示摇盅，开盅查看结果，记住点数。然后他们被要求多摇两次，以让自己确信骰子中没有被灌铅。最后，让他们自己在电脑终端里输入第一次所掷出的点数。有一半参加者被要求在20秒内完成整个实验流程，而另一半则没有时间限制。
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.
研究人员当然无法知晓每个参加者实际掷出点数。但他们知道，依照统计学规律，如果所有人都能做到如实上报点数，那么这次实验的平均掷出点数应为3.5。这就为研究人员提供了一个测量参加者诚实程度的依据。他们发现，那组被要求于20秒内输入结果的的参加者所上报的掷出点数平均值为4.6，而另外没有时间压力的参加者的为3.9.显然这两组人都撒谎了，不过在那些有充分时间进行考虑的参加者中撒谎的较少。
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.
第二次实验则验证了这一结果。这次是另一群不同的志愿者被要求掷骰子，不过只掷一次。同上次一样，他们中一半人被限制了时间，并且由于此次只需掷一次骰子，时间限制也从20s缩短为8s.其余一般则想考虑多久都行。
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.
在这次实验中，前面有时间限制的一半人所上报点数的平均值为4.4，而没有时间限制的所上报的平均值为3.4。换言之，后者如实上报了数据。
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，得出的结论是——至少在此次摇骰作弊的案例中如此—"人性本‘恶'"。在缺少时间进行考虑的情况下，人们会进入默认的"撒谎"模式。然而，如果他们获得了那样的考虑时间，一般会作出道德上正确的选择。所以，如果你希望某人对你诚实，那么千万别逼迫他立即做出出决定啊
关于道德品行的英语美文篇2
道德哲学 无关善恶
Moral philosophy.
道德哲学。
Goodness has nothing to do with it.
无关善恶。
Utilitarians are not nice people.
功利主义者并不是好人。
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."
从历史洪流的角度来看，杰里米·贝萨姆和约翰·斯图阿特·密尔通常都被认为是好人。他们一起合作建立了现在被称为功利主义的道德理论。该理论的核心目的可以被贝萨姆的一句格言很好地概括"道德和立法的基础在于让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.
听上去很不错，但当你开始把这套理论应用在具体事件上时问题就出来了。比方说，功利主义者可能赞成对恐怖主义疑犯用刑。大家都明白，这是为了其它所有人好。哥伦比亚大学的丹尼尔·巴特尔斯和康奈尔大学的大卫·皮扎罗受到类似这样的观察启发，提出了哪一类型的人对生活的看法最接近功利主义这一有趣问题。他们的论文最近在认知科学上发表，其中得到的结论让人不安。
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.
测量一个人有多大的意愿以功利主义方式行事的一个传统方法是电车实验。参加者进行一个想象实验，实验里有一节失控的有轨电车或火车车厢。该实验有很多版本，不管哪一个都要求参加者进行选择，而且不管怎么选都会有人死亡。例如：有五个工人在失控车厢前方的轨道上。如果实验参加者作为故事中的一个旁观者不进行干涉这五个人就死定了。参加者被告知他在铁道上方的一座桥上，身边有一个身材肥胖的陌生人，同时参加者知道自己的体重太轻，无法停止火车，但如果把那个陌生人推下去，他的巨大身躯将会停止火车，让五个工人得救。不幸的是这么做会杀死该陌生人。
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%.
巴特尔斯博士和皮扎罗博士从之前的研究中得知大约90%的参加者会拒绝杀死一个陌生人救出五个人的功利主义行为。但是之前的研究没人提出过剩下的10%人的性格这一问题。
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.
为了找出结果，这两个研究者对208个大学生进行了一系列电车实验，并以一到四分的机制来给他们的答案中的功利主义成分打分。参加者也要进行一系列分析个人心理的测试。测试包括这些问题，"我喜欢看人打架"，"应付别人最好的办法就是说他们想听的话"，以及"认真想想的话，生活没什么意思，每天起来真不值"。参加者要在一个连续的尺度上标出他们对每一个问题的看法，从"完全同意"到"完全不同意"。这三个问题按次序分别是为了测量一个人的冷血程度，厚黑程度以及他觉得生活是否有意义的程度，其它问题也是围绕着测量这三个方面而设计的。
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.
巴特尔斯博士和皮扎罗博士然后开始寻找人格测试和电车实验结果的相关性。他们发现在面对道德两难(将胖子推下去)时回答体现功利主义的参加者和冷血变态心理，厚黑主义以及觉得生活没意义的想法有很强的关联。这表示虽然功利主义者能够增加人类整体的幸福值，但他们自己并不是什么快乐的人。
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.
这并不意味着功利主义是错误的。任何法律的制定-当年贝萨姆和密尔希望借其理论能够有所助益的主要行为之一-不可避免的需要牺牲一部分人的利益。功利主义提供了一个比较合理的框架来决定应该牺牲谁的利益。不过巴特尔斯博士和皮扎罗博士的研究提出了应该让哪种人来制定法律的质疑。冷血，厚黑的厌恶人类者?从表面上来看，是的。
关于道德品行的英语美文篇3
The psychology of morality
道德心理学
Time to be honest
时间让人诚实
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness
由简单实验总结出让人诚实的方法
IS SIN original?
难道人性本恶?
That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at the University ofAmsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science.
阿姆斯特丹大学心理学家Shaul Shalvi在《心理科学》期刊上刚发表的一篇论文谈到了这个问题。
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博士和他的来自以色列Ben-Gurion大学的同事们 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye希望知道当一个想要撒谎的人如果有时间对他的行为思考时，他们说谎的动机是增加还是降低。
Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
换句话说，撒谎，是一种应激本能还是经过慢慢算计的?
Appropriately, the researchers’apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity, the gambling die.
研究人员为他们的实验提供了一个很合适的实验工具，赌博用的骰子—本身就象征着罪恶的活动。
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.
他们想看看人们到底是在什么情况下更容易撒谎，是在需要立即报告骰子点数的情况下还是有足够的时间的情况下。
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76volunteers a six-sided die and a cup.
为了进行实验，Ben-Gurion、 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye博士为76个志愿参与实验的人每人一个六面的骰子和一个杯子。
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.
他们告诉参与实验的人，他们随意摇出的骰子的点数，每一点可获得10谢克尔。
They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die andremember this roll.
然后参与实验的人按照规定摇骰子，检查这一轮他们摇出的点数并且记住它。
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.
他们按照要求再掷两次色子，好让他们自己相信没人对这色子动过手脚，这样检查完没问题之后，他们就把第一次掷出的数字输入到电脑终端中去。
Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds while theothers were given no time limit.
他要求一半的参与者在20s之内完成，而另一半则没有时间限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.
当然研究人员无从知晓参与者摇出的真实数字。
But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been3.5.
但是从统计学理论上来讲，如果人们诚实的话，那么摇出的点数的平均数字应该是3.5，
This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty.
这个原理为他们提供了判断参与实验的人是否诚实的基线。
Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a meanroll of 4.6.
那些被要求20秒内输入他们结果的人所报告的结果的平均数是4.6，
Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9.
而没有时间限制的人所报告的平均点数是3.9。所以，
Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
两个组的人都撒谎了，但有时间考虑的那一半人撒谎的少一些。
A second experiment confirmed this result.
第二个实验也证实了这个结果。
A different bunch of volunteers were asked to roll the die just once.
另一群志愿者只允许摇一次筛子，与
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须在8秒内输入结果，而另一半则没有做时间限制，
The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
他们想思考多长时间都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4.
在这次试验中，前一半人输入的平均数字是4.4。
Those given no time limit reported an average of 3.4.
有充足时间思考的另一半人输入结果的平均数字是3.4.换句话说，
The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
这一半的人大部分都说了实话。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeedoriginal.
因此，至少在骰子点数这个问题上，实验的结论是人生来的确是罪恶的。
Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat.
如果没有思考时间，人们会被预设为贴有欺骗标签的模式。
Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing.
然而如果给予充足的时间思考，他们通常会选择做正确的事情。
If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediatedecision.
所以，如果你希望一个诚实，千万别为了一个立即的决定而给他太大压力。
看了“关于道德品行的英语美文”的人还看了：
实验前，Shalvi博士，Eldar博士和Bereby-Meyer博士给作为实验对象的76位志愿者每人发了一个摇盅和一粒骰子。参加者被告知他们中的一部分被随机抽选出来的，会依据其掷出的骰子点数而得到相应数目的奖励，每点10谢克尔(约合2.5美元)。接着他们便按照指示摇盅，开盅查看结果，记住点数。然后他们被要求多摇两次，以让自己确信骰子中没有被灌铅。最后，让他们自己在电脑终端里输入第一次所掷出的点数。有一半参加者被要求在20秒内完成整个实验流程，而另一半则没有时间限制。
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.
研究人员当然无法知晓每个参加者实际掷出点数。但他们知道，依照统计学规律，如果所有人都能做到如实上报点数，那么这次实验的平均掷出点数应为3.5。这就为研究人员提供了一个测量参加者诚实程度的依据。他们发现，那组被要求于20秒内输入结果的的参加者所上报的掷出点数平均值为4.6，而另外没有时间压力的参加者的为3.9.显然这两组人都撒谎了，不过在那些有充分时间进行考虑的参加者中撒谎的较少。
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.
第二次实验则验证了这一结果。这次是另一群不同的志愿者被要求掷骰子，不过只掷一次。同上次一样，他们中一半人被限制了时间，并且由于此次只需掷一次骰子，时间限制也从20s缩短为8s.其余一般则想考虑多久都行。
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.
在这次实验中，前面有时间限制的一半人所上报点数的平均值为4.4，而没有时间限制的所上报的平均值为3.4。换言之，后者如实上报了数据。
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，得出的结论是——至少在此次摇骰作弊的案例中如此—"人性本‘恶'"。在缺少时间进行考虑的情况下，人们会进入默认的"撒谎"模式。然而，如果他们获得了那样的考虑时间，一般会作出道德上正确的选择。所以，如果你希望某人对你诚实，那么千万别逼迫他立即做出出决定啊
关于道德品行的英语美文篇2
道德哲学 无关善恶
Moral philosophy.
道德哲学。
Goodness has nothing to do with it.
无关善恶。
Utilitarians are not nice people.
功利主义者并不是好人。
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."
从历史洪流的角度来看，杰里米·贝萨姆和约翰·斯图阿特·密尔通常都被认为是好人。他们一起合作建立了现在被称为功利主义的道德理论。该理论的核心目的可以被贝萨姆的一句格言很好地概括"道德和立法的基础在于让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.
听上去很不错，但当你开始把这套理论应用在具体事件上时问题就出来了。比方说，功利主义者可能赞成对恐怖主义疑犯用刑。大家都明白，这是为了其它所有人好。哥伦比亚大学的丹尼尔·巴特尔斯和康奈尔大学的大卫·皮扎罗受到类似这样的观察启发，提出了哪一类型的人对生活的看法最接近功利主义这一有趣问题。他们的论文最近在认知科学上发表，其中得到的结论让人不安。
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.
测量一个人有多大的意愿以功利主义方式行事的一个传统方法是电车实验。参加者进行一个想象实验，实验里有一节失控的有轨电车或火车车厢。该实验有很多版本，不管哪一个都要求参加者进行选择，而且不管怎么选都会有人死亡。例如：有五个工人在失控车厢前方的轨道上。如果实验参加者作为故事中的一个旁观者不进行干涉这五个人就死定了。参加者被告知他在铁道上方的一座桥上，身边有一个身材肥胖的陌生人，同时参加者知道自己的体重太轻，无法停止火车，但如果把那个陌生人推下去，他的巨大身躯将会停止火车，让五个工人得救。不幸的是这么做会杀死该陌生人。
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%.
巴特尔斯博士和皮扎罗博士从之前的研究中得知大约90%的参加者会拒绝杀死一个陌生人救出五个人的功利主义行为。但是之前的研究没人提出过剩下的10%人的性格这一问题。
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.
为了找出结果，这两个研究者对208个大学生进行了一系列电车实验，并以一到四分的机制来给他们的答案中的功利主义成分打分。参加者也要进行一系列分析个人心理的测试。测试包括这些问题，"我喜欢看人打架"，"应付别人最好的办法就是说他们想听的话"，以及"认真想想的话，生活没什么意思，每天起来真不值"。参加者要在一个连续的尺度上标出他们对每一个问题的看法，从"完全同意"到"完全不同意"。这三个问题按次序分别是为了测量一个人的冷血程度，厚黑程度以及他觉得生活是否有意义的程度，其它问题也是围绕着测量这三个方面而设计的。
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.
巴特尔斯博士和皮扎罗博士然后开始寻找人格测试和电车实验结果的相关性。他们发现在面对道德两难(将胖子推下去)时回答体现功利主义的参加者和冷血变态心理，厚黑主义以及觉得生活没意义的想法有很强的关联。这表示虽然功利主义者能够增加人类整体的幸福值，但他们自己并不是什么快乐的人。
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.
这并不意味着功利主义是错误的。任何法律的制定-当年贝萨姆和密尔希望借其理论能够有所助益的主要行为之一-不可避免的需要牺牲一部分人的利益。功利主义提供了一个比较合理的框架来决定应该牺牲谁的利益。不过巴特尔斯博士和皮扎罗博士的研究提出了应该让哪种人来制定法律的质疑。冷血，厚黑的厌恶人类者?从表面上来看，是的。
关于道德品行的英语美文篇3
The psychology of morality
道德心理学
Time to be honest
时间让人诚实
A simple experiment suggests a way to encourage truthfulness
由简单实验总结出让人诚实的方法
IS SIN original?
难道人性本恶?
That is the question addressed by Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at the University ofAmsterdam, in a paper just published in Psychological Science.
阿姆斯特丹大学心理学家Shaul Shalvi在《心理科学》期刊上刚发表的一篇论文谈到了这个问题。
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博士和他的来自以色列Ben-Gurion大学的同事们 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye希望知道当一个想要撒谎的人如果有时间对他的行为思考时，他们说谎的动机是增加还是降低。
Is cheating, in other words, instinctive or calculating?
换句话说，撒谎，是一种应激本能还是经过慢慢算计的?
Appropriately, the researchers’apparatus for their experiment was that icon of sinful activity, the gambling die.
研究人员为他们的实验提供了一个很合适的实验工具，赌博用的骰子—本身就象征着罪恶的活动。
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.
他们想看看人们到底是在什么情况下更容易撒谎，是在需要立即报告骰子点数的情况下还是有足够的时间的情况下。
To carry out their experiment, Dr Shalvi, Dr Eldar and Dr Bereby-Meyer gave each of 76volunteers a six-sided die and a cup.
为了进行实验，Ben-Gurion、 Ori Eldar 和 Yoella Bereby-Meye博士为76个志愿参与实验的人每人一个六面的骰子和一个杯子。
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.
他们告诉参与实验的人，他们随意摇出的骰子的点数，每一点可获得10谢克尔。
They were then instructed to shake their cups, check the outcome of the rolled die andremember this roll.
然后参与实验的人按照规定摇骰子，检查这一轮他们摇出的点数并且记住它。
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.
他们按照要求再掷两次色子，好让他们自己相信没人对这色子动过手脚，这样检查完没问题之后，他们就把第一次掷出的数字输入到电脑终端中去。
Half of the participants were told to complete this procedure within 20 seconds while theothers were given no time limit.
他要求一半的参与者在20s之内完成，而另一半则没有时间限制。
The researchers had no way of knowing what numbers participants actually rolled, of course.
当然研究人员无从知晓参与者摇出的真实数字。
But they knew, statistically, that the average roll, if people reported honestly, should have been3.5.
但是从统计学理论上来讲，如果人们诚实的话，那么摇出的点数的平均数字应该是3.5，
This gave them a baseline from which to calculate participants’ honesty.
这个原理为他们提供了判断参与实验的人是否诚实的基线。
Those forced to enter their results within 20 seconds, the researchers found, reported a meanroll of 4.6.
那些被要求20秒内输入他们结果的人所报告的结果的平均数是4.6，
Those who were not under any time pressure reported a mean roll of 3.9.
而没有时间限制的人所报告的平均点数是3.9。所以，
Both groups lied, then. But those who had had more time for reflection lied less.
两个组的人都撒谎了，但有时间考虑的那一半人撒谎的少一些。
A second experiment confirmed this result.
第二个实验也证实了这个结果。
A different bunch of volunteers were asked to roll the die just once.
另一群志愿者只允许摇一次筛子，与
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须在8秒内输入结果，而另一半则没有做时间限制，
The others were allowed to consider the matter for as long as they wished.
他们想思考多长时间都行。
In this case the first half reported an average roll of 4.4.
在这次试验中，前一半人输入的平均数字是4.4。
Those given no time limit reported an average of 3.4.
有充足时间思考的另一半人输入结果的平均数字是3.4.换句话说，
The second lot, in other words, actually told the truth.
这一半的人大部分都说了实话。
The conclusion, therefore, at least in the matter of cheating at dice, is that sin is indeedoriginal.
因此，至少在骰子点数这个问题上，实验的结论是人生来的确是罪恶的。
Without time for reflection, people will default to the mode labelled cheat.
如果没有思考时间，人们会被预设为贴有欺骗标签的模式。
Given such time, however, they will often do the right thing.
然而如果给予充足的时间思考，他们通常会选择做正确的事情。
If you want someone to be honest, then, do not press him too hard for an immediatedecision.
所以，如果你希望一个诚实，千万别为了一个立即的决定而给他太大压力。
看了“关于道德品行的英语美文”的人还看了：
