アダム・スミス『道徳感情論』（55）人道的な人

Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. – Adam Smith, The Theory of moral sentiments3.1.2. Chap. II

《例えば、大帝国シナが、無数の住民と共に、突然地震に飲み込まれたとしよう。そして、この恐ろしい悲惨な出来事の知らせを受け、その地域と何の関わりもない欧州の人道的な人が、どのように感動するだろうか考えてみよう》―アダム・スミス『道徳感情論』第3部：第３章

He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. – Ibid.

《まず第１に、不幸な人々の災難に対し、深く哀悼の意を表し、人の命が心許（こころもと）なく、このように一瞬にして壊滅しかねない人間のすべての労苦の虚しさについて、憂鬱になりながらも、たくさん省察するだろう。また、思索家であれば、この災害が欧州の商業や、世界の貿易や商取引全般に及ぼす影響について、多くの推論を巡らすだろう。そして、このような立派な探求がすべて終わり、これらすべての人道的な感情が一旦公平に表明されると、このような不幸な出来事が何も起こらなかったかのように、安楽平穏に、自分の仕事や娯楽を続け、息抜きや気晴らしをするだろう》― 同

The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? – Ibid.

《たとえ取るに足らない災難であっても、自分の身に降りかかれば、実際狼狽（ろうばい）するだろう。もし明日、自分の小指を失うとしたら、今夜は眠れないだろうが、何億もの同胞が滅亡しても、自分が目にしなければ、何の不安もなく、高鼾（たかいびき）をかくだろうから、莫大な数の人々が滅亡したとしても、自分自身の微々たる不幸ほどには、明らかに興味の対象とはならないように思われる。したがって、自分に降りかかる微々たる不幸を防ぐために、何億人もの同胞の命を犠牲にしても、自分が見たことがなかったら、構わないと人道的な人であっても思うのだろうか》― 同

Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? – Ibid.

《人間の本性は、そう思って恐怖に戦（おのの）き、世界は、たとえ堕落と腐敗に陥ったとしても、そのようなことを考えかねない悪党を生み出しはしなかった。しかし、どうしてこのような違いが生じるのであろうか。私達の受動的な感情が、ほとんどいつも非常に強欲で利己的であるのに、私達の能動的な原理が、非常に寛大崇高であることが多いのはどうしてなのか。私達はいつも、自分に関係することには、他人に関係することよりもずっと深く心を動かされるのに、寛大な人はどんな場合でも、けちな人は多くの場合、他人のより大きな利益のために自分の利益を犠牲にするようにどうして促されるのだろうか》― 同