阅读理解
Nearly everybody cheats, but usually only a little. That is one of the themes in Dan Ariely's new book The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. Most of us think we are pretty wonderful. We can cheat little and still keep that "good person" identity.
Ariely had one blind colleague and one sighted colleague take taxi rides. The drivers cheated the sighted colleague by taking long routes much more often than they cheated the blind one, even though she would have been easier to mislead. They would have felt guilty cheating a blind woman. Ariely points out that we are driven by morality much more than standard economic models allow. But I was struck by what you might call the Good Person Construct and the moral calculus it implies. For the past several centuries, most Westerners would have identified themselves fundamentally as Depraved Sinners. In this construct, sin is something you fight like a recurring cancer—part of a daily battle against evil.
But these days, people are more likely to believe in their essential goodness. People who live by the Good Person Construct try to balance their virtuous self-image with their selfish desires. They try to manage the moral plusses and minuses and keep their overall record in positive territory. In this construct, moral life is more like dieting: the Good Person isn't shooting for perfection any more than most dieters are following their diet loo percent. It's enough to be workably suboptimal and a generally good guy.
Obviously, though, there's a measurement problem. You can buy a weight scale to get an objective measure of your diet. But you can't buy a scale of virtues to put on the bathroom floor. And given our awesome capacities for rationalization and self-deception, most of us are going to measure ourselves leniently: I was honest with that blind passenger because I'm a wonderful person. I cheated the sighted one because she probably has too much money anyway.
Ariely suggests you reset your moral gauge from time to time. Your moral standards will gradually slip as you become more and more comfortable with your own rationalizations. I'd add that you really shouldn't shoot for goodness, which is so vague and forgiving. You should shoot for rectitude. We're mostly unqualified to judge our own moral performances, so attach yourself to some exterior or social standards. And as we go about doing our Good Person moral calculations, it might be worth asking: Is this good enough?
Ariely had one blind colleague and one sighted colleague take taxi rides. The drivers cheated the sighted colleague by taking long routes much more often than they cheated the blind one, even though she would have been easier to mislead. They would have felt guilty cheating a blind woman. Ariely points out that we are driven by morality much more than standard economic models allow. But I was struck by what you might call the Good Person Construct and the moral calculus it implies. For the past several centuries, most Westerners would have identified themselves fundamentally as Depraved Sinners. In this construct, sin is something you fight like a recurring cancer—part of a daily battle against evil.
But these days, people are more likely to believe in their essential goodness. People who live by the Good Person Construct try to balance their virtuous self-image with their selfish desires. They try to manage the moral plusses and minuses and keep their overall record in positive territory. In this construct, moral life is more like dieting: the Good Person isn't shooting for perfection any more than most dieters are following their diet loo percent. It's enough to be workably suboptimal and a generally good guy.
Obviously, though, there's a measurement problem. You can buy a weight scale to get an objective measure of your diet. But you can't buy a scale of virtues to put on the bathroom floor. And given our awesome capacities for rationalization and self-deception, most of us are going to measure ourselves leniently: I was honest with that blind passenger because I'm a wonderful person. I cheated the sighted one because she probably has too much money anyway.
Ariely suggests you reset your moral gauge from time to time. Your moral standards will gradually slip as you become more and more comfortable with your own rationalizations. I'd add that you really shouldn't shoot for goodness, which is so vague and forgiving. You should shoot for rectitude. We're mostly unqualified to judge our own moral performances, so attach yourself to some exterior or social standards. And as we go about doing our Good Person moral calculations, it might be worth asking: Is this good enough?
单选题
16.To which of the following statement would Ariely agree?
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】细节题。文章开篇指出艾瑞里新书的一个论题：几乎人人都欺骗，但通常只是那么一点点；大多数人都认为，偶尔的小欺骗不会妨碍我们做个好人。可见A项符合文意。
单选题
17.Western traditional culture held that human nature was_____.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干中的关键词traditional和human nature定位到文章第二段末： “在过去的几百年间，大部分的西方人应完全把自己认定为‘堕落的罪人’”，在这种理念下，与罪恶相抗争成为人们每日与自身邪恶相较量的一部分。因此A项正确。
单选题
18.The author thinks Good Person Construct_____.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】态度题。第三段首先指出如今现象：人们更倾向于相信自己本性善良(即认可“本善说”)。随后指出了“本善说”指导下人们的做法：不断在善良形象和自私欲望之间寻找平衡点，为自己的自私行为寻找借口；认为自己总体是个好人即可，偶尔犯点错无伤大雅。由此可见，作者认为“本善说”在客观上其实是鼓励了不诚实的行为，所以B项正确。
单选题
19.The word "leniently"(Para.4) most probably means_____.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】含义题。第四段前两句提出观点“道德难以衡量”，并指出：由于我们自圆其说和自欺欺人的能力超强，大部分人对自己的评判都很______。随后借由前文事例进一步解释：司机会认为：我对盲人诚实是因为我是个大好人，我欺骗正常人是因为她太有钱了。由此可知，本段意在强调，我们为自己的不道德行为寻找借口，即对自己的道德判断过于宽容，故D项正确。
单选题
20.The author prefers "rectitude" to "goodness" because_____.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】推断题。根据题干中的关键词rectitude和goodness定位到第五段。作者在该段指出“我们不该以‘善’为目标，而应该努力做到‘正直’”，并说明原因： “善”本身模糊且宽容，我们没有资格对自己的行为做出道德判断，所以我们应该转而寻求外部标准来约束自己、让自己做到“正直”。可见，作者建议我们将“正直”作为努力的目标是因为“善”本身难以界定，缺乏具体的标准。因此答案为A项。