2cc o@sis

即使我已經在字典中查過無數次這些詞彙的字義，甚至也在百科全書中搜尋這些字彙的歷史脈絡，也在許多文獻中不斷看到許多學者、思想家對於這些概念進行理論的爬梳。但是，直到如今使用、讀到這些詞彙，我還是會懷疑自己是否放在適當的脈絡中理解，畢竟這些字眼是完全在西方的文化下生長的，從希臘羅馬文化，從基督教文明到現代國家、經濟制度、工業文明，這些歷史脈絡都是源遠流長錯綜複雜的。

像是自由，freedom、liberty之間的差異在哪裡？另外，像是台灣人很愛講的「道德」，是moral、virtue、ethics的哪一環？然後，self-interest、self-love，翻譯成「自利」、「自愛」後，經常被等同於「自私」。

翻譯上的落差以及東西方文化極大的差異，許多概念討論的起點就已經是偏差的，因為滲入某些東方文化的文化偏見（像是個人主義或是自利）或是空泛浪漫的想像（像是福利、自由、平等、和平）。

許多時候，有鑑於西方的發展經驗（怎樣是成功、什麼是失敗）和台灣「標準答案」的訓練，在討論這些西方爭議數百年的概念之前，許多人已經預知要怎樣站在政治正確的位置上，好表現自己進步、現代、開明的一面，也有些人已經站好位置，準備抓住隻字片語將自己立場相反的人對號入座、扣上帽子、貼上標籤，好捍衛東方文化或是台灣意識。討論激烈眾聲喧嘩，但是，沒有進行到什麼溝通，大家都在自言自語各自表述。

對台灣人（或者說受中華文化影響的人）來說，「自私」、「自利」是帶有負面意涵的字眼。因為許多人相信「人性本善」、「惻隱之心人皆有之」、「人溺己溺、人飢己飢」，甚至相信「犧牲小我、完成大我」，相信「無私的愛與奉獻」。

我也相信，世上是有「無私」、「利他」、「不求回報」的付出，但是，非常非常非常非常非常稀少，並不是常態，就是如此稀少，才會物以稀為貴，讓大家稱頌。這樣的付出是非常「高貴」的情操，也是非常「昂貴」的供給，無法負擔成本的人，千萬不要輕言付出，不要等不到回報或是結果不如預期，又怪別人忘恩負義（像某些為民主或獨立奮鬥的鬥士們）。

我先前有說，我無法假惺惺說，我對中國的震災有多傷感，不是不傷感，但是，必須說，這樣的傷感是有限的，相較於我在九二一的傷感。人類的確具有同情心，但是與對於自己的關懷相比，人們還都是比較愛自己的。

雖然，不少人「慷慨」捐款，但是假如救災不是自己的工作，這些同情心都是有限的、比不上自愛，這樣的同情心也包含著自愛，甚至包含著許多的「算計」在「花錢消災」，是慨嘆在大自然力量下人類的渺小、感慨人生的無常、建立自己慷慨的形象或者體會施比受更美好的自我滿足。

亞當斯密當年在The Theory of Moral Sentiments剛好也舉了個中國大地震的慘重傷亡，以及與個人即將面對的小小損害：失去一個小指頭，來說明「同情心」的界線。（很可能，我誤解了他全書的主旨，我只是擷取了片段文章。）

Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. It is he who, whenever we are about to act so as to affect the happiness of others, calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it; and that when we prefer ourselves so shamefully and so blindly to others, we become the proper objects of resentment, abhorrence, and execration. It is from him only that we learn the real littleness of ourselves, and of whatever relates to ourselves, and the natural misrepresentations of self-love can be corrected only by the eye of this impartial spectator. It is he who shows us the propriety of generosity and the deformity of injustice; the propriety of resigning the greatest interests of our own, for the yet greater interests of others, and the deformity of doing the smallest injury to another, in order to obtain the greatest benefit to ourselves. It is not the love of our neighbour, it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.