Name: 相對主義：評判其他文化是否錯誤？| 觀念 A-Z 系列第 18 集 - BBC Ideas (Relativism: Is it wrong to judge other cultures? | A-Z of ISMs Episode 18 - BBC Ideas)
Uploaded: 2025-12-02T02:55:32.000Z
Duration: 2 min 58 s

情態助動詞 B1

Moral relativism is the view that what's right in one culture may be wrong in another, and

道德相對主義認為，一個文化中對的事情，在另一個文化中可能是錯的，

that there's no way of judging between the two.

而且沒有辦法判斷哪個對哪個錯。

Different strokes for different folks, and that's okay.

想像一下，有個火星人來到地球。

She would see that people behave differently in different places.

她會看到人們在不同地方有不同的行為。

They've got different moral rules, different social customs.

他們有不同的道德規範，不同的社會習俗。

What's right in one location is wrong in another.

一個地方對的事情，在另一個地方可能是錯的。

She might well conclude that there's no such thing as the right way to live or the right thing to do for everyone at all times.

她很可能會得出結論，沒有所謂對所有人在任何時候都適用的正確生活方式或正確做法。

So in parts of Spain bull fighting is seen as a spectacle, whereas in many other countries it's considered outrageous cruelty.

所以，在西班牙某些地方，鬥牛被視為一種奇觀，但在許多其他國家，這卻被認為是令人髮指的殘酷。

Try setting up a bullring in present day London, for instance.

試著在今天的倫敦設一個鬥牛場，舉個例子。

If the visiting Martian could get an overview of the history of the world, she'd see that in ancient Rome it was fine to have gladiatorial combat to the death and to own slaves, but

如果來的火星人能對世界歷史有個概覽，她會看到古羅馬時，以角鬥士戰鬥致死和擁有奴隸是可以的，但

that both practices would be widely frowned upon in present day Rome or Amsterdam or elsewhere.

這些做法在今天的羅馬或阿姆斯特丹或其他地方都會被廣泛譴責。

Attending fights to the death and keeping slaves was acceptable for the Romans, but

羅馬人可以接受觀看致死戰鬥和擁有奴隸，但

This sort of relativism has been popular with some anthropologists who who have attempted to appreciate other cultures from within, understanding sets of interwoven practices as responses to particular circumstances and traditions.

這種相對主義受到一些人類學家的歡迎，他們試圖從內部欣賞其他文化，理解交織的習俗是為了應對特定情況和傳統所做的回應。

They recognise that morality is different in different cultures and they often argue that it's ethnocentric to impose your own set of values elsewhere, as if you know best.

他們認為道德在不同文化中是不同的，而且他們常常爭辯說，將自己的價值觀強加於人，好像自己最瞭解一樣，這是民族中心主義。

Such non judgmental relativism might seem attractive, but think about Nazi Germany.

這種非評判性相對主義聽起來可能很有吸引力，但想想納粹德國。

There it became socially acceptable and even required to treat Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies as less than human.

在那裡，將猶太人、同性戀者和吉普賽人視為非人，變得在社會上可以接受，甚至是被要求的。

This became right there, both legally and morally.

這在當時，無論是法律上還是道德上，都是對的。

A relativist would simply have to bite the bullet and say that that was indeed right for Nazi Germany.

相對主義者將不得不硬著頭皮承認，對納粹德國來說，那確實是正確的。

And that a morality which treats everybody with equal respect is no better or worse than the Nazi way of doing things, just different.

而且，一種讓每個人都受到平等尊重的道德，並不比納粹的做法更好或更糟，只是不同而已。

Unless you want to embrace that sort of repugnant conclusion, it's probably best to steer clear of moral relativism.

除非你想接受那種令人厭惡的結論，否則最好還是遠離道德相對主義。

Some people go further and say that everything is relative, even truth.

有些人甚至走得更遠，說一切都是相對的，包括真理。

That what is true at one time in one place isn't true for everyone everywhere.

也就是說，在一個時間、一個地方為真理的事情，對所有地方的所有人來說並不為真。

Or that there's no such thing as objective truth, just the truth according to me.

或者根本沒有客觀真理，只有我說了算的真理。

我們今天在政治上就能看到這種跡象。

There is a big problem with this sort of relativism though the theory of relativism itself would have to, on its own account, be relative, so the theory that truth is relative couldn't be absolutely.

這種相對主義有個大問題，因為相對主義理論本身也必須是相對的，所以真理相對的理論就不可能是絕對的。