|
『도덕적 동물(
2006-03-29
『도덕적 동물 – 진화심리학으로 들여다본 인간의 본성』, 로버트 라이트 지음,
『The Moral
Animal – Why we are the way we are: The new science of evolutionary psychology』, Robert Wright, Vintage, 1995
Wright(327쪽) : He didn’t trumpet the theory’s unsettling
implications; he didn’t stress that the very sense of right and
wrong, which feels as if heaven-sent, and draws its power from that feeling, is
an arbitrary product of our peculiar evolutionary past.
a. “이 이론으로 어떤
혼란을 일으키려는 의도는 없었다”는 원문과 상당히 다르다.
Wright(328쪽) : Darwin’s sometimes diffuse speculations about the “social instincts” have given way to theories firmly grounded in
logic and fact, the theories of reciprocal altruism and kin selection.
a. “have given way to”는 “자리를 내주었다”지 “평가를 받지는 못했다”가 아니다.
Wright(329쪽) : This is a deep and murky question that (readers may be relieved to
hear) will not be rigorously addressed in this book.
a. rigorously는 “꼬치꼬치”가 아니라 “엄밀하게”다.
b. “readers may be relieved to hear”를 빼먹었다.
Wright(329쪽) : Though he didn’t have access to the new paradigm,
with its several peculiarly dispiriting elements, he definitely caught, as
surely as the Edinburgh Review did,
the morally disorienting drift of Darwinism.
a. “다윈주의가 도덕적으로
방향을 잘못잡아 표루하고 있음은”은 엉터리 번역이다.
Wright(329쪽) : As Darwinism was catching on, and the Edinburgh Review’s fears were sinking in, a number of
thinkers scrambled to avert a collapse of all moral foundation.
a. 인기를 얻은 것은 “다윈”이 아니라 “다윈주의”다.
b. “가라앉고 있었다”는 거꾸로 된 번역이다.
Wright(329쪽) : Many of them skirted evolutionism’s threat to
religious and moral tradition with a simple maneuver:
a. “simple maneuver”는 “교묘한 방법”이 아니라 “단순한 책략”이다. simple이라는 단어는 그들의 책략이
별로 교묘하지 않음을 암시한다.
Wright(329쪽) : the “right” way to behave is in keeping with
evolution’s basic direction: we should all go with its
flow.
a. “고수하고”는 적절하지 않다.
Wright(329쪽) : The Bartlett’s Faliliar Quotations version of social Darwinism comes from Herbert Spencer, generally
regarded as its father:
a. 스펜서가 사회적 다윈주의의 창시자라고 본 것은 『명언집』이 아니다. 그것은 일반적으로 받아들여지는 사실이다.
Wright(330쪽) : Darwin found crude moral imputations to his theory laughable.
a. 이 문장의 정확한 뜻은 잘 모르겠다.
Wright(330쪽) : He wrote to Lyell, “I have noted in a Manchester
newspaper a rather good squib, showing that I have proved ‘might is right’ and therefore Napoleon is right and every
cheating tradesman is also right.”
a. 확실히는 잘 모르겠으나 멘체스터 신문의 그 기사는 다윈의 이론에 대한 의도적인 풍자가
아닌 듯하다. 그 신문에서는 ‘힘이 곧 정의’라는 것을 다윈이
증명했다고 진지하게 쓴 듯하다. 그것은 다윈이 보기에 하나의 희화화(squib)인
것이다.
Wright(330쪽) : He wasn’t as heartless as his more severe utterances
imply, nor as heartless as he is now remebered.
Wright(330쪽) : How Spencer arrived at these kinder, gentler values illustrates a
second approach to figuring out evolution’s “flow.”
Wright(330쪽) : And the way to do so was to cooperate with one another, to be nice – to live in “permanently peaceful societies.”
Wright(331쪽) : And she does all this “with the most
supercilious disregard both of mercy and of justice, emptying her shafts upon
the best and noblest indifferently with the meanest and worst….”
이더하 : 그리고 자연은 이 모든 것을 “자비와 정의 모두를
아주 오만하게 무시하면서 한다. 자연은 아주 비열하며 최악인 존재들이든 아주 고귀하고 최선인 존재들이든
개의치 않고 그 존재들에게 자신의 창을 던진다….”
a. “emptying her shafts upon”은 창을 던져서 죽인다는 의미인 듯하다.
Wright(331쪽) : Mill observed, “If there are any marks at all of
special design in creation, one of the things most evidently designed is that a
large proportion of all animals should pass their existence in tormenting and
devouring other amimals.”
a. “다른 동물들을 괴롭히고
잡아먹는 동물들은 대부분 사라져야 한다”는 엉터리 번역이다.
Wright(331쪽) : Nor, believed Mill, should we look for guidance to our moral
intuition, a device “for consecrating all deep-seated prejudices.”
Wright(331쪽) : and [Mill] dind’nt consider the possibility that
suffering is a price paid for organic creation.
a. organic은 “조직적인”이 아니라 “유기체의”이다.
Wright(331쪽) : In 1860, the year after the Origin
appeared and long before Mill’s “Nature” did, he wrote in a letter to Asa Gray:
a. “the year after”는 “일년 후”이다.
b. “long before”는 “머지않아”가 아니라 “오래 전에”이다.
Wright(332쪽) : Both believed that, in a universe which for all we know is godless,
one reasonable place to find moral guidance is utilitarianism.
a. “for all we know”는 “우리가 알고 있는 바와는 달리”가 아니라 “~일지도 모르는”이다.
Wright(332쪽) : Mill, of course, did more than subscibe to utilitarianims. He was
its premier publicist.
Wright(332쪽) : In 1861, two years after On
Liberty and the Origin appeared,
he published a series of articles in Fraser’s magazine
that are now known by the single title Utilitarianism
and have become the doctrine’s classic defense.
a. “have become the doctrine’s classic defense”를 빼먹었다.
b. “「공리주의(Utilitatirnism)」라고
알려진 일련의 기사들”이 아니라 그 글들 중 하나의 제목이 「공리주의(Utilitatirnism)」이다.
Wright(333쪽) : Let’s face it, we all subscribe at least partly to
utilitarianism; some of us just don’t use the term.
a. “subscribe to”는 “기여하고”가 아니라 “동의하고”이다.
b. “사용조차”는 부적절한 번역이다.
Wright(333쪽) : And once each of us admits that, yes, we find our own happiness in
some basic sense good, something that is not rightly trampled upon without
reason, it becomes hard to deny everyone else’s identical
claim without sounding a bit presumptuous.
a. “find”를 잘못 번역했다.
b. “주제넘는 짓을 해야만
한다”는 부적절한
번역이다.
Wright(333쪽) : You may believe that they always override – “trump,” as some philosophers say – solely utilitarian arguments.
a. override는 “간과하다”가 아니라 “우위에 있다”이다.
Wright(333쪽) : But you don’t believe the utilitarian arguments are
irrelevant; you implicitly agree that, in the absence of your trump card, they
would win.
a. “trump card”를 “카드 패”라고 번역할 수는 없다.
Wright(333쪽) : This sort of underlying logic – closet
utilitarianism – often emerges when the logic behind basic “rights” is teased out.
a. “tease out”은 “조롱하다”가 아니라 “정보를 캐내다”이다.
Wright(334쪽) : The above arguments for “trump cards” illustrate a scantly appreciated fact:
a. “scantly appreciated”는 “인정된”이 아니다.
Wright(334쪽) : Belief in the goodness of happiness and the badness of suffering
isn’t just a basic part of moral discourse that we
all share. Increasingly it seems to be the only basic part that we all share.
Thereafter, fragmentation ensues, as different people pursue different divinely
imparted or seemingly self-evident truths.
a. “이 때문에”는 문제가 있는
번역이다. Thereafter는 “행복이 선이고 고통이 악이라는 믿음을 공유한 상태에서
출발하여”를 뜻한다.
Wright(334쪽) : So if a moral code is indeed a code for the entire community, then
the utilitarian mandate – happiness is good, suffering bad – seems to be the most practical, if not the only practical, basis for moral discourse.
a. “if not the only practical”은 “유일한 토대는 아닐지라도”가 아니라 “유일하게 실용적인 토대는 아닐지라도”이다.
Wright(334쪽) : They are free to opt out of moral discourse, and out of any
obligations, and benefits, that the resulting code might bring.
a. “that the resulting code might bring”는 “obligations”를 수식한다.
Wright(335쪽) : Why should any of us worry about the happiness of others? Why not
let everyone worry about their own happiness – which seems,
anyway, to be the one thing they can be more or less counted on to do?
a. “그들로 하여금”라고 번역하면 “다른 사람들로 하여금”을 뜻하는 것으로
읽힌다. 원문에는 “everyone”이라고 되어 있다.
b. “can be counted on to do”를 “그들이 할 수 있는”이라고 번역하면 안된다. 우리는 다른 사람의 행복에 대해서도 걱정할 수 있다. 하지만 우리가
다른 사람의 행복에 대해 걱정할 것이라고 기대하기는 힘들다.
Wright(335쪽) : (assuming neither of us is a vastly more proficient villain than
the other)
a. “more proficient villain”은 “더 큰 악한”이 아니라 “더 능숙한 악한”이다. 여기에서는
다른 사람을 속이거나 학대하는 데 있어서의 능숙함이 문제다.
Wright(335쪽) : If you can create this sort of system of mutual consideration – a moral system – it’s worth the trouble from everyone’s point of view.
a. “견해를 들어볼 만한”이란 말은 원문에
없다.
Wright(335쪽) : You shouldn’t hold doors open for people only if you can do
so quite easily and thereby save them lots of trouble.
a. “you can do so quite easily”를 빼먹었다.
Wright(336쪽) : You should, in short, go through life considering the welfare of evryone else exactly as important as your
own welfare.
a. “정확히 저울질하면서”는 의미를 제대로
전달하지 못한다.
Wright(336쪽) : This is the second, less conspicuous foundational assumption of
Mill’s argument.
a. “less conspicuous”를 빼먹었다.
Wright(336쪽) : And it isn’t just us.
Wright(337쪽) : (except, again, when other organisms can help spread their genes)
a. “유기체의 확산”이 아니라 “유전자의 확산”이다.
Wright(337쪽) : But in the end, Darwin was simply a man who empathized boundlessly;
a. “단순한 남자”는 오역이다.
Wright(338쪽) : the very first organism ever to see its creator did precisely that.
Wright(338쪽) : The new paradigm strips self-absorption of its noble raiment.
a. self-absorption이라는 고상한 옷을 입고 있었던 것이 아니라 self-absorption(자기
몰두, 극도의 이기심)이 고상한 옷(겉치레, 도덕적 합리화)을
입고 있었던 것이다.
Wright(339쪽) : Its origin is no more heavenly than that of hunger, hatred, lust,
or any of the other things that exist by virtue of their past success in
shoving genes through generations.
이더하 : 그것의 기원은 배고픔, 증오, 욕정, 또는 유전자를
다음 세대로 보내는 데 과거에 성공했기 때문에 존재하는 다른 모든 것들의 기원보다 조금도 거룩하지 않다.
a. “세대를 거치며 유전자들을
밀치고 나온 덕분으로”는 도무지 뜻을 알 수 없는 구절이다.
Wright(339쪽) : It keeps people mindful of the interests of others. However lowly
its origins, it has come to serve a lofty purpose.
a. “It keeps people mindful of the interests of others.”를 빼먹었다.
b. “제시하게”는 부적절하다.
Wright(340쪽) : Our moral accounting system is wantonly subjective, informed by a
deep bias toward the self.
a. “자아에 대한 편견”이라고 하면 자아에
대한 나쁜 편견(동성애자에 대한 편견처럼)을 품은 것 같이
읽힌다.
Wright(340쪽) : We tend to find our rivals morally deficient, to find our allies
worthy of compassion, to gear that compassion to their social status, to ignore
the socially marginal altogether.
a. find를 “발견하다”로 번역했는데 적절하지 않은 번역이다.
b. “사회적 한계를”은 엉터리 번역이다.
Wright(340쪽) : Who could look at all this and then claim with a straight face that
our various departures form brotherly love possess the sort of integrity we
ascribe to them?
a. “우리는 어떤 사람에게
동정심을 보이지 않을 때에는 그 사람이 그럴 짓을 했기 때문이라고 생각한다. 하지만 사실 알고 보면
그것은 우리의 이해관계에 따른 것일 뿐이다.”라는 뜻이다.
Wright(340쪽) : If the base origins of retribution are grounds for doubting it, why
shouldn’t love be doubted too?
a. 여기서 “base”는 “근본적인”이 아니라 “저열한”, “비천한”, “이기적인” 등을 뜻한다.
Wright(341쪽) : love actually makes this sacrifice feel good, thus magnifying total
happiness all the more.
a. 여기서 “feel good”은 “선한 것이라고 느끼도록”이 아니라 “기분 좋게 느끼도록”을 뜻한다.
Wright(341쪽) : Her maternal love, though undeniably intense, doesn’t go down on the positive side of the moral ledger.
Wright(340쪽, 주) : The claim is that the new
paradigm can actually influence – legitimately – our choice of basic values in the first place.
a. “can”을 빼먹고 번역했다. 여기에서는 아주 중요한
단어다.
Wright(340쪽, 주) : By studying nature – by seeing the origins of the retributive impulse – we see how we have been conned into commiting the naturalistic fallacy
without knowing it;
a. “without knowing it”은 “자연주의적 오류를 범하는지도 모르는 채”를 뜻한다.
Wright(341쪽) : that baseness, per se, counts neither for nor against them; the
ultimate genetic selfishness underlying an impulse is morally neutral – grounds neither for embracing the impulse nor for condemning it.
a. “그 비열함은 그
자체로 도덕 감성에 찬성도 반대도 하지 않는다”은 부적절한 번역이다.
b. “the ultimate genetic selfishness underlying an impulse is morally
neutral – grounds neither for embracing the impulse nor
for condemning it.”를 빼먹었다.
Wright(341쪽) : even when they feel right, they may do harm. And surely hatred,
more often than love, does harm while feeling right. That is why I contend that
the new paradigm will tend to lead the thinking person toward love and away
from hate.
a. “even when they feel right, they may do harm. And
surely hatred, more often than love, does harm while feeling right.”를 빼먹었다.
b. “그 새로운 패러다임을
강력히 주장하는 것이다”는 잘못된 번역이다.
Wright(341쪽) : It helps us judge each feeling on its merits; and on grounds of
merit, love usually wins.
Wright(341쪽) : Of course, if you’re not a utilitarian, sorting these issues out may be more complex.
a. “쉽지 않다”와 “더 복잡하다”는 다르다. 공리주의자라고 해서 이 문제를 해결하는 것이 쉬운 것은 아니다. 단지
덜 복잡할 뿐이다.
Wright(342쪽) : You can keep finding laudable some of the things we’ve always found laudable – love, sacrifice, honesty.
Wright(342쪽) : His revulsion at natural selection’s values, he
writes, is even greater than Huxley’s, “based both on
the more extreme contemporary view of natural selection as a process for
maximizing selfishness, and on the longer list of vices now assignable to the
enemy.”
a. 현대의 좀 더 극단적인 견해와 더 길어진 악의 목록에 기반한 것은 헉슬리의 입장이 아니라
그[조지 윌리엄스]의 입장이다.
Wright(343쪽) : A good starting point would be to generally discount moral
indignation by 50 percent or so, mindful of its built-in bias, and to be
similarly suspicious of moral indifference to suffering.
a. “good starting point”를 잘못 번역했다.
Wright(343쪽) : they can be expected to use it accordingly, just as they can be
expected to pretend otherwise.
Wright(343쪽) : Status merits much less indulgence than it generally gets.
Wright(343쪽) : in the second case, this part of human nature is perhaps
unfortunate.
a. “이 인간 본성이라는
부분”이 아니라
“인간 본성의
이 부분”이다.
Wright(343쪽) : What about people who insist that not even happiness is a good
thing, or that only their happiness
is a good thing, or that for some other reason the welfare of others shouldn’t concern them?
a. “or that only their happiness
is a good thing”를 빼먹었다.
Wright(343쪽) : Well, for one thing, they probably go around acting as if it did. For the pretense of selflessness is about as much a part of human
nature as is its frequent absence.
a. “they probably go around acting as if it did”의 정확한 의미는 잘 모르겠다. 어쨌든
b. “이기주의는 인간 본성의 일부이기 때문이다” 역시 엉터리 번역이다.
Wright(344쪽) : We dress ourselves up in tony moral language, denying base motives
and stressing our at least minimal consideration for the greater good;
a. base는 여기서 “근본적인”이 아니라 “저열한”을 뜻한다.
Wright(344쪽) : We’ve seen what may be the rudiments of
selfserving moralizing in our close relatives the chimpanzees as they pursue
their agendas with righteous indignation.
a. “their agendas”는 “자신들이 협의한 사항”이 아니라 “자신들의 의제” 즉 자신들의 이해관계다.
Wright(344쪽) : Unlike them, we can distance ourselves from the tendency long
enough to see it -
a. “자신들과 거리를
두는” 것이 아니라 “자신을 그런 경향으로부터
떼어놓는” 것이다.
Wright(344쪽) : Darwin, on grounds such as this, believed that the human species is
a moral one – that, in fact, we are the only moral animal.
a. “only”를 빼먹었다.