Book 6 How to get the poor off our concience
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience教材
Amelioration: improvement or betterment,改善， 改良
Para: However, Malthus was himself not without a certain feeling of responsibility:….a fully effective method of birth control.
grieve:~ (for / over sb/sth) to feel very sad,
especially because sb has died: 使悲痛，使伤心
Subsistence: the state of having just enough money or food to stay alive: Many families are living below the level of subsistence. 生存，生计
Malthus urged that the marriage ceremony should contain a warning to people not to have excessive sexual intercourse and too many children. By “irresponsible”, Malthus meant that sexual intercourse should not be conducted out of lust,
Without thinking of consequences. Malthus hoped that in this way, birth control could be accomplished. But the author said that the warning had not been accepted. The author agreed that Malthus meant well but ironically implied that it was naïve to expect that humans would be convinced by the Malthusian argument.
how_to_get_the_poor_off_our_conscience翻译+原文资料讲解
h o w_t o_g e t_t h e_p o o r_o f f_o u r_c o n s c ie n c e翻译+原文如何使我们不为穷人的存在而内疚1.我想认真地思考人类最古老的一种活动，这项活动持续了多年，实际上已经超过了几个世纪，那就是尝试怎样使我们不为穷人的存在而内疚。
2.贫穷和富有从一开始就共生在一起，彼此很不愉快有时还充满危险。
普鲁塔克说：“贫富失衡乃共和政体最致命的宿疾。
”富有和贫穷持续共存产生的问题，特别是如何证明在其他人还贫穷时我们富有是有道理的这一问题。
成为有思想有学问的人几百年来孜孜不倦地思考探索的问题。
3.《圣经》提出了最初的解决之道：在现世遭受贫穷的人来世会得到更好的回报。
他们的贫穷是暂时的灾难：如果贫穷但却能顺从，他们将来就会成为世界的主人。
在某种程度上这就是最理想的解决方法。
这样一来，富人就可以一边嫉妒穷人的美好前途一边享受他们的财富。
4.很长时间之后，即在1776年《国富论》发表二三十年之后——在英国工业革命开始之后——贫穷不均的问题及其解决办法开始具有了现代的形式。
杰里米•本瑟姆，这位与亚当•斯密几乎是同时代的人，提出了这样一种准则，在某种程度上，美国人认为这一准则在英国几乎50年来一直影响显著，这就是实用主义学说。
“通过实用的原则，”本瑟姆在1789年指出，“也就是在每次行动中，依照政党各方利益受影响的好坏趋势，来赞同刚或则否决该项行动的原则。
”实用，实际上一定是以自我为中心的。
然而，社会中只有少数人拥有大量财富，却有更多人没有财富。
只要遵循本瑟姆的——“最大的利益给最多的人”，就能够解决社会问题。
社会尽力满足更多人的利益，然而对于那些利益没有被满足的人来说，这个结果是悲哀的。
5.在19世纪30年代，一种新的准则成为使我们不为穷人的存在感到内疚的有效办法，迄今为止它的影响也丝毫没有减弱。
这是与股票家戴维•里卡多和托马斯•罗伯特•马尔萨斯神父联系在一起的。
how to get the poor off our conscience翻译+原文知识分享
h o w t o g e t t h ep o o r o f f o u rc o n s c i e n c e翻译+原文如何使我们不为穷人的存在而内疚1.我想认真地思考人类最古老的一种活动，这项活动持续了多年，实际上已经超过了几个世纪，那就是尝试怎样使我们不为穷人的存在而内疚。
2.贫穷和富有从一开始就共生在一起，彼此很不愉快有时还充满危险。
普鲁塔克说：“贫富失衡乃共和政体最致命的宿疾。
”富有和贫穷持续共存产生的问题，特别是如何证明在其他人还贫穷时我们富有是有道理的这一问题。
成为有思想有学问的人几百年来孜孜不倦地思考探索的问题。
3.《圣经》提出了最初的解决之道：在现世遭受贫穷的人来世会得到更好的回报。
他们的贫穷是暂时的灾难：如果贫穷但却能顺从，他们将来就会成为世界的主人。
在某种程度上这就是最理想的解决方法。
这样一来，富人就可以一边嫉妒穷人的美好前途一边享受他们的财富。
4.很长时间之后，即在1776年《国富论》发表二三十年之后——在英国工业革命开始之后——贫穷不均的问题及其解决办法开始具有了现代的形式。
杰里米•本瑟姆，这位与亚当•斯密几乎是同时代的人，提出了这样一种准则，在某种程度上，美国人认为这一准则在英国几乎50年来一直影响显著，这就是实用主义学说。
“通过实用的原则，”本瑟姆在1789年指出，“也就是在每次行动中，依照政党各方利益受影响的好坏趋势，来赞同刚或则否决该项行动的原则。
”实用，实际上一定是以自我为中心的。
然而，社会中只有少数人拥有大量财富，却有更多人没有财富。
只要遵循本瑟姆的——“最大的利益给最多的人”，就能够解决社会问题。
社会尽力满足更多人的利益，然而对于那些利益没有被满足的人来说，这个结果是悲哀的。
5.在19世纪30年代，一种新的准则成为使我们不为穷人的存在感到内疚的有效办法，迄今为止它的影响也丝毫没有减弱。
这是与股票家戴维•里卡多和托马斯•罗伯特•马尔萨斯神父联系在一起的。
现代大学英语精读6 Lesson 1 How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience
How to Get the Poor off Our
Conscience
John Kenneth Galbraith
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006)
• A Canadian-American economist, author, professor, presidential counselor and U.S. ambassador to India
• awarded in 2000 with the Leontief Prize for his outstanding contribution to economic theory by the Global Development and Environment Institute.
• The library in his hometown Dutton, Ontario was renamed the John Kenneth Galbraith Reference Library in honor of his attachment to the library and his contributions to the new building.
• a frustrating half year
Political posts under Kennedy
• During his time as an adviser to President John F. Kennedy, Galbraith was appointed United States Ambassador to India from 1961 to 1963.
How to Get the Poor off our Conscience Paraphrase & Translation
How to Get the Poor off our ConscienceI.Paraphrase1.Virtue is, indeed must be, self-centered. (Para. 4)—By right action, we mean an action that helps, indeed it must help, promote personal interest.2.… (poverty) was a product of their excessive fecundity…(Para. 5)—…because poverty of the poor was caused by their having too many children.—…because poverty of the poor was a result of their having too many children.3.… the rich were not responsible for either its creation or its amelioration. (Para. 6)—…the existence of poverty was not the fault of the rich who therefore didn’t have to do anything to help solve this problem.—…the rich were not to blame for the existence of poverty and therefore should not be asked to help solve this problem.4.It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God. (Para. 8)—It is simply the effect of the law of nature, survival of the fittest, applied to economic and social life.—It is simply natural selection, or the law of survival of the fittest, that is functioning in economic and social life.5.It declined in popularity, and references to it acquired a condemnatory tone. (Para. 9)—(Social Darwinism began to be considered a bit too cruel.) Therefore, it became less popular, and when it was mentioned, it was usually the target of strong criticism.—(Social Darwinism began to be considered a bit too cruel.) Therefore, it became less popular, and people spoke of it with strong disapproval and criticism.6.… the search for a way of getting the poor off our conscience was not at an end; it was onlysuspended. (Para. 11)—…the effort to look for a way to justify our unconcern for the poor / the public apathy toward poverty had not really been abandoned; it had only been put off.7.… who are overwhelmingly honest and only rarely given to overpaying for monkey wrenches,flashlights, coffee makers, and toilet seats. (Para. 13)—… who are extremely honest and would only rarely pay high prices for office equipment to get sales commissions / kickbacks.8.This is perhaps our most highly influential piece of fiction. (Para. 15)—The argument that there is something seriously damaging about helping the poor, though very popular and widely accepted, is completely untrue / is a sheer lie.9.Belief can be the servant of truth — but even more of convenience. (Para. 16)—Belief itself can be useful in the search for truth. But, more often than not, it can be used for trouble-saving purposes and practical advantages.—Belief can be useful in pursuit of truth. But in more cases, it can be used for trouble-saving purposes and practical advantages.10.George Gilder…who tells to much applause that the poor must have the cruel spur of theirown suffering to ensure effort…. (Para. 20)—George Gilder…who advocates the highly-praised view that the poor will never work hard to change their own situation unless their great misery and suffering force them to doso.—George Gilder…who advocates that the poor must need their misery and suffering to force themselves to work hard, and such a view is widely accepted.II.Translation1.An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of republics.(Para. 2)—贫富不均乃共和政体最古老的不治之症。
how to get the poor off our conscience翻译+原文
如何使我们不为穷人的存在而疚1.我想认真地思考人类最古老的一种活动，这项活动持续了多年，实际上已经超过了几个世纪，那就是尝试怎样使我们不为穷人的存在而疚。
2.贫穷和富有从一开始就共生在一起，彼此很不愉快有时还充满危险。
普鲁塔克说：“贫富失衡乃政体最致命的宿疾。
”富有和贫穷持续共存产生的问题，特别是如何证明在其他人还贫穷时我们富有是有道理的这一问题。
成为有思想有学问的人几百年来孜孜不倦地思考探索的问题。
3.《圣经》提出了最初的解决之道：在现世遭受贫穷的人来世会得到更好的回报。
他们的贫穷是暂时的灾难：如果贫穷但却能顺从，他们将来就会成为世界的主人。
在某种程度上这就是最理想的解决方法。
这样一来，富人就可以一边嫉妒穷人的美好前途一边享受他们的财富。
4.很长时间之后，即在1776年《国富论》发表二三十年之后——在英国工业革命开始之后——贫穷不均的问题及其解决办法开始具有了现代的形式。
杰里米•本瑟姆，这位与亚当•斯密几乎是同时代的人，提出了这样一种准则，在某种程度上，美国人认为这一准则在英国几乎50年来一直影响显著，这就是实用主义学说。
“通过实用的原则，”本瑟姆在1789年指出，“也就是在每次行动中，依照政党各方利益受影响的好坏趋势，来赞同刚或则否决该项行动的原则。
”实用，实际上一定是以自我为中心的。
然而，社会中只有少数人拥有大量财富，却有更多人没有财富。
只要遵循本瑟姆的——“最大的利益给最多的人”，就能够解决社会问题。
社会尽力满足更多人的利益，然而对于那些利益没有被满足的人来说，这个结果是悲哀的。
5.在19世纪30年代，一种新的准则成为使我们不为穷人的存在感到疚的有效办法，迄今为止它的影响也丝毫没有减弱。
这是与股票家戴维•里卡多和托马斯•罗伯特•马尔萨斯神父联系在一起的。
它的本质很为人们所熟悉：穷人的贫穷是他们自己的错误。
贫穷是他们过度生育的结果。
很遗憾，他们不能控制性欲，过度生育把地球具有的养活人口的能力推向极限。
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience
How to Get the Poor off Our ConscienceJohn Kenneth Galbraith1 I would like to reflect on one of the oldest of human exercises, the process by which over the years, and indeed over the centuries, we have undertaken to get the poor off our conscience.2 Rich and poor have lived together, always uncomfortably and sometimes perilously, since the beginning of time. Plutarch was led to say: "An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of republics. " And the problems that arise from the continuing coexistence of affluence and poverty —and particularly the process by which good fortune is justified in the presence of the ill fortune of others — have been an intellectual preoccupation for centuries. They continue to be so in our own time.3 One begins with the solution proposed in the Bible: the poor suffer in this world but are wonderfully rewarded in the next. Their poverty is a temporary misfortune: If they are poor and also meek, they eventually will inherit the earth. This is, in some ways, an admirable solution. It allows the rich to enjoy their wealth while envying the poor their future fortune.4 Much, much later, in the twenty or thirty years following the publication in 1776 of The Wealth of Nations —the late dawn of the Industrial Revolution in Britain —the problem and its solution began to take on their modem form. Jeremy Bentham, a near contemporary of Adam Smith, came up with the formula that for perhaps fifty years was extraordinarily influential in British and, to some degree, American thought. This was utilitarianism. "By the principle of utility, " Bentham said in 1789, "is meant the principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interestis in question. Virtue is, indeed must be, self-centered. While there were people with great good fortune and many more with great ill fortune, the social problem was solved as long as, again in Bentham's words, there was "the greatest good for the greatest number. Society did its best for the largest possible number of people: one accepted that the result might be sadly unpleasant for the many whose happiness was not served.5 In the 1830s a new formula, influential in no slight degree to this day, became available for getting the poor off the public conscience. This is associated with the names of David Ricardo, a stockbroker, and Thomas Robert Malthus, a divine. The essentials are familiar: The poverty of the poor was the fault of the poor. And it was so because it was a product of their excessive fecundity: Their grievously uncontrolled lust caused them to breed up to the full limits of the available subsistence.6 This was Malthusianism. Poverty being caused in the bed meant that the rich were not responsible for either its creation or its amelioration. However, Malthus was himself not without a certain feeling of responsibility: He urged that the marriage ceremony contain a warning against undue and irresponsible sexual intercourse — a warning, it is fair to say, that has not been accepted as a fully effective method of birth control. In more recent times, Ronald Reagan has said that the best form of population control emerges from the market. (Couples in love should repair to R. H. Macy's, not their bedrooms.) Malthus, it must be said, was at least as relevant.7 By the middle of the nineteenth century, a new form of denial achieved great influence, especially in the United States. The new doctrine, associated with the name of Herbert Spencer, was Social Darwinism. In economic life, as in biological development, the overriding rule was survival of the fittest. That phrase —"survival of the fittest" —came, in fact, not from Charles Darwin but from Spencer, and expressed his view of economic life. The elimination of the poor is nature's way of improving the race. The weak and unfortunate being extruded, the quality of the human family is thus strengthened.8 One of the most notable American spokespersons of Social Darwinism was John D.Rockefeller —the first Rockefeller —who said in a famous speech: "The American Beauty Rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. And so is it in economic life. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.9 In the course of the present century, however, Social Darwinism came to re-considered a bit too cruel. It declined in popularity, and references to it acquired a condemnatory tone. We passed on to the more amorphous denial of poverty associated with Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. They held that public assistance to the poor interfered with the effective operation of the economic system — that such assistance was inconsistent with the economic design that had come to serve most people very well. The notion that there is something economically damaging about helping the poor remains with us to this day as one of the ways by which we get them off our conscience.10 With the Roosevelt revolution, a specific responsibility was assumed by the government for the least fortunate people in the republic. Roosevelt and the presidents who followed him accepted a substantial measure of responsibility for the old through Social Security, for the unemployed through unemployment insurance, for the unemployable and the handicapped through direct relief, and for the sick through Medicare and Medicaid. This was a truly great change, and for a time, the age-old tendency to avoid thinking about the poor gave way to the feeling that we did not need to try — that we were, indeed, doing something about them.11 In recent years, however, it has become clear that the search for a way of getting the poor off our conscience was not at an end; it was only suspended. And so we are now again engaged in this search in a highly energetic way. It has again become a major philosophical, literary, and rhetorical preoccupation, and an economically not unrewarding enterprise.12 Of the four, maybe five, current designs we have to get the poor off our conscience, the first proceeds from the inescapable fact that most of the things that must he done onbehalf of the poor must be done in one way or another by the government. It is then argued that the government is inherently incompetent, except as regards weapons design and procurement and the overall management of the Pentagon. Being incompetent and ineffective, it must not be asked to succor the poor; it will only louse things up or make things worse.13 The allegation of government incompetence is associated in our time with the general condemnation of the bureaucrat — again excluding those concerned with national defense. The only form of discrimination that is still permissible — that is, still officially encouraged in the United States today — is discrimination against people who work for the federal government, especially on social welfare activities. We have great corporate bureaucracies replete with corporate bureaucrats, but they are good; only public bureaucracy and government servants are bad. In fact, we have in the United States an extraordinarily good public service — one made up of talented and dedicated people who are overwhelmingly honest and only rarely given to overpaying for monkey wrenches, flashlights, coffee makers, and toilet seats. (When these aberrations have occurred, they have, oddly enough, all been in the Pentagon.) We have nearly abolished poverty among the old, greatly democratized health care, assured minorities of their civil rights, and vastly enhanced educational opportunity. All this would seem a considerable achievement for incompetent and otherwise ineffective people. We must recognize that the present condemnation of government and government administration is really part of the continuing design for avoiding responsibility for the poor.14 The second design in this great centuries-old tradition is to argue that any form of public help to the poor only hurts the poor. It destroys morale. It seduces people away from gainful employment. It breaks up marriages, since women can seek welfare for themselves and their children once they are without their husbands.15 There is no proof of this —none, certainly, that compares that damage with the damage that would be inflicted by the loss of public assistance. Still, the case is made —and believed — that there is something gravely damaging about aid to the unfortunate.This is perhaps our most highly influential piece of fiction.16 The third, and closely related, design for relieving ourselves of responsibility for the poor is the argument that public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on incentive. They transfer income from the diligent to the idle and feckless, thus reducing the effort of the diligent and encouraging the idleness of the idle. The modern manifestation of this is supply-side economics. Supply-side economics holds that the rich in the United States have not been working because they have too little income. So, by taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, we increase effort and stimulate the economy. Can we really believe that any considerable number of the poor prefer welfare to a good job? Or that business people — corporate executives, the key figures in our time — are idling away their hours because of the insufficiency of their pay? This is a scandalous charge against the American businessperson, notably a hard worker. Belief can be the servant of truth —but even more of convenience.17 The fourth design for getting the poor off our conscience is to point to the presumed adverse effect on freedom of taking responsibility for them. Freedom consists of the right to spend a maximum of one's money by one's own choice, and to see a minimum taken and spent by the government. (Again, expenditure on national defense is excepted.) In the enduring words of Professor Milton Friedman, people must be "free to choose".18 This is possibly the most transparent of all of the designs: No mention is ordinarily made of the relation of income to the freedom of the poor. (Professor Friedman is here an exception; through the negative income tax, he would assure everyone a basic income.) There is, we can surely agree, no form of oppression that is quite so great, no constriction on thought and effort quite so comprehensive, as that which comes from having no money at all. Though we hear much about the limitation on the freedom of the affluent when their income is reduced through taxes, we hear nothing of the extraordinary enhancement of the freedom of the poor from having some money of their own to spend. Yet the loss of freedom from taxation to the rich is a small thing as compared with the gain in freedom from providing some income to the impoverished. Freedom we rightly cherish. Cherishingit, we should not use it as a cover for denying freedom to those in need.19 Finally, when all else fails, we resort to simple psychological denial. This is a psychic tendency that in various manifestations is common to us all. It causes us to avoid thinking about death. It causes a great many people to avoid thought of the arms race and the consequent rush toward a highly probable extinction. By the same process of psychological denial, we decline to think of the poor. Whether they be in Ethiopia, the South Bronx, or even in such an Elysium as Los Angeles, we resolve to keep them off our minds. Think, we are often advised, of something pleasant.20 These are the modem designs by which we escape concern for the poor. All, save perhaps the last, are great inventive descent from Bentham, Malthus, and Spencer. Ronald Reagan and his colleagues are clearly in a notable tradition — at the end of a long history of effort to escape responsibility for one's fellow beings. So are the philosophers now celebrated in Washington: George Gilder, a greatly favored figure of the recent past, who tells to much applause that the poor must have the cruel spur of their own suffering to ensure effort; Charles Murray, who, to greater cheers, contemplates "scrapping the entire federal welfare and income-support structure for working and aged persons, including A.F. D. C., Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Workers' Compensation, subsidized housing, disability insurance, and, " he adds, "the rest. Cut the knot, for there is no way to untie it. " By a triage, the worthy would be selected to survive; the loss of the rest is the penalty we should pay. Murray is the voice of Spencer in our time; he is enjoying, as indicated, unparalleled popularity in high Washington circles.21 Compassion, along with the associated public effort, is the least comfortable, the least convenient course of behavior and action in our time. But it remains the only one that is consistent with a totally civilized life. Also, it is, in the end, the most truly conservative course. There is no paradox here. Civil discontent and its consequences do not come from contented people — an obvious point. To the extent that we can make contentment as nearly universal as possible, we will preserve and enlarge the social and political tranquility for which conservatives, above all, should yearn.Guide to ReadingJohn Kenneth Galbraith is the Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Harvard University. He is internationally known for his development of Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics as well as for his writing and his active involvement in American politics.In 1958 Galbraith published The Affluent Society, which challenged the myth of the U. S. economy's reliance on the gross national product for its social stability, positing instead that consumers' taste for luxury goods dictated the economy's focus at the expense of the common welfare.The title of this essay seems to suggest that Professor Galbraith is joining other philosophers and economists in trying to find a theory to get the poor off our conscience. This impression will not change until we come to the end of the essay and unless we have a firm grasp of the ironic tone of the writing.In the essay, the author brings up five historical solutions for getting the poor off our conscience. He then concentrates on five current designs for getting the poor off our conscience. In presenting the historical solutions, the author is implicit in his criticism. However, he comes out into the open when he deals with the current designs. Galbraith does not mince words in criticizing Reagan's economic policy, especially his rocketing defense budget. Galbraith warns at the end of the essay "Civil discontent and its consequences do not come from contented people." He points out that to make the poor contented is in the interest of the big business.Today the gaps in wealth between the rich and the poor in the United States have grown wider. According to a Federal Reserve report of Jan. 22, 2003, the difference in median net wealth between the 10% of families with the highest incomes and the 20% offamilies with the lowest incomes jumped 70% from 1998 through 2001. The median income of 2001 for the lowest 20% of families was $39, 900 while the median income for the highest 10% of families was $169,600. Yet the Bush Administration is pushing through Congress a tax cut plan which will mainly benefit the high income families. Some economists predict that the implementation of the Bush tax cut plan will exacerbate the polarization in American society.With this in mind, we will find Galbraith's essay still highly relevant and his insight admirable. His warning is still valid for the Bush Administration.Galbraith's writing is noted for its lucidity and persuasiveness. This is clearly evident in the current essay. His skillful employment of irony, from humorous irony to bitter satire, provides excellent examples for careful study.Words and expressions1. Emeritus One who is retired but retains an honorary title corresponding tothat held immediately before retirement 名誉退休的, 退休的2. Keynesian a supporter of Keynes's economic theories 凯恩斯主义者3. reflect on to form or express carefully considered thoughts about 思考, 反省4. ailment a mild, chronic illness 失调, 精神不安, 身体或精神不适, 尤其指小毛病economic ailment 经济失调women's ailments 妇女病5. preoccupation mentally being wholly occupied with or absorbed in one's thought6. to augment to make greater as in size, quantity, or strength; to enlarge7. fecundity fertility; productiveness8. supply-side 通过减税而刺激生产和投资的，供应经济学政策的9. except v.tr. to leave out; exclude 排除, 不包括e.g. An admission fee is charged, but children are excepted.10. condemnatory 谴责的, 非难的condemn: To express strong disapproval of 谴责表达强烈的反对意见11. fecundity fertility; productiveness 多产, 丰饶12. amelioration improvement; betterment .改善, 改进13. undue excessive; immoderate 不适当的14. overriding prevailing 最重要的；高于一切的15. to extrude to push or force out; to expel 逐出, 挤压出15. amorphous vague; without definite form 无定形的, 无组织的16. enterprise a bold, difficult, dangerous or important undertaking 一项雄心勃勃、复杂、且具危险性的事业17. to succor to give assistance to in times of need or distress; to help; to aid援助, 救援18. louse to bungle 搞乱，弄坏 e.g. loused the project 搅坏这个工程to louse up: (slang) to spoil; to ruin louse up a deal 搞坏一桩交易19. allegation an assertion or statement made without proof 主张，断言, 辩解20. replete (with) well-filled or plentifully supplied 充满的21. monkey wrench 活动扳手22. coffee maker a utensil, as an electrical appliance, for brewing coffee 咖啡壶23. aberration a departure from what is right or correct 失常24. to seduce to lead astray; to persuade or tempt to evil or wrongdoing 诱使25. gainful profitable 有利益的, 唯利是图的26. feckless weak; irresponsible 软弱无用的27. Elysium a paradise; (Greek mythology) the dwelling place of virtuouspeople after death .极乐世界, 至福之境28. celebrated much spoken of; famous; renowned 著名的29. spur stimulation to action; urge 鞭策, 刺激30. triage a system of assigning priorities of medical treatment to battlefieldcasualties on the basis of urgency, chance of survival, etc. 治疗类选法(根据紧迫性和救活的可能性等在战场上决定那些人优先治疗的方法)31. compassion sorrow for the suffering or trouble of another or others, accompaniedby an urge to help 同情,怜悯Notes1. John Kenneth Galbralth (1908 --- ): One of the most influential of contemporaryAmerican economists, John Kenneth Galbraith was educated at the Universities of Toronto and California and was, for many years, professor of economics at Harvard.Galbraith has served as American ambassador to India (1961 —1963), national chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, and presidential advisor to both President Kennedy and President Johnson. Galbraith has a long list of books and articles to his credit. One of the best known is The Affluent Society, which has become standard reading in college courses and has been translated into a dozen languages.Galbraith is a philosophical economist. He raises moral issues and questions social priorities, such as how wealth should be divided. In this article, published in the November 1985 issue of Harper's, he examines contemporary philosophies regarding poverty.2. Plutarch(45 --- 125) 希腊的历史家: priest of Delphic Oracle, twenty miles from theGreek town of Chaeronea, Plutarch's hometown. By his writings and lectures, Plutarch became a celebrity in the Roman Empire. At his country estate, guests from all over the empire came for serious conversation, presided over by Plutarch. Many of these dialogues were recorded and published. The 78 essays and other works which have survived are now known collectively as the Moralia.His most famous works are Parallel Lives.3. Adam Smith (1723 --- 1790): Scottish moral philosopher and economist famous for Tin'Wcaltli of Nations, which is generally recognized as the foundation work of classicaleconomics. In the work of The Wealth of Nations, Smith advocated the theory of the division of labor and asserted that in a laissez-faire economy the impulse of self-interest would bring about the public welfare.4. Jeremy Bentham (1748 --- 1832): English philosopher and social reformer who laid thefoundation for widespread reform of English law in the 19th century. Bentham's theory was expounded in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, published in 1789. In it he formulated the principle of utility,which approves of an action in so far as an action has an overall tendency to promote the greatest amount of happiness. Happiness is identified with pleasure and the absence of pain. Bentham believed that with the gradual improvement in (he level of education in society, people would be more likely to decide and vote on the basis of rational calculation of what would be for their long-term benefit. Individual rational decision-making would therefore, in aggregate, increasingly tend to promote the greater general happiness.5. utilitarianism: a philosophy based on Bentham's thinking. Utilitarianism is defined as"the greatest good of the greatest number". What is usually meant in practice is something like the following procedure for choosing between two or more actions:(1) Look at the state of the world after each action. Look in particular at the level ofhappiness of each person in the various situations.(2 ) Add up, somehow, those levels of happiness in each case.(3) Compare the results. The one which leads to the maximum total happiness is the(morally) right one.6. David Ricardo (1772 --- 1823): British economist. At the age of 20 he entered businessas a stockbroker and was so skillful in the management of his affairs that within five years he had amassed a huge fortune. In 1817, he published his major work The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. In the book Ricardo presented most of his important theories, especially those concerned with the determination of wages and value. For the problem of wages he proposed the "iron law of wages", according to which wages tend to stabilize around the subsistence level. Any rise in wage rates above subsistence level will cause the working population to increase to the point that heightened competition among the glut of laborers will cause their wages to fall back to the subsistence level. Ricardo also developed the theory of comparative advantage in international trade.7. Thomas Robert Malthus(1766 --- 1834): English clergyman and economist whopublished in 1798 his famous Essay on Population in which he formulated that population by increasing at a geometric rate tends to outstrip the food supply which increases only at an arithmetic rate.8. Malthusianism: theory of population growth by Thomas Robert Malthus who believed(1) Population is necessarily limited by means of subsistence; (2) Populationinvariably increases where means of subsistence increases unless prevented by some very powerful and obvious checks: (3) These checks, which repress the power of population growth, and keep its effects on a level with the means of subsistence are resolvable into moral restraint (chastity), vice (birth control, postponement of marriage) and misery (starvation).9. R. H. Macy’s: a department store which started in New York and became a chain inmany cities in the U. S. A.10. Herbert Spencer(1820 --- 1903): English philosopher who projected a vast10-volume work. Synthetic Philosophy,in which all phenomena are interpreted according to the principle of evolutionary progress.11. Social Darwinism: The central idea of Social Darwinism is "survival of the fittest".Followers of Herbert Spencer hold that human society is in an evolutionary process in which the fittest — which happen to be those who can make lots of money — are selected to dominate. There are armies of the unfit, the poor, who simply cannot compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock.12. Calvin Coolodge (1872 --- 1933): 30th President of the U. S. A. (1923 — 1929).13. Herbert Hoover (1874 --- 1964): 31st President of the U. S. A. (1929 — 1933 ).14. Medicare: a health insurance program in the U. S. created in 1965 and intended 10provide subsidized health and medical services for all U. S. residents, 65 years of age or over. In this program, medical bills are paid from trust funds which those covered have paid into. Medicare is funded by the federal government.15. Medicaid: U, S. medical assistance program. Medical bills are paid from federal, suiteand local tax funds. Medicaid serves some low-income people. It is a program jointly funded by the federal and state governments.16. supply-side economics: Supply-side economics stresses the impact of tax rates onincentives for people to produce and to use resources efficiently. A person's marginal tax rate — the tax rate he or she pays on an additional dollar of income — directly affects his or her incentive to work, to save and invest. According to the supply-side economy, when people are prohibited from receiving as much as possible from work and other taxable productive activities, they have less incentive to engage in such activities.17. Milton Friedman(1912 --- ): American supply-side economist, Nobel MemorialPrize winner in Economic Sciences in 1976 and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors of the Reagan Administration. His publications include A Monetary History of the United States, 1867—1960, coauthored with Anna J. Schwartz (1963) and Free to Choose, coauthored with his wife Ruse (1981).18. negative income tax: The idea of a negative income tax (NIT) is commonly thought tohave originated with economist Milton Friedman, who advocated it in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom.Normally, Americans file annual income returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and make payments based on the amount by which their incomes exceeded the threshold for tax liability. NIT beneficiaries would receive payments ("negative taxes") from the IRS, based on how far their incomes fell below the tax threshold. NIT would be introduced to replace social welfare system.19. George Gilder (1939 --- ): senior fellow at Discovery Institute, author of Wealth andPoverty (1981). He helped pioneer the formulation of supply-side economics and was the most frequently quoted living author in President Reagan's speeches.20. Charles Murray(1943 --- ): columnist and policy analyst, Bradley Fellow at theAmerican Enterprise Institute since 1990, Fellow at Manhattan Institute (1981—1990).His works include Tin' Underclass Revisited (1999), The Bell Curve, (coauthor), (1994) and loosing Ground, American Social Policy 1950—1980 (1984).Detailed Study of the TextPara. 11. I would like to reflect on one of the oldest of human exercises . . .I want to think seriously about one of the oldest practices of human beings ...2. ... we have undertaken to get the poor off our conscience.conscience: a sense of right and wrong, with an urge to do right3. What does the author want to reflect on?The author wants to discuss how people have been trying not to feel guilty about the existence of the poor people, to justify the continuing existence of poverty.Para. 24. Rich and poor have lived together, always uncomfortably and sometimes perilously,。
how to get the poor off our conscience课件
社会道德义务
社会有义务创造一个公平的环境，使每个人 都有机会获得基本的生活需求，如食物、住 所和教育。社会不公正会导致贫困的持续存 在。
对贫穷的同情与理解
了解贫穷的根源
要真正同情和理解贫穷，首先需 要了解其背后的原因。这包括贫 困的地理、社会、经济和政治因
素。
体验贫穷的困境
通过模拟贫穷生活的体验，人们 可以更好地理解贫穷的艰辛和挑 战。这有助于培养更深层次的同
开展公益活动
社会组织可以开展各种公益活动，如义卖、募捐、志愿服务等，筹 集资金和物资，帮助贫困人口改善生活。
倡导社会关注
社会组织应积极倡导社会各界关注贫困问题，提高公众对贫困问题 的认识和重视程度。
个人层面的行动与实践
参与志愿者活动
个人可以积极参与各种志 愿者活动，为贫困地区和 贫困人群提供帮助和服务 。
参与公益事业
个人可以参与公益事业，为消除贫困贡献自己的 力量。
呼吁全社会共同参与消除贫困
政府加大投入
政府应该加大对消除贫困的投入，制定更加有效的政策和措施。
企业承担社会责任
企业应该积极承担社会责任，为消除贫困提供资金和技术支持。
社会组织发挥积极作用
社会组织应该积极参与消除贫困的工作，推动社会公平和进步。
倡导社会公平正义
个人应该关注社会公平正义，支持政府和社会组织开展扶贫工作 ，推动社会进步和发展。
培养良好品德
个人应该具备同情心、关爱和尊重他人的品质，关注弱势群体的 需求和权益，为构建和谐社会做出贡献。
06
结语
对未来的展望与期待
贫困问题逐渐得到解决
随着社会的发展和政策的完善，贫困问题将逐渐得到缓解，更多 人将有机会摆脱贫困。
How to get the poor off our conscience 原文翻译
我想反映人类最古老的运动之一，其中多年来的过程，甚至数百年来，我们已承诺得到过我们的良知穷人。
富国和穷国共同生活，总是很不舒服，有时甚至达到危险的，因为时间的开始。
普鲁塔克率领说：“一个与富国和穷国，是共和国最古老，最致命的疾病。
”而继续合作，从出现的问题的富裕和贫穷的存在不平衡，尤其是过程，是好运在别人的厄运存在的理由- 已经一个世纪知识分子的当务之急。
他们继续这样做我们自己的时间。
一开始圣经提出的解决办法：穷人受害这个奇妙的世界，但在未来的回报。
在贫困是一种暂时的不幸，如果他们是穷人，也温顺，他们最终将继承地球。
这是，在某些方面，一个极好的解决方案。
它允许富人享受他们的财富，而穷人嫉妒他们的未来的财富。
[哈里克鲁斯的“页，从格鲁吉亚的无辜”讨论生活贫困的美化。
]很多，很久以后，在21或30年后，在国富1776年出版的英国工业革命后期黎明的问题及其解决方案开始就其现代形式。
边沁，近现代的亚当斯密，想出了一个办法，以便也许五十年是非常有影响力的英国，并在一定程度时，美国的想法。
这是功利主义。
“到实用的原则，”边沁在1789年说：“是指主要的批准或不予批准任何行动都根据它的趋势似乎已经以增强或削弱党的利益的问题是幸福。
“德的确必须是自我为中心。
虽然有非常好运气，很多人以极大的厄运更多的社会问题得到解决，只要再次在边沁的话说，有“为大多数人的最大好。
”学会做了最大可能的最好的多少人，一个接受，其结果可能是不幸的许多不愉快的幸福没有送达。
在1830年的一个新公式，在不小程度的影响到今天，成为政府获得了对公共良心的穷人提供。
这是与大卫李嘉图，一个股票经纪人，和托马斯罗伯特马尔萨斯，一个神圣的名字。
熟悉的基本条件是：穷人的贫穷是穷人的过错。
它是如此，因为这是他们的过度繁殖的产品：他们却严重失控的欲望使它们繁殖到现有生活的全部限制。
这是马尔萨斯主义。
贫困现象引起了床上意味着富人不是也不应设立或其改良负责。
然而，马尔萨斯本人是不是没有一定的责任的感觉：他敦促婚礼含有对不适当和不负责任的性行为警告，警告，可以公平地说，这并没有作为节育充分有效的方法接受控制。
how-to-get-the-poor-off-our-conscience翻译+原文资料
h o w-t o-g e t-t h e-p o o r-o f f-o u r-c o n s c i e n c e翻译+原文如何使我们不为穷人的存在而内疚1.我想认真地思考人类最古老的一种活动，这项活动持续了多年，实际上已经超过了几个世纪，那就是尝试怎样使我们不为穷人的存在而内疚。
2.贫穷和富有从一开始就共生在一起，彼此很不愉快有时还充满危险。
普鲁塔克说：“贫富失衡乃共和政体最致命的宿疾。
”富有和贫穷持续共存产生的问题，特别是如何证明在其他人还贫穷时我们富有是有道理的这一问题。
成为有思想有学问的人几百年来孜孜不倦地思考探索的问题。
3.《圣经》提出了最初的解决之道：在现世遭受贫穷的人来世会得到更好的回报。
他们的贫穷是暂时的灾难：如果贫穷但却能顺从，他们将来就会成为世界的主人。
在某种程度上这就是最理想的解决方法。
这样一来，富人就可以一边嫉妒穷人的美好前途一边享受他们的财富。
4.很长时间之后，即在1776年《国富论》发表二三十年之后——在英国工业革命开始之后——贫穷不均的问题及其解决办法开始具有了现代的形式。
杰里米•本瑟姆，这位与亚当•斯密几乎是同时代的人，提出了这样一种准则，在某种程度上，美国人认为这一准则在英国几乎50年来一直影响显著，这就是实用主义学说。
“通过实用的原则，”本瑟姆在1789年指出，“也就是在每次行动中，依照政党各方利益受影响的好坏趋势，来赞同刚或则否决该项行动的原则。
”实用，实际上一定是以自我为中心的。
然而，社会中只有少数人拥有大量财富，却有更多人没有财富。
只要遵循本瑟姆的——“最大的利益给最多的人”，就能够解决社会问题。
社会尽力满足更多人的利益，然而对于那些利益没有被满足的人来说，这个结果是悲哀的。
5.在19世纪30年代，一种新的准则成为使我们不为穷人的存在感到内疚的有效办法，迄今为止它的影响也丝毫没有减弱。
这是与股票家戴维•里卡多和托马斯•罗伯特•马尔萨斯神父联系在一起的。
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience全文
---------a fat and bad-looking lady
Outline
• Part I(1&2) opening: the search of ways of “getting the poor off our conscience”has been and continues to be an intellectual preoccupation
• He opposed the involvement of the United States in the war.
• In the years after the Vietnam War, Ken Galbraith put his energy into writing. In 1996, his book "The Good Society" was published. It was an update of his book "The Affluent Society." He pointed out that the United States had become even more a place for the wealthy, or a "democracy of the fortunate."
Rocketing defense budget
• “星球大战计划”的出台背景是在冷战后期， 由于苏联拥有比美国更强大的核攻击力量 和导弹破防能力，美国害怕“核平衡”的 形势被打破，需要建立有效的反导弹系统， 来保证其战略核力量的生存能力和可靠的 威慑能力，维持其核优势。同时，美国也 是想凭借其强大的经济实力，通过太空武 器竞争，把苏联的经济拖垮。这项计划于 1984年由美国总统R.里根批准实施.
现代大学英语第六册课后句子解释及翻译
Lesson 1 How to get the poor off our conscience1.Virtue is ... self-centered.By right action,we mean it must help promote personal interest.2....(poverty) was a product of their excessive fecundity...The poverty of the poor was caused by their having too many children.3....the rich were not responsible for either its creation or its amelioration.The rich were not to blame for the existence of poverty so they should not be asked to undertake the task of solving the problem.4.It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.It is only the result or effect of the law of the survival of the fittest applied to nature of to human society.5.It declined in popularity, and references to its acquired a condemnatory tone. People began to reject Social Darwinism because it seemed to glorify brutal force and oppose treasured values of sympathy,love and friendship.Therefore,when it was mentioned,it was usually the target of criticism.6....the search for a way of getting the poor off our conscience was not at an end; it was only suspended.The desire to find a way to justify the unconcern for the poor had not been abandoned,it had only been put off.7....only rarely given to overpaying for monkey wrenches, flashlights, coffee makers, and toilet seats.Government officials,on the whole ,are good,it is very rare that some would pay high prices for office equipment to get kickbacks.8.This is perhaps our most highly influential piece of fiction.It is a very popular story and has been accepted by many but it is not true.9.Belief can be the servant of truth---but even more of convenience.Belief can be useful in the search for truth,but more often than not it is accepted because it is convenient and self-serving.10.George Gilder... Who tells to much applause that the poor must have the cruel spur of their own suffering to ensure effort...George Gilder advances the view that only when the poor suffer from great misery will they be stimulated to make great efforts to change the situation,in other words,suffering is necessary to force the poor to work hard.Lesson 2 The woods were tossing with jewels1.But these marks of wild country called to may father like the legendary siren song.Though the place was not pleasant or disagreeable,my father was deeply attracted to it precisely because of its unexplored,uncultivated natural state,and the challenge.2."I'm afraid the day's going to catch us," I explained, wondering what great disaster might befall us if it did.As a little girl,I believed my father's words ,and was genuinely afraid of the possible disaster--if we didn't hurry up,the day would catch us and terrible things might happen.3....from time to time he was halfheartedly sought for trial, though few crimes seemed to lead directly to his door.In this place,though the police wound make some effort without real earnest to investigate Watson and bring him to court,there seemed to be little concrete evidence to prove that he was responsible for certain illegal activities.4.The stranglehold Watson had over this section of Florida was not dissimilar to the unscrupulous activities of certain lawmen, other legal crooks, and even governors that our state was to suffer through its history.The control Watson had over this part of Florida was much similar to the dishonest or illegal activities of the law-enforcing officials and governors which Florida witnessed in the 20th century.5.There was the little shack, not the most gracious of living quarters, and there wasa murderer for our nearest and only neighbor, about thirty miles away.Before the family built their own house,they lived in a shabby cabin at Gopher Key,close to the merciless Watson.6.King Richard in his gluttony neer sat at a table more sumptuous than ours was three times a day...We had abundant food on the island,and even the meals enjoyed by King Richard,who was famous for his love of food,couldn't possibly compare with ours.7.Despite the unrelenting heat, we were happy to be let off from our hours of school indoors, sessions which our mother kept every day, rain or shine.Although it was very hot outside in the sun,we were happy to be dismissed from my mother's sessions indoors.we would have to read and write with her every day no matter what the weather was,like. lesson 3 At war with the planet1.even droughts,floods ,and heat waves may become unwitting acts of man.What people do may unintentionally cause droughts,floods and heat waves.2.But this image, now repeatedly thrust before us in photographs, posters, and advertisements, is misleading.The Earth we see in photos,posters,and ads,which appears so beautiful,is not the true reflection of the world we live in ,such image lulls us into complacency.3.The technosphere has become sufficiently large and intense to alter the natural processes that govern the ecosphere.Human activities have taken place over such large areas and with such intensity that they have already caused disastrous effects on ecology.4....which could establish itself only because it fitted properly into the preexisting system.the fish could play its role because it became a necessary link with the processes preceding it and the processes following it in the ecological system.5.Defined so narrowly, it is no surprise that cars have properties that are hostile to their environment.when cars are produced to serve such narrow purposes,it is not surprising that some of their characteristic qualities are harmful to the environment.6.Yields rose, but not in proportion to the rate of fertilizer application...the farmer applied more and more fertilizer,and the production did rise but did not increase at the same rate of the fertilizer.7...their waste is flushed into the sewer system altered in composition but not in amount at treatment plant...people eat plants and animals,and their waste is flushed into the sewer system.After being processed,the waste is still waste.the residue will go into rivers,oceans,and will have harmful effect on the aquatic ecosystem.8.Left to their own devices, ecosystems are conservative...if the ecosystems are not upset by outside intrusion,they will remain the same with very little change9.In contrast to the ecosphere, the technosphere is composed of objects and materials that reflect a rapid and relentless process of change and variation.the characteristics of the objects and materials in the technosphere are rapid change and great variety.10.But this is done only at the cost of understanding.if we take side in the war of the two words,we are doing so at the risk of failing to have a clear understanding of the nature and cause of the war,thus,we lose the chance to really solve the grave environmental crisis.Lesson6 Death of a pig1.It is a tragedy enacted on most farms with ...The murder,being premeditated,is in the first degree..and the smoked bacon and ham provide...questionedthe tragedy has an ending---the killing of a pig and the serving of its meat.The killing deliberately planned and carried out efficiently,is the most type of murder.However,whether pigs should end their lives that way has never been questioned.1.A pig couldn't ask for anything better or none has, at any rateA pig could not ask for any better living conditions;at least no pig has ever complained.In a word,my pig lived in a pleasant environment2.You could see him down there at all hours, his white face parting (i)stethoscope dangling ...and grinning his corrosive grinFred was quite excited about the event.He was down at the pigpen all the time.because of his swollen joints,he moved about unsteadily.His face set apart the grass along the fence as he moved about.He was like a doctor,with his long ,drooping ears dangling like a stethoscope,and he scrabbbled on the ground as if he were prescibing some medicine. 3.When the enema bag appeared, and the bucket of warm suds, his happiness...full charge of the irrigationWhen it was time to dose the pig,Fred became even more excited,and he managed to get through the fence,and acted as if he was taking charge of the medical treatment. 4....and the premature expiration of a pig is...a sorrow in which it feels fully involved If a pig dies before he is supposed to ,it is a serious matter for the whole community to remember.The whole community would share the sadness for his death.5.I have written this account in penitence and in grief,as a man who...and to explain my...so many raised pigsThe purpose of this essay is to show that I am sorry for what has happened to mypig,since I have failed to raise the pig and cannot provide a reason why my pig could didn't grow the way other pigs have grown.6.The grave in the woods is unmarked,but ...and I know he and I...on flagless ..own choosingThe pig's grave in the woods doesn't have a tombstone,but whenever somebody wants to visit it,Fred will show him the way.I know we will often visit it,separate or together,when we need to ponder over problems or when we are depressed.Lesson101.Saint George may caper on banner and in the speeches of politicians, but it is John Bull who delivers the goods.As Saint George is a hero, the patron of arms, symbolizing chivalry, his image often appears on banners, and his name is often mentioned in the speeches of politicians. Saint George is used as a symbolic figure for political purposes. But John Bill is a tradesman and he delivers the goods we need in our daily life while making money at the same time.2.With its boarding-houses, its compulsory games, its system of prefects and fagging, its insistence on good form and on esprit de corps, it produces a type whose weight is out of all proportion to its numbers.The English public schools have unique features. First, all boys live in boarding houses. Second, sports and games are organized and compulsory as part of thee school curricula. Third, older students have special duties to help control younger students while the latter must do jobs for the former. Lastly, great emphasis is placed on good form and team spirit. These features enable the public school students to have disproportionately great influence.3.Note the word "bankrupt". I spoke as a member of a prudent middle-class nation, always anxious to meet my liabilities.Pay attention to my use of the word"bankrupt", a word related to business. This reveals my identity as a member of the commercial nation, who would be careful and sensible enough to avoid any risks of failing to pay their debts.4.But my friend spoke as an Oriental, and the Oriental has behind him a tradition, not of middle-class prudence but of kingly munificence and splendor.But my friend expressed his views as a member of the Oriental countries. They are nourished by a tradition of great generosity and richness, which is different from the English tradition of middle-class prudence.5."True love in this differs from gold and clay, That to divide is not to take away."In this aspect, true love is different from material things such as clay or even gold which can be divided and taken away. Yet, if we share true love, it will never diminish.6.I will now descend from that dizzy and somewhat unfamiliar height, and return to my business of notetaking.In the above anecdote, I have become an example of the Englishmen for the moment. That put me in a high position which makes me dizzy and is unfamiliar to me. I will now come down from that height and return to my role as your commentator on the characteristics of the Englishman.7. Such a combination is fruitful, and anyone who possesses it has gone a long way toward being brave.The Englishman's nervous system acts promptly and feels slowly. The combination of the two qualities is useful, and anyone who has this combination is most likely to be brave. 8.Since literature always rests upon national character, there must be in the English nature hidden springs of fire to produce the fire we see.As literature is based on national character, there must be in the English nature hidden resources of passion that have produced that great romantic literature we see. 9."Oh, I'm used to Bernard Shaw,;monkey tricks don't hurt me."That kind of criticism is just like Bernard Shaw's attacks. It is nothing new and I'm used to these tricks and jokes; they won't do any harm to me.10.And the "tolerant humorous attitude " with which he confronts them is not really humorous, because it is bounded by the titter and the guffaw.The Englishmen think they have a tolerant and humorous attitude toward criticism. In fact it is not so, because their attitude is limited by uncomfortable laughter, which indicates that beneath the surface of their tolerant humorous attitude, they are uneasy.When they try to be humorous and brush aside criticism, they would titter and guffaw. Such uncomfortable laughter is a sign of uneasiness.11.The cats are all out of their bags, and diplomacy cannot recall them.I have already made all my opinions known to you. What is said is said, and being diplomatic cannot unsay what has been said.Lesson 11. An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of republics.贫富不均乃共和政体最致命疾.2. Their poverty is a temporary misfortune, if they are poor and meek, they eventually will inherit the earth.他们的贫穷只是一种暂时性的不幸，如果他们贫穷但却温顺，他们最终将成为世界的主人.3. Couples in love should repair to R H Macy’s not their bedrooms.热恋的夫妇应该在梅西百货商店过夜,而不是他们的新房4. The American beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. And so is in economic life. It’s merely the working out of a law of the nature and a law of God.美国这朵玫瑰花以其华贵与芳香让观众倾倒，赞不绝口，而她之所以能被培植就是因为在早期其周围的花蕾被插掉了，在经济生活中情况亦是如此。
英语专业 综合英语第六册 课后问题
Lesson One How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience1.What are the five historical solutions?(1)The first solution proposed in the Bible (圣经): the poor suffer in this world butare wonderfully rewarded in the next. Their poverty is a temporary misfortune. If they are poor and also meek（逆来顺受）, they eventually will inherit the earth.(2)The second solution is utilitarianism (功利主义) . (Utilitarianism is the idea thatthe morally correct course of action is the one that produces benefit for the greatest number of people.)(3)Next is Malthusianism (人口论). The poverty of the poor was the fault of the poor.And it was so because it was a product of their excessive fecundity (生育).(4)Social Darwinism (社会达尔文主义) is the fourth solution. The elimination of thepoor is nature’s way of improving the race. （物竞天择，适者生存。
）(5)The notion that there is something economically damaging about helping the poorremains with us to this day as one of the ways by which we get them off our conscience. Public assistance to the poor interfered with the effective operation of the economic system.2.What are the five current designs?(1)Most of the things that must be done on behalf of the poor must be done in oneway or another by the government.(2)The second design is to allege that any form of public help to the poor only hurtsthe poor.(3)Public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on incentive.(4)Transferring money from the rich to the poor through the government has badeffect on freedom.(5)Finally, when all else fails, we resort to simple psychological denial.3.In the title, why the author use our instead of people’s?In starting our conscience, the author seems to indicate that he is included in the search of ways of “getting the poor off our conscience”, thus making it sound that he is reflecting on a moral sin we are all guilty of, rather than adopting a condescending way of preaching. The word“our”implicitly includes “all people who are not poor – the rich”. It’s ironical, so it is not precise if it is changed to “people’s” conscience.4.How did people feel when a number of social welfare measures were put intopractice. Were they right in thinking so?People felt that the policy of ignoring the poor and refusing assistance had beenabandoned. The government was making efforts to relieve the misery of the unfortunate, so they did not need to pay attention any more.They were not completely right. While it was true that many measures had been implemented and were working, the desire to get the poor off our conscience still lingered on, waiting for a chance to come back.Lesson Two The Woods Were Tossing with JewelsWhat does “jewels” mean in the title?(1)The author compares “the birds in the woods”to “jewels”because of theirbrightly colored plumage (羽毛), and since the birds flew back and forth across the trail, the author felt as a little girl that the woods were tossing with jewels. (2)“Jewels”also symbolize some qualities, such as self-reliance (自信), freedom,courage, hard work, simple life, love of nature, love of family, trust and caring.Lesson Three At War with the Planet1.What are the two worlds that people live in? What is the common, unthinkingattitude towards the two worlds?(1)The two worlds refer to natural world and the world of human creation.(2)The attitude is: we are responsible for events of our own world, but not for whatoccurs in the natural world.2.What’s the purpose of the author’s writing?The purpose is not to support the ecosphere or the technosphere, but to find a way to end the war and to allow peaceful accommodation to the needs of the natural order. 3.What are the two spheres? And their differences?The two spheres refer to ecosphere and technosphere.According to the author, the ecosphere refers to the air, water and soil that cover the Earth and the plants and animals that live on it. The technosphere means man-made things.(1)The ecosphere is an elaborate(精细的) network, in which each component part islinked to many others. In the technosphere, the component parts have a very different relation to their surroundings.(2)The ecosphere process is closed cyclical（循环）,while the process of technosphereis linear（直线）.(3)The ecosphere is consistent and harmonious, while the technosphere is full ofrapid change and variation.4.What are the three laws?(1)Everything is connected to everything else.(2)Everything has to go somewhere.(3)Nature knows best.Lesson Four Nettles1. What does “Nettles” mean?The narrator remembered the Nettles. But those plants with big pinkish-purple flowers are not nettles. They are called joe-pye weeds. In fact nettles are stinging insignificant-looking plants with stalks outfitted with skin-piercing spines. Her mistaking joe-pye weeds for weeds for nettles implies that ordinary life is more like the insignificant-looking nettles that are stinging and piercing, thus irritating and annoying people rather than the joe-pye weeds with snowy pinkish-purple flowers. Real life is disturbing, frustrating and unsettling, offering no tidy resolution.2. What’s the narrator’s new perception of love at last?What happened, or rather what did not happen between Mike and her gave her a new perception of love. Love that was not usable, that knew its place. Not risking a thing yet staying alive as sweet trickles, an underground resource. This is the theme of the story. The event that took place during that weekend may not seem very special or exciting, but through it the author explores the complexity of human emotions and the beauty of ordinary life.3. The symbol of stormDuring the storm, the two were holding each other tightly, but they did that to protect themselves from the terrible storm. Now they kissed and pressed together because they had just survived a devastating storm, a dangerous situation. They did that embraced as a spontaneously shared ritual. At this moment, lust that had disturbed her in the night gave way to this sense of togetherness. We can see that in a sense, the rain had washed away the lust and purified her mind, thus purifying their relationship, too.Lesson Five One against the Many1.What do “one” and “many” mean? What does the author really want to tell us? They refer to “one viewpoint”and “many viewpoints”. In other words, the author regards pragmatism as the key factor which contributed to the rapid development of the United States.2.Some words about “one” and “many”One: ideology, dogma, hedgehogs, creed, proposition.Many: ideal, pragmatism, empiricism, empirical, practical, process, foxily.3.What are the factors which contribute to the rapid development of the UnitedStates?(1)One factor was deep faith in education.(2)Another factor in the process of American development has been the commitmentto self-government and representative institutions. A related factor has been the conviction of the importance of personal freedom and personal initiative –the feeling that initiative the individual is the source of creativity. Another has been the understanding of the role of cooperative activity, public as well as voluntary. (3)But fundamental to all of those has been the national rejection of dogmaticpreconceptions about the nature of the social and economic order.Lesson Six Death of a Pig1.What is the scheme of raising a pig?Buy a piglet in blossom time, feed it through summer and fall, and then butcher it when the solid cold weather arrives.2.Is the story a tragedy or comedy?Although the author humorously describes the death of his pig, he sho ws great sympathy, worry, and sadness. On the whole, the story should be considered as a tragedy instead of a comedy.3.What is the message the author wants to express?White, however, is not merely portraying a tragic scene; he is conveying an important message. To him, time may be circular for the seasons, the weather, and human nature, but for human, or animals in this case, time is painfully one-directional.4.What does the author think through the pig’s pain and suffering?The pain and suffering of the pig made him think of the fate of man and insecure, suffering world. He wrote, “the pig’s imbalance became the man’s vicariously, and life seems insecure, displaced, transitory”. When the pig finally died, White felt notthe loss of ham, but the loss of pig because it “had suffered in a suffering world”. The author is aging and dying. To him, the suffering of the pig symbolizes the suffering of human beings.Lesson Seven1.What is an inaugural address?Presidential inauguration is a solemn occasion which requires a formal speech. Hence the employment of pseudo-Roman and biblical language to add solemnity. The occasion also demands that the speech should be short, forceful and appealing to emotion. Hence the speech uses structure, antithesis and anaphora and includes the memorable statement of “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”2.What’s the purpose of his speech?Against such a domestic and international background, Kennedy’s speech was designed to convince and persuade. Kennedy wanted to convince the American people and the world that the President and his team were capable of leadership, with vigor and vision. He needed to persuade the allies to stand with the United States, as well as to persuade newly independent countries and other poor Third World countries that the new administration would be friendly to them. Further Kennedy hoped to persuade the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Pact countries that the new administration bore them no ill-will and wanted to work with them for peace and prosperity.3.What is the nature of the struggle?This is a struggle for peace, democracy and prosperity. The enemies of the struggle are tyranny, poverty, disease, war and natural disasters. These enemies are the common enemies of all of us.4.The functions of Chinese President?LeaderTo serve the people as a servant.5. What does “torch” refer to?The torch refers to the spirit of the First Revolution. The First Revolution refers to the War of Independence. It is considered to be the first successful bourgeois revolution in the world.Lesson Nine The Bluest Eye1. Symbol of The bluest eyesIt refers to goodness happiness and beauty in the white society, while blackness is perceived ugliness.Pecola’s greatest desire is to have blue eyes. She believes that her ugliness is the source of all her misery and that having blue eyes will be the key to happiness. She is convinced that if she had blue eyes, she would become pretty and happy that a ll her problems would be gone. She would become a beautiful girl loved by everyone.2. Wind and Snow(最后一段)the author describes how Pecola walks away from the house in a cold wind. A cold wind is blowing and snow is dying on the pavement, which implies that something in Pecola’s heart also has dead. The cold wind and snow reflect the coldness Pecola feels after the event; the coldness in nature reflects the coldness in human relationships.。
How-to-Get-the-Poor-off-Our-ConsciencePPT优秀课件
3
Organization of the text
• *Part I (Para. 1-2): opening part • *Part II (Para. 3-9): five solutions
及残疾人 • Direct relief 直接救济 • Medicare and medicaid 医疗照顾和医疗补助 • Steam trains gave way to electric trains soon
after the war. • Ice and snow should give way to warmer
5
Reflect
• (1) The moon reflects the sun’s rays. • (2) The low value of the dollar reflects
growing concern of Americans. • (3) Take some time to reflect on your
• The author’s writing style: lucidity and persuasiveness, skillful employment of humorous irony to bitter satire.
• Rhetorical device: irony. • Words and expressions: perilous, justify,
4
Part I (Para. 1-2)
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience翻译版
如何将穷人从良心中抹去我打算认真反思一下某种人类行为。
这是一种多年来，乃至多个世纪以来，我们试图借此将穷人从良心中抹去的行为。
有史以来，穷人便与富人生活在一起。
这通常都是令人不适的，偶尔甚至是危机四伏的。
普鲁塔克如是说：“贫富间的不平等是社会中最古老也最致命的宿疾。
”这种起源于贫富长期共存的问题多个世纪以来都是有才智之人所全神贯注的事业，特别是如何在其他人贫穷的时候，使富人合理地拥有财富。
如今，他们依旧乐于此道。
首先，是由《圣经》提出的“穷人此世受苦而后世享福”。
贫穷只是暂时的不幸，如果穷人顺从，最后必将拥有世界。
从某些方面来说，这的确是一个绝妙的解决方法，它使富人一边嫉妒着穷人未来的财富一边享受着自己现在的财富。
很久之后，也就是1776年出版《国富论》后二三十年间，英国迎来了工业革命的曙光。
这时的问题和其解决方法开始换上现代形式的外衣。
与亚当·斯密同时代的杰里米·本瑟姆提出了一种在五十年左右的时间中，对英国思想有着深远影响，也在一定程度上影响了美国思想的准则，这就是功利主义。
本瑟姆在1789年提出：“功利原则是指一种依照利益相关的参与方的幸福感增减的趋势来决定赞成与否某项行动的原则。
”利己即是美德。
当少数人富有而多数人贫穷的时候，按照本瑟姆的话说，只要遵从“多数人利益优先”的原则就能解决社会问题。
社会尽其所能来满足多数人，认同这一点的人或许该为那些利益未被满足的人而难过。
在18世纪30年代，出现了一种能帮助我们将穷人从良心中抹去的方式，并影响至今。
于此相关的是股票家大卫·李嘉图和神父托马斯·罗伯特·马尔萨斯。
他们观点的本质是一样的，都认为穷人的贫穷是穷人自己造成的。
之所以这么说，是因为穷人过度生育，就是说穷人不加节制地放纵性欲导致他们需要供养的孩子超出了极限。
这就是马尔萨斯人口论——富人无需对穷人纵欲造成的贫穷的产生和改善承担责任。
然而，马尔萨斯本人也不是没有责任感的人，他极力主张婚礼庆典中加入一个反对过度而不负责任的性行为的警告。
HOW_TO_GET_THE_POOR_OFF_OUR_CONSCIENCE
Part 4
• Para.17-18: the freedom of the affluence is reduced while that of the impoverished is not extraordinarily enhanced by taking money to help the poor from the taxes of the rich • Para.19: psychological denial to the poor can also be a method to get out of the poor from the rich’s conscience
Part 1 • Para.1-2: This article begins with pointing directly out that the theme or problem “How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience” has existed with a long history
Part 5
• Para.21: the author points out that compassion, along with the associated public effort is in the interest of the conservatives to preserve and enlarge the social and political tranquility.
HOW TO GET THE POOR OFF OUR CONSCIENCE
John Kenneth Galbraith
Outline of the Essay
• Part 1(para.1-2): the oldest project in “getting the poor off our conscience” • Part 2(para.3-9): five historical solutions for getting the poor off our conscience • Part 3(para.10-11): a transition • Part 4(para.12-20): five current designs for getting the poor off our conscience • Part 5(para.21): the conclusion
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience is an essay, with clear logic and a tone of irony, written by John Kenneth Galbraith who is known for his development of Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics as well as for his writing and his active involvement in American politics.This article begins with pointing directly out that the theme or problem “How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience” has existed with a long history. AS for how to get the poor off our conscience, the author, in the second part of this article, brings up five historical solutions: according to the bible, the poor should be patient enough to their poverty of the current life so as to enjoy their future fortune in the next life; according to the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentharn, the greatest good for the greatest number, society does its best for the largest possible number of people, by which people can get the poor off their conscience; based on Malthusianism, poverty is caused by the undue and irresponsible sexual intercourse of the poor, so the poverty is the fault of the poor and nothing related with the rich; the theory of “survival of the fittest” of Social Darwinism provides the rich an excuse that the poor and the affluence are the results of the operation of the law of nature and God; Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover believe that assistance to the poor is inconsistent with the economic design and also damages the economy, by which the rich can also get the poor out of their conscience.After the Roosevelt revolution a lot of substantial measures have been taken, however the author thinks that is, actually, a way to avoid thinking about the poor. In recent years, the search for a way of getting the poor off the rich’s conscience is not at an end. There are five current designs for people to choose: the government incompetence should be the reason for the poor; helping the poor only hurts the poor; public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on the motivation of the rich and the diligent; the freedom of the affluence is reduced while that of the impoverished is not extraordinarily enhanced by taking money to help the poor from the taxes of the rich; psychological denial to the poor can also be a method to get out of the poor from the rich’s conscience. In the end of this part, the author concludes that the modern designs except the psychological denial are all the variations of the historical solutions. So are some solutions or designs now welcomed in Washington, such as those proposed by George Gilder and Charles Murray.In the last part of the article, the author points out that compassion, along with the associated public effort is in the interest of the conservatives to preserve and enlarge the social and political tranquility.I would like to reflect on one of the oldest of human exercises, the process by which over the years, and indeed over the centuries, we have undertaken to get the poor off our conscience.Rich and poor have lived together, always uncomfortably and sometimes perilously, since the beginning of time. Plutarch was led to say: “An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of republics.” And the problems that arise from the continuing co-existence of affluence and poverty–and particularly the process by which good fortune is justified in the presence of the ill fortune of others — have been an intellectual preoccupation for centuries. They continue to be so in our own time.One begins with the solution proposed in the Bible: the poor suffer in this world but are wonderfully rewarded in the next. The poverty is a temporary misfortune; if they are poor and also meek they eventually will inherit the earth. This is, in some ways, an admirable solution. It allows the rich to enjoy their wealth while envying the poor their future fortune. [Harry Crews’s “Pages from the Life of a Georgia Innocent” discusses the romanticizing of poverty.]Much, much later, in the twenty or thirty years following the publication in 1776 of The Wealth of Nations–the late dawn of the Industrial Revolution in Britain–the problem and its solution began to take on their modern form. Jeremy Bentham, a near contemporary of Adam Smith, came up with the formula that for perhaps fifty years was extraordinarily influential in British and, to some degree, American thoug ht. This was utilitarianism. “By the principle of utility,” Bentham said in 1789, “is meant the principal which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of th e party whose interest is in question.” Virtue is, indeed must be, self-centered. While there were people with great good fortune and many more with great ill fortune, the social problem was solved as long as, again in Bentham’s words, there was “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Society did its best for the largest possible number of people; one accepted that the result might be sadly unpleasant for the manywhose happiness was not served.In the 1830’s a new formula, influential in no slight de gree to this day, became available for getting the poor off the public conscience. This is associated with the names of David Ricardo, a stockbroker, and Thomas Robert Malthus, a divine. The essentials are familiar: the poverty of the poor was the fault of the poor. And it was so because it was a product of their excessive fecundity: their grievously uncontrolled lust caused them to breed up to the full limits of the available subsistence.This was Malthusianism. Poverty being caused in the bed meant that the rich were not responsible for either its creation or its amelioration. However, Malthus was himself not without a certain feeling of responsibility: he urged that the marriage ceremony contain a warning against undue and irresponsible sexual intercourse–a warning, it is fair to say, that has not been accepted as a fully effective method of birth control. In more recent times, Ronald Reagan has said that the best form of population control emerges from the market. (Couples in love should repair to R. H. Macy’s, not their bedrooms.) Malthus, it must be said, was at least as relevant.By the middle of the nineteenth century, a new form of denial achieved great influence, especially in the United States. The new doctrine, associated with the name of Herbert Spencer, was Social Darwinism. In economic life, as in biological development, the overriding rule was survival of the fittest. That phrase–”survival of the fittest”–came, in fact, not from Charles Darwin but from Spencer, and expressed his view of econom ic life. The elimination of the poor is nature’s way of improving the race. The weak and unfortunate being extruded, the quality of the human family is thus strengthened.One of the most notable American spokespersons of Social Darwinism was John D. Rockefeller–the first Rockefeller–who said in a famous speech: “The American Beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. And so it is in economic life. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.” [Jacob Riis’s How the Other Half Lives was written during the time of Social Darwinism and played a major role in this ideology’s demise.]In the course of the present century, however, Social Darwinism came to be considered a bit too cruel. It declined in popularity, and references to it acquired a condemnatory tone. We passed on to the more amorphous denial of poverty associated with Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. They held that public assistance to the poor interfered with the effective operation of the economic system–that such assistance was inconsistent with the economic design that had come to serve most people very well. The notion that there is something economically damaging about helping the poor remains with us to this day as one of the ways by which we get them off our conscience. [It doesn’t follow, however, that government aid to the affluent is morally damaging; see “The Next New Deal” and “Reining in the Rich”.]With the Roosevelt revolution (as previously with that of Lloyd George in Britain), a specific responsibility was assumed by the government for the least fortunate people in the republic. Roosevelt and the presidents who followed him accepted a substantial measure of responsibility for the old through Social Security, for the unemployed through unemployment insurance, for the unemployable and the handicapped through direct relief, and for the sick through Medicare and Medicaid. This was a truly great change, and for a time, the age-old tendency to avoid thinking about the poor gave way to the feeling that we didn’t need to try–that we were, indeed, doing something about them.In recent years, however, it has become clear that the search for a way of getting the poor off our conscience was not at an end; it was only suspended. And so we are now again engaged in this search in a highly energetic way. It has again become a major philosophical, literary, and rhetorical preoccupation, and an economically not unrewarding enterprise.Of the four, maybe five, current designs we have to get the poor off our conscience, the first proceeds from theinescapable fact that most of the things that must be done on behalf of the poor must be done in one way or another by the government. It is then argued that the government is inherently incompetent, except as regards weapons design and procurement and the overall management of the Pentagon. Being incompetent and ineffective, it must not be asked to succor the poor; it will only louse things up or make things worse.The allegation of government incompetence is associated in our time with the general condemnation of the bureaucrat–again excluding those associated with national defense. The only form of discrimination that is still permissible–that is, still officially encouraged in the United States today–is discrimination against people who work for the federal government, especially on social welfare activities. We have great corporate bureaucracies replete with corporate bureaucrats, but they are good; only public bureaucracy and government servants are bad. In fact we have in the United States an extraordinarily good public service–one made up of talented and dedicated people who are overwhelmingly honest and only rarely given to overpaying for monkey wrenches, flashlights, coffee makers, and toilet seats. (When these aberrations have occurred they have, oddly enough, all been in the Pentagon.) We have nearly abolished poverty among the old, greatly democratized health care, assured minorities of their civil rights, and vastly enhanced educational opportunity. All this would seem a considerable achievement for incompetent and otherwise ineffective people. We must recognize that the present condemnation of government and government administration is really part of the continuing design for avoiding responsibility for the poor.The second design in this great centuries-old tradition is to argue that any form of public help to the poor only hurts the poor. It destroys morale. It seduces people away from gainful employment. It breaks up marriages, since women can seek welfare for themselves and their children once they are without husbands.There is no proof of this-none, certainly, that compares that damage with the damage that would be inflicted by the loss of public assistance. [See Robert Greenstein’s congressional testimony.] Still, the case is made–and believed–that there is something gravely damaging about aid to the unfortunate. This is perhaps our most highly influential piece of fiction.The third, and closely related, design for relieving ourselves of responsibility for the poor is the argument that public-assistance measures have an adverse effect on incentive. They transfer income from the diligent to the idle and feckless, thus reducing the effort of the diligent and encouraging the idleness of the idle. The modern manifestation of this is supply-side economics. Supply-side economics holds that the rich in the United States have not been working because they have too little income. So, by taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, we increase effort and stimulate the economy. Can we really believe that any considerable number of the poor prefer welfare to a good job? Or that business people–corporate executives, the key figures in our time–are idling away their hours because of the insufficiency of their pay? This is a scandalous charge against the American businessperson, notably a hard worker. Belief can be the servant of truth–but even more of convenience.The fourth design for getting the poor off our conscience is to point to the presumed adverse effect on freedom of taking responsibility for them. Freedom consists of the right to spend a maximum of one’s money by one’s own choice, and to see a minimum taken and spent by the government. (Again, expenditure on national defense is excepted.) In the enduring words of Professor Milton Friedman, people must be “free to choose.”This is possibly the most transparent of all of the designs; no mention is ordinarily made of the relation of income to the freedom of the poor. (Professor Friedman is here an exception; through the negative income tax, he would assure everyone a basic income.) There is, we can surely agree, no form of oppression that is quite so great, no construction on thought and effort quite so comprehensive, as that which comes from having no money at all. Though we hear much about the limitation on the freedom of the affluent when their income is reduced through taxes, we hear nothing of the extraordinary enhancement of the freedom of the poor from having some money of their own to spend. Yet the loss offreedom from taxation to the rich is a small thing as compared with the gain in freedom from providing some income to the impoverished. Freedom we rightly cherish. Cherishing it, we should not use it as a cover for denying freedom to those in need.Finally, when all else fails, we resort to simple psychological denial. This is a psychic tendency that in various manifestations is common to us all. It causes us to avoid thinking about death. It causes a great many people to avoid thought of the arms race and the consequent rush toward a highly probable extinction. By the same process of psychological denial, we decline to think of the poor. Whether they be in Ethiopia, the South Bronx, or even in such an Elysium as Los Angeles, we resolve to keep them off our minds. Think, we are often advised, of something pleasant.These are the modern designs by which we escape concern for the poor. All, save perhaps the last, are in great inventive descent from Bentham, Malthus, and Spencer. Ronald Reagan and his colleagues are clearly in a notable tradition–at the end of a long history of effort to escape responsibility for one’s fellow beings. So are the philosophers now celebrated in Washington: George Gilder, a greatly favored figure of the recent past, who tells to much applause that the poor must have the cruel spur of their own suffering to ensure effort; Charles Murray, who, to greater cheers, contemplates “scrapping the entire federal welfare and income-support structure for working and aged persons, including A.F.D.C., Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Workers’ Compensation, subsidized housing, disability insurance, and,” he adds, “the rest. Cut the kno t, for there is no way to untie it.” By a triage, the worthy would be selected to survive; the loss of the rest is the penalty we should pay. Murray is the voice of Spencer in our time; he is enjoying, as indicated, unparalleled popularity in high Washington circles.Compassion, along with the associated public effort, is the least comfortable, the least convenient, course of behavior and action in our time. But it remains the only one that it compatible with a totally civilized life. Also, it is, in the end, the most truly conservative course. There is no paradox here. Civil discontent and its consequences do not come from contented people–an obvious point to the extent to which we can make contentment as nearly universal as possible, we will preserve and enlarge the social and political tranquillity for which conservatives, above all, should yearn. This essay originally appeared in Harper’s Magazine, November, 1985In the article the Merely Very Good, there are four main characters inside and every two persons form a contrast group. Pall A.M. Dirac to J. Robert Oppenheimer is what W.H. Auden to Stephen Spender. So there is a conclusion that Dirac and Auden are great and Oppenheimer and Spender are merely very good. In my opinion, I totally agree with the au thor’s idea and the reasons are as follows.To begin with, Dirac and Auden belonged to the same kind person. Dirac was quite smart and talented, but he was not assertive like Oppenheimer. “He rarely spoke, but when he did, it was always with extraordina ry precision and often with devastating effect.”When Dirac was on T.D. Lee’s car from New York to Princeton through the Lincoln Tunnel, he could calculate the money of the tollbooths in advance. Besides, he used to introduce his wife in a special way---“ I would like you to meet Wigner’s sister.” What’s more, he would spend a good deal of time in the woods near the institute with an ax, chopping a path in the general direction of Trenton. He was almost the same great as Einstein. As Dirac put it, “the real ly good ideas in physics are had by only person.”As for Auden, he was great, too. Auden must have been to Spender what Dirac was for Oppenheimer, a constant reminder of the difference between being “great” and being “merely” very good. “It would not be v ery difficult to imitate the late Auden. For in his late poetry there is a rather crotchety persona into whose carpet slippers some ambitious young man with a technique as accomplished could slip. But it would be very difficult to imitate the early Auden.”“Auden’s Dirac-like lucidity, the sheer wonder of the language, and the sense of fun about serious things.” “By being profoundly eccentric, both Auden and Dirac, probably not by accident, insulated themselves. They focused like laser beams.” For above, weknow Dirac and Auden are truly great.Secondly, Oppenheimer and Spender had much in common. Both of them had some uncertain features. In other words, they did not focus their attention on a specific field. Oppenheimer could both do poetry and physics and Spender was an English poet and critic. They had great talent and were acutely aware of it. Oppenheimer, his teacher Max Born once wrote, “was a man of great talent and I was conscious of his superiority in a way which was embarrassing and led to troubl e. In my ordinary seminar on quantum mechanics, he used to interrupt the speaker, whoever it was, not excluding myself, and to step to the blackboard, taking the chalk and declaring: ‘This can be done much better in the following manner.’” Years later, when Oppenheimer was in his ordinary seminar, he still had this habit like that. In addition, Isidor Rabi made a comment on Oppenheimer: “I never ran into anyone who has brighter than he was. But to be more original and profound I think you have to be more fo cused.”In some degree, Spender was similar to Oppenheimer. He seemed “unfocused” like Oppenheimer. “Partly a British establishment figure, one wondered when he got time to write poetry.” As the author mentioned, “ He said nothing during my lecture and left as soon as it was over, along with the minuscule audience that I had troubled five hours by car to address.” “I would also have realized that by 1981 he was pretty tired of it, and pretty tired of being an avatar for his now dead friends---Auden, C. Day Lewis, and the rest.” From these words, we may know that actually Spender did not pay enough attention to the field of poetry, but was leading a rich social life and cared about something which was not related to poetry. “Oppenheimer appears in Spender’s journal as a disembodied figure with no contextual relevance to Spender’s own life.” However, Spender was still glad to record him in his journal. Spender and Oppenheimer were the same in nature that in reality they did not specialize in one field but had a strong attention on it or any others. So we can say that Oppenheimer and Spender were merely very good.To sum up, poor Stephen Spender, poor Robert Oppenheimer, each limited, if not relegated, to the category of the merely very good, and each inevitably saddened by his knowledge of what was truly superior. As Spender says, W.H. Auden’s poetry cannot be imitated, any more than Paul Dirac’s physics can be. That is what great poetry and great physics have in common: both are swept along by the tide of unanticipated genius as it rushed past the merely very good.In “How to Get the Poor off Our conscience” John Kenneth Galbraith seemingly reprisents some ways about “How to Get The Poor Out of Our Conscience”. In fact, he uses the speech of irony to criticize the rich and the government. He points out that the important way is to make the poor contented.In the essay, Galbraith brings up five historical solution. In describing the historical solutions, galbraith implicitly criticize that all the so lutions are the excuses of the rich. Then Galbraith narrates Roosevelt’s New Deal and social welfare and andicates the government is responsible for the poor.Later on Galbraith concentrates on five designs and makes a critical analysis of them. Also, he points out the first four are invented descendants from Bentham, Malthus and Spencer. Then Galbraith further show that these designs are popular in Washington D.C. All these express Galbraith’s criticism on Reagan’s economic policy, especially his rocketin g defense budget.Finally, Galbraith points out that public assistance to the poor is the interest of the conservatives. He makes it clear that “civil discontent and its consequences do not come from contented people”. And then he points put that t o make the poor to make the poor contented is in the interest of the big business。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
implications from evolution, provided the defenders of laissezfaire capitalism with intellectual foundations that they used to oppose state interference with market forces.
John kenneth Galbraith
One of the most influential of contemporary American economists, who is internationally known for his development of Keynesian economics as well as for his writing and his active involvement in American politics. He is a philosophical economist and often raises moral issues in American economic life and questions social priorities, such as how wealth should be divided. One of his best known books is The Affluent Society.
Do you think the government should give public assistance to the poor?
Does the author arrange his writing in a very clear order? How?
Pre- reading Questions
Background information
• John Kenneth Galbraith • Plutarch • Adam Smith • Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism • Thomas Robert Malthus and Malthusianism • Darwin/ Social Darwinism • Herbert Spencer • Andrew Carnegie • John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
• “If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better” ( Anthony Burgess)
• “如果一本书很难读，那么它应该是一本好 书；如果它提出了一个复杂的道德状况， 那么它就更应该是本好书了”(安东尼·伯吉 斯)
The writer of a review may have been the first to suggest that Darwin's theory could be used as an ethical justification of the right of the strong to trample over the weak. He was certainly not the last. Darwin himself rejected the idea that any ethical implications could be drawn from his work. Nevertheless, evolution became a high fashion item among late nineteenthand early twentieth century American capitalists. These ideas did not all come from Darwin.
• Galbraith has served as American ambassador to India, national chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, and presidential advisor to both President Kennedy and President Johnson.
Guide to Reading
• John Kenneth Galbraith • The Affluent Society • the title of the article • the structure of the article • the significance of studying this article • the style of Galbraith’sห้องสมุดไป่ตู้writing
John kenneth Galbraith
The Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Harvard University( 哈佛大学经济学保罗华伯格荣誉教授). In 2000, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the U.S. government's highest civilian honor.
Background information
• Darwin and his The Origin of the Species
“ I have received in a Manchester newspaper rather good squib, showing that I have proved might is right and therefore that Napoleon was right, and every cheating tradesman is right.”
clear, precise; concise and terse(succinct) lucid convincing persuasive
The Affluent Society
• The Affluent Society (1958) is John Kenneth Galbraith’s most broadly influential book. In it, Galbraith asserts that the conventional wisdom of economic thinking in the United States is based on nineteenthcentury European economic theory and is no longer suited to the unprecedented phenomenon of mass affluence achieved by American society in the twentieth century. He criticizes the overemphasis on high rates of production as a measure of economic prosperity, suggesting that other factors may be of greater importance. He further asserts that economic theory must take into account the importance of advertising in artificially creating high rates of consumption to support high rates of production.
• His book The Affluent Society, has become standard reading in college courses and has been translated into a dozen languages.
• Galbraith ‘s writing is noted for its lucidity and persuasiveness. His skillful employment of irony, from humorous irony to bitter satire, provides excellent examples for careful study.
• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. wrote: The growth of a large business is merely the survival of the fittest … The American Beauty rose can be produced in splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow around it. This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.
How does the author begin this essay? Do you think it is a good beginning? Why or why not?
How does the author end this essay? What do you think of this ending?
How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience?