研究生綜合英語(yǔ)B2U課件

U3,Additional lnformation for the Teachers Reference,Text We Have No “Right to Happiness”,Warm-up Activities,Further Reading,Writing Skills,Additional Work,Warm-up Activities,Warm-up 1,1. If everyone has a right to be happy, what if one persons happiness destroys another persons happiness and vice versa? Whose happiness takes precedence? Use example(s) to make your point clear and valid. 2. Is the pursuit of happiness a tribute to American individualism? Discuss and try to reach some relevant conclusions.,1. C.S. Lewis C. S. Lewis was an Irish writer and scholar. Lewiss works are diverse and include medieval literature, Christian apologetics, literary criticism, radio broadcasts, essays on Christianity, and fiction relating to the fight between good and evil. Examples of Lewiss allegorical fiction include The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.,AIFTTR1.1,Additional lnformation for the Teachers Reference,AIFTTR1.2,2. Puritan A Puritan of 16th and 17th century England was an associate of any number of disparate religious groups advocating for more “purity” of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety.,3. Venus Venus a major Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility, the equivalent of the Greek goddess Aphrodite. Venus was the consort of Vulcan. She was considered the ancestor of the Roman people by way of its legendary founder, Aeneas, and played a key role in many Roman religious festivals and myths.,Text,We Have No “Right to Happiness”,Notes,Introduction to the Author and the Article,Phrases and Expressions,Exercises,Main Idea of the Text,Main Idea of the Text,Main Idea of the Text,In the writing, the author is convinced that while we have a right to seek happiness, this seeking of happiness should not go against any natural or moral law. In other words, this right to happiness should not be pursued at the expense of loyalty, humanity, and honesty. It is equally not okay to pursue happiness at the expense of anothers happiness.,Introduction to the Author and the article,Introduction to the Author and the Article,Clive Staples Lewis （1898-1963） was an Irish author and scholar. He is known for his work on medieval literature, Christian apologetics, literary criticism and fiction. During his whole life, Lewis wrote many books, most of which have been translated into over 30 languages and continue to sell over a million copies a year. His best known work is The Chronicles of Narnia, a childrens book series. Now The Chronicles of Narnia have sold over 100 million copies. A number of stage and screen adaptations of Lewiss works have also been produced, the most notable of which is the 2005 Disney film adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.,Introduction to the Author and the article2,This essay is chosen from Reading Life. In this essay, Lewis claims that while we have a right to seek happiness, this seeking of happiness should not go against any natural or moral law. In other words, this right to happiness should not be pursued at the expense of loyalty, humanity, and honesty.,Part2_T1,“After all,” said Clare, “they had a right to happiness.” We were discussing something that once happened in our own neighborhood. Mr. A. had deserted Mrs. A. and got his divorce in order to marry Mrs. B., who had likewise got her divorce in order to marry Mr. A. And there was certainly no doubt that Mr. A. and Mrs. B. were very much in love with one another. If they continued to be in love, and if nothing went wrong with their health or their income, they might reasonably expect to be very happy.,C.S. Lewis,We Have No “Right to Happiness”,Text,It was equally clear that they were not happy with their old partners. Mrs. B. had adored her husband at the outset. But then he got smashed up in the war. It was thought he had lost his virility, and it was known that he had lost his job. Life with him was no longer what Mrs. B. had bargained for. Poor Mrs. A., too. She had lost her looks and all her liveliness. It might be true, as some said, that she consumed herself by bearing his children and nursing him through the long illness that overshadowed their earlier married life. You mustnt, by the way, imagine that A. was the sort of man who nonchalantly threw a wife away like the peel of an orange hed sucked dry. Her suicide was a terrible shock to him. We all knew this, for he told us so himself. “But what could I do?” he,Part2_T2,said. “A man has a right to happiness. I had to take my one chance when it came.”,Part2_T3,I went away thinking about the concept of a “right to happiness.” At first this sounds to me as odd as a right to good luck. For I believe whatever one school of moralists may say that we depend for a very great deal of our happiness or misery on circumstances outside all human contro. A right to happiness doesnt, for me, make much more sense that a right to be six feet tall, or to have a millionaire for your father, or to get good weather whenever you want to have a picnic.,Part2_T4,I can understand a right as a freedom guaranteed me by the laws of the society I live in. Thus, I have a right to travel along the public roads because society gives me that freedom; thats what we mean by calling the roads “public.” I can also understand a right as a claim guaranteed me by the laws, and correlative to an obligation on some one elses part. If I have a right to receive 100 from you, this is another way of saying that you have a duty to pay me 100. If the laws allow Mr. A. to desert his wife and seduce his neighbors wife, then, by definition, Mr. A. has a legal right to do so, and we need bring in no talk about “happiness.”,Part2_T5,But of course that was not what Clare meant. She meant that he had not only a legal but a moral right to act as he did. In other words, Clare is or would be if she thought it out a classical moralist after the style of Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Hooker and Locke. She believes that behind the laws of the state there is a Natural Law. I agree with her. I hold this conception to be basic to all civilization. Without it, the actual laws of the state become an absolute. They cannot be criticized because there is no norm against which they should be judged.,Part2_T6,The ancestry of Clares maxim, “They have a right to happiness,” is august. In words that are cherished by all civilized men, but especially by Americans, it has been laid down that one of the rights of man is a right to “the pursuit of happiness.” And now we get to the real point. What did the writers of that august declaration mean? It is quite certain what they did not mean. They did not mean that man was entitled to pursue happiness by any and every means including, say, murder, rape, robbery, treason and fraud. No society could be built on such a basis.,Part2_T7,They meant “to pursue happiness by all lawful means;” that is, by all means which the Law of Nature eternally sanctions and which the laws of the nation shall sanction. Admittedly this seems at first to reduce their maxim to the tautology that men (in pursuit of happiness) have a right to do whatever they have a right to do. But tautologies, seen against their proper historical context, are not always barren tautologies. The declaration is primarily a denial of the political principles which long governed Europe: a challenge flung down to the Austrian and Russian empires, to England before the Reform Bills, to Bourborn France. It demands that whatever means of pursuing happiness are lawful for any should be lawful for all;,Part2_T8,that “man,” not men of some particular caste, class, status or religion, should be free to use them. In a century when this is being unsaid by nation after nation and party after party, let us not call it a barren tautology. But the question as to what means are “l(fā)awful” what methods of pursuing happiness are either morally permissible by the Law of Nature or should be declared legally permissible by the legislature of a particular nation remains exactly where it did. And on that question I disagree with Clare. I dont think it is obvious that people have the unlimited “right to happiness” which she suggests.,For one thing, I believe that Clare, when she says “happiness,” means simply and solely “sexual happiness.” Partly because women like Clare never use the word “happiness” in any other sense. But also because I never heard Clare talk about the “right” to any other kind. She was rather leftist in her politics, and would have been scandalized if anyone had defended the actions of a ruthless man-eating tycoon on the ground that his happiness consisted in making money and he was pursuing his happiness. She was also a rabid teetotaler; I never heard her excuse an alcoholic because he was happy when he was drunk.,Part2_T9,A good many of Clares friends, and especially her female friends, often felt Ive heard them say so that their own happiness would be perceptibly increased by boxing her ears. I very much doubt if this would have brought her theory of a right to happiness into play. Clare, in fact, is doing what the whole western world seems to me to have been doing for the last forty-odd years. When I was a youngster, all the progressive people were saying, “why all this prudery? Let us treat sex just as we treat all our other impulses.” I was simple-minded enough to believe they meant what they said. I have since discovered that they meant exactly the opposite. They meant that sex was to be treated as no other impulse in our nature has ever been treated by civilized people. All the others, we admit,Part2_T10,Part2_T11,have to be bridled. Absolute obedience to your instinct for self-preservation is what we call cowardice; to your acquisitive impulse, avarice. Even sleep must be resisted if youre a sentry. But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is “four bare legs in a bed.” It is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong unless you steal nectarines. And if you protest against this view you are usually met with chatter about the legitimacy and beauty and sanctity of “sex” and accused of harboring some Puritan prejudice against it as something disreputable or shameful. I deny the charge.,Part2_T12,Foam-born Venus . golden Aphrodite . Our Lady of Cyprus . I never breathed a word against you. If I object to boys who steal my nectarines, must I be supposed to disapprove of nectarines in general? Or even of boys in general? It might, you know, be stealing that I disapproved of. The real situation is skillfully concealed by saying that the question of Mr. A.s “right” to desert his wife is one of “sexual morality.” Robbing 135an orchard is not an offense against some special morality called “fruit morality.” It is an offense against honesty. Mr. A.s action is an offense against good faith (to solemn promises), against gratitude (toward one to whom he was deeply indebted) and against common humanity.,Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behavior which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust. Now though I see no good reason for giving sex this privilege, I think I see a strong cause. It is this. It is part of the nature of a strong erotic passion as distinct from a transient fit of appetite that it makes more towering promises than any other emotion. No doubt all our desires make promises, but not so impressively. To be in love involves the almost irresistible conviction that one will go on being in love until one dies, and that possession of the beloved will confer, not merely frequent ecstasies, but settled, fruitful, deep-rooted,Part2_T13,Part2_T14,lifelong happiness. Hence all seems to be at stake. If we miss this chance we shall have lived in vain. At the very thought of such a doom we sink into fathomless depths of self-pity. Unfortunately these promises are found often to be quite untrue. Every experienced adult knows this to be so as regards all erotic passions (except the one he himself is feeling at the moment). We discount the world-without-end pretensions of our friends amours easily enough. We know that such things sometimes last and sometimes dont. And when they do last, this is not because they promised at the outset to do so. When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also I must put it crudely good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people.,Part2_T15,If we establish a “right to (sexual) happiness” which supersedes all the ordinary rules of behavior, we do so not because of what our passion shows itself to be in experience but because of what it professes to be while we are in the grip of it. Hence, while the bad behavior is real and works miseries and degradations, the happiness which was the object of the behavior turns out again and again to be illusory. Everyone (except Mr. A. and Mrs. B.) knows that Mr. A. in a year or so may have the same reason for deserting his new wife as for deserting his old. He will feel again that all is at stake. He will see himself again as the great lover, and his pity for himself will exclude all pity for the woman. Two further points remain.,Part2_T16,One is this. A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women. Women, whatever a few male songs and satires may say to the contrary, are more naturally monogamous than men; it is a biological necessity. Where promiscuity prevails, they will therefore always be more often the victim than the culprits. Also, domestic happiness is more necessary to them than to us. And the quality by which they most easily hold a man, their beauty, decreases every year after they have come to maturity, but this does not happen to those qualities of personality women dont really care two pence about our looks by which we hold women. Thus in the ruthless war of promiscuity women are at a double disadvantage. They play for higher stakes and,Part2_T17,are also more likely to lose. I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provocativeness. These signs of desperate competition fill me with pity. Secondly, though the “right to happiness” is chiefly claimed for the sexual impulse, it seems to me impossible that the matter should stay there. The fatal principle, once allowed in that department, must sooner or later seep through our whole lives. We thus advance toward a state of society in which not only each man but every impulse in each man claims carte blanche. And then, though our technological skill may help us survive a little longer, our civilization will have died at heart, and will one dare not even add “unfortunately” be swept away.,Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Italian philosopher Grotius (Hugo, 1583-1645): Dutch statesman and jurist Hooker (Richard, 1554-1600): English theologian Locke (John, 1632-1704): English philosopher She believes that behind the laws of state there is a Natural Law: Clare believes that the laws of a country or government are based on natural principles of what is right and what is wrong. . the actual laws of the state become an absolute . : the laws of a country become the highest authority and there is no way to question these laws or to say that they may be wrong or unjust.,Notes,Part2_TA_Notes1,Part2_TA_Notes2,England before the Reform Bills: England before the bills that liberalized representation in Parliament in the 19th century Bourbon France: France before the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Bourbon refers to the family name of the kings of France from 1589 to 1793 and from 1814 to 1830. . their own happiness would be perceptibly increased by boxing her ears: Clares friends would be much happier if Clare stopped talking so much.,Notes,Part2_TA_Notes3,It is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong unless you steal nectarines: Here Lewis is showing the play that is going on within the previous arguments. He gives the example of a moral system in which one believes it is wrong to steal fruit, except for nectarines. As nectarines are a type of fruit, so this moral system has problems. It is not the type of fruit that creates the problem, but rather the stealing. What Lewis is getting at is that it is not wrong for a man to divorce his wife and seek happiness. The man has not broken any law, but he has broken the original promise he made to his wife when he got married. Lewis is not against the seeking of happiness; he is, rather, against the way that it is carried out; that is to say, he is against the man breaking the original promise of marriage.,Part2_TA_Notes4,Notes,Foam-born Venus . golden Aphrodite . Our Lady of Cyprus: Venus and Aphrodite are names for the goddess of love. The Roman goddess Venus was identified with Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite. Aphrodite sprang from the foam, and was especially worshipped in Cyprus. Here Lewis alludes to the goddess of love to say that he is not against love and sex, but rather against particular attitudes toward love and sex.,We discount the world-without-end pretensions of our friendsamours easily enough: It is easy for us to disregard the stories of ever-lasting love told by our friends.,at the outset: at or from the beginning of an event or process on the ground that: on the basis that bring sth. into play: use sth. or make it have an effect disapprove of: consider sb. or sth. wrong or inappropriate at stake: to be won or lost; being risked in vain: with no result; uselessly,Phrases and Expressions,Part2_TA_ Phrases and Expressions1,我們沒(méi)有“享受幸福的權(quán)利”,Part2_TA_t1,“畢竟，”克萊爾說(shuō)，“他們擁有享受幸福的權(quán)利。” 我們當(dāng)時(shí)是在討論鄰里發(fā)生的一件事。甲先生拋棄甲太太，離了婚，準(zhǔn)備迎娶乙太太，而乙太太也同樣辦好了離婚手續(xù)準(zhǔn)備嫁給甲。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，甲先生和乙太太非常喜歡對(duì)方。如果他們繼續(xù)相愛(ài)，且健康和收入不出什么差池，他們接下來(lái)的日子應(yīng)該會(huì)過(guò)得很開(kāi)心。 同樣顯而易見(jiàn)的是，他們與各自的前任相處不佳。乙太太最初還是喜歡她的丈夫的。但是后來(lái)他在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中負(fù)傷，丟掉了工作，據(jù)說(shuō)還已經(jīng)失去了性能力。此后的生活已經(jīng)不再是乙夫人當(dāng)初所期待的。甲夫人也很凄慘。她容貌不再，也沒(méi)有了生機(jī)活力。有人說(shuō)她因?yàn)闉樗鷥河?，又為護(hù)理他度過(guò)漫長(zhǎng)的疾病期而將自己的精力消耗殆盡，而先前的婚姻生活也因著疾病而黯然失色。,Translation of the Text,CS路易斯,Part2_TA_t2,但是不要以為甲是那種將糟糠之妻棄之如敝屣的一類(lèi)人。我們都知道前妻的自殺讓他非常震驚，他曾親口對(duì)我們說(shuō)：“我又能怎么樣呢？每個(gè)人都有享受幸福的權(quán)利。我不能錯(cuò)過(guò)我的幸福機(jī)會(huì)。” 之后我就一直琢磨“享受幸福的權(quán)利”這句話。 起初這句話給我的感覺(jué)怪怪的，聽(tīng)起來(lái)就像是在說(shuō)每個(gè)人都有走運(yùn)的權(quán)利。無(wú)論會(huì)有哪個(gè)派別的道德學(xué)家如何評(píng)論，我們的幸?；蛲纯嗪艽蟪潭壬隙挤侨肆λ芸刂啤Ｔ谖铱磥?lái)，所謂享受幸福的權(quán)利并無(wú)依據(jù)，正如不能要求自己的身高要達(dá)到六英尺，應(yīng)該有個(gè)百萬(wàn)富翁的老 爸，或者說(shuō)無(wú)論什么時(shí)候自己想去野餐了，天氣就必須晴朗。 權(quán)利作為所在的社會(huì)的法律所保障的自由是不難理解的。因此，我有權(quán)沿公共道路行駛，因?yàn)檫@是社會(huì)給賦予我的自由，也是“公共”道路意義之所在。我也能理解法律所保障的債權(quán)權(quán)益，和與之相應(yīng)的他人的債務(wù)承擔(dān)義務(wù)。如果我有權(quán)從你那里獲取100英鎊，也就等于說(shuō)你有責(zé)任付我100英鎊。如果法律允許甲先生拋棄發(fā)妻而去勾引鄰人之妻，那么甲就有這項(xiàng)法律權(quán)利，我們也沒(méi)有必要在此談?wù)撍^“幸?！钡臋?quán)利。,Part2_TA_t3,但是克萊爾意非如此。她是說(shuō)甲的行為不但符合法律權(quán)利，還符合道義上的權(quán)利。換句話說(shuō)，克萊爾是繼托馬斯阿奎那，格勞修斯，胡克和洛克之后的又一個(gè)古典道德學(xué)派人物，或者說(shuō)經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮之后她或許會(huì)成為這樣的人物。她認(rèn)為國(guó)家法律之后還有“自然之法”。 我同意她的觀點(diǎn)。我認(rèn)為這種觀念是所有文明的根本，沒(méi)有它，現(xiàn)實(shí)國(guó)家法律變成了絕對(duì)準(zhǔn)則。人們將無(wú)法評(píng)判法律，因?yàn)闆](méi)有評(píng)判它的基準(zhǔn)。 克萊爾的格言源自“他們有享受幸福的權(quán)利”這句令人肅然起敬的一句話。所有的文明人，尤其是美國(guó)人，都信奉這樣一個(gè)信念，“追求幸福”是人的諸項(xiàng)權(quán)利之一。這就是問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵所在。 “他們有享受幸福的權(quán)利”這句莊重宣言的本意何在？ 其意義并非如此是可以肯定的。它并不意味著一個(gè)人可以不擇手段地追求幸福，比如謀殺、強(qiáng)奸、搶劫、叛國(guó)和欺詐。沒(méi)有一個(gè)社會(huì)可以以此為根本。,Part2_TA_t4,宣言的本意為“通過(guò)一切合法手段追求幸?！?，即自然之法所永久許可且國(guó)家法律所應(yīng)當(dāng)允許之手段。 誠(chéng)然，這樣格言聽(tīng)起來(lái)似乎變成了一句同義反復(fù)，人在追求幸福的時(shí)候有權(quán)做他們有權(quán)做的事。但是同義反復(fù)如果放到其歷史背景中便并非總是毫無(wú)意義的重復(fù)。宣言的初衷是否定長(zhǎng)久統(tǒng)治歐洲的一系列政治條例，是對(duì)奧地利帝國(guó)、俄國(guó)帝國(guó)，和改革法案前的英國(guó)，法國(guó)的波旁王朝的挑戰(zhàn)。宣言主張一切追求幸福的手段都是合法的，因?yàn)楹戏ǖ氖挛锸菓?yīng)該面向所有人的；所有“人”都享有使用這些手段的自由，而不是特定種姓，階級(jí)，地位或宗教派別的人。在任何一個(gè)國(guó)家任何一個(gè)黨派都不曾發(fā)出這樣聲音的時(shí)代，這樣的宣言不能被稱(chēng)為同義反復(fù)。 但是什么樣的方式是“合法的”這個(gè)問(wèn)題卻懸而未決，即什么樣的追求幸福的手段既被自然之法在道義上允許，又被某國(guó)家立法機(jī)關(guān)所頒布法律所許可？在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，我不能茍同克萊爾的見(jiàn)解，她所稱(chēng)道的人們擁有無(wú)限的追求幸福的權(quán)力對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)并非是無(wú)可厚非的道理。,Part2_TA_t5,有一點(diǎn)我可以確信，克萊爾所說(shuō)的“幸?！敝傅氖呛?jiǎn)單和純粹的“性快樂(lè)”。原因之一是克萊爾這樣的女人在用這個(gè)詞的時(shí)候從來(lái)不會(huì)另有所指，還有就是我從來(lái)沒(méi)有聽(tīng)她談過(guò)其他方面的“權(quán)利”。她非?！白髢A”。如果有人為一個(gè)心狠手辣，不擇手段消滅競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的大亨辯護(hù)，理由是他的幸福就在于賺錢(qián)，他不過(guò)在追求自己的幸福而已，她便會(huì)義憤填膺?？巳R爾還是一個(gè)激進(jìn)的禁酒主義者，我從來(lái)沒(méi)有聽(tīng)說(shuō)她會(huì)接受一個(gè)酗酒者把享受幸福作為喝醉的理由。 克萊爾的許多朋友，尤其女性朋友，經(jīng)常覺(jué)得我聽(tīng)她們這樣講過(guò)如果克萊爾能夠住嘴她們自己的幸福感將大大增加。因此我對(duì)克萊爾有關(guān)幸福一說(shuō)能夠站得住腳表示懷疑。 事實(shí)上克萊爾的觀點(diǎn)與西方世界40多年來(lái)的行徑在我看來(lái)并不相悖。當(dāng)我還是個(gè)小伙子的時(shí)候，激進(jìn)者就在講，“何必如此假正經(jīng)呢？我們應(yīng)當(dāng)像對(duì)待我們其他的沖動(dòng)那樣對(duì)待性沖動(dòng)?！碑?dāng)時(shí)頭腦簡(jiǎn)單的我便相信這就是他們的本意，后來(lái)卻發(fā)現(xiàn)真正的意思剛好相反。他們是說(shuō),Part2_TA_t6,性欲應(yīng)該以文明人處理其他的本能沖動(dòng)所從未有過(guò)的方式對(duì)待。不可否認(rèn)其他所有沖動(dòng)都是要控制的。我們視為自保而絕對(duì)服從本能為膽怯的表現(xiàn)，視貪得的沖動(dòng)為貪念。如果是哨兵的話連睡覺(jué)的欲望都得抗拒。但是，只要想要的東西是“床上的四條裸