評(píng)論
打印
If solace and comfort are how we judge the worth of something, then consider that tobacco brings solace to smokers; alcohol brings it to drinkers; drugs of all kinds bring it to addicts; the fall of cards and the run of horses bring it to gamblers; cruelty and violence bring it to sociopaths. Judge by solace and comfort only and there is no behavior we ought to interfere with.
如果說(shuō)安慰和慰藉是我們判斷事物價(jià)值的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么請(qǐng)想一想：香煙帶給吸煙者安慰；酒精讓嗜酒者沉醉；各式毒品讓吸毒者沉溺；紙牌的投擲和賽馬的奔跑讓賭博者興奮；殘酷和暴力給反社會(huì)的人帶來(lái)快感。若只以安慰和慰藉作標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么沒(méi)有任何行為我們應(yīng)該干涉。
To be sure, it is easy to see that all these things bring harm to their practitioners, but can it not be argued that if some people get pleasure out of a practice that does harm to them it is nevertheless their body, their choice, their health, and their life to do with as they wish? Who are we to be the "big brother" who attempts to dictate our notion of a superior way of life to others against their will?
誠(chéng)然，不難看出，所有這些東西會(huì)給沾染上這些習(xí)慣的人帶來(lái)傷害，然而如果一些人從能對(duì)他們構(gòu)成傷害的行為中得到快樂(lè)，盡管他們是按照自己的意愿對(duì)待自己的身體、自己的選擇、自己的健康、自己的生命，我們就不可以為此辯駁了嗎？那我們憑什么充當(dāng)“大哥”，試圖把我們所謂的更好的生活方式的觀念專橫地強(qiáng)加給他們，而違背他們的意愿？
There is indeed something to this if it is only the practitioner's body and health and life that is involved and no one else's. But what of the smoker whose effluvium damages the lungs of nonsmokers forced to breathe his or her reek? What of the drinker who drives and kills? What of the addict who lures others into addiction? What of the sociopath who directly harms others as his or her path to joy?
如果上述行為僅與行為者的身體、健康和生命有關(guān)，不涉及其他人，那么，這其中確有道理可言。然而不吸煙者被迫吸入嗆人的煙而使肺部受損算什么？醉酒者駕車撞死人算什么？癮君子引誘他人吸毒算什么？反社會(huì)者以直接傷害他人為樂(lè)又算什么呢？
By and large, then, society demands that these harmful physical practices be controlled insofar as it can be done humanely.
因此，總的說(shuō)來(lái)，社會(huì)要求將這些有害的人身行為控制在人道的范圍內(nèi)。
