3.1 德行一二三
說是有人問一個學生，他想像的上帝像什麽。他回答說，據他所知，上帝喜歡打探人間活動，要是有誰貪玩，好吃懶做，他就會來禁止。我想這也是大多數人腦海中的“道德”的含義：干涉我們，不讓我們享樂人生。
I. The Three Parts Of Morality
There is a story about a schoolboy who was asked what he thought God was like. He replied that, as far as he could make out, God was “The sort of person who is always snooping round to see if anyone is enjoying himself and then trying to stop it.” And I am afraid that is the sort of idea that the word Morality raises in a good many people’s minds: something that interferes, something that stops you having a good time.
事實上，道德規律是人這部機器開動的方向，每一條規律不外為預防機器出毛病而設。這是為什麼驟眼看去，道德規律似乎處處和我們天然的傾向作對，就好像你跟師傅學習操作機器，師傅會不斷地說：
In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. When you are being taught how to use any machine, the instructor keeps on saying,
「不可以，別那麼做」
因為有了部機器在手中，你會自以為是，想出一些方法，毛手毛腳來開動，結果當然是出亂子！
“No, don’t do it like that,”
because, of course, there are all sorts of things that look all right and seem to you the natural way of treating the machine, but do not really work.
有的人喜歡高談道德「理想」（moral “ideals”），不談道德規（moral rules ）：喜歡談道德的「理想主義」（moral “idealism”），不談道德的履行（moral obedience）。
Some people prefer to talk about moral “ideals” rather than moral rules and about moral “idealism” rather than moral obedience.
不錯，要做到道德完美的確屬諸“理想”，因為人做不到。在這意義上，凡是完美，不問是那一種，對人類來說都屬理想。我們駕車，無法做個十全十美的駕車人；打網球也好，繪畫也好，也是一樣。你能畫出一條美到十足的直線嗎？
Now it is, of course, quite true that moral perfection is an “ideal” in the sense that we cannot achieve it. In that sense every kind of perfection is, for us humans, an ideal; we cannot succeed in being perfect car drivers or perfect tennis players or in drawing perfectly straight lines.
辦不到。可是從另一種意義來說，要把道德的完整稱之為理想，也是容易讓人誤會的。比方說，有個男人說某個女人，某幢屋子，某條船或者某座花園是他的「理想」，他當然不是說，除非他是個笨蛋，人人都像他一樣，視此為他們的理想。在這一類的事上，我們可以有不同的喜好，從而有不同的理想。
But there is another sense in which it is very misleading to call moral perfection an ideal. When a man says that a certain woman, or house, or ship, or garden is “his ideal” he does not mean (unless he is rather a fool) that everyone else ought to have the same ideal. In such matters we are entitled to have different tastes and, therefore, different ideals.
可是，將一個極力遵守道德律的人，說它是「有崇高理想的人’」卻是很危險的事，因為會誤導他人，以為道德的完整屬個人的喜好，別人用不著去理會，去遵守。這種錯誤會導致大患。我們做人無法做到十足完美，就像（在汽車沒有自動排檔的時代）駕車換排無法做到十足理想一樣。
But it is dangerous to describe a man who tries very hard to keep the moral law as a “man of high ideals,” because this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it. This would be a disastrous mistake. Perfect behaviour may be as unattainable as perfect gear-changing when we drive;
可是人這部機器的本性，要求人人都須有個為人的理想，就像汽車的構造要求所有駕車的人，在換檔這件事上都應有個完美的理想一樣。而更危險的莫過於視自己為「有崇高理想的」人，因為我努力做到絕不說謊（不是只說一兩個謊），絕不犯姦淫的罪（不是偶一為之），絕不逞兇欺侮他人（不是有時也手軟），會讓你變成所謂道學之士，自以為很特別，值得人家為你的“理想主義”歡呼。
but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person “of high ideals” because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). It might lead you to become a prig and to think you were rather a special person who deserved to be congratulated on his “idealism.”
在現實世界裡，這就好像你做一條算術，努力把答案做對，希望人家向你歡呼一樣。不錯，要條條算術答案都做得正確，是個「理想」，計算時你總會犯點錯誤。你做加法時，步步富心，不讓錯誤出現，本屬應該有的態度，沒有什麼了不起，只有愚人才不會這樣做。做演算法時，中送出的任一個錯誤，都會影響答案。同樣，我們做人若犯上道德的錯誤，每個錯誤都會招來嚴重後果，影響自己，也很可能影響人家。
but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person “of high ideals” because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). It might lead you to become a prig and to think you were rather a special person who deserved to be congratulated on his “idealism.”
不談道德「理想」和道德「理想主義」，只談道德規律和這些規律的遵守，可以時刻提醒我們留心到上面說到的事。
By talking about rules and obedience instead of “ideals” and “idealism” we help to remind ourselves of these facts.
現在，讓我們作進一步的探討。人這部機器容易在兩條路上犯錯誤。
Now let us go a step further. There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong.
一是人人各自為政，你欺我詐，你推我撞，造成大家的損傷。
One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying.
一是人裡頭髮生問題；人裡頭的功能，欲望等等，各行其是，互相幹預。我們可以舉一個例子來說明這情形。試以一個船隊為例，船隊航行要成功，第一，必須互不碰撞，各船在自己的航道上行駛。其次，每只船須經得起風浪，機件須運作正常。
The other is when things go wrong inside the individual—when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order.
事實上，二者相互為用，缺一不可。要是船與船撞個不停，很快只只船都會破損到不適航行。又或這些船的方向盤出了問題，就難保不相互碰撞。你也可以將人類當作一個樂隊來看。要樂隊奏得出色，須保證兩件事：各種樂器的調子必須一致，輪到那個樂器出奏時，必須準時奏起，這樣，樂隊才能協作；樂器雖多，有如一體。
As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions. Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player’s individual instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so as to combine with all the others.
不過，還有一點我們沒有觸及，我們沒有問這個船隊駛往什麼地方，或者這個樂隊奏的是什麼歌曲。樂器可能調子都校對了，而且在應該奏的時候都準時奏起，但如果應該奏的是舞曲，奏出來的卻是死亡進行曲，這個樂隊當然不能算成功。又以船隊來說，無論配合得怎麽好，要是應該駛往紐約，卻駛到印度的加爾加答，這當然不是成功的航行。
But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.
這樣看來，與道德有關的有三件事。第一，人與人間相處須公平，須和洽。第二，人裡頭必須整齊清潔，協調一致；第三，人生應有一個總的目標：人造來做什麽；船隊朝什麼方向駛去；樂隊的指揮要奏什麼調子。
Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things.Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals.Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.
你也許已留意到，現代人想來想去的幾乎都是第一點，完全忘記了其餘兩點。你讀日報，讀到許多人說自己致力達到基督信仰的道德標準，他們指的一般都是國與國間、階級與階級間，還有個人之間的公道與仁愛相待之道。講來講去都是第一點。要是有人要作一件事，他說“這件事與人無損，不會是壞事”，他腦裡想到的只是第一點。他的船裡頭的情況怎麽樣，不關他的事，只要船不撞到別的船就行了。
You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, “It can’t be wrong because it doesn’t do anyone else any harm,” he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship.
講到道德時，我們很自然地也是從第一點出發，所關心的只是社會關系。這當然是因為壞的不道德的舉止，其影響在人際關系上 容易看出，諸如戰爭、貧窮、貪汙、謊言以及假貨等等，天天引起我們的注意。
And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work.
何況，談道德若只談第一點，殊少爭論，差不多大家不論何時都得同意（在理論上）做人應該誠實，慈愛，互相扶持。可是，講到道德時，我們從這點開始雖是很自然，但若只講第一點便停在那裡，倒不如幹脆別講。除非繼續講第二點，也就是將每個人裡頭打掃乾淨；否則，只是自欺欺人。
And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.
何況，談道德若只談第一點，殊少爭論，差不多大家不論何時都得同意（在理論上）做人應該誠實，慈愛，互相扶持。可是，講到道德時，我們從這點開始雖是很自然，但若只講第一點便停在那裡，倒不如幹脆別講。除非繼續講第二點，也就是將每個人裡頭打掃乾淨；否則，只是自欺欺人。
And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.
要是船隊的船破舊不堪，根本不宜航行，那麼教這些船怎樣好好駕駛，以免互撞，又有什麼用處呢？要是我們明知自己的貪婪、懦弱、壞脾氣、自欺等等，使我們做不到與人正確相處的標準，那麽，把這些標準、這些規律寫出來，只是一紙具文，又有什麼用呢？
What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them?
請別誤會，以為我不贊成改善我們的社會和經濟制度。
I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system.
我要說的是，除非我們人人有道德勇氣，能不自私，去努力使這些制度正當運作，否則，改善云云只是捕風捉影，空談無補實際。要將現有制度裡頭的某些貪污賄賂，某些恃強淩弱剷除並不難，可是只要人心裡的詭詐、暴戾一天不除，又會在新制度底下玩出舊花樣來。單靠法律不能叫人做好人，沒有了好人那能有好社會，這是為什麽在第一點之後必須考慮第二點，也就是人裡頭的道德。
What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.
但是，做到了這一點仍舊不夠。我們現在已到達一個層次，我們對宇宙的不同信念，把我帶向不同的行為標準。驟眼看去，我們好停在第二點那裡，別再探索下去；我們好逗留在大家都能同意的地方便算了。但是做得到嗎？
But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviour. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all sensible people agree about. But can we?
我們應記住，宗教信仰裡頭有一連串的關乎事實的陳述，不是真便是假。如果是真，從這真的陳述出發，我們可以得出一套結論，指出人的船隊應該走的航道。如果是假，便會得出另外一套結論。比方說 我們在前面提到過的那個人，他認為做人只要不損及別人便不會錯，他很懂得在航行時不撞握他船的道理，他也認為他怎樣對待自己的船則是他自己的事，與人無關。可是，要是這條船不是他自己的財產，情形豈非大大不同？要是我不是我自己的心志和身體的主人，只是一個雇工，須向主人負責，情形豈不大異？要是造我的是別人，為了他自己的目標而造我，我當然須盡許多義務和責任；這些責任本來不用我負擔，要是我屬我自己的話。
Remember that religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself.
基督信仰認為，每個人都會永存下去。這是一個可以是真也可以是假的陳述。要是一個人 多只能活到七十歲，有許多事根本不用去擔心。要是一個人會永活下去，卻不能不留意一些本來可以不理的事。也許我的壞脾氣，我的嫉妒，漸漸變得越來越甚，這些變化太「漸漸」，七十年中還看不出什麽來，但若積存起來，經過一百萬年，不難變得壞到像地獄。
Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse —so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable.
事實上，如果基督信仰所說的是真的，人的確可以變得像地獄一般壞。不道德的行為積累起來，和道德的行為越拉越遠，就像極權和民主間的差距一樣。要是一個人只活七十歲，而一個國家，一個民族，或一種文明卻可以活一千年，後者當然都比個人重要。
But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual.
如果基督信仰是真，個人可以永活，那麼，個人不止比其他的更重要，而且重要得難以比擬。又因為他永存，國家或文明的壽命和他相比，只不過頃刻。
But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.
這樣說來，除非不講道德；要講必須同時注意這三者：人與人的關系；人裡頭的東西；人與造他的力量間的關係。
It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him.
在第一層次上，我們大致都能做到合作和協。一到第二個層次，意見便有了分歧。這分歧到第三個層次便十分嚴重。基督信仰水道德主張和非基督信仰的道德主張間的主要區別，就在這第三個層次上。
We can all cooperate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences between Christian and nonChristian morality come out.
本書以後要講的都是從基督信仰的觀點出發，並在基督信仰為真的基礎上來看全面。
For the rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.
立即預約 / 與我們聯絡