轉載:倫理的快樂宣言Richard Garriott
發表於 : 週二 6月 04, 2002 10:22 am
Ethical Hedonism : An Introduction
-by Richard Garriott- 背景音樂：Canon and Gigue in D
Societies oft have common codes of 社會常有共通的行為規範期望所有成員
conduct which it expects all its 遵守。雖然那真的可以帶來一些好處，
people to abide by. Now, while 我卻見到大部分在不列顛尼亞的行為規
'tis true that this can offer some 範已經出現巨大瑕疵。讓我們來檢視一
advantages, most of the codes I 下。
see today around Britannia have
fatal flaws. Let us examine them.
First, there is Blackthorn's code 首先，有黑刺王一派屬於渾沌脫序的行
of Chaos or basically Anarchy. 為準則，那個準則提供個人伸展自我以
Whereas this affords the individual 及追求個人快樂的最大可能性，但並不
maximum opportunity for 提供基本的人際規範防止人們互相殘殺
individuality and even pursuit of 。
personal happiness, it does not
offer even basic interpersonal
conduct codes to prevent people
from killing each other.
Without such basic tenets, all the 如果沒有這樣的基本原則，所有的人必
people will need to spend a 需花掉大部分的時間去保護自己，然後
significant portion of their time 就更少時間剩下可用來追求其他更有益
and effort towards personal 的事物。所以那就是到今天道德規範仍
protection and thus less time 然被許多人認同的原因。
towards other more beneficial
pursuits.Then there are the moral
codes that are so popular today.
These codes are built largely on 這些道德規範主要是根據歷史傳統而非
historical tradition rather than 思考邏輯建立的，所以有陳腐過時的部
current logic and thus are also 份。舉例來說，許多今日仍可見到的道
antiquated. For example many moral 德規範包括不吃某些有毒食品，但那些
codes we see today include 有毒食品以現在的技術處理過後仍然可
statements about not eating 食用。
certain foods that once were often
poisonous, but today can be
prepared safely.
Many forbid contact between young 許多年輕人與異性接觸的禁忌，有些真
people of the opposite gender, 的是有它的風險，但那些禁忌規範常常
which can in fact be hazardous; but 只是被稱為不道德的而已，至於為什麼
the codes often have lost the 要這樣做的原由通常已經失傳了。在現
context as to why this is done, 代，如果要說那是必要的道德需要新的
instead merely calling it amoral. 理由。
In this day and age to call that a
necessary moral would need a new
reasoning. I put forth that
tradition is not enough.
Then there are Lord British's 所以就有不列顛王的美德出現。那美德
Virtues. It strikes me that while a 系統居然可以當作很棒的試金石去引導
system of virtues is wonderful as 一個社會傾向善行，這件事大大震撼了
a touchstone to guide a society to 我，這些不過是一個藏在底面的真實的
good behavior, these are but 影子…為何一個人希望過合乎明確規範
shades of the underlying truth as 的生活。
to why one may wish to live a life
according to certain rules of
conduct.
On the other hand, clearly the 另一方面，美德，我從不列顛王那聽到
Virtues that I have heard Lord 的明確的正向行為準則，遠比黑刺王所
British speak of are clearly 暗示的一個無政府脫序世界還美好。但
positive codes of conduct, far ，那些美德及其導源的一套原理，聽來
better than the world of anarchy 很棒但很難在現實生活中實行的東西，
that Lord Blackthorn suggests. 真的是不可否認並且是合理的真實嗎？
Yet, are not these Virtues still
derived from a set of principles
which though they sound good, are
difficult to pin down as actual,
undeniable, rational truths?
Worse yet though imagine a society 去想像一個行為準則全是弱肉強食下的
who's code of conduct was based on 強者定出來的社會，這樣的社會如果能
pure survival of the strongest. 運作並且發展維持一段時間，除了少數
While this society may function 在頂端的人以外的個人幸福被踐踏這樣
and even accomplish much, it can 不公平的事就會視為理所當然連質疑都
be fairly argued that personal 不能了。為了避免這種情況，我們必須
happiness would suffer greatly 先相信「人人都有權追求幸福快樂」。
except for those at the top.
To rule that out, however, we must
first believe that people have a
right to pursue happiness.
I hope is a safe assumption that 我希望「所有生靈想要快樂」的假設是
all beings wish to be happy; I 安全的；我將它簡略稱為「快樂主義」
will broadly describe this as 。如果所有的人都以快樂主義生活，他
Hedonism. Yet, if all people did is 們的快樂主義可能會和緊鄰的人產生摩
live a life of hedonism, their 擦，所以我用「倫理的」一辭去描述一
hedonism might be in conflict with 種境界，可以讓個人實現他的快樂主義
those near them, so I will use the 並且同時容許其他的人同樣追求他們自
term Ethics to describe limits one 己的快樂幸福。
might put on one's hedonistic
tendencies to allow others to pursue
their happiness as well.
Allow me to give this example: If 容我舉這樣的例子：如果一個人單獨生
one were to live alone on a desert 活在一個無人荒島，他可以過純粹快樂
isle, one could live a life of pure 主義的生活，沒有任何行為會妨礙別人
hedonism, for no action one might 追求快樂的權力，所以只要你高興的話
take could interfere with another's 也可以污染湖水，除了你自己以外沒有
right to pursue their happiness. 人會譴責你。
Poison th lake if you like, ther is
no one to blame but yourself!
Now suppose two of you live on that 現在假設你們兩人在那島上生活，你不
island. Thou dost not want thy 希望你的鄰居覺得可以任意污染湖水，
neighbor to feel free to poison the 沒有先考慮說這行為會不會影響他人的
lake. Would it not be better to 快樂就去污染湖水的舉動，難道還有將
consider it unethical to poison the 這舉動當作是不道德的更好方法嗎？
lake without first thinking of
those whose pursuit of happiness
might be affected by this action?
I put forth that it is the fact 我說當我們選擇過團體生活時我們必須
that we as a people choose to live 協調我們的純快樂主義與倫理觀。同樣
in groups known as a society that 的，我們不用理由就接受「不可殺人」
causes us to compromise our pure 的規範，因為不這樣的話我們會怕別人
hedonism with logical ethics. 同樣傷害我們，這會嚴重干擾我們追求
Likewise we accept not being able 屬於自己的快樂。以這理論做基礎可以
to kill others without reason, 確立倫理的快樂主義。
because our own pursuit of
happiness would be greatly
interfered with if we feared
others would do the same to us.
From this basis of logic can be
formed the Tenets of Ethical
Hedonism.
For more on this subject, see the 想知道關於這主題的更多資訊，請見
Tenants of Ethical Hedonism, by 理查‧蓋略特與赫曼‧米勒著：
Richard Garriott and Herman Miller. 『Tenants of Ethical Hedonism』
-by Richard Garriott- 背景音樂：Canon and Gigue in D
Societies oft have common codes of 社會常有共通的行為規範期望所有成員
conduct which it expects all its 遵守。雖然那真的可以帶來一些好處，
people to abide by. Now, while 我卻見到大部分在不列顛尼亞的行為規
'tis true that this can offer some 範已經出現巨大瑕疵。讓我們來檢視一
advantages, most of the codes I 下。
see today around Britannia have
fatal flaws. Let us examine them.
First, there is Blackthorn's code 首先，有黑刺王一派屬於渾沌脫序的行
of Chaos or basically Anarchy. 為準則，那個準則提供個人伸展自我以
Whereas this affords the individual 及追求個人快樂的最大可能性，但並不
maximum opportunity for 提供基本的人際規範防止人們互相殘殺
individuality and even pursuit of 。
personal happiness, it does not
offer even basic interpersonal
conduct codes to prevent people
from killing each other.
Without such basic tenets, all the 如果沒有這樣的基本原則，所有的人必
people will need to spend a 需花掉大部分的時間去保護自己，然後
significant portion of their time 就更少時間剩下可用來追求其他更有益
and effort towards personal 的事物。所以那就是到今天道德規範仍
protection and thus less time 然被許多人認同的原因。
towards other more beneficial
pursuits.Then there are the moral
codes that are so popular today.
These codes are built largely on 這些道德規範主要是根據歷史傳統而非
historical tradition rather than 思考邏輯建立的，所以有陳腐過時的部
current logic and thus are also 份。舉例來說，許多今日仍可見到的道
antiquated. For example many moral 德規範包括不吃某些有毒食品，但那些
codes we see today include 有毒食品以現在的技術處理過後仍然可
statements about not eating 食用。
certain foods that once were often
poisonous, but today can be
prepared safely.
Many forbid contact between young 許多年輕人與異性接觸的禁忌，有些真
people of the opposite gender, 的是有它的風險，但那些禁忌規範常常
which can in fact be hazardous; but 只是被稱為不道德的而已，至於為什麼
the codes often have lost the 要這樣做的原由通常已經失傳了。在現
context as to why this is done, 代，如果要說那是必要的道德需要新的
instead merely calling it amoral. 理由。
In this day and age to call that a
necessary moral would need a new
reasoning. I put forth that
tradition is not enough.
Then there are Lord British's 所以就有不列顛王的美德出現。那美德
Virtues. It strikes me that while a 系統居然可以當作很棒的試金石去引導
system of virtues is wonderful as 一個社會傾向善行，這件事大大震撼了
a touchstone to guide a society to 我，這些不過是一個藏在底面的真實的
good behavior, these are but 影子…為何一個人希望過合乎明確規範
shades of the underlying truth as 的生活。
to why one may wish to live a life
according to certain rules of
conduct.
On the other hand, clearly the 另一方面，美德，我從不列顛王那聽到
Virtues that I have heard Lord 的明確的正向行為準則，遠比黑刺王所
British speak of are clearly 暗示的一個無政府脫序世界還美好。但
positive codes of conduct, far ，那些美德及其導源的一套原理，聽來
better than the world of anarchy 很棒但很難在現實生活中實行的東西，
that Lord Blackthorn suggests. 真的是不可否認並且是合理的真實嗎？
Yet, are not these Virtues still
derived from a set of principles
which though they sound good, are
difficult to pin down as actual,
undeniable, rational truths?
Worse yet though imagine a society 去想像一個行為準則全是弱肉強食下的
who's code of conduct was based on 強者定出來的社會，這樣的社會如果能
pure survival of the strongest. 運作並且發展維持一段時間，除了少數
While this society may function 在頂端的人以外的個人幸福被踐踏這樣
and even accomplish much, it can 不公平的事就會視為理所當然連質疑都
be fairly argued that personal 不能了。為了避免這種情況，我們必須
happiness would suffer greatly 先相信「人人都有權追求幸福快樂」。
except for those at the top.
To rule that out, however, we must
first believe that people have a
right to pursue happiness.
I hope is a safe assumption that 我希望「所有生靈想要快樂」的假設是
all beings wish to be happy; I 安全的；我將它簡略稱為「快樂主義」
will broadly describe this as 。如果所有的人都以快樂主義生活，他
Hedonism. Yet, if all people did is 們的快樂主義可能會和緊鄰的人產生摩
live a life of hedonism, their 擦，所以我用「倫理的」一辭去描述一
hedonism might be in conflict with 種境界，可以讓個人實現他的快樂主義
those near them, so I will use the 並且同時容許其他的人同樣追求他們自
term Ethics to describe limits one 己的快樂幸福。
might put on one's hedonistic
tendencies to allow others to pursue
their happiness as well.
Allow me to give this example: If 容我舉這樣的例子：如果一個人單獨生
one were to live alone on a desert 活在一個無人荒島，他可以過純粹快樂
isle, one could live a life of pure 主義的生活，沒有任何行為會妨礙別人
hedonism, for no action one might 追求快樂的權力，所以只要你高興的話
take could interfere with another's 也可以污染湖水，除了你自己以外沒有
right to pursue their happiness. 人會譴責你。
Poison th lake if you like, ther is
no one to blame but yourself!
Now suppose two of you live on that 現在假設你們兩人在那島上生活，你不
island. Thou dost not want thy 希望你的鄰居覺得可以任意污染湖水，
neighbor to feel free to poison the 沒有先考慮說這行為會不會影響他人的
lake. Would it not be better to 快樂就去污染湖水的舉動，難道還有將
consider it unethical to poison the 這舉動當作是不道德的更好方法嗎？
lake without first thinking of
those whose pursuit of happiness
might be affected by this action?
I put forth that it is the fact 我說當我們選擇過團體生活時我們必須
that we as a people choose to live 協調我們的純快樂主義與倫理觀。同樣
in groups known as a society that 的，我們不用理由就接受「不可殺人」
causes us to compromise our pure 的規範，因為不這樣的話我們會怕別人
hedonism with logical ethics. 同樣傷害我們，這會嚴重干擾我們追求
Likewise we accept not being able 屬於自己的快樂。以這理論做基礎可以
to kill others without reason, 確立倫理的快樂主義。
because our own pursuit of
happiness would be greatly
interfered with if we feared
others would do the same to us.
From this basis of logic can be
formed the Tenets of Ethical
Hedonism.
For more on this subject, see the 想知道關於這主題的更多資訊，請見
Tenants of Ethical Hedonism, by 理查‧蓋略特與赫曼‧米勒著：
Richard Garriott and Herman Miller. 『Tenants of Ethical Hedonism』