評(píng)論
打印
Now, notice, something interesting --
接下來有意思的事情來了
Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.
哦，我先說一下最高法院的審理結(jié)果吧
The Supreme Court decided.
最高法院判定：
What do you suppose they said?
你們猜是怎樣？
They said yes, that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart.
最高法院同意了馬丁的請(qǐng)求，判決他可以使用高爾夫球車
Seven to two, they ruled.
投票表決七比二勝出
What was interesting about their ruling
一件很有意思的事情是
and about the discussion we've just had is that
關(guān)于他們的判決以及我們剛才的討論，
the discussion about the right, the justice, of the matter depended on figuring out what is the essential nature of golf.
此案的公平公正取決于判斷什么才是高爾夫運(yùn)動(dòng)的本質(zhì)
And the Supreme Court justices wrestled with that question.
最高法院的大法官們就這一問題展開了激烈交鋒
And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority,
大法官史蒂文斯，站在大多數(shù)人一邊
said he had read all about the history of golf,
他號(hào)稱他讀了所有關(guān)于高爾夫運(yùn)動(dòng)的歷史文獻(xiàn)
and the essential point of the game is
得出的結(jié)論是：
to get very small ball from one place into a hole in as few strokes as possible,
這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)本質(zhì)是把一個(gè)很小的球從某處打入洞中，擊打桿數(shù)越少越好
and that walking was not essential, but incidental.
場(chǎng)上的走動(dòng)并非本質(zhì)，而是附帶事件
Now, there were two dissenters, one of whom was Justice Scalia.
有兩位法官持不同意見，其中一位是大法官斯卡利亞
He wouldn't have granted the cart, and he had a very interesting dissent.
他不同意使用代步車，他反對(duì)的理由很有意思
It's interesting because he rejected the Aristotelian premise underlying the majority's opinion.
因?yàn)樗磳?duì)大多數(shù)人所認(rèn)同的亞里士多德前提
He said it's not possible to determine the essential nature of a game like golf.
他說定義高爾夫等運(yùn)動(dòng)的本質(zhì)是一件不可能的事
Here's how he put it.
他的原話是：
"To say that something is essential is ordinarily to say that
"說某樣事物是具有本質(zhì)意義的，
it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object."
等于在說它對(duì)能否完成某目標(biāo)起決定作用"
But since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement,
但是，文娛運(yùn)動(dòng)的本質(zhì)就是漫無目的地取樂
that is, what distinguishes games from productive activity,
這是文娛活動(dòng)區(qū)別于生產(chǎn)勞動(dòng)的重要本質(zhì)
it is quite impossible to say that any of a game's arbitrary rules is essential."
所以，沒有哪條體育運(yùn)動(dòng)規(guī)則可以稱得上具有本質(zhì)意義
So there you have Justice Scalia taking on the Aristotelian premise of the majority's opinion.
這就是大法官斯卡利亞對(duì)于亞里士多德前提的駁論
